ABORTION, STERILIZATION, CONTRACEPTION, FEMALE DISCRIMINATION.....TOOLS FOR POPULATION CONTROL

You will find the contents of this column hard to believe.

The topic involves population control. An innocent term on its face. Fearful in its application.

The United States has a federal agency titled Office of Population Affairs. It is part of the Department of Health and Human Services. Population Affairs is misleading. The agency name would be more honorably represented were it Office of Population Control.

It is the lead U.S. agency for family planning, reproductive health care services and research. Its specified purpose is to control or reduce the size of the U.S. population.

The agency was created by and has been funded by Congress since 1970.

Under the guise of family planning, the agency is pro-abortion, pro-sterilization, and pro-contraception. In pursuit of stemming population growth, the agency is concerned and plans for the day when Mother Earth will not be able to support and feed a too large population.

The agency has a Family Planning Clinic. One of its purposes is to rid women of unintended pregnancies.

The agency program is wrought with female discrimination. It requires parents to exercise reproductive responsibility. No more than a legally permitted number of children. One or two, as the law allows.

Forced sterilization is invoked at the time the legal number of children has been arrived at. The woman would be sterilized immediately following the birth of the prescribed number. It is recognized a man could obtain a vasectomy. A vasectomy is economically cheaper than female sterilization. However, the program also recognizes men are generally reluctant to engage in such procedures. As opposed to women who take them in stride.

Another form of suggested sterilization could occur at female puberty. A long term sterilizing capsule would be placed under a girl's skin. It would remain until official permission was obtained to conceive a child.

Some high ranking scientists support most if not all of what has been reported thus far.

A top scientific adviser to President Obama is John P. Holdren. He recommends limiting population growth by breaking down the world into geographical areas. Each area would be permitted only a specified number of births/people.

Holdren believes "compulsory population-control laws", including abortion, could be Constitutionally sustained if overpopulation became so severe as to endanger society. 

John Ehrlich was one of Bush 2's scientific advisers. He believed that only that number of births which could be sustained by the Earth should be permitted. His birth control position was best exemplified when he said....."Nobody, in my view, has the right to have 12 children or even 3, unless the second pregnancy is twins."

I became intrigued with the issue as developed herein after reading an excellent piece by the investigative reporter Michael Snyder. I have mentioned him before. He is top shelf. A guest post of his regarding the Office of Population Affairs appeared at Blacklistednews.com on 8/31/14. The article started me digging.

There is not much on the issue in simple easy to understand English. Statutory and regulatory language abounds. What is supposedly straight forward information in easy to understand English generally clouds or says nothing. The work of the agency is clothed in flowery language.

I am confused. We have a major continuing war in our country over the issue of abortion. The conservatives in the House of Representatives are generally anti-abortion.  Contraception has become an issue via Obamacare and two recent Supreme Court decisions. Female discrimination re their bodies and sexual rights is ongoing. Merely recall the comments of some Congressmen over the past several years. Sterilization is not an up front issue.....yet.

I can not understand how Congressmen can fight like hell in opposition to funding for abortions and contraception, and at the same time vote yearly to fund the Office of Population Affairs. It takes money to run the agency. All budgetary items begin with favorable passage by the House of Representatives.

A startling inconsistency exists. No to  all abortion and certain contraception fundings. Yes to funding an agency that supports pro-abortion, pro-sterilization and pro-contraception activities.

Considerable dollars are involved. The budget for the Office of Population Affairs from 2011-2014 was $280 million to $298 million. 

What's going on?

I suspect most Congressmen in many instances do not know what they are voting for. Probably neither they nor their staffs have read the legislation. On the other hand, if read perhaps they do not understand what they are reading. I reference you to my comment re flowery language. Whatever, the positions are grossly in opposition. 

The United Nations has an organization known as the United Nations Population Fund. The Fund supports government programs which promote forced abortions and coercive sterilizations. Presidents Reagan, Bush 1 and Bush 2 refused to permit American dollars to support the Fund. Bush 2 refused even after Congress had allocated the funds.

President Obama took office in January 2009. That same month, he permitted the funding to be restored. It was represented at the time that the United States had joined with 180 other donor nations to ".....reduce poverty, improve the health of women and children, prevent HIV/AIDS and provide family planning assistance  to women in 154 countries."

Why? Did Obama's people inadvertently mis-inform him? Did they read the refunding proviso? Did they understand? Did the issue of a United Nation funding which 154 other countries supported look like a good thing to join in on without comprehending the true impact of the Fund's work? Or..... perhaps the President knew what he was doing.

I don't know and it concerns me. Just as the activities of the Office of Population Affairs concern me.

HYPOCRISY

Do as I say, not as I do. A simple example of hypocrisy. Formally defined, a hypocrite is one who expresses zeal for those virtues which he neglects to practice.

 

My Church is guilty of hypocrisy. The Catholic Church. Specifically with regard to its positions on birth control and abortion.

