What's wrong with HB 3773? A LOT!!! (New Online Petitions added!)

[mannyamador]

---

Take note that these abortifacient contraceptives are what are being promoted
as "modern" contraceptive methods by HB 3773!

Fact Sheet - Contraceptive Pills Abortifacient

(This information has been researched and compiled by Patrick McCrystal
MPSNI/MPSI Pharmacists For Life International)

One of the clearly stated mechanisms inherent in the overall mode of
action of the pill is; "the rendering of the endometrium unreceptive to
implantation".[1] Put simply this means a newly created embryo is not
allowed to implant in its mother's womb. Since this action takes place
after fertilization (conception), it is thus, by definition,
abortifacient.[2,3] Indeed, clinical researchers suggest that this
mechanism does actually contribute to the contraceptive efficacy of oral
contraceptives.[4] Every chemical contraceptive preparation including
pills, injections, implants and intrauterine devices have this backup
mechanism as an intrinsic part of their overall mode of action should
conception occur.

The only way it could be stated with certainty that contraceptive drugs
are not abortifacient is if they completely abolish ovulation in every
woman during every cycle. This is clearly not the case. The evidence
reported in the table below reveals a wide range of ovulation depending
on the type of preparation used. This does not indicate a true
"contraceptive" action. Whilst reported ovulation rates under strictly
controlled clinical trial conditions are sometimes very low, the
clinical evidence indicates no pill or drug under typical in-use
conditions can be claimed to cessate ovulation absolutely in every
instance.

Table 1:
------------------------------------------------------------------
Contraceptive   Rate of Ovulation  Reference  Breakthrough
------------------------------------------------------------------
Pregnancy
Combined Pill   Up to 5%      5,6,7,8   0.1 ***

Progestogen-only
  Pill      40-60%       9,10,11   0.3

Intra-uterine
  Device (IUD)  Up to 100%     12,13,14,  0.6

Norplant Implants 10-50% *      13,15    0.09

Depo-Provera
  Injection    1% **        16,17 %   0.3
------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes:*  Rising with each consecutive year of use.
   ** Derived from 0.3-0.7% breakthrough pregnancies/year.
   *** Figures for 1st year of use, for perfect usage. See
     Ref. [16]

That ovulation and fertilization do indeed occur bringing new human
embryos into existence during use of contraceptive drugs is evidenced by
the rate, albeit sometimes low, of unexpected breakthrough
pregnancy.[7,16,17,18] Such breakthrough pregnancies appear to occur
even during 'perfect' usage, i.e. even when women do not forget to take
their next dose or do not become ill.[16,18] These failure rates are
indicative only of the number of human embryos that reach the stage of a
verifiable implanted pregnancy; no indication is given of the scale of
loss of human embryos that fail to implant at the endometrial level
under the hormonal influence of these drugs. This occurrence
essentially amounts to early chemical abortion.

One author estimates the frequency of such chemical abortion as one in
88 menstrual cycles for a woman continually on the combined pill.[19]
This translates to 1.4 million pill-induced abortions in the U.S.A in
1989, based on an estimated 10 million users. Given the scale of these
"silent" abortions, based on the millions of women worldwide using
various drugs and devices, what we are considering here is truly a
"Pharmaceutical Holocaust".

Conclusion

There is a high degree of certainty that tiny human embryos die during
contraceptive drug use. What is important however is not the actual
figures involved but the fact that it happens at all. Given the dignity
and preciousness of all human life at all stages of existence, the
abortifacient nature of contraceptive drugs poses serious ethical and
moral problems for all doctors and pharmacists involved in their
promotion.

