That's the average daily abortion rate in China, and you can be sure that the great majority of those abortion--13 million yearly--are targeted at baby girls. That is the impetus for this firm reminder from US Rep. Christopher Smith:
“The war on women is very real, and it’s being employed by the Chinese government every day of the week against Chinese women, including mothers, but also against unborn baby girls who are killed simply because they happen to be female,” Smith said.
“And the number of sex-selection abortions in China has no parallel,” Smith said. “It is the direct consequence of the one-child-per-couple policy, and unfortunately, the Obama administration has given money to the very organization – the (United Nations) population fund – that defends to the hilt the one-child-per-couple policy and says it ought to be replicated around the world.”
A 2011 report by the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy states that in 2000 more than half of abortions in China were a result of prenatal sex selection.
Smith called the Democrat charge [that Republicans are waging a war on women] “nonsense” and said that the Obama administration should be helping Chen and his battle against the Chinese government’s forced abortion and sterilization policies.
“They ought to be standing firm with Chen Guangcheng and fighting for his asylum and, on an every day basis, be fighting against China’s forced abortion policy,” Smith said.
Instead, the Obama administration is following China's lead on family planning programs--not only at the UN but in the US--which begin with free hand-outs and end up with coercion on the government dime.
And to the Church's shame, a “Catholic” institution will give a soap-box to the head of the program for one of its graduation events:
Former governor of Kansas and current secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, will be addressing the Georgetown Public Policy Institute.
That explains why when Chen risked everything to escape to the US embassy in China, he saw for himself what our government prioritises:
Chinese dissident Chen Guangcheng, who has suffered years of imprisonment and beatings for objecting to forced abortions and sterilizations in his native country, thought he could find shelter and friendship in the United States embassy following his recent escape from house arrest. He is now learning the hard way that the pro-abortion Obama administration, which helps to finance the same “one-child policy” that Chen is fighting, would rather see him disappear.
While Americans are in a lather over the HHS mandate to provide "free" contraceptives to all who want them (paid for by all, despite the moral objections of many) such policies have long been in the making on an international level.
The Yogyakarta Principles are a set of principles on the application of international human rights law in relation to sexual orientation and gender identity. The Principles affirm binding international legal standards with which all States must comply. They promise a different future where all people born free and equal in dignity and rights can fulfil that precious birthright.
If sexual expression is a birthright, then it joins the fundamental rights of life and liberty, and must be provided for everyone on the planet, no matter what obstacles cultural norms create. That means that there is no difference between the Muslim endorsement of child brides and polygamy and the Christian call for chastity and fidelity within marriage. Both would be wrong if a young girl wished to express herself as a lesbian, as a prostitute or as a mymphomaniac. No one can tell her "no."
Ubiquitous, sterile sex is the panacea for the left, and is foundational to those who support the Yogyakarta Principles. It will only work if there is:
sex without babies
sex outside of marriage
sex with whomever we want
sex at any age
sex without commitment
sex without any ties or bonds (and babies ruin it!)
This has been the mantra of the UN population control people for years, and this has been the mantra of the SEICUS people who have been corrupting our children's education for decades.
Once people assume they have a right to sex without any restrictions, then it creates a market for abortion, which is lucrative ($$ billions annually).
The only thing better than sex without any commitment or restrictions is making it free -- i.e. making the taxpayers foot the bill. This has been in the works a long time. Pope Paul VI knew this when he wrote Humanae Vitae, and the Catholic Church has been holding the line (alone!) on this for years.
While the HHS manual is primarily a question of religious liberty, it is also a teaching moment to show how contraception has been an integral part of sexual license, promiscuity in all realms of society, and the destruction of the traditional family. Please inform yourselves of the link between contraception and divorce, abortion and sex trafficking. Pope Paul VI was right:
We take this opportunity to address those who are engaged in education and all those whose right and duty it is to provide for the common good of human society. We would call their attention to the need to create an atmosphere favorable to the growth of chastity so that true liberty may prevail over license and the norms of the moral law may be fully safeguarded.
