Many eschew politics as tainted or corrupt. Even more difficult is the thought of working in and through the UN to make a positive difference in the world. Though we wash our hands of it, thankfully some remain to fight the fight, because a worldview (with billions of dollars attached to it) is at stake.
Austin Ruse of C-Fam has been slogging it out in New York for years, strafing anti-natalist policies hidden in literally mountains of clerical minutiae. With the help of a good congressman, he has just won an important battle:
In and unusual exchange this week in the US Congress, among the highest ranking UN officials admitted that the term "reproductive health" does not include abortion, at least in the context of the recently decided Millennium Summit Declaration.
The exchange came during a hearing of the US House Committee on International Relations when Congressman Chris Smith questioned Mark Malloch Brown, senior adviser to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan. Smith asked Brown three times if "reproductive health" included access to abortion. Brown finally admitted that it did not.
The Millennium Summit Declaration, decided two weeks ago after more than a year of negotiations, calls for "universal access to reproductive health by the year 2015." Pro-abortion forces at the UN prefer that these terms remain undefined so they can be interpreted broadly later on. Though the UN has never official defined "reproductive health" as including abortion, UN agencies and powerful non-government organizations interpret the term as including abortion and use it to pressure governments to change their laws. It is therefore extremely significant that one of the highest ranking officials in the UN Secretariat has admitted before a Congressional Committee that this interpretation is wrong.
This marks another in a series of ongoing victories for pro-lifers in the UN where the debate is almost always and tediously about the advance of abortion. Pro-abortion forces wanted the new Millennium Declaration to be chock full of vaguely pro-abortion language. What they got was a single mention of reproductive health that has now been announced by Kofi Annan's right hand man as excluding abortion.
To thank Congressman Smith, write to him at [email protected]. To thank Austin Ruse, pray for him, for his intentions, and if possible support this worthy group.
Comments
“People have realized that the complete removal of the feminine element from the Christian message is a shortcoming from an anthropological viewpoint. It is theologically and anthropologically important for woman to be at the center of Christianity."
This is just another of the unintended consequences of the cultural acceptance of contraception and abortion! Men's sexuality has been robbed of its creative essence. It is now viewed as something that imposes a burden on women (when conception happens to occur), something used to control women or something that is purely recreational. Why would men bother?? In taking away their responsibility, we've also robbed them of their significance! In the big picture of humanity, men have been made into nothing more than a nuisance women have to figure out how to control in order to bring about the next generation. Men don't see it as their task to protect the vulnerable because they see themselves as the vulnerable ones. A few well preserved vials of sperm would make men entirely obsolete in the world's ethos today!!
That is astounding Robin, and good for you for standing up. At the heart of that matter, I think, is even worse than a gender mixing message. There is an increased sharper and sharper focus on the "self." Solid Catholic teaching returns our focus away from ourselves to Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The original sin, Eve denied her womanhood when she desired to be like "gods." Since the only god she knew was the Father. Where was Adam? He stood impotent... in other words, they were divorced. There's a young girl at Robin's son's high school who was just told that she is the center of the universe and it's a tragic disservice to her.
Ditto what Mary said! A lot of high schools have very poor math and science depts, for boys and girls. I also am educated as a chemical engineer, but chose to teach the two years before we had children because its hours were more suited to spending time with children. (I was looking ahead). When it came time and I was pregnant with our first, I realized that I did not want to leave him with someone else, and was able to stay home full time. I am not sure it would have been that easy if we were used to another engineering income and not just a private school teacher income. Also some of my first job offers were out on oil rigs - I had no interest in that at all even though I enjoyed my engineering classes and did well in them. No one discouraged me from an engineering job, on the contrary I got a lot of flack for my decision not to pursue an engineering career.
I've been lurking, but this is one that irritates me. Beats the heck out of me what these "barriers" are. I was educated as a chemical engineer, where 1/3 of our class was women. However, in electrical engineering, only 1 or 2 out of 30 were women. Is it possible that women are Just Not Interested in some areas? Nah, it must be The Man keeping us down so we must legislate (and, I agree -- when they say "legistlate", I hear "quota"). And actually, I have a friend that was also a chemical engineer. When she lost her job, she decided not to go back into engineering and started working from home so she could spend more time with her 3 kids. Also, if nothing else, there are all kinds of incentives for women to enter science and engineering -- scholarships not available to men, guaranteed housing on campuses that do not guarantee housing to the general population, etc. I think you hit the nail on the head when you said that schools in general are not preparing students for the hard sciences. It is truly a sad state of affairs, the lack of science education these days.