Endnotes:
1. ABPI Data Sheet Compendium. Datapharm Publications Ltd. 1996-1997
(Femodene) p 1007.
2. Stedmans Medical Dictionary 26th ed. William and Wilkins, London
1995.
3. Blakistons Gould Medical Dictionary 4th ed. New York 1979.
4. Somkuti, S.G., Fritz, M. et al. The effect of oral contraceptive
pills on markers of endometrical receptivity. Fertility and Sterility,
65(3) Mar 1996, pp 484-488.
5. Van der Vange, N. Ovarian activity during low dose oral
contraceptives. Contemporary Obstetrics and Gynaecology. Editor:
Chamberlain, G., Butterworths, London, 1988, pp319-326.
6. Grimes, D., Godwin, A., et al. Ovulation and follicular development
associated with three low dose oral contraceptives: A randomised
controlled trial. Obstetrics and Gynaecology, 83,(1) 1994, pp29-34.
7. Westcombe . R., Ellis, R. and Fotherby, K. Suppression of ovulation
in women using a triphasic oral contraceptive. British Journal of Family
Planning, 13, 1987, pp 127-132.
8. Ehmann, R., Abortifacient contraception -- the pharmaceutical
holocaust. Human Life International, Ontario, 1993, pp 7-16.
9. Langren, B.M. and Diczfalusy, E., Hormonal effects of the 300ug
norethisteone (NET) minipill. Contraception, 21, 1980, pp87-99.
10.Neal,, M.J., Medical Pharmacology at a glance. Blackwell Scientific
Publications, London, 1991, 11. Belfield, T., Contraceptive Handbook,
3rd ed. Family Planning Association, London, 1992, p 37.
12. Zatuchi, G. and Goldsmith, A., Long term Clinical experience with
levo-norgestrel-releasing IUD. Intra-uterine Contraception. Harper and
Row, Philadelphia, 1987, pp 232-237.
13. Croxatto , H.B Diaz, S. et al. Plasma progesterone levels during
long term treatment with levo-norgestrel and Copper IUD comparative
trail. Contraception 49, 1994, pp 56-72.
14. Andersson et al ., L-norgestrel and Copper IUD comparative trial.
Contraception ,49, 1994,pp 56-72.
15. Shaoban, M.M. et al., Sonographic assessment of ovarian and
endometrial changes during long-term Norplant use and their correlation
with hormone levels. Fertility and Sterility, 59(5), 1993, pp 998-1002.
16. Hatcher, R.A., Trussell, J .et al. Contraceptive Technology 16th ed.
Irvington Publishers, New York, 1994, pp 637-687.
17. Pardthaisong, T., Grey. R., In utero exposure to steroid
contraceptives and outcome of pregnancy. American Journal of
Epidemiology, 134,( 8 ), 15 Oct.1991 pp 795-803.
p 67.
18. Duncan, G., Harper, C. et al., Termination of pregnancy; lessons for
prevention. British Journal of Family Planning, 15, 1990, pp 112-117.
19. Kippley, J., The pill and early abortion. All About Issues, 8,
Aug-Sept 1989, p22-23.

[mannyamador]

PRI Weekly Briefing
17 February 2006
Vol. 8 / No. 7

Family Planning Graduation
By Joseph A. D’Agostino

It’s time to graduate some Third World countries from American-sponsored
population control. “Population stabilization” in developing countries is
an official purpose of the U.S. Agency for International Development
(USAID), though in keeping with the zeitgeist, efforts to achieve that
goal are today called family planning programs. In this time of massive
deficits, American taxpayers pay over $400 million a year (conservatively
estimated) to reduce the populations of Third World nations whose
birthrates have already collapsed or are collapsing. In fact, if USAID
wants to promote long-term population stabilization in the Third World, it
should be encouraging women to have more children rather than less.
Birthrates have been on a rapid downward trajectory in almost every
country in the world.

Over 50 developing countries are on USAID’s family planning list. These
countries are in Latin America, the Caribbean, Europe, the Middle East,
Asia, and Africa. Some of these countries have dangerously low birthrates
and should not be targeted for contraception under any rational analysis.

Russia, not usually considered a developing country, is on the list.
Surely she can take care of herself when it comes to family planning?
Actually, she can’t, as her population commits suicide. According to the
United Nations Population Division, the Russian birthrate has dropped to
1.4 children per woman over her lifetime on average, disastrously lower
than the minimum replacement rate of 2.1. This comes as Russians emigrate
to other parts of the world in substantial numbers. Russia is already
shrinking by over 500,000 people annually as the remaining population ages
rapidly. If Americans are to be taxed to assist Russia in her population
efforts, a questionable proposition at best, it should be to promote
childbearing instead of the opposite.

It is not only mighty former enemies to which USAID ships contraception by
the boatload. Tiny little Armenia, already the victim of a massive
genocide by the Turks in the 20th Century, has a birthrate of 1.4 also,
and is also losing people though it has only 3 million to begin with. The
UN conservatively projects that the proportion of retirees (people 65 or
older) in the population will double to 24% by 2050. Can Armenia afford
that? Why are we contributing to this problem?

