Thursday November 11, 2010
By Seana Cranston, J.D.
NEW YORK, November 11 (C-FAM) - The world’s leading abortion provider is continuing to promote a graphic brochure advocating casual sex among youth. According to International Planned Parenthood Federation, the brochure called “Healthy, Happy and Hot” has become their most popular publication.
Aimed at young people with HIV, the brochure contains sexually explicit language and promotes casual sex with multiple partners, as well as oral, anal, and homosexual sex.
“Some people like to have aggressive sex,” says the brochure. “There is no right or wrong way to have sex.” It encourages young people who might have sex after drinking or using drugs to “plan ahead by bringing condoms.” Another section suggests readers visit family planning clinics for help in preventing or aborting unplanned pregnancies.
The publication encourages youth to keep their sexual activity secret from their parents, as well as visits to family planning clinics. “You should find out whether there are any centers near to you where you can go without needing the permission of your parents or guardians.”
The brochure criticizes countries with laws requiring disclosure of HIV status to sexual partners. Such laws violate the rights of people living with HIV, the pamphlet argues.
Planned Parenthood also distributed the brochure in August at the World Youth Conference in Leon, Mexico.
Originally published in January of this year, “Healthy, Happy and Hot” is now available in a Russian translation. Russia has the second-highest rate of HIV in Eastern Europe and Eurasia, according to USAID.
The Regional President of Planned Parenthood in Europe is Dr. Elena Dmitrieva, a Russian national who also directs the Healthy Russia Foundation. Funded by the United States through USAID, the foundation sponsors an ongoing health project there. Healthy Russia 2020 promotes HIV/AIDS prevention and contraception among youth and other vulnerable populations in Russia. Its self-proclaimed healthy lifestyles program for youth targets people aged 13-19.
Nearly $77 million in US taxpayer dollars went to programs in Russia in 2008, according to USAID’s website. Part of this $77 million enabled family planning and reproductive health messages to reach more than 25,000 Russians.
This comes despite Russia suffering from a demographic crisis. The UN predicts that Russia's population will fall by 23 million over the next 40 years. In response, President Vladimir Putin recently offered $11,000 to reward families who have at least two children.
As C-Fam’s Friday Fax reported earlier this year, a Mormon mother spotted the brochure at a closed-door, girls-only meeting sponsored by Girl Scouts USA at UN headquarters in New York. Since then, Girl Scout chapters around the United States have been roiled in a debate about the connections between Girl Scouts and Planned Parenthood. Girl Scouts USA refuses to denounce the brochure and denies the brochure was in the UN room where the young girls met.
This article reprinted with permission from www.c-fam.org
URL: http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/nov/10111106.html
Copyright © LifeSiteNews.com. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivatives License. You may republish this article or portions of it without request provided the content is not altered and it is clearly attributed to "LifeSiteNews.com". Any website publishing of complete or large portions of original LifeSiteNews articles MUST additionally include a live link to www.LifeSiteNews.com. The link is not required for excerpts. Republishing of articles on LifeSiteNews.com from other sources as noted is subject to the conditions of those sources.
Friday, November 12, 2010
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Comments by Nat Hentoff concerning Terri Schiavo
Friday, March 28, 2008
Nat Hentoff on Obama and Schiavo
Nat Hentoff is a familiar name for those of us in the battles against euthanasia, assisted suicide, and infanticide.
The comments Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama made during the February 26th debate with Hillary Clinton caught Hentoff's attention as well as ours.
Writing in Jewish World Review, Hentoff writes:
In none of the endless presidential candidates' debates has there been a meaningful discussion of the rights of disabled Americans. However, in the Feb. 26 debate in Cleveland, Barack Obama casually and ignorantly revealed his misunderstanding of the basic issue in the highly visible and still-resonating official death sentence of a disabled woman, Terri Schiavo. I have repeatedly called her death the result of "the longest public execution in American history."
In his first sentence, Hentoff has identified a silence that has escaped others in the media. No presidential candidate, of either party, has discussed the issues facing Americans with disabilities. Both Clinton and Obama have detailed positions on disability issues on their campaign sites, but it's not something they talk about in debates or on the stump. I'm not sure if John McCain has any positions on disability issues on his own campaign site, but his silence on our issues is as thorough as his Democrat counterparts.
