What are the Girl Scouts Supporting?

A disturbing news item was recently published by the Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute (C-FAM) about the activities of the World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts (WAGGGS). It would appear that WAGGGS worked in cooperation with the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) to distribute a brochure entitled “Healthy, Happy and Hot” at a “no-adults-welcome panel” during a United Nations week-long event (the annual Commission on the Status of Women).

So, what’s so disturbing? Well, firstly, here’s a sample from the brochure quoted from the C-FAM article (click here to read the brochure for yourself; click here to read the C-FAM article):

The brochure claims, “Many people think sex is just about vaginal or anal intercourse… But, there are lots of different ways to have sex and lots of different types of sex. There is no right or wrong way to have sex. Just have fun, explore and be yourself!” The brochure goes on to encourage young people to “Improve your sex life by getting to know your own body. Play with yourself! Masturbation is a great way to find out more about your body and what you find sexually stimulating. Mix things up by using different kinds of touch from very soft to hard. Talk about or act out your fantasies. Talk dirty to them.”

Secondly, although the brochure is targeted at young people with HIV, the problem I have with this is that WAGGGS and IPPF are encouraging sexual immorality and promiscuity around the world via the United Nations. Not only that, but you need to remember what these organizations also consider to be a part of “women’s reproductive rights”–abortion-on-demand. I wrote about that last year in my post entitled Exporting Death.

Thirdly, there’s a slap against pro-lifers from the IPPF brochure:

Some healthcare workers and service providers think that young people or people living with HIV should not have sex. They may let their personal opinions get in the way of providing good information and services. Remember that you have sexual and reproductive rights.

Well, that just makes sense as Planned Parenthood in the US is the largest abortion provider, accounting for approximately 305,300 abortions in 2007 (click here to see their annual report, go to page 9). That’s 25 percent of the estimated 1.2 million abortions performed in the US every year.

The question to ask is this: what is the relationship between  WAGGGS  and your local Girl Scout troop that sells you cookies? The Girl Scouts of the USA has been a full member of WAGGGS since 1928 and are supportive of the policies and positions of WAGGGS (click here to see the member status of GSUSA).

And before I could even get this post written, another related item of interest flashed before my eyes. The Susan B Anthony List blog comments on a UN report entitled “Power, Voice, and Rights: A Turning Point for Gender Equality in Asia and the Pacific.” Here are two interesting excerpts from that report as quoted in the SuzyB blog (click here for the entire blog):

“Females cannot take survival for granted,” the report says on page 42. “Asia has the highest male-female sex ratio at birth in the world, with sex-selective abortion and infanticide [emphasis mine] leaving approximately 96 million missing women in seven countries. In most regions, women comprise 51% of the population, but only 49% in Asia-Pacific.”

While the world average for the life expectancy of women is 1.06 years longer than that of men, Asia’s ratio of female-to-male life expectancy is below this average. “This discrepancy stems from a lifetime of gender discrimination, starting from the deliberate abortion of female fetuses [emphasis mine].”

I think it’s curious that the UN is decrying sex-selective abortions in Asia when it was the UN who helped China set up its one-child policy (click here to read Forced Abortion in China). Their own ideologies are contradictory when, on the one hand, they protest sex-selective abortion in Asia and yet, on the other hand, actively support and work with organizations like Planned Parenthood, one of whose main goals is the promotion of abortion-on-demand.

Maybe it’s just me, but…shouldn’t organizations that purport to help girls develop their self-image stop supporting programs that destroy the self-images of girls, and ultimately result in a world-wide cultural view that objectifies girls and women?

How do we turn a blind eye to an organization that might be helping our daughters in our own backyard, but is destroying our values and hurting “all daughters” on a global scale?

[Updated 12 Mar 2010, 1331 EDT]

Forced Abortion in China

I’ve written before about abortion in China, but click here to read (or hear) today’s Chuck Colson Breakpoint message about the testimony of a Chinese woman who was forced to have an abortion.

Here is an excerpt from that message:

A Chinese woman called Wujian—not her real name—recently testified before the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission about China’s brutal one-child policy. Four years ago, Wujian became pregnant with an “illegal” baby—one conceived without a birth permit.

In an effort to protect her child, Wujian hid in a shack in a remote area. She was lonely and frightened, but took pleasure in feeling her baby begin to move inside her.

But when family planning officials learned where she was, they broke into the house and dragged Wujian into a van. She was taken to a hospital, where she found dozens of other women who had just undergone forced abortions. Some were crying, some were screaming, and one was rolling around the floor in agony. They were, Wujian said, “just like pigs in the slaughterhouse.”

According to the Guttmacher Institute, the estimated number of abortions worldwide in 2003 (latest estimate available) was 41.6 million abortions. They estimate that, excluding China, the number of abortions was 26.4 million. That would mean an estimated 15.2 million abortions occurred in China during 2003. That is 37 percent of the entire world’s abortions; and apparently, many of them are forced upon the mothers.

