jump to navigation

UN Officials Wrong. No Right to Abortion. New Expert Document Issued at United Nations October 5, 2011

Posted by Daniel Downs in abortion, health care, human rights, news, politics, right to life, United Nations.
4 comments

News Flash!!!

Tomorrow morning at the UN press briefing room, internationally recognized scholar Professor Robert George of Princeton and former US Ambassador Grover Joseph Rees will challenge claims made by UN personnel and others that there exists an international right to abortion in international law.

As recently as a few weeks ago the UN Special Rapporteur on Health, the High Commissioner for Human Rights and the UN Secretary General have all said such a right exists. And, according to Human Rights Watch the CEDAW Committee has directed 93 countries to change their laws on abortion.

Professor George, Ambassador Rees and 30 other international experts are releasing the San Jose Articles to refute these claims and to assert the rights of the unborn child in international law.

Other signatories to the Articles include Professor John Finnis of Oxford, Professor John Haldane of the University of St. Andrews, Francisco Tatad, the former majority leader of the Philippine Senate, Javier Borrego, former Judge of the European Court of Human Rights, and Professor Carter Snead of UNESCO’s international committee on bioethics.

“The San Jose Articles were drafted by a large group of experts in law, medicine, and public policy. The Articles will support and assist those around the world who are coming under pressure from UN personnel and others who say falsely that governments are required by international law to repeal domestic laws protecting human beings in the embryonic and fetal stages of development against the violence of abortion” said Professor George.

Ambassador Grover Joseph Rees, former US Ambassador to East Timor, said, “When I was in Timor I witnessed first-hand a sustained effort by some international civil servants and representatives of foreign NGOs to bully a small developing country into repealing its pro-life laws. The problem is that people on the ground, even government officials, have little with which to refute the extravagant claim that abortion is an internationally recognized human right. The San Jose Articles are intended to help them fight back.”

Advertisements

International Right to Abortion, Global Elite Group Presents Contrary Evidence October 5, 2011

Posted by Daniel Downs in health care, human rights, news, politics, United Nations, women.
add a comment

This week a global elite of political, legal, and health care professionals joined by pro-life activists will present legal evidence proving the pro-abortion advocates at the United Nations have no legal standing in their assertions of an international right to abortion.

International efforts to legalize abortion-on-demand has been going on for many years. Planned Parenthood International has been among those lobbying the United Nations since its existence. The goods and services provided by abortion providers like Planned Parenthoods amount to a multi-billion dollar enterprise. Sadly, the United States gives billions of tax payers dollars to such organizations though the USAID program.

Dr. Ligaya Acosta is right: If the billions given by the United States to promote abortion in Asia and throughout the world were used to actually help the poor, there would be no more poverty in the world.

The most recent effort to legalize abortion came from the U.N. Secretariat. In a Human Rights Council policy statement, the Secretariat seeks to make abortion as a unfettered global health right. If adopted, all members nations will be obligated to decriminalize their abortion-related laws. Doing so will enable organizations like Planned Parenthood to sell their goods and abortion-on-demand services without legal hindrance.

Here is the worst example of the bureaucratically instituted form of free enterprise.

Among those expected to participate in the U.N presentation this week are Robert George of Princeton University, Ambassador Grover Rees (Ret.), and Austin Ruse of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute.

(For more information about the U.N. policy report, read C-FAM article titled “UN Official Says Abortion is a Human Right, Secretary General Endorses Report”, visit the blog Turtle Bay, and/or read the UN Report .)

The fight for Rights of Parents in America August 19, 2009

Posted by Daniel Downs in children, family, news, parental rights, politics, United Nations.
add a comment

On August 19th, the Campaign to Secure Ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child plans a major rally in Washington, DC to advance their strategy to replace pro-parent American law with contrary international law. Perhaps it is just a coincidence, but their event is being held on Bill Clinton’s birthday.

As you can see, the internationalists are planning to discuss and advance their plans for fund-raising. In the recent past I attended one of their planning meetings held in the US Senate. No expense was spared, bringing in law professors and other experts from around the world to provide this briefing to Senate staffers. This meeting was funded by a grant from a major American foundation.

The Obama Administration and the Senate and House leadership have been practicing legislation by ambush. They bring up an issue and push for quick ratification of their radical agenda. The internationalist community is counting on this strategy to eradicate traditional parental rights without giving American families the time to figure out what is going on.