Russia’s neighbor, Georgia, has the popular 1.4 birthrate and a shrinking
population. Bulgaria has a dismal 1.2 rate and a shrinking population.
Romania has a rate of 1.3 and a shrinking population. The united nation
of Serbia and Montenegro has a rate of 1.6 and a shrinking population.
Democratic Ukraine has a rate of 1.2 and a rapidly shrinking population.
Yet all these nations, with populations already contracting and with
birthrates that will lead to more rapid contractions in the future, get
family planning money from USAID. Instead, the agency should be shipping
badly-needed babies to these nations, whose social support systems are due
to go bankrupt from lack of working-age people in the next few decades.
These countries’ fiscal futures make the United States’ problems with
Social Security and Medicare seem very minor indeed.

Closer to home, the nations where USAID has family planning programs do
have birthrates over replacement level, but the UN projects they soon
won’t be in many of them. Why should America encourage the suicidal
trend? Jamaica has a barely-adequate 2.3 birthrate now, but that will
drop below replacement within 20 years at the most. Bolivia’s, now at
3.5, will be below replacement in 30 years. The Dominican Republic’s is
at 2.6 now but will drop below 2.1 within 25 years. And so on for some
others, including El Salvador and Nicaragua. In addition, many of these
nations send out large numbers of emigrants each year, necessitating a
birthrate higher than 2.1 to keep their populations stable and their age
demographics affordable.

Some might say that regardless of the wisdom of our efforts elsewhere,
promoting family planning in sub-Saharan Africa, with its incessant
famines and other disasters, is a good idea. That is not the case. Those
famines, massacres, civil wars, and the AIDS epidemic mean that high
birthrates are necessary to keep those nations alive. Even relatively
affluent South Africa, on USAID’s list, has a birthrate of 2.6 but a net
reproduction rate per woman of only 0.95. That means that, on average,
less than one daughter is produced per South African woman. Despite
having a birthrate well over 2.1, South Africa is on the path to
extinction. Other nations on the list, from Angola to Zimbabwe, may need
birthrates as high as 6 children per woman or more in order to weather the
crises that continually convulse the continent, particularly in a region
where adult HIV infection rates are sometimes over 35%. Despite its HIV
infection rate of 25%, Zimbabwe is on USAID’s list. The country has a
birthrate of 3.2 and a net reproduction rate of only 1.05.

According to USAID itself, “The HIV/AIDS pandemic continues to ravage the
continent, although there are hopeful signs that prevention and treatment
measures are beginning to slow its spread. Prevalence rates remain high
in all of southern Africa, reaching 25% in Zimbabwe and almost 40% in
Swaziland and Botswana. Of the estimated 34-46 million people infected by
HIV worldwide, 25-28 million reside in sub-Saharan Africa. Over 80% are
in their productive years and two-thirds are female.” Average life
expectancy is on the decline, and USAID predicts it will fall below 35
within a decade in some nations, “significantly impacting prospects for
economic growth and further straining household incomes.” Depriving these
nations of substantial portions of their future generations is not a good
idea.

It’s true that maternal mortality has tended to fall in countries where
population control has become widespread. After all, if women have few
children, they are less likely to die in childbirth. But to borrow a
phrase from environmentalists, that’s not a sustainable model. Here in
the First World, it’s almost unheard-of for a woman to die during
childbirth or from complications from pregnancy. The solution to maternal
mortality in the Third World is not to export more condoms and injectable
contraceptive hormones, but to export the hygienic standards, antibiotics,
and technology that have almost rendered maternal death a thing of the
past in the West. This is especially true since so many of the
contraceptives that the Firth World sends the Third can have terrible side
effects. Some, like Norplant, even used to be sold in the United States
but are no longer because they are so dangerous, but into the bodies of
Third World women they continue to go.

Another thing USAID should change: It, like other family planning
organizations, measures its success by contraceptive prevalence rates.
The more women using contraception, the better. This does not allow for
the preferences of local people or their continued survival as peoples
over the years. This criterion of success should be abandoned.

To assist in population stabilization and deduct a little from the federal
deficit, USAID should graduate nations from its family planning programs.
The damage has been done.


Joseph A. D'Agostino is Vice President for Communications at the
Population Research Institute.