The omission of disability issues in the presidential debates isn't his main point though:
When moderator Tim Russert asked Hillary Clinton and Obama if "there are any words or votes that you'd like to take back ... in your careers in public service," Obama answered that in his first year in the Senate, he joined an agreement "that allowed Congress to interject itself (in the Schiavo case) into the decision-making process of the families."
Obama added: 'I think that was a mistake, and I think the American people understood that was a mistake. And as a constitutional law professor, I knew better."
When he was a professor of constitutional law, Obama probably instructed his students to research and know all the facts of a case. The reason Congress asked
the federal courts to review the Schiavo case was that the 41-year-old woman about to be dehydrated and starved to death was breathing normally on her own, was not terminal, and there was medical evidence that she was responsive, not in a persistent vegetative state.
One of the leading congressional advocates of judicial review was staunchly liberal Democratic Tom Harkin of Iowa, because he is deeply informed about disability rights. By contrast, in all of this inflamed controversy, the mainstream media performed miserably, copying each other's errors instead of doing their own investigations of what Terri's wishes actually were. Consequently, most Americans did not know that 29 major national disability-rights organizations filed legal briefs and lobbied Congress to understand that this was not a right-to-die case, but about the right to continue living.
A caveat here - when Hentoff talks about "mainstream media" I hope he is including Fox News Channel along with MSNBC and other "mainstream" sources. Fox News was every bit as guilty as other networks in terms of framing the fight for Terri Schiavo's life as a "culture wars" controversy as the other networks were. This wasn't "liberal" bias - the right and the left worked in tandem on this - and in a way that kept the perspectives and involvement of disability advocates out of the public discourse.
Read the rest of the article here.
And for more info on safeguards recommended by disability advocates for people under guardianship in terms of treatment withdrawal, check out the STATEMENT OF COMMON PRINCIPLES ON LIFE-SUSTAINING CARE AND TREATMENT OF PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES and the list of organizational endorsements for the Statement. --Stephen Drake
Posted by Not Dead Yet at 2:25 PM 0 comments
Filed in: life-ending decisions, media coverage, politics, schiavo
Nat Hentoff on Obama and Schiavo
Nat Hentoff is a familiar name for those of us in the battles against euthanasia, assisted suicide, and infanticide.
The comments Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama made during the February 26th debate with Hillary Clinton caught Hentoff's attention as well as ours.
Writing in Jewish World Review, Hentoff writes:
In none of the endless presidential candidates' debates has there been a meaningful discussion of the rights of disabled Americans. However, in the Feb. 26 debate in Cleveland, Barack Obama casually and ignorantly revealed his misunderstanding of the basic issue in the highly visible and still-resonating official death sentence of a disabled woman, Terri Schiavo. I have repeatedly called her death the result of "the longest public execution in American history."
In his first sentence, Hentoff has identified a silence that has escaped others in the media. No presidential candidate, of either party, has discussed the issues facing Americans with disabilities. Both Clinton and Obama have detailed positions on disability issues on their campaign sites, but it's not something they talk about in debates or on the stump. I'm not sure if John McCain has any positions on disability issues on his own campaign site, but his silence on our issues is as thorough as his Democrat counterparts.
The omission of disability issues in the presidential debates isn't his main point though:
When moderator Tim Russert asked Hillary Clinton and Obama if "there are any words or votes that you'd like to take back ... in your careers in public service," Obama answered that in his first year in the Senate, he joined an agreement "that allowed Congress to interject itself (in the Schiavo case) into the decision-making process of the families."
Obama added: 'I think that was a mistake, and I think the American people understood that was a mistake. And as a constitutional law professor, I knew better."
When he was a professor of constitutional law, Obama probably instructed his students to research and know all the facts of a case. The reason Congress asked
the federal courts to review the Schiavo case was that the 41-year-old woman about to be dehydrated and starved to death was breathing normally on her own, was not terminal, and there was medical evidence that she was responsive, not in a persistent vegetative state.
