Wednesday, July 29, 2009

Where the new modernistic Catholic Church is heading

Check it out it is real and they claim they are Catholics.

Thursday, July 16, 2009


July 16, 2009

Amnesty Again Agitates for Abortion – This Time in Peru
By Piero A. Tozzi, J.D.

(NEW YORK – C-FAM) The human rights organization Amnesty International has just issued a report on maternal mortality in Peru that promotes abortion in the pro-life nation while advancing controversial interpretations of international law.

The report, "Fatal Flaws: Barriers to Maternal Health in Peru," also acknowledges that lack of emergency obstetric care – and not access to abortion – is the largest contributing factor to high maternal death rates in the Andean nation, while listing obstacles faced by poor, often indigenous, women in gaining access to basic maternal and newborn care.

The overall thrust of "Fatal Flaws," however, is to claim a positive obligation by Peru and by extension other states to guarantee certain maternal health rights, which Amnesty then expands to include "therapeutic" abortion. In this Amnesty echoes the strategy of the pro-abortion Center for Reproductive Rights, which in recent years has pushed a "right to maternal health" that softens the abortion emphasis. Critics see this "motherhood and apple pie" approach as a Trojan Horse tactic designed to undermine resistance to terminating unborn life.

Amnesty asserts that "lack of access" to health care "is a violation of women's human right to the highest attainable standard of health." "Fatal Flaws" further claims that the Cairo Programme of Action adopted in 1994 at the International Conference on Population and Development – an "outcome document" that lacks binding international law status – commits states to providing "abortion to the full extent of national law." The actual Cairo text is less sweeping: it acknowledges that it creates no new rights, cautions that in "no case should abortion be promoted as a method of family planning" and affirms that any "measures or changes related to abortion … can only be determined at the national or local level according to the national legislative process," while also stating that where legal abortion should be safe.

Expanding on this, Amnesty faults Peru for failing "to respond appropriately and in a timely manner" to a non-binding "finding" of the Human Rights Committee – the compliance committee tasked with monitoring implementation of the International Covenant of Civil and Political Rights. The committee declared that Peru violated the treaty when a public hospital denied the demand of a mother pregnant with an anencephalic baby for a eugenic abortion. That treaty's text, however, makes no mention of abortion, and there is no evidence that drafters intended to undo the domestic legislation of most nations, which either prohibited or severely restricted the practice at the time of adoption in 1966.

Founded in 1961 by a Catholic convert, Amnesty International previously maintained a neutral position on abortion, acknowledging as recently as 2005 that there exists "no generally accepted right to abortion in international human rights law." The group's subsequent pro-abortion advocacy has caused some to accuse the organization of betraying its founding principles.

U.N. rejects Abortion language

July 16, 2009

Nations Reject Abortion Language at UN Geneva Meeting
By Samantha Singson

(NEW YORK – C-FAM) Last week in Geneva, Switzerland, negotiations went down to the wire as the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC) wound down its high-level meeting on health. After a marathon negotiating session that lasted until the wee hours of the morning, delegates adopted the Ministerial Declaration on "implementing the internationally agreed goals and commitments in regard to global public health" rejecting a push by the United States (US) and most European Union (EU) countries to include language that some interpret to include abortion.

When negotiations began on the declaration at United Nations (UN) headquarters in New York last month, delegations became embroiled in heated debates almost immediately over controversial language regarding reproductive health "rights," "sexual and reproductive health services" and "universal access to family planning." As the Friday Fax previously reported , the Obama Administration had proposed "universal access" to "sexual and reproductive health services including universal access to family planning."

By the time negotiations in New York wound down before resuming in Geneva, the US had apparently moderated its position and would have been willing to compromise, but delegates from Sweden, Finland, Norway, Netherlands, Estonia and France insisted on including "reproductive rights" language. The terms "reproductive health services" and "reproductive rights" remain highly contentious in UN social policy discussions because they continue to be misinterpreted by powerful non-governmental organizations and UN agencies to include abortion.

Despite concentrated efforts to conclude the negotiations in New York prior to the start of the Geneva meeting, delegations were unable to reach consensus over the contentious language.

Late night negotiations carried on in Geneva as delegations continued to battle it out over the "reproductive rights" language in the draft text. While the US delegation remained quiet on the reproductive health provisions, the EU remained divided as Poland, Malta and Ireland continued opposing the controversial language despite pressure from their colleagues.

Malta's ambassador Victor Camillari made a strongly worded statement that stressed that "the right to life extended to the unborn child from the moment of conception and that the use of abortion as a means of resolving health or social problems was a denial of that right, and therefore Malta consistently disassociated itself from, and considered invalid, all statements or decisions that used references to sexual and reproductive health, directly or indirectly, to impose obligations on anyone to accept abortion as a right, a service or a commodity that could exist outside the ambit of national legislation."

The most contentious language regarding "reproductive rights" was removed from the text and the final declaration was adopted by consensus. While some language regarding "sexual and reproductive health" made it into the declaration, the reference was limited to the understanding reached at the Cairo Conference on Population and Development and the Beijing Conference on Women, where it was agreed that no abortion rights were created and states made explicit reservations defining abortion out of the reproductive health and family planning provisions.

ECOSOC plans on holding a follow-up meeting next year to gauge how the impact of the declaration in changing public health systems.