Everything therefore in the modern means of social communication which arouses men's baser passions and encourages low moral standards, as well as every obscenity in the written word and every form of indecency on the stage and screen, should be condemned publicly and unanimously by all those who have at heart the advance of civilization and the safeguarding of the outstanding values of the human spirit. It is quite absurd to defend this kind of depravity in the name of art or culture (25) or by pleading the liberty which may be allowed in this field by the public authorities (HV, 22).
The American Vice-President is a Catholic who doesn't seem to mind pandering on behalf of the most pro-abortion White House in history. His latest mouthful of horror was offered while visiting China, to whom his country is deeply in debt. Deeply in debt. That said, there are ethics, and there is realpolitik -- the latter shredding the former much like the way that humanity is being shredded across the vast Asian continent.
The following is a portion of Vice-President Joseph Biden's remarks in which he responds to a question about the deficit and America's need to curb spending:
So the savings will be accomplished. But as I was talking to some of your leaders, you share a similar concern here in China. You have no safety net. Your policy has been one which I fully understand -- I’m not second-guessing -- of one child per family. The result being that you’re in a position where one wage earner will be taking care of four retired people. Not sustainable.
So hopefully we can act in a way on a problem that's much less severe than yours, and maybe we can learn together from how we can do that.
Interestingly, he points out that there is a harsh financial price to be paid when limiting families to one child: it is not sustainable. But what he glosses over in that equation (each worker supporting four elderly relatives) is the means by which they arrive at this state of affairs -- mandatory sterilisations and forced abortions. But he's not second-guessing that!
Let this woman make it clear to you what is involved:
Even many "pro-choice" advocates can see that this is inhuman -- and yet the aging, fatherly civil servant dares not interfere with the internal policy of the nation to whom we owe money. In fact, we might link arms and chat about how many babies can be sacrificed on the altar of economic growth while not adversely impacting the twilight years of their would be grand-parents.
For shame! Thankfully, the American Speaker of the House (also Catholic), John Boehner responded forcefully:
I’m deeply troubled by the comments reportedly made by the Vice President yesterday regarding China’s reprehensible one-child policy, which has resulted in forced sterilizations and coerced abortions and should not be condoned by any American official. No government on Earth has the authority to place quotas on the value of innocent human life, or to treat life as an economic commodity that can be regulated and taken away on a whim by the state. I hope and trust that the Vice President didn’t actually say what has been reported, and that a correction or clarification from the White House will be forthcoming. The Obama administration should be focusing on jobs for the American people, not encouraging foreign governments to utilize abortion as a means of population and deficit control.
All the deficit control in the world cannot justify killing the most vulnerable among us. This will soon become even more complicated with our own aging population, as fewer young people are asked to bear the costs of sustaining them. That is when aborting our own will logically lead to rationing care for those who acquiesced to such a calculating society. A cold logic that.
Singapore, which is suffering an alarming population decline, is asking its citizens to consider marriage as the establishment of a new family rather than simply a means of finding a "soul mate." This video wanders into a some questionable humour but manages to make an important point. I think overall the campaign is a good one and removes the fairy tale nonsense from married life in order to replace it with the reality of sacrificial love.
The "sustainable development commission" in England is about to make a proposal:
COUPLES who have more than two children are being “irresponsible” by creating
an unbearable burden on the environment, the government’s green adviser has
Jonathon Porritt, who chairs the government’s Sustainable Development
Commission, says curbing population growth through contraception and
abortion must be at the heart of policies to fight global warming. He says
political leaders and green campaigners should stop dodging the issue of
environmental harm caused by an expanding population.
There are two important arguments against this. The first is that it's an effort to justify population control measures in third world countries where the families greatly value (and simply need) more children. Many still die of curable diseases and many hands are needed in labour-intensive economies. This is wrong and bad -- and it's racist. "Less from the unfit" (Sanger) is their motto behind closed doors.