One of the leading congressional advocates of judicial review was staunchly liberal Democratic Tom Harkin of Iowa, because he is deeply informed about disability rights. By contrast, in all of this inflamed controversy, the mainstream media performed miserably, copying each other's errors instead of doing their own investigations of what Terri's wishes actually were. Consequently, most Americans did not know that 29 major national disability-rights organizations filed legal briefs and lobbied Congress to understand that this was not a right-to-die case, but about the right to continue living.
A caveat here - when Hentoff talks about "mainstream media" I hope he is including Fox News Channel along with MSNBC and other "mainstream" sources. Fox News was every bit as guilty as other networks in terms of framing the fight for Terri Schiavo's life as a "culture wars" controversy as the other networks were. This wasn't "liberal" bias - the right and the left worked in tandem on this - and in a way that kept the perspectives and involvement of disability advocates out of the public discourse.
Read the rest of the article here.
And for more info on safeguards recommended by disability advocates for people under guardianship in terms of treatment withdrawal, check out the STATEMENT OF COMMON PRINCIPLES ON LIFE-SUSTAINING CARE AND TREATMENT OF PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES and the list of organizational endorsements for the Statement. --Stephen Drake
Posted by Not Dead Yet at 2:25 PM 0 comments
Filed in: life-ending decisions, media coverage, politics, schiavo
Friday, November 5, 2010
Race for the Truth About the Susan G. Komen Foundation
Is Abortion and Hormonal Contraception a Prescription for Breast Cancer?
November 4, 2010
This article originally ran on Zenit.org on October 29, 2010
By Jenn Giroux
Everywhere I looked this month I saw a pink ribbon. It was on my dry cleaning bag, grocery bag, coffee cup, mail catalogs, receipts, billboards ... it goes on and on. Don't get me wrong. I love the color pink, and breast cancer prevention and finding a cure is critical to women today. However, I also love the truth.
That is why October 2010 is a good time to take Breast Cancer Awareness Month to a whole new level with some facts which can lead to both the physical and spiritual health of women in America and across the world.
We live in the world of media messaging where the one with the most money and the loudest message wins the day. What is the "Race for the Cure"? Why are we not being told the truth about the real risks and prevention for breast cancer? According to the SEER data at the National Cancer Institute, there has been a 400% increase in noninvasive -- or "in situ" (in the same place) -- breast cancer in pre-menopausal women since 1975. How do abortion, hormone replacement therapy, and hormonal contraception factor into the equation?
For years, abortion, hormonal replacement therapy and hormonal contraception have been largely ignored by most of the medical community and the media in general as significant risk factors for breast cancer. However, studies have consistently concluded that breast cancer risk increases as a result of these three factors.
Researchers in Iran have published results of a new study showing that women who have had an abortion face a 193% increased risk of breast cancer. This has to do with the interruption of breast tissue development during pregnancy. It is important to note that this (and other studies like it) have nothing to do with a person's belief in abortion. It has everything to do with the scientifically undeniable development and growth of breast tissue within a woman's body. There are many other studies that have been published as well that confirm that abortion presents increased risk to women for breast cancer, and that confirm that carrying a baby to full term provides a natural protection to the mother if the pregnancy is not unnaturally interrupted.
For years, doctors have been prescribing hormone replacement therapy for women who experience hot flashes and periods of sweating in menopause. The widespread belief was that these hormones would not only reduce a woman's risk for heart disease but also keep her "youthful, sexy, and healthy." This week the New York Times reported that studies have now confirmed that taking these hormones not only increases breast cancer risk, but "also make it more likely that the cancer will be advanced and deadly" (New York Times, Oct. 19, 2010).
This revelation, finally being recognized by the mainstream medical community and media, makes our final topic on hormonal contraception downright frightening.
Obstetricians and gynecologists across the country freely encourage long-term use of hormonal contraception such as "the Pill," the intrauterine device (IUD) Mirena, NuvaRing, Yaz, Yasmin, and all forms of emergency contraception without giving adequate attention to the short- and long-term side effects. Pediatricians have also joined in on this by encouraging mothers to place their young daughters on "the Pill" to help with acne or to relieve monthly menstrual cramps. Recently, a college student shared with me that inside her dorm, cell phones go off in the early morning hours as a reminder to the girls to take their birth control pills. This was at a Catholic college.
