Gendercide: China’s shameful massacre of unborn girls means there will soon be 30m more men than women (Daily Mail)

EXCERPT:

By the year 2020, there will be 30 million more men than women of marriageable age in this giant empire, so large and so different (its current population is 1,336,410,000) that it often feels more like a separate planet than just another country. Nothing like this has ever happened to any civilisation before.

The nearest we can come to it is the sad shortage of men after the First World War in Britain, France, Russia and Germany, and the many women denied the chance of family life and motherhood as a result.

…

The Chinese state, never having intended this result and increasingly alarmed by it, is now using all its huge propaganda resources to try to stop the slaughter of unborn girls.

But it will be hard to fight against the cold hard prejudice in favour of sons and against daughters, rooted in a prehistoric belief that sons will care for their aged parents while daughters will cost money in dowries, and desert to the families into which they marry.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1265068/China-The-worlds-new-superpower-beginning-century-supremacy-alarming-surplus-males.html#ixzz0kljLVR68

China and a Canadian Newspaper call for worldwide one-child policy

This comes from the left end of the political spectrum and presents what may simply be rhetorical posturing, or a harbinger of the next big issue.  Aside from a one-child policy we can expect it to trickle into areas having to do with euthanasia, health care, etc. 

China has recently been calling for an international one-child policy as an answer to global warming, with perhaps the most chilling observation from http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2009-12/10/content_9151129.htm, being a statement from Zhao Baige, vice-minister of National Population and Family Planning Commission of China (NPFPC), “Although China’s family planning policy has received criticism over the past three decades, Zhao said that China’s population program has made a great historic contribution to the well-being of society. . . . . She admitted that China’s population program is not without consequences, as the country is entering the aging society fast and facing the problem of gender imbalance.”

The issue of “gender imbalance” in China has occurred as female babies are disproportionately aborted in response to the policy. We will be watching these developments closely.  RLTV Editor

 Editor

EXCERPT:

 

The fix is simple. It’s dramatic. And yet the world’s leaders don’t even have this on their agenda in Copenhagen. Instead there will be photo ops, posturing, optics, blah-blah-blah about climate science and climate fraud, announcements of giant wind farms, then cap-and-trade subsidies.

None will work unless a China one-child policy is imposed. Unfortunately, there are powerful opponents. Leaders of the world’s big fundamentalist religions preach in favor of procreation and fiercely oppose birth control. And most political leaders in emerging economies perpetuate a disastrous Catch-22: Many children (i. e. sons) stave off hardship in the absence of a social safety net or economic development, which, in turn, prevents protections or development.

China has proven that birth restriction is smart policy. Its middle class grows, all its citizens have housing, health care, education and food, and the one out of five human beings who live there are not overpopulating the planet.

For those who balk at the notion that governments should control family sizes, just wait until the growing human population turns twice as much pastureland into desert as is now the case, or when the Amazon is gone, the elephants disappear for good and wars erupt over water, scarce resources and spatial needs.

Read the full article at: http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=2314438

Obama makes plans to remove ‘conscience clause’ for health-care workers

• White House set to reverse health care conscience clause (CNN)
• U.S. Senator Says He Would Practice Civil Disobedience If Obama Repeals Abortion ‘Conscience Clause’ (CNSNews)
• Obama Moves to Undo Rule on Abortion Providers (New York Times)
• Obama administration may rescind ‘conscience rule’ (Chicago Tribune)
• Statement by the Christian Medical Association
• FRC Deplores Obama’s Expected Action Against Conscience Protections (Family Research Council)

From http://www.catholicculture.org/news/headlines/index.cfm?storyid=2164

Judge Bork predicts ‘terrible conflict’ will endanger U.S. Catholics’ religious freedom (CNA)

EXCERPT:

Washington DC, Jan 21, 2009 / 03:19 am (CNA).- Former Supreme Court nominee Judge Robert Bork has predicted that upcoming legal battles will have significant ramifications for religious freedom. He names as issues of major concern the continued freedom of Catholic hospitals to refuse to perform abortions and the likely “terrible conflict” resulting from the advancement of homosexual rights.