Secondly, it ignores the fact that in developed countries, larger families consume less overall goods because of the economy and oblation necessary. Clothes are passed on or shared, extra-curriculars are minimised because of the family dynamic already present, each expenditure is shared (strollers, skates, cars, books, etc.) and these children simply learn to need less as they mimic the requisite generosity of the parents.
The premise about environmental costs assumes that each child will be outfitted and pampered to the nth degree. Larger families operate differently. Thus the outlay of a family with two children is usually far greater than one with six. (Now college is a different matter, but there are ways to cope with those ridiulous costs, which may even be rigged partially for this end.)
A report by the commission, to be published next month, will say that
governments must reduce population growth through better family planning.
Porritt, a former chairman of the Green party, says the government must
improve family planning, even if it means shifting money from curing illness
to increasing contraception and abortion.
Thus self-control is not even an option -- let the elderly and sick die, kill the children. These are very unpleasant people, wouldn't you say?
In the end, larger families will have more children to contribute their sane thoughts in the public square than those who limit their children. They will also bear the burden of supporting the aging population. If I had a choice in my nursing home, I'd love a cheerful nurse from a large family who has the people skills and abundant virtues learned in a large family. What are the odds...?
Dear Joanna Bogle turns our attention to a despicable act by the British government--to create a postage stamp in honour of Margaret Sanger.
She's been chosen as one of various British women to be so honoured.
This is a gross and offensive thing to have done: she was anti-semitic,
sent a book of poems to Hitler as a gift with a gushing letter, and
believed that people she considered "defective" (poor eyesight,
physically handicapped, ill) should be prevented from having children...
For more details about her "professional" contributions to our fair world, consider her associations with eugenicists and financial backers to eliminate those who imperiled Western "civilisation:"
The book, "Fatal Misconception: The Struggle to Control World Population,"
was written by Columbia University historian Matthew Connelly and shows
why today's reproductive rights advocates are "faithfully reciting a
eugenic catechism without the faintest idea where it comes from or
where it can lead."
In 1952, at a secret, invitation-only gathering in Colonial
Williamsburg, John D. Rockefeller III brought together what would
become the modern population control establishment. Setting the agenda
for the following decades were the heads of the United States Atomic
Energy Commission, National Academy of Sciences, and top scientists
"from embryology to economics," including past and present Nobel Prize
From verbatim transcripts of the "Conference on Population Problems,"
just one of the countless number of such meetings the book exposes,
Connelly found that what drove them were the questions of how many
people the world could hold along with "whether 'industrial development
should be withheld' from poor, agrarian countries like India." By
decreasing mortality and encouraging "breeding," development would
increase inferior populations and further degrade "the genetic quality
of the human race." They decided radical measures to reduce birthrates
were justified in order to save "Western Civilization" from being
dragged down by the growing humanitarian demands of Third World
Thus was born the Population Council, which would in turn become the
nexus of the entire population control movement, going on to coordinate
the work of the United Nations, the Ford and Rockefeller foundations,
International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) - founded three
weeks later - as well as major pharmaceutical firms.
The founder of IPPF, Margaret Sanger, selected for its first
director general the psychologist C. P. Blacker, who called for a
strategy of "crypto-eugenics," saying "you seek to fulfill the aims of
eugenics without disclosing what you are really aiming at and without
mentioning the word."
When Nehru presented India's first population-limitation policy in
December 1952, the population establishment found a willing government
that would allow them to start experimenting on its people to find a
cheap contraceptive "to be used in poverty stricken slums, jungles and
among the most ignorant people," as Margaret Sanger put it. Years
later, Planned Parenthood would import the experiments back into poor
neighborhoods in the United States. Sanger said, "I believe that now,
immediately there should be national sterilization for certain dysgenic
types of our population who are being encouraged to breed and would die
out were the government not feeding them."
Now, the last gasp of the British Empire is to honour a woman who wanted to weed out the very citizens who made up that "global village." Who knew that the real white man's burden would be to eliminate the ignorant and decimate the slum-dwellers?
How does this square with the push for multi-culturalism in England today and the refusal of the immigrants to assimilate? Talk about mixed messages--"lack of disclosure" has its own grim sense of humour.