The number of young women on "the Pill" is alarming. Have these girls been told that "the Pill" has been classified as a Group 1 carcinogen by the International Agency on Research for Cancer, a research arm of the World Health Organization? Are women in general being informed that any form of hormonal (estrogen-progestin combination) birth control (including "the Pill," the patch, Depo-Provera, Norplant, Ortho Vera Patch, or any others on the market) are actually increasing risk for breast, cervical, and liver cancer?
The sad reality is that any woman who takes a hormonal contraceptive for four years prior to her first full-term pregnancy increases her risk for breast cancer by 52%. It is worth noting that this same research arm of the World Health Organization also places "the Pill" in the same category with asbestos and cigarettes.
The difference is the dose
So, you may ask, what is the difference between the hormones that are given to women during menopause, which cause deadly breast cancer, and the hormones that are given to young women in the form of "the Pill"? The answer is shocking. The hormones in the drugs are the same. The only difference is in the dose that is given to the younger women and girls. It is necessary to give a much higher dose than that given in hormone replacement therapy because younger women have active, healthy ovaries. Does this give better context to the 400% increase in "in situ" breast cancer in pre-menopausal women since 1975?
In order to silence the public discussion of the harms of contraception we have often been told that we are pushing our "Catholic" views on women. This has effectively kept many health care providers and pro-life groups silent on this issue. Do you know what has nothing to do with being Catholic? Experiencing breast cancer in your 30s, having a stroke in college, or having an undetected and sudden blood clot that results in permanent health damage or death are life-threatening side effects that visit women of all faiths.
Women deserve to know the truth. They have been failed by physicians in not being warned of the physical damage that they are doing to their bodies, and they have been failed by their priests in not being warned of the spiritual damage that they are doing to their souls.
The New York Times article on Oct. 19 published information by "The Journal of the American Medical Association" that is a real breakthrough and victory for women's health. The exposure of this important medical information further reveals the outrage against Komen affiliates who contributed a total of $3.3 million to Planned Parenthood programs from 2004-2009.
Komen spokesman John Hammarley told The Daily Caller that in 2009, affliates gave Planned Parenthood $731,303.
This was money from trustful donors who were unaware that they, indeed, gave to a cause working against the cure of breast cancer. Clearly, both abortion and hormonal contraception, a huge source of Planned Parenthood's income, are contributing risk factors for breast cancer.
October 2010 is the time to recognize the seamless pink ribbon that connects breast cancer with abortion, hormonal contraception and hormone replacement therapy. It is only then that we can get on with true prevention and, God willing, finish the race for the truth, which will then pave the path for the cure.
* * *
Jenn Giroux is the executive director of HLI America, a program of Human Life International. She is a registered nurse, wife, and mother of nine. She and her husband, Dan, live with their family in Cincinnati, Ohio. For more information go to hliamerica.org.
November 4, 2010
This article originally ran on Zenit.org on October 29, 2010
By Jenn Giroux
Everywhere I looked this month I saw a pink ribbon. It was on my dry cleaning bag, grocery bag, coffee cup, mail catalogs, receipts, billboards ... it goes on and on. Don't get me wrong. I love the color pink, and breast cancer prevention and finding a cure is critical to women today. However, I also love the truth.
That is why October 2010 is a good time to take Breast Cancer Awareness Month to a whole new level with some facts which can lead to both the physical and spiritual health of women in America and across the world.
We live in the world of media messaging where the one with the most money and the loudest message wins the day. What is the "Race for the Cure"? Why are we not being told the truth about the real risks and prevention for breast cancer? According to the SEER data at the National Cancer Institute, there has been a 400% increase in noninvasive -- or "in situ" (in the same place) -- breast cancer in pre-menopausal women since 1975. How do abortion, hormone replacement therapy, and hormonal contraception factor into the equation?
For years, abortion, hormonal replacement therapy and hormonal contraception have been largely ignored by most of the medical community and the media in general as significant risk factors for breast cancer. However, studies have consistently concluded that breast cancer risk increases as a result of these three factors.
Researchers in Iran have published results of a new study showing that women who have had an abortion face a 193% increased risk of breast cancer. This has to do with the interruption of breast tissue development during pregnancy. It is important to note that this (and other studies like it) have nothing to do with a person's belief in abortion. It has everything to do with the scientifically undeniable development and growth of breast tissue within a woman's body. There are many other studies that have been published as well that confirm that abortion presents increased risk to women for breast cancer, and that confirm that carrying a baby to full term provides a natural protection to the mother if the pregnancy is not unnaturally interrupted.
For years, doctors have been prescribing hormone replacement therapy for women who experience hot flashes and periods of sweating in menopause. The widespread belief was that these hormones would not only reduce a woman's risk for heart disease but also keep her "youthful, sexy, and healthy." This week the New York Times reported that studies have now confirmed that taking these hormones not only increases breast cancer risk, but "also make it more likely that the cancer will be advanced and deadly" (New York Times, Oct. 19, 2010).
This revelation, finally being recognized by the mainstream medical community and media, makes our final topic on hormonal contraception downright frightening.
Obstetricians and gynecologists across the country freely encourage long-term use of hormonal contraception such as "the Pill," the intrauterine device (IUD) Mirena, NuvaRing, Yaz, Yasmin, and all forms of emergency contraception without giving adequate attention to the short- and long-term side effects. Pediatricians have also joined in on this by encouraging mothers to place their young daughters on "the Pill" to help with acne or to relieve monthly menstrual cramps. Recently, a college student shared with me that inside her dorm, cell phones go off in the early morning hours as a reminder to the girls to take their birth control pills. This was at a Catholic college.
The number of young women on "the Pill" is alarming. Have these girls been told that "the Pill" has been classified as a Group 1 carcinogen by the International Agency on Research for Cancer, a research arm of the World Health Organization? Are women in general being informed that any form of hormonal (estrogen-progestin combination) birth control (including "the Pill," the patch, Depo-Provera, Norplant, Ortho Vera Patch, or any others on the market) are actually increasing risk for breast, cervical, and liver cancer?
The sad reality is that any woman who takes a hormonal contraceptive for four years prior to her first full-term pregnancy increases her risk for breast cancer by 52%. It is worth noting that this same research arm of the World Health Organization also places "the Pill" in the same category with asbestos and cigarettes.
The difference is the dose
So, you may ask, what is the difference between the hormones that are given to women during menopause, which cause deadly breast cancer, and the hormones that are given to young women in the form of "the Pill"? The answer is shocking. The hormones in the drugs are the same. The only difference is in the dose that is given to the younger women and girls. It is necessary to give a much higher dose than that given in hormone replacement therapy because younger women have active, healthy ovaries. Does this give better context to the 400% increase in "in situ" breast cancer in pre-menopausal women since 1975?
In order to silence the public discussion of the harms of contraception we have often been told that we are pushing our "Catholic" views on women. This has effectively kept many health care providers and pro-life groups silent on this issue. Do you know what has nothing to do with being Catholic? Experiencing breast cancer in your 30s, having a stroke in college, or having an undetected and sudden blood clot that results in permanent health damage or death are life-threatening side effects that visit women of all faiths.
Women deserve to know the truth. They have been failed by physicians in not being warned of the physical damage that they are doing to their bodies, and they have been failed by their priests in not being warned of the spiritual damage that they are doing to their souls.
The New York Times article on Oct. 19 published information by "The Journal of the American Medical Association" that is a real breakthrough and victory for women's health. The exposure of this important medical information further reveals the outrage against Komen affiliates who contributed a total of $3.3 million to Planned Parenthood programs from 2004-2009.
Komen spokesman John Hammarley told The Daily Caller that in 2009, affliates gave Planned Parenthood $731,303.
This was money from trustful donors who were unaware that they, indeed, gave to a cause working against the cure of breast cancer. Clearly, both abortion and hormonal contraception, a huge source of Planned Parenthood's income, are contributing risk factors for breast cancer.
October 2010 is the time to recognize the seamless pink ribbon that connects breast cancer with abortion, hormonal contraception and hormone replacement therapy. It is only then that we can get on with true prevention and, God willing, finish the race for the truth, which will then pave the path for the cure.
* * *
Jenn Giroux is the executive director of HLI America, a program of Human Life International. She is a registered nurse, wife, and mother of nine. She and her husband, Dan, live with their family in Cincinnati, Ohio. For more information go to hliamerica.org.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