This is a simple reality. If we do not build our network to defeat the UN’s Convention on the Rights of the Child before they launch their efforts, we will not have the time to get the organization and supporters in place.

Parentalrights.org has achieved remarkable success with a fraction of the budget possessed by the other side. We have employed a group of Patrick Henry College students over the summer to be able to organize grassroots efforts to help pass the Parental Rights Amendment.

These students have been tremendously successful. Not only have we seen the number of co-sponsors in the House move all the way to 114 representatives, but they have helped to organize face-to-face meetings between our supporters and 119+ additional members of Congress.

At the end of the day the most important effort is at the grassroots level. More parents, grandparents, and individuals are needed to win the fight for the rights of parents and families. To learn more, visit the Parental Rights.org website.

Spanking is now a criminal act according to the UN’s Convention on the Rights of the Child July 22, 2009

Posted by Daniel Downs in capital punishment, children, Constitution, family, freedom, international treaty, law, Left, news, parental rights, politics, United Nations.
1 comment so far

Parents spanking their own children for breaking the rules and for other harmful behaviors may soon become illegal. According to the Parental Rights organization, [t]he United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), which was adopted by the UN in 1989. Since then, only two members nations, the United States and Somalia, have yet to ratify the treaty. This treaty is interpreted to mean parents’ corrective spanking of their children for bad behavior is a form of torture and abuse that must end. The result is that the Committee on the Rights of the Child – a panel of 18 UN “experts” gathered in Geneva, Switzerland – decided on their own that they should tell the entire world how to raise their kids. The CRC’s prohibition of spanking in the home will become the Supreme Law of the Land if Americans allow the U.S. Senate to ratify it. If ratified, spanking will be considered a criminal act. Every parent, who still practices the biblical injunction ‘to spare the rod spoils the child,” will become a criminal. Good parents will lose the freedom to raise their children as they deem best and they will loose their children. (Go to Parental Rights website to learn more.)

It is true other forms of punishment can be effective in correcting children’s bad behavior. Taking away the freedom to play, eat favorite foods, watch favorite programs, communicating with friends, using the car, and the like can be effective in enforcing the rules and moral laws.
Those methods do not always work. And, the younger the child is the less likely they will be.

Spanking, in fact, produces more long-term benefits to both the child and society. Spanking is a form of punishment usually intended to teach children that bad behavior has painful consequences. People whose behavior lands them in prison know the meaning of painful consequences. Living in a society condoning bad behavior also results in painful consequences of at least two types. One is the result from doing wrongful behaviors. Bodily injuries, disease, guilt or shame, rejection or alienation, and the like are consequences of doing wrong in a permissive culture. Another is the reciprocation of others, which compounds the consequences. A recent example of this is the murder of the late term abortion practitioner George Tiller. The ultimate consequence of moral crimes (sin, unethical behavior, etc.), however, is death. Death is the separation of individuals from a mutually beneficial working relationship. A long healthy marriage exemplifies such relationships. Divorce is a form of death. Abortion often results in the death of unborn child and parent. Ultimately, as prison is hell on earth so is life after death for those whose moral crimes end in the eternal punishment biblical religion calls hell. Many a revived clinically dead patient have told practicing doctors about going beyond barred gates into a place the Bible calls hell.

I have heard men honor their fathers for what seemed at the time very cruel punishment. The benefits of those harsh spankings produced the fruit of self-discipline hat made it possible for them to achieve their goals and enjoy their lives. This simply means that the Biblical injunction is true: Withholding painful punishment for wrongs done spoils the child so he or she may never enjoy the benefits of a moral and productive life. It also supports the widely known problem with leaders of the UN and their legal conventions–moral corruption. Evil doing brats often grow up to be evil doing adults.

That is another reason why America does not need the secular left’s God and Christianity hating wisdom. Nor does America need them dictating to us about how to raise children, how to live, how to practice religion, or how to make and spend our money. As a matter of fact, America would be much better off without them attempting to spend all of our hard earned income on their global imperial agendas like universal health care, education, or economic development. They have ruined enough of the American culture and economy; we do not need them to destroy the family too.

Source: Xenia Citizen Journal.