To see USAID’s list of nations targeted for family planning, go to:

http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/global...ies/index.html


PRI
P.O. Box 1559
Front Royal, Va. 22630
USA
Phone: (540) 622-5240 Fax: (540) 622-2728
Email: jad@pop.org
Media Contact: Joseph A. D'Agostino
(540) 622-5240, ext. 204
Website: www.pop.org

(c) 2006 Population Research Institute. Permission to reprint granted.
Redistribute widely. Credit required.

[mannyamador]

UN AIDS Envoy Can't Stomach Abstinence
By Joseph A. D'Agostino
http://www.pop.org/main.cfm?id=243&r...evel=3&eid=871

Stephen Lewis, the United Nations' special envoy to Africa for HIV/AIDS, has little good to say
about the Bush Administration's efforts there. That the United States is spending more money
than any other nation on stopping the spread of AIDS in Africa counts for little. He is upset with
the U.S. emphasis on abstinence, which he accuses of causing a condom shortage in Uganda.

Now Uganda happens to be the only sub-Saharan African country that has achieved a large
reduction in her HIV prevalence rate. Its adult HIV infection rate has dropped from 18% to
5-7%. No other nation in the world has achieved such success. Most sub-Saharan African
nations, following the pro-condoms model, continue to suffer from rising HIV infection rates.
But then, other African nations do not have leaders like Ugandan President Museveni and his
wife. This dynamic duo has consistently promoted an abstinence-first model that has successfully
changed Ugandan culture. Ugandan surveys show a reduction in premarital sexual activity among
Ugandan youth and a reduction in extramarital acitivty among adults. The result: less AIDS.

This is, in Lewis's worldview, all wrong. He complains that the Bush Administration's shift of
funding from condoms to abstinence promotion under its PEPFAR program has led to a shortage
of the prophylactics in Uganda. *There is no doubt in my mind that the condom crisis in Uganda
is being driven by PEPFAR,* said Lewis. *To impose a dogma-driven policy that is fundamentally
flawed is doing damage to Africa.*

This is a bizarre inversion of the truth, and threatens to do grievous harm to the one HIV/AIDS
prevention approach that has actually worked.

Uganda's health minister, Jim Muhwezi, denies that there is any shortage of condoms in his country.
"It is not true that there is a condom shortage," he said. "There seems to be a coordinated smear
campaign by those who do not want to use any other alternative simultaneously with condoms
against AIDS." In fact, Uganda officially uses the ABC approach:

Abstinence before marriage, be faithful in marriage, and use condoms if you don't do one or two.

But this isn't good enough for UN officials, whose love affair with condoms knows no bounds, and
who are also angry with America for funding her own AIDS initiative in Africa instead of giving the
money to them.

"Alas, from Stephen Lewis's point of view, the U.S. is deplorably 'unilateralist' and spends its billions
of AIDS dollars directly in Africa rather than sluicing them through the UN, where now that the
Oil-for-Fraud program is no longer 'needed,' many bureaucrats are itching to bring their humanitarian
expertise and efficiency to bear on another great slab of cash," wrote Mark Steyn in the Canadian
Western Standard, Oct. 3. "Once the usual UN administration fee had been deducted from Bush's
pitifully inadequate $15 billion, there could easily have been enough left over to buy, oh, twenty
thousand bucks' worth of second-hand condoms from a rubber factory co-owned by a nephew of
Kofi Annan and a cousin of Boutros Boutros-Ghali. Instead, the U.S. decided to spend the cash itself."

Why not? The UN's approach has failed, and its own statistics show it. HIV rates keep rising, to over
30% in some countries. Two decades of pornographic *** education and massive shipments of
condoms have sent millions of young Africans to an early grave.

But who on the Left cares about the facts? The UK Guardian sneers at Ugandan First Lady Janet
Museveni's abstinence campaign, ominously hinting that it is driven by her Christian beliefs. It scorns
the poster campaigns that Mrs. Museveni has backed. "In one poster campaign, signed by the office
of the first lady, the slogan alongside the picture of a smiling young woman says: 'She's saving herself
for marriage-how about you?'" said the paper.

It is this sort of thing that the UN and left-wing newspapers fear that Bush is going to promote in Africa.

Lewis is no new kid on the block shooting his mouth off. A former Canadian ambassador to the United
Nations and former Deputy Executive Director of UNICEF, he is a long-time member of the establishment.
His wife, Michele Landsberg, is a pro-abortion feminist activist and former columnist for the Toronto Star.