Yes: Carrie Bradshaw is alive and well and living in Warsaw. Well, not just Warsaw. Conceived and raised in the United States, Carrie may still see New York as a spiritual home. But today you can find her in cities across Europe, Asia, and North America. Seek out the trendy shoe stores in Shanghai, Berlin, Singapore, Seoul, and Dublin, and you’ll see crowds of single young females (SYFs) in their twenties and thirties, who spend their hours working their abs and their careers, sipping cocktails, dancing at clubs, and (yawn) talking about relationships. Sex and the City has gone global; the SYF world is now flat.
She outlines the demographics and what the numbers bespeak, and how morals have changed radically from the days of the first well-known SYF, Mary Richards (remember, who worked for Lou Grant...?)
By the late 1990s, the SYF lifestyle was fully globalized. Indeed, you might think of SYFs as a sociological Starbucks: no matter how exotic the location, there they are, looking and behaving just like the American prototype. They shop for shoes in Kyoto, purses in Shanghai, jeans in Prague, and lip gloss in Singapore; they sip lattes in Dublin, drink cocktails in Chicago, and read lifestyle magazines in Kraków; they go to wine tastings in Boston, speed-dating events in Amsterdam, yoga classes in Paris, and ski resorts outside Tokyo. “At the fashionable Da Capo Café on bustling Kolonaki Square in downtown Athens, Greek professionals in their 30s and early 40s luxuriate over their iced cappuccinos,” a Newsweek International article began last year. “Their favorite topic of conversation is, of course, relationships: men’s reluctance to commit, women’s independence, and when to have children.” Thirty-seven-year-old Eirini Perpovlov, an administrative assistant at Associated Press, “loves her work and gets her social sustenance from her parea, or close-knit group of like-minded friends.”
Sure sounds similar to this July’s Time story about Vicky, “a purposeful, 29-year-old actuary who . . . loves nothing better than a party. She and her friends meet so regularly for dinner and at bars that she says she never eats at home anymore. As the pictures on her blog attest, they also throw regular theme parties to mark holidays like Halloween and Christmas, and last year took a holiday to Egypt.” At the restaurant where the reporter interviews them, Vicky’s friends gab about snowboarding, iPods, credit-card rates, and a popular resort off the coast of Thailand. Vicky, whose motto is “work hard, play harder,” is not from New York, London, or even Athens; she’s from the SYF delegation in Beijing, China, a country that appears to be racing from rice paddies to sushi bars in less than a generation—at least for a privileged minority.
With no children or parents to support, and with serious financial hardship a bedtime story told by aging grandparents, SYFs have ignited what The Economist calls the “Bridget Jones economy”—named, of course, after the book and movie heroine who is perhaps the most famous SYF of all.
No wonder birth rates are plummeting. These women are sexually available, hard-pressed to find husbands, even less willing to cash it all in for diapers and personal oblation.
To keep a population stable, or at its “replacement level,” women must have an average of at least 2.1 children. Under the New Girl Order, though, women delay marriage and childbearing, which itself tends to reduce the number of kids, and sometimes—because the opportunity costs of children are much higher for educated women—they forgo them altogether. Save Albania, no European country stood at or above replacement levels in 2000. Three-quarters of Europeans now live in countries with fertility rates below 1.5, and even that number is inflated by a disproportionately high fertility rate among Muslim immigrants. Oddly, the most Catholic European countries—Italy, Spain, and Poland—have the lowest fertility rates, under 1.3. Much of Asia looks similar. In Japan, fertility rates are about 1.3. Hong Kong, according to the CIA’s World Factbook, at 0.98 has broken the barrier of one child per woman.
You knew that already. What to do, short of wishing that a Y2K bug demolishes the viral culture, we must pray like mad and put it in God's hands. He loves these girls -- every one. We must, also. Our motherly ethos -- physical and spiritual is diminishing, but not extinguished. There were so few women under the cross, but they have nourished the world for two millennia. Let's simply do our small part in faith.