Cap-and-Trade Legislation Will Torpedo American Economy July 2, 2009

Posted by Daniel Downs in Congress, economy, energy, environment, globalism, news, politics, United Nations.
add a comment

When it comes to a consensus on global climate change, there really isn’t a consensus among scientists, and apparently there isn’t among the Democrat majority in Congress either.

On the evening of June 26th, the Democrat majority in the U.S. House of Representatives passed a massive tax increase (H.R. 2454) commonly known as the Waxman-Markey American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, by the non-consensus vote of 219 – 212.

Also known as a “cap-and-trade” bill, this legislation is truly an unprecedented tax increase in the form of an “energy tax” that will affect everyone, regardless of income level.

Obviously, this will offend some adherents to the climate change religion but a tax is exactly what this is. And everyone will pay it in some form or another – higher utility bills, higher gasoline prices, higher food prices and higher prices for anything which requires energy to manufacture, transport, warehouse or stock.

If this bill becomes law, it will go into effect in 2012 which means we will start paying higher prices almost immediately. According to the Heritage Foundation, the average family of four will see their energy bill increase by $436 the first year; it could reach as much as $1,241 by 2035, or an average of $829 per year over that time period. That’s just the energy cost impact. The cumulative cost of living impact is estimated to average $2,979 per year. The first five years of this bill could cost the average family of four almost $15,000; the first ten years would be almost $30,000.

In addition, the Heritage Foundation projects unemployment will increase by two million the first year of the program. The Heritage Foundation is not alone in this estimate. The Brookings Institute, a liberal think tank, and the National Black Chamber of Commerce both project job losses in the millions and similar economic losses.

The sheer size and scope of this massive energy tax increase should drive Americans to the streets in protest. The bill totaled 1,200 pages prior to the 300-page amendment which was added at 3 a.m. the morning of the vote. Consequently, it is likely that few, if any, of the 219 members of the House who voted for it read the entire bill prior to voting.

Moreover, those who voted for this bill are either unaware of, or chose to ignore, the growing body of scientific research which counters the theory that human activity is causing global warming.

It’s not just Congress who is ignoring the scientific evidence on global climate change. Alan Carlin, a senior research analyst at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), submitted a report based on research he initiated himself that documented scientific findings that human activity has had minimal impact in terms of global warming.

He also cited data that shows we may now be in a period of global cooling. Carlin’s supervisor refused to pass his study on to the department responsible for EPA’s climate change program.

Critics of Carlin, who has worked in the EPA for 35 years, have tried to discredit him by claiming he is an economist, not a scientist. Carlin, in fact, also has a degree in physics.

Carlin is not the only critic of the science behind the push for cap-and-trade legislation. An in-depth report just released by The Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC) documents in great detail the errors in the United Nations report on climate change. The authors state that the UN’s Fourth Assessment Report “… is marred by errors and misstatements, ignores scientific data that were available but were inconsistent with the authors’ pre-conceived conclusions, and has already been contradicted in important parts by research published since May 2006.” Furthermore, the NIPCC report says the UN report “… violates many of the rules and procedures required for scientific forecasting, making its ‘projections’ of little use to policymakers.”

The report also includes a petition signed by 31,478 American scientists, including 9,029 individuals with PhDs, endorsing the statement that there is no scientific evidence that human-released greenhouse gases are a threat to the Earth’s atmosphere.

The bottom line: the cap-and-trade bill passed by the House is not about saving the planet from catastrophic climate change, it is about catastrophically changing the American economy and society. President Obama and his liberal mates in Congress are going full-speed ahead in their efforts to remake American society and they will torpedo anything that gets in their way, including the American economy.

To see how this bill will effect your personal income and state, see Table 1 to Karen Campbell and David Kruezter’s article “Waxman-Markey Global Warming Bill: Economic Impact by Congressional District

——————————

By Gary Palmer, 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.

Palestinian Statehood in Perspective May 30, 2009

Posted by Daniel Downs in federal government, foreign policy, Iran, Israel, Middle East, news, Palestinian state, politics, Syria, United Nations, United States.
add a comment

Our federal government supports a Palestinian State for several reasons: One reason is the imperial necessity of creating and maintaining a Middle East block of unfettered free trade. Conflicts between Arab states as well as between Arab states and Israel prevent it. A second reason is the goal of Arabs themselves. The unvanquished goal of Muslims in the Middle East is a unified Arab league of nations. One of the Quranic directives is the establishment of a unified Middle East under one successor of the prophet. The Zionist state, Israel, is a roadblock to their plans. The current presidents of Iran and Syria continually attest to this fact. Of course, the elimination or subjugation of Israel would also result in a successful and more prosperous economic block for both the Arabs and the West. A third goal is the glorification of United Nations world socialism. The unending hype over the poor Palestinians and the injustices perpetrated by Israel’s occupation is reminiscent of India’s experience of Muslim socialism as described by Dr. Chowdary.