In August, the Global Fund for Aids, Tuberculosis and Malaria pulled all funding from Uganda's highly
successful AIDS prevention program, alleging financial irregularities.

Apparently, achieving results isn't good enough for international grandees. It's death by condom or
nothing. But we think the Bush Administration will stay the course.

Joseph A. D'Agostino is Vice President for Communications at the Population Research Institute.

[mannyamador]

The Philippines and Thailand
http://www.hli.org/condom_expose_complete.html#20

The second real-life example of how condoms fail to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS is presented by the Philippines
and Thailand, two Southeastern Asian nations with approximately the same populations.

In 1984, the first case of HIV was detected in both of these nations. By 1987, Thailand had 112 cases of AIDS,
and the Philippines had 135 cases. In 1991, the World Health Organization predicted that, by 1999, Thailand
would have 70,000 deaths from the disease, and the Philippines would have 85,000 deaths.

In 1991, both nations took concrete and comprehensive measures against the spread of the HIV virus -- but both
directed their efforts in completely different directions.

The Thai Minister of Health enacted a “100% Condom Use Program.” All brothels were required to have supplies
of condoms, and condom vending machines were installed in all supermarkets, bars, restaurants, and other public
gathering places. This program was widely accepted and implemented by the people of Thailand.

Two years later, Rene Bullecer, M.D., received authorization from the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines
(CBCP) to establish the organization AIDS‑Free Philippines as its official program to combat HIV/AIDS nationwide.
The government signed on to this effort as well.

By the end of 2003, the disparity in the effectiveness of both types of programs had become glaringly obvious, as
shown in this table; [46]

Parameter                  Thailand  Philippines
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Adults and Children Living with HIV      570,000     9,000
AIDS Deaths in 2003              58,000      500
Population                 62,833,000   79,999,000
HIV Infection Rates Per Million         9,072      113
--------------------------------------------------------------------

This table shows that the Thai HIV infection rate is eighty times higher than the Filipino HIV infection rate.

The current rate of HIV infection in the United States, with all of our *** education, all of our sexual freedom,
all of our advanced antiviral drugs, and all of our billions of condoms, is 3,900 per million, thirty times higher
than in the Philippines.[47]

What lesson does this teach us?

USAID has concluded that the reason that the Philippines has such a low incidence of HIV/AIDS is that youth
have a very high rate of abstinence and married people largely remain faithful to their spouses. The USAID
report grudgingly admitted that "The Catholic Church must be credited with influencing sexual behavior."[48]

[mannyamador]

Standing up for LIFE!
http://www.prolife.org.ph/article/articleview/616/1/91/

Armed with placards and streamers bearing pro-life messages, pro-lifers from the Philippines, United States
and Canada strode out of St. Peter’s Parish in Quezon City and formed a human chain to signify their support
for life-affirming moves being made by Philippine legislators. The Feb. 15 Human Chain for Life, Decency &
Morality -- in which some 800 men and women participated -- was also a peaceful expression of protest against
proposed congressional bills such as House Bill 3773 or "The Responsible Parenthood and Population
Management Act of 2005," which pushes for a two-child policy and increased budget allocation for intensive
promotion of abortifacient drugs and methods of birth control.

Signs that read “Abortion Hurts Women,” “Peace Begins in the Womb” and “Pro-life, Pro-woman, Pro-child”
greeted east-bound motorists on Commonwealth Avenue as these were brandished by the pro-life supporters
during the afternoon rush hour. Four of the supporters were Molly White, Denise Mountenay, Karen Bodle
and Luana Stoltenberg, international speakers who spent a week in the Philippines upon the invitation of Sr.
Mary Pilar Verzosa, RGS, Pro-Life Philippines national coordinator, to speak on the issue of abortion and
abortion recovery.

White is the executive director of Redeemed for Life Ministries and resides in Texas with her family, while
Mountenay is founder and president of Canada Silent No More and has authored “Forgiven of Murder...
A True Story,” a book that recounts her trauma and eventual healing as a post-abortive woman. Bodle and
Stoltenberg represent Operation Outcry -- the former as its international director and the latter as Iowa
tate representative. All four have been participating actively in the pro-life crusade in their countries,
including the March for Life -- the biggest annual pro-life event in North America.

Prior to the Human Chain, all four women took part in a dialogue with pro-life congressmen and an audience
of over 1,000 at St. Peter’s Parish, wherein they related their own experiences and vehemently called on
Filipinos to hold on to their traditional family-centered and life-affirming values, and not to allow anti-life laws
to take root in the country.