Please read or listen to the message from Chuck Colson, then share it with everyone you know. This kind of brutality against women and babies in the womb must be stopped. Click here to read the entire message and links to how you can make your voice heard.

Biofuels and Health Care

The manager’s amendment to H.R. 3962 Affordable Health Care for America Act was released last night; click here to download a copy.

After a quick review, I have not seen any changes to the parts of H.R. 3962 that deal with abortion. Therefore, tax-payer funded abortions and all the other concerns I have highlighted remain in the bill (e.g. see “Is Abortion Prohibited by H.R. 3962?“). No one knows for sure when the bill will be voted on, but now that the manager’s amendment has been introduced, the full vote can come as soon as Friday night (November 6).

But what I am really curious about is a new section added to H.R. 3962: “Second Generation Biofuel Producer Credit” [Sec. 555]. This new section will amend the Internal Revenue Code so that it covers tax credits for producers of biofuels.

Maybe it’s just me, but…shouldn’t a health care reform bill actually deal with health care reform? What in the world is a biofuel credit adjustment doing in something as important as this?

It’s not too late to contact your representative and tell them to stop the madness and work on real health insurance and tort reform. Click here to go to the National Right to Life website for more information on how to do this.

Is Tax-Payer Funded Abortion Prohibited by H.R. 3962?

On October 29, 2009, the House of Representatives introduced H.R. 3962, Affordable Health Care for America Act. This is the reconciled bill between the competing bills introduced in the House over the summer, including H.R. 3200. Supporters of H.R. 3962 claim that there is a provision that states tax-payer funded abortions will not be allowed according to the bill, so I thought I’d take a closer look to verify their claim. All references to sections are to H.R. 3962 unless otherwise noted.

Section 222 defines what the “Essential Benefits Package” is meant to include. All plans eligible for the Health Insurance Exchange need to meet these minimum services. Unlike H.R. 3200, there is no language H.R. 3962 regarding options for family planning.

Section 321 establishes a Public Health Insurance Option. The public health insurance option is prohibited from providing abortion coverage “for which the expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is not permitted, based on the law as in effect as of the date that is 6 months before the beginning of the plan year involved” [Sec. 222(e)(4)(A)]. However, the public option is allowed to provide abortion coverage “for which the expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is permitted, based on the law as in effect as of the date that is 6 months before the beginning of the plan year involved” [Sec. 222(e)(4)(B)].

In an effort to defend their claim that there will be no tax-payer funded abortion provision in the bill, proponents of the bill state that the restrictions placed on abortion by the Hyde amendment would fall under this definition and thus prevent the public health insurance option from funding abortions. This defense is misleading and doesn’t stand up to scrutiny.

Firstly, the Hyde amendment only prevents tax-payer funded abortions specifically through Medicaid and appropriations for the Department of Health and Human Services. It does not address the other potential funding sources for the public health insurance option, such as income tax surcharges and employer penalties for not providing health insurance.

Secondly, the Hyde amendment needs to be renewed every year; so if it is not renewed, then during the next plan year, tax-payer funded abortions can be a part of the public health insurance option.

Finally, this prohibition in H.R. 3962 is placed only on the essential benefits package and does not apply to enhanced or premium benefits packages; thus the public health insurance option can, in fact, provide for tax-payer funding abortions.

For a detailed description of how the Hyde amendment may not apply in this situation, go to the Susan B. Anthony List’s special website called Stop Hyding. Please note that although their website refers to H.R. 3200, the logic and the law are applicable to H.R. 3962 as well.

Aside from the funding issues, as of the time of this writing the only abortion coverage prohibited to the Department of Health and Human Services is partial-birth abortion, which is banned by Federal law. However, if the law changes to allow partial-birth abortions, e.g. if the Freedom of Choice Act is passed as President Obama promised during his 2008 presidential campaign, then tax-payer funded abortions through the public health insurance option would include even these types of abortions.

Do you think it’s right that your tax dollars go to ending human life in the womb? And what about your health insurance provider? Will they be forced to pay for abortions if they morally object to the practice? Will you end up paying for abortions because your premium payments into the health insurance are then used to pay for an abortion that someone else chooses?

H.R. 3962 includes a subsection entitled “Abortion Coverage Prohibited as Part of Minimum Benefits Package” [Sec. 222(e)]. This section prohibits the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Health Benefits Advisory Committee, or the Health Choices Commissioner to mandate that abortion be covered in the essentials benefits package of a qualified health benefits plan [Sec. 222(e)(1)]. The caveat is that the abortion services are described in Sec. 222(e)(4)(A) and (B) which describe abortion coverage for the public health insurance option. As discussed above, the only type of abortion currently banned is partial-birth abortion and the only funding restriction is based on Medicaid payments.