As in India, socialism or secular is a cloak for satisfying Muslim’s unending minority complaints in order to get in to stay in political office. The price for this special interest favoritism is end truth, virtue, equality, and democracy. This is true of the Palestinian cause as well. Palestinian refugees serve the same purpose as socialist or secular does in India. The difference is that the Palestinians never have had a true secular and democratic history as has India.

My opinion should not be taken seriously without some proof. To this end, the following are excerpts from reputed sources to demonstrate that the goal of Muslim Arabs is the end of an independent Israeli state, that the Palestinians already have a state, and that the Palestinians in Israel and Gaza cannot rule themselves.

End of the Independent State of Israel

After a recent meeting in Damascus, Syrian President Assad and Iranian President Ahmadinejad made the following joint-statement:

“…the continued support of the Palestinian resistance and of the Iraqi government until the withdrawal of the [Israeli and American] occupiers is one of Iran and Syria’s top priorities.” (ISNA, May 6, 2009)

Where are the Jews to withdraw? To the pre-1948 borders? To the sea? To the governance of the Arabs?

Actually, according to an in Wikipedia, Ahmadinejad prefers annihilation. As quoted in the Jerusalem Post, President Assad holds similar sentiments. (August 18, 2006) This was and still is the goal of the Arab League of Nations, meaning all Arab-Muslim nations in the Middle East.

An explanation for these genocidal expressions is not merely because of Israel military conflicts with Palestinians or Hezbollah. Can Israel be seriously condemned for bombing Palestinians or Lebanese sites from which armed missiles were launched against Israel towns and civilian homes? Arab-Muslims like Ahmadinejad and Assad do. I suspect the real reason, however, is the Zionist existence in what was a once Arab occupied land.

According to Dr. Chowdary, this is the same historical goal of the Muslims in India. That is, total domination of India as it supposedly once was.

To eliminate all doubt about the goal to destroy the Jews and their nation, consider the following statement of Abbas Zaki, the PLO’s ambassador to Lebanon.

“With the two-state solution, in my opinion, Israel will collapse, because if they get out of Jerusalem, what will become of all the talk about the Promised Land and the Chosen People? What will become of all the sacrifices they made – just to be told to leave? They consider Jerusalem to have a spiritual status. The Jews consider Judea and Samaria to be their historic dream. If the Jews leave those places, the Zionist idea will begin to collapse. It will regress of its own accord. Then we will move forward.”

And what does he mean by move forward?

“Let me tell you, when the ideology of Israel collapses, and we take, at least, Jerusalem, the Israeli ideology will collapse in its entirety, and we will begin to progress with our own ideology, Allah willing, and drive them out of all of Palestine.” (MEMRI, May 14, 2009)

Remember, the original objective of Hitler was only to drive the Jews out of Germany and into Palestine. The Palestinian Umma was able to convince League of Nation officials, British officials, fellow fascist Mussolini, and others to block Hitler’s forced-migration efforts.

The Palestinian Nation-State

In a recent interview, statements about Palestinians and Jordanians made by Lebanese scholar Farid Salman lead one to the conclusion that citizens of Jordan are all Palestinians. This being the case Jordan is the Palestinians’ nation-state.

The following are excerpts from his interview:

“Jordan is an invention. Transjordan, which was an emirate, and later became the Hashemite Kingdom, is part of Palestine. Britain created it in order to crown one of the sons of Hussein, from the Arabian Peninsula, over part of Greater Syria – over Palestine.” (MEMRI, May 26, 2009)

What Salman means is that the entire region was originally one Arab kingdom or state. To Salman and all Muslims, the current land divisions in the Middle East are not legitimate but one Muslim nation is.