Speaking in an interview published Tuesday by Cybercast News Service, Judge Bork discussed the contentious nature of modern politics.

“Everything is up for debate these days. I can’t think of anything that isn’t,” he said.

“You are going to get Catholic hospitals that are going to be required as a matter of law to perform abortions,” he claimed.

“We are going to see in the near future a terrible conflict between claimed rights of homosexuals and religious freedom… You are going to get Catholic or other groups’ relief services that are going to be required to allow adoption of a child by homosexual couples.  We are going to have a real conflict that goes right to the heart of the society.”

Asked whether there was a freedom of conscience clause anywhere in the Constitution that might prohibit the U.S. government from compelling a religious hospital to perform abortions, he replied:

“Well, the free exercise of religion clause might fulfill that role.”

The 2008 Election – Religion, the Economy, and Values Voters (AP)

Eric Gorski of the Associated Press has written a fascinating article about the issues that Americans are concerned about this election season.

Religion today
By Eric Gorski – September 25, 2008 

“For years, more liberal faith leaders have tried to elevate fighting poverty at home and abroad onto the values agenda. What’s changed is that an increasing number of voters are seeing suffering not just in the streets but in the mirror.

“Barriers remain to both major parties if they seek to appeal to religious voters on the economy. You’re either for or against gay marriage or abortion rights, but no one supports foreclosures and layoffs. Differences arise over solutions, and analysts say it can make more sense for campaigns to make general pitches on the economy than faith-based appeals.”

Read the full article at http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ghGk5Lj6-e5KJOZMpIzs-pBPVnTAD93DNL180

“The Abortion Controversy” by John V. Stevens, Sr.

by Gregory W. Hamilton, President

The Northwest Religious Liberty Association (http://www.nrla.com)

You can purchase the book [amazonify]0981587003::text::::The Abortion Controversy[/amazonify] from Amazon.

The official book website is located at http://www.theabortioncontroversy.com

John V. Stevens, Sr.

The Abortion Controversy addresses the many myths surrounding just that: the historic abortion controversy in America—theologically, ethically, scientifically, politically, constitutionally, and socially.

More important, John V. Stevens, Sr., focuses on its affect on the distinct roles of church and state. For example, how is the issue of abortion and the so-called immortality of the soul assigned to the fetus—also referred to as the “sacred gift of life”—being used as a tool by Rome and Evangelical leaders to shift the balance of power between church and state in America and Europe back to the medieval model of a church that once dominated and controlled the agenda of the state, and dictated its will to kings and emperors? This is a central theme throughout.

In many respects, John’s groundbreaking book combines, as does nothing ever published before or since, the art of understanding political science, or the making of public policy, with prophetic or biblical insight. Revealed through that insight is the inherent danger of wittingly or unwittingly using what many of America’s conservative Evangelical and Catholic faithful—including yours truly—consider to be a vitally important moral and social issue, as a means of securing political power.

Issues involving “life” go beyond abortion to include such questions as the use of discarded human embryos in stem-cell research, euthanasia, and birth control—all once primarily Catholic issues. Whether or not these issues can be assigned motives, they remind me of the art of espionage, in which purposeful misdirection and deception are used to further larger and more central hidden agendas. And as with modern medical science and drug usage, there is the unwitting aspect—the law of unintended consequences.

For example, Seventh-day Adventist church pioneer and national reformer Ellen G. White warned that many apparently noble issues—including the heated political matter of temperance and prohibition in her day—would attach themselves to sinister attempts (that is, premeditated movements that went far beyond the control and original intent of their founders) that would rob people of their basic civil and religious liberties.

One of these was a national Sunday closing law, which violated the Establishment Clause separating church and state in the First Amendment. Today, such “catalyst” issues to which John refers—specifically abortion—ultimately result, he argues, in what Ellen White foresaw as the rise and development and establishment of the prophetic “image of the beast.” As the oppression of a Roman church that for centuries dominated the will and purposes of kings and emperors, so too in America would it rear its ugly head again, in the land where religious freedom is presently guaranteed.