Thus the Health and Human Services Secretary, the Health Benefits Advisory Committee, or the Health Choices Commissioner can, in fact, mandate that your health insurance provider cover abortions in the essential benefits package.

If you don’t want to pay for abortions your tax dollars, it is imperative you contact your representative in Congress today! It is scheduled for a vote by the full House of Representatives later this week. For information on how to contact your representative, see the National Right to Life’s webpage by clicking here.

Pro-life Moments on Desperate Housewives

Okay, it’s confession time. When I was younger, I used to watch Dynasty with my mom. Eventually, my sister and I got into watching Flamingo Road. Now, ever since I got married, I watch Desperate Housewives with my wife. As always, the man is blaming the woman (a la Adam, see Genesis 3:12).

What was amazing to me, however, was discovering two pro-life gems in the last few weeks on Desperate Housewives, a show filled with stories of lying, cheating, adultery, murder – yes, sin of every kind.

The first scene is about one of the characters contemplating abortion. Although the word “abortion” was never used, you pretty much knew what they were talking about, and the “choice” she was considering.

The second one has to do with  marriage, and what one husband sees as one of his primary roles within that relationship.

I took the liberty of reproducing the scripts from the two episodes below. Many thanks to abc.go.com where I could watch the scenes repeatedly to get the exact wording from the shows. Enjoy! And keep your eyes open for little pro-life gems in the midst of everyday life.

From Episode 602: Lynette, working mother of four children, is pregnant with twins.  Lynette has been torn between her new position at work and her pre-born babies.  She is not sure if she wants to “keep” the babies;  she cried out to her husband, “I don’t love these babies!” in a previous episode. As we follow the story this week, her friend Susan’s daughter, Julie, was attacked and is in a coma in the hospital. Lynette blurts out that Julie may be pregnant so they won’t perform any harmful x-rays on her, and Susan wants to know how Lynette knows that Julie may be pregnant:

Lynette: I hear Julie opened her eyes; that’s great!

Susan: Yes, yes it is.

L: I’m sorry you’re mad at me.

S: I’m not mad. I just can’t understand why she went to you instead of me.

L: That day that Julie found me crying…the reason she opened up to me was because I told her…and no one else can know about this…that I’m pregnant.

S: You are…that’s amazing! Wait, why were you crying?

L: Oh, let’s see, I’m in my 40’s, my husband is back in school, I’m the sole bread-winner, I don’t know how I’m going to do this whole baby thing again, and also because…

S: What?

L: Because I can’t quiet that one voice in my mind that keeps saying, “Maybe I shouldn’t.”

S: Oh, honey.

L: Yeah.

S: Lynette, uh, you can do whatever you think it is you need to do.

L: (Sadly) Yeah, I know.  Lucky me.

S: It’s weird, everybody talks about a kid being a gift. It’s the only gift where you puke for nine months before you receive it and then scream the day it arrives.

L: (Chuckles) That’s true.

S: But they are a gift, Lynette. I know that because I’ve spent the last few hours thinking that I was going to lose mine. I realized that I would trade everything I own, I would give everything that I ever will have, for just one more day as Julie’s mom…but I’m not telling you what you should do.

L: Actually you are. And I’m glad you did.

If you are facing an unplanned pregnancy and don’t know what to do, please call the Option Line at 800.395.HELP (800.395.4357) or visit their website at www.optionline.org. If you have had an abortion in the past and are experience strong negative emotions associated with that decision, please also call the Option Line or visit their website for more information. They are there for you.

From Episode 605: Lynette fires a handyman (Roy) who told her she emasculates her husband, Tom, because she is always the one making all the decisions in their family. She is upset that Roy is judgmental of the leadership role she assumes in the marriage. Tom sees Roy on the porch across the street and goes to speak with him.

Tom:  Hey Roy, can I talk to you?

Ryan: Sure thing, pally. (Tosses Tom a beer.) Here, take a load off.

R: If it’s about me getting into it with your wife, though, I have to stop you first and say, “I’m sorry.”

T: Well, thanks.

R: I mean, I know times have changed, but a man’s still a man; and you deserve to have your wife respect you.

T: She respects me plenty, Roy. (Roy looks skeptical.)

T: Here’s the thing you gotta understand about Lynette. She grew up without her dad. Her mom was a drinker. So she had to be responsible for everyone.

R: Yeah, well, that’s rough.

T: Yeah..it left her with this constant fear that everything could suddenly fall apart. And that’s why she needs to control everything. Of course she can’t…nobody can…but she can control me…if I let her…so I do…because it makes her feel safe.  And that is my job as her husband…to make her feel safe.

R: You’re a good man, Scavo.

T: I try. Now I have a hamburger to fetch.

If you’d like to read more about biblical manhood and biblical womanhood, click here to go to the Council on Biblical Manhood & Womanhood.