[mannyamador]

Does Population Growth Really Exacerbate Poverty?
http://www.phnix.net/exacerbate.html

It is often alleged that high population growth and high population density result in greater consumption of
resource in a locale and as such are "contributing factors" to poverty. These factors should be reduced as
they "exacerbate" poverty.

That is a flawed argument. Let's examine the logic.

We have to remember that ANY activity that consumes resources can be considered a "contributing
factor" that "exacerbates" poverty including such activities as manufacturing, raising livestock, and planting.
But should we now lessen such productive activity?

And if having more people "exacerbates" poverty, then aren't such things as decreased infant mortality and
longer life expectancy also "contributing factors" that "exacerbate" poverty? Should we now close hospitals
so more of these "contributing factors" can die off?

What about art and culture? These use up resources too and don't produce a whole lot of mass consumables.
Should we minimize these beneficial "contributing factors" too?

Argumentum ad absurdum. The argument of the population controllers leads to absurd conclusions.


The Benefits of Population Growth

Although it is true that, in general, bigger populations can consume more resources than a smaller one,
people do more than merely consume. They also produce, just as manufacturing does.

In addition, high population density allows for mass markets, greater interaction, more efficient distribution
of services, and economies of scale. Growing populations can also mean growing markets and increased
innovation. It's no wonder that people are generally acknowledged as nation's most valuable resource.

If population density and population growth contribute to productivity in such important ways, why then
should these be singled out as something to be minimized while other productive "contributing factors"
aren't?


The Real Causes of Poverty

More important, why should the government spend millions on trying to minimize a productive "contributing
factor" when there are OTHER, greater contributing factors that are NOT PRODUCTIVE at all?

Numerous surveys, for example, have shown that the economic situation in the Philippines (and in many
other countries as well) is adversely affected by massive government graft and corruption, siphoning away
anywhere from 30-70% of tax revenues and government funds, depending on which survey you look at.
Shouldn't efforts be focused on eliminating this proven "contributing factor" instead?

Private sector greed and corruption is just as alarming, and may be just as much a cause of poverty -- or a
contributing or exacerbating factor. Do not land-grabbing, bribery, overpricing, tax evasion, oppression,
and drug trafficking contribute far more to poverty?

What about the excessive use of pork barrel funds? How much money does that take away from the
edcuation budget? Or incessant partisan politicking? How productive is that activity? Dare I mention
misplacing some of the Marcos millions, divdrsion of funds, and war? Aren't these "contributing" more to
poverty and "exacerbating" it?

The existence of these other causes of poverty indicate that perhaps a large population doesn't really
cause poverty at all, nor contribute to poverty in a significant way.

Why then are Edcel Lagman and other legislators proposing that we waste millions of pesos on population
control programs designed to attack a factor that has NOT been proven to cause poverty in the first place?
Why don't they attack the REAL causes instead?

Sadly, there's too much foreign money coming into to fund population control than to eliminate corruption
and greed. One wonders, are these foreign interests really trying to help the Philippines, or do they have
a different agenda?

That is the question we should all be asking.

[mannyamador]

The online petitions against HB 3773 are below. Please sign up!

Petition against HB 3773
http://www.gopetition.com/online/7499.html

Petition against HB 3773 and other anti-life bills
http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/Prolife

[mannyamador]

Two-Child Policy Stalled in Filipino Congress; Lack of Support Cited

Friday Fax
February 24, 2006
Volume 9, Number 10
By Bradford Short

Proposed legislation in the Philippines that would impose radical limits on the
number of children that families can have appears to have less support in the
Congress than was once reported. But pro-family opponents of the bill warn that
it remains on the legislative calendar and remains a threat despite the fact
that the proposed act is very unpopular in the majority Catholic country.

In January the Friday Fax reported that some Filipino legislators, arguing that
the Philippines needs a much more aggressive policy of population control,
introduced a bill that is strikingly similar to the one-child policy of
Communist China. The "Responsible Parenting and Population Control Act of 2005"
includes a preference in education for two-child families, free access to
abortifacients, mandatory *** education for children as young as 10-years-old
and imprisonment penalties for health care providers who refuse to perform or
provide sterilization services for a population that is 87 percent Catholic and
5 percent Muslim.