 

The Catholic Church rejects contraception under any circumstances. Most recently with regard to Obamacare. The Church was opposed to Obamacare's provisions which would provide contraception coverage. Directly or indirectly. Even where Obama acceded to the Church's initial protestations and said that birth control would be paid for by the insurance company. In effect, the insurance company would provide the coverage free.

 

The Catholic Church rejected the President's solution. Instead the Church has gone to court claiming that any provision regarding contraception violated the Church's beliefs. Its religious beliefs. The court matter is in its early stages.

 

The Catholic Church uses as a primary spokesperson the United States Council of Catholic Bishops. The Council's present chairperson is Cardinal Timothy Dolan of the New York Archdiocese. The Cardinal recently was on the short list for election as Pope.

 

The Obamacare fight thus far has been limited to contraception. Abortion not an issue. It goes without saying that the Church abhors abortion.

 

A recent article by Sharon Otterman in the New York Times uncovered the factual basis warranting the hypocrisy charge. The article brought forth that the Archdiocese of New York for twelve or more years had been providing coverage to certain union medical employees for contraception. Also for voluntary pregnancy termination. A delicate way of referring to abortion.

 

Shocking! The same Archdiocese now headed by Cardinal Dolan. Who is also chairperson of the United States Council of Catholic Bishops. The organization in the forefront of the Obamacare contraception battle.

 

A Church spokesman suggested that the Archdiocese succumbed and accepted a union contract containing the contraception and abortion coverages under protest.The issue at the time was providing health care or violating the Church's religious beliefs. It was thought better to provide the coverages. It was said by the Church spokesperson that the issues of contraception and abortion would be left to the conscience of individual employees.

 

More than ten years later, the Church's position has become that the Obamacare provisions are unprecedented, intolerable, and a government intrusion on religious liberty. Where were these arguments back when the union contract was on the table? How can what passed muster years ago now become a horrible imposition on Catholicism?

 

The Archdiocese is not the only institution that has permitted contraception coverage. Fordham University is a Catholic institution. It provides contraception coverage not only for it employees, but also its students. Since 2002, New York State mandates agencies with standard commercial insurance to provide coverage for contraception services. Many Catholic agencies fall under the mandate.

 

Where was the Catholic Church when Fordham University did what they did? Where was the Catholic Church when New York State issued its mandate?

 

I have my own thoughts.

 

I believe the Catholic Church has become politically active to an extent never before experienced. The United States Council of Catholic Bishops has a budget of $26.6 million. Such a sum would better be spent feeding and sheltering the poor and homeless.

 

I suspect also that the Catholic Church has been goaded into and has become an ally of the Republican religious right. It has been reported that the Bishops became involved in the Obamacare fight only after consultation with the group.

 

I cannot get out of my head that Catholic Church hierarchy now seek the spotlight of the public pulpit. Enjoyably so from where I sit.

 

Something else sticks in my craw. What happened to free conscience? My Catholic upbringing taught me man has free conscience. God sets the rules. Man has the ability to follow the rules or not. In the exercise of free conscience.

 

Interestingly, free conscience was one of the reasons/excuses claimed for not vehemently protesting the contraception and abortion coverages to certain union employees many years ago. Provisions that remain intact to this day.

 

I still subscribe to the Church setting the rules. Then it is up to the laity to decide what rules they wish to follow. It is not the Church's role to go public as it has. Religion and government must remain separate. Salem witch hunts are a thing of the past.

 

I say to the Catholic Church.....Take care of my soul, not my laws. Leave it to me to judge issues and make judgments in the exercise of free conscience. The free conscience given to me by God.

HEAD ON CONFRONTATION

What goes around, comes around.

 

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

 

Beware of what you do as some day it may come back to bite you in the ass.

 

All appropriate sayings for the confrontation that is fomenting on the Boston College campus.

 

Recall when Catholic institutions and employers came out against that provision of Obamacare that required employers to provide contraceptive coverage to their employees. There was an immediate religious uprising. First, the religious right. Then the Catholic Church itself. The argument presented was that to force these institutions to participate was a violation of religious freedom.

 

Obama acquiesced. Catholic institutions were let off the hook. The insurance companies were required to provide contraceptive coverage free to employees of such institutions.

 

Boston College is an old and revered institution. Jesuit. Which means very doctrinaire. By the book. Their book.

 

What soon occurred was the end of the free flow of contraceptives and birth control information on campus.An aftermath of the Obamacare issue. Students were unhappy. They believed and still believe that they have a right to items of birth control and birth control information.

 

Necessity is the mother of invention. The students decided to provide condoms,

contraceptives for males and females, and birth control information to the student body. An organization was formed. The Boston College Students For Sexual Health. Actually nothing more than some dormitory rooms providing contraceptives and information. The dormitory rooms so designated became known as Safe Sites.

 

Boston College has told