He went on to say,

“I don’t know whether to laugh or cry when I hear a Jordanian say that he is a Jordanian, and that there are Palestinian refugee camps in Jordan. He has forgotten that he is a Palestinian.” (MEMRI, May 26, 2009)

If all Jordanians are Palestinians, then all Palestinians, whether in Jordan, Gaza, or the West Bank, already have a Palestinian state.

Arabs on the Possibilities of Another Palestinian State

Egypt’s first lady Jehan al-Sadat told a reporter that it was Arab leaders who refused to follow her husband in establishing peace with Israel. Based on the recent conflict in Gaza, many Arabs now realize that Anwar al-Sadat saved Egypt from a similar disaster. The disaster she speaks of is both the division of the Palestinian people as well as the many deaths. Israel’s retaliation has results in many unnecessary deaths. (MEMRI, May 21, 2009)

What the First Lady, Ahmadinejad, and most Arab-Muslim fail to mention is how Jihadists intentionally put innocent civilians (non-combatants) in harms way. The militants claim to follow the Quran in doing so. They make all Palestinians martyrs for the cause and the Western media-generated opinion. Hezbollah practices the same thing.

A 30-year-old woman working in one of the Palestinian Authority ministries said,

“We are telling the world that we don’t deserve a state because we are murdering each other and destroying our universities, colleges, mosques and hospitals.” (Jerusalem Post, February 4, 2007)

She was referring to the Fatah-Hamas conflict and division of Palestinian people that began in 2007.

In perspective, our federal government should acknowledge the fact that a Palestinian state already exists. Our supposed-representatives should also acknowledge the stated goals of the Arab, Muslim, and Palestinian officials is the elimination of the Israel from the Middle East. As such, they should either cease efforts to support the determined destruction of the independent state of the Israel or open avow that the goals of empire than the future of Israeli Jews. In practice, however, it seems the latter has been the position of our government officials all along.

UN Commission Ends with Delegations Saying No to Abortion April 9, 2009

Posted by Daniel Downs in abortion, health, news, NGOs, United Nations.
add a comment

As the sun rose on the last day of negotiations at the Commission on Population and Development (CPD) at the United Nations (UN), delegations were still embroiled in a contentious debate over language concerning sexual and reproductive health and rights, which some radical NGOs and UN committees have interpreted and used to promote abortion. As UN member states came together at the closing meeting to adopt the document, delegations took the floor to define abortion out of the document.

Up until the eleventh hour, the contentious term sexual and reproductive health and rights remained in the draft document. Just prior to adoption, Iran took the floor to object to the phrase which has never before been included in any negotiated UN document. Iran stressed that the term remained problematic for a number of delegations and urged the Commission to revert back to previously agreed upon and carefully negotiated language from the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) Program of Action, which is understood not to create any right to abortion.

In an attempt to get consensus, the chairwoman from Mexico suspended the meeting and after twenty minutes, returned to the room and announced that Iran’s proposal would be accepted and that the term sexual and reproductive health and rights would be removed from the text. The document was then adopted by consensus.

Several delegations, however, went further and made statements to explicitly define abortion out of the CPD document and to reiterate that the document created no new rights. Comoros, Peru, Poland, Ireland, Chile, the Holy See, Malta, and Saint Lucia spoke out against the other remaining reproductive health-related terms such as reproductive rights, reproductive health services and sexual and reproductive health and emphasized that these could not be construed to support, endorse or promote abortion.

Malta’s ambassador stated that his delegation was finding it more difficult in accepting the resolutions of UN bodies like the CPD where there were consistent attempts to expand reproductive health to include abortion.

Saint Lucia made an explicit objection to the term safe abortion because the term could give the impression that abortion was a procedure completely free of medical and psychological risks. Saint Lucia also highlighted a provision in the CPD document which called on states where abortion was legal to train and equip health service providers and should take such measures to ensure that such abortion is safe and accessible. The Saint Lucian representative stressed that her delegation understood this provision did not impact the right of healthcare providers to refuse to perform or be complicit in abortions as a matter of conscience, stating, Again, no new rights are created or acknowledged in this document, and the universal right to conscience can in no way be overridden or weakened.

Only the representative of Norway expressed regret that the term sexual and reproductive rights was not accepted in the text, saying that his country had widespread access to abortion and virtually no negative effects on women.

Source: Friday Fax, April 3, 2009. Friday Fax is an on-line newsletter of the Catholic Family and Human Right Institute.