At that time one sponsor of the act reported that he had the votes of 135 of
238 members of the Filipino House. It was thought that the bill could be
debated and voted on at any time. It now appears that this particular statement
was hyperbole. According to Eileen Macapanas Cosby, Executive Director of the
Filipino Family Fund, the act was not debated, let alone passed, by the
Filipino House last January. Nevertheless, Cosby warns that the bill remains a
threat. She said supporters of the "two-child" policy have pressed on.
According to Cosby, the act is "still on the schedule" of the House's
legislative calendar, listed as "unfinished business," which means that it can
be brought up for debate and a vote at any time during the early days of the
work-week during any one of the next few weeks.

If passed the act would provide for a centralized bureaucracy that would be run
by three non-elected officials from NGOs. This new bureaucracy would oversee
the implementation of the legislation. Cosby said the bill "paves the way" for
"the kind of human rights nightmare that is already" taking place "in China,
with its coercive sterilization and contraception practices." She calls the
proposed bill "China-lite."

Filipino President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo is likely to veto the proposed act
if it passes both houses of Congress. As in the American system, the act would
then return to Congress where it must receive two thirds of the vote in both
chambers to override the veto.

Copyright 2005 – C-FAM (Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute). Permission
granted for unlimited use. Credit required.

[mannyamador]

The Sin of Promoting Marriage
By Joseph A. D’Agostino
PRI Weekly Briefing
24 February 2006
Vol. 8 / No. 8

Just as homosexual rights activists seamlessly moved beyond the "leave us alone" strategy to demanding wholesale alterations in the culture and laws of America and civilization itself, *** education advocates have openly transcended their initial goals of educating youth about reproductive biology and contraception to favor similar radical changes. Some *** ed promoters, like many homosexualists and feminists, now oppose teaching young people that marriage is the ideal forum for sexuality. In fact, they criticize the notion that people can limit their sexual impulses at all.

At a time when those who control most channels of information devote unfathomable amounts of effort to urging people to discipline their appetites for food, drink, drugs, lethargy (exercise, exercise, exercise, they say), tobacco, and the like, sexuality receives different treatment. They classify more and more sexual impulses as normal and natural, and seem to think that anyone who does not favor sexual activity with as many attractive people as possible is some sort of prude.

The Bush Administration released an excellent set of grant criteria for its Community-Based Abstinence Education Program (CBAE) on January 26. The Health and Human Services Department’s Administration for Children and Families will distribute $24 million intended to encourage young people to practice abstinence until marriage.

In response, on February 16, the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States (SIECUS) sent out a press release criticizing the program. Most Americans would likely be astonished at two of the criticisms:

• The criteria "promote marriage."
  
  
• The ACF program "Teaches that sexual desires are natural and controllable and that individuals are capable of making choices to abstain from sexual activity."
  

The promotion of marriage is bad, and telling kids they can control themselves is bad. This is how far the *** education movement has gone. Needless to say, SIECUS is also irritated over the Bush Administration’s upholding of heterosexuality as the norm, its lack of concern about "transgendered" youth, and the like.

ACF’s abstinence-only guidelines for this program reaffirm traditional morality, the same morality that millennia of history have shown promote happiness and stability for the vast majority of people while ensuring the future of society. It also contains disease, which is now spreading exponentially among America youth, thanks in part to SIECUS and other *** educators who tell children not to be chaste and that condoms will protect you. Instead, ACF, headed by fatherhood advocate Dr. Wade Horn, says, "Today's youth are bombarded by implicit and explicit messages that promote sexual activity before and outside of marriage. Unfortunately, teens receive less information about the physical and emotional benefits that they may find by having one lifelong sexual partner within marriage. Those youth who are aware of these benefits and want to delay *** until marriage may not receive from society the support and training that they need to achieve this goal. Government agencies often use special programs to target specific audiences that are underserved by other systems. Youth that are open to the message of delaying *** until marriage are such an audience."

ACF plans to send its $24 million to programs with rational messages that most American parents want their teenagers to hear. The successful applicant for a CBAE grant will, says ACF, tell youth the truth about contraceptives rather than the myth of contraception that *** educators want communicated. A correct program, says ACF:

• "Teaches that contraception may fail to prevent teen pregnancy and that sexually active teens using contraception may become pregnant."
  
  
  
• "Teaches the published failure rates associated with contraceptives relative to pregnancy prevention, including 'real use' versus trial or 'laboratory use,' human error, product defect, teen use and possible side effects of contraceptives. (References for information must be provided with the curriculum.)"
  