Highlighting Revelation 13, verse 14, White wrote, “[As did] the papacy, a church that controlled the power of the state and employed it to further her own ends,” so too, “in order for the United States to form an image of the beast [in the likeness of Rome], the religious power[s] must so control the civil government that the authority of the state will also be employed by the church to accomplish her own ends” (The Great Controversy, p. 443). This formula is making its way, whether one sees the movement as deliberate and intentional, or not.

Every Christian and non–Christian should read this provocative but insightful book. Doing so might just might make you rethink everything you believe about the issue of “life.”

You can purchase the book [amazonify]0981587003::text::::The Abortion Controversy[/amazonify] from Amazon.

Proposal Would Deny Federal Money if Employees Must Provide Medical Care to Which They Object (WashingtonPost.com)

The Bush Administration has proposed new regulations which would deny federal money to medical facilities if they required employees to act against their religious conscience in providing certain health benefits.  This raises a number of pertinent questions:

Does this go too far, or is it just what religious employees need?  Is the proposed regulation too broad, or just right?  Should the regulation define what types of procedures should be included in religious objections, or should it be open-ended? Should it have been heard in Congress as a bill, or is the regulatory method of submitting it into law sufficient?

EXCERPT:

Workers’ Religious Freedom vs. Patients’ Rights
Proposal Would Deny Federal Money if Employees Must Provide Care to Which They Object
By Rob Stein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, July 31, 2008; A01

EXCERPT:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/30/AR2008073003238_pf.html

A Bush administration proposal aimed at protecting health-care workers who object to abortion, and to birth-control methods they consider tantamount to abortion, has escalated a bitter debate over the balance between religious freedom and patients’ rights.

The Department of Health and Human Services is reviewing a draft regulation that would deny federal funding to any hospital, clinic, health plan or other entity that does not accommodate employees who want to opt out of participating in care that runs counter to their personal convictions, including providing birth-control pills, IUDs and the Plan B emergency contraceptive.

Conservative groups, abortion opponents and some members of Congress are welcoming the initiative as necessary to safeguard doctors, nurses and other health workers who, they say, are increasingly facing discrimination because of their beliefs or are being coerced into delivering services they find repugnant.

But the draft proposal has sparked intense criticism by family planning advocates, women’s health activists, and members of Congress who say the regulation would create overwhelming obstacles for women seeking abortions and birth control.

There is also deep concern that the rule could have far-reaching, but less obvious, implications. Because of its wide scope and because it would — apparently for the first time — define abortion in a federal regulation as anything that affects a fertilized egg, the regulation could raise questions about a broad spectrum of scientific research and care, critics say.

Read the full article at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/07/30/AR2008073003238_pf.html

Professor Steven Calabresi on Enforcing Morality (Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy)

In this essay published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, Steven Calabresi, the George C. Dix Professor of Constitutional Law, Northwestern University School of Law, comments on Judge Robert Bork’s thought-provoking book, Slouching Towards Gomorrah, specifically focusing on governmental efforts to enforce morality.  Calabresi argues that there is a place in the government for legislating morality.

“This Essay explores that topic by seeking to shed additional light on two fundamental questions raised by Judge Bork’s book. First, what is the proper relationship between law, religion, and morality? Second, is it appropriate for the government to punish adult consensual conduct that does not directly harm other individuals, such as drug dealing and possession, prostitution, suicide, and for that matter professional boxing or dueling? I will address these two topics in turn.”

A short excerpt and then a link:

Legalizing drugs, prostitution, and assisted suicide could and probably would produce an explosion of such self-destructive behavior. After legalization, the government could itself encourage immoral behavior: (1) by selling drugs in state-owned, for-profit stores (the way some states continue to sell alcohol), (2) by running state-owned brothels to raise tax revenue, or (3) by encouraging elderly Medicare patients to consider assisted suicide to keep welfare costs down. Like it or not, the law teaches moral lessons, and people, especially in America, are quite prone to believe that what is legal is also moral.

 

Read the full essay (in PDF format) at http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol31_No2_Calabresionline.pdf

Thanks to Howard Friedman for posting a link to this piece on his blog at http://religionclause.blogspot.com/2008/06/recently-available-scholarly-article-of.html