  
  
• "Does not promote or encourage the use or combining of any
  contraceptives in order to make *** 'safer.'"
  

The CBAE guidelines also want grantees to teach the psychological benefits of abstinence, stating the time-honored truths that "sexual activity outside of the context of marriage is likely to have harmful psychological and physical effects" and that "bearing children out-of-wedlock is likely to have harmful consequences for the child, the child's parents, and society.”" Most politically incorrectly of all, the guidelines demand a program that "Teaches that the expected standard for sexual activity is within the context of a mutually monogamous marriage relationship between a man and a woman. Teaches that healthy human sexuality involves enduring fidelity, love and commitment; human happiness and well-being are associated with a stable, loving marriage. Teaches that non-marital *** can undermine the capacity for healthy marriage, love and commitment."

Employing the classic propaganda technique of trying to make his opponent look ridiculous by exaggerating his claims, William Smith, Vice President for Public Policy at SIECUS, said, "This funding announcement is full of wild and unfounded assertions that abstinence before marriage will cure everything from psychological disorders to criminal behavior and ensure financial success and a lifetime of happiness."

The types of ACF’s claims for abstinence, marriage, and happiness aren’t any greater than those made by anti-smoking activists: Refraining from this is likely to lead to greater happiness and health for you, your family, and society. Anti-smoking activists don’t claim you will be perfectly healthy just so long as you don’t smoke. Nor do they claim that because you smoke, you are certain to develop lung cancer or emphysema, and ACF doesn’t claim that those who sleep around are certain to contract a serious disease or become unable to form a permanent relationship later in life. It’s a matter of tendencies. There is obviously a lot more to health and happiness than not smoking or not fornicating. That doesn’t mean that both are not highly valuable.

And, in fact, a 2001 analysis from Dr. Joe McIlhaney, head of the Medical Institute for Sexual Health, determined that teenage *** is more harmful to health than teenage smoking. Don’t count on hearing about that from many sources other than this one.

SIECUS’ special report critiquing the ACF proposal says, "The new guidelines consistently emphasize negative consequences of premarital sexual activity and suggest that such consequences are inevitable. It is clear that the goal is to scare students rather than educate them as many of the suggested consequences, such as suicide and decreased school completion, have no basis in sound research." SIECUS also claims that teen virginity pledges lead to riskier sexual behavior. A coalition letter to Congress from groups such as the ACLU, NARAL, and Planned Parenthood made a similar claim last June, the same month studies came out supporting virginity pledges' effectiveness. So there have been studies, and media reports about studies, showing the opposite of the pro-teen-*** crowd’s claims. Maybe not all social scientists agree, but there is at least a "basis in sound research" for ACF’s guidelines.

HHS Secretary Michael Leavitt got a letter from one of the most liberal members of Congress the same day that SIECUS launched its critique. Rep. Henry Waxman (D. - Calif.) wrote, "Under the new guidelines, funding for abstinence education will be awarded based on ideology, not the
effectiveness of programs in reducing teen sexual activity, teen pregnancy, and teen sexually [transmitted] disease rates."

The Bush Administration notes, "The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has reported that nearly 900,000 adolescents under the age of 19 become pregnant every year and about 3 million become infected with a sexually transmitted disease. Despite recent improvements in teen pregnancy and birthrates, U.S. rates are higher than any other developed nation." SIECUS is just another of the feminist and other groups whose hostility to marriage has become increasingly open. Perhaps it’s time for a return to some old-fashioned restraint.

_________________________________________________
Joseph A. D'Agostino is Vice President for Communications at the
Population Research Institute.

(c) 2006 Population Research Institute. Permission to reprint granted. Redistribute widely. Credit required.

To subscribe to the Weekly Briefing, go to:
http://pop.org/subscribe-weekly.cfm or email us at pri@pop.org and say "Add me to your Weekly Briefing."

The pro-life Population Research Institute is dedicated to ending human rights abuses committed in the name of "family planning," and to ending counter-productive social and economic paradigms premised on the myth of "overpopulation."

[mannyamador]

The online petitions against HB 3773 are below. Please sign up!

Petition against HB 3773
http://www.gopetition.com/online/7499.html

Petition against HB 3773 and other anti-life bills
http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/Prolife

Alternative Information and Opinion at: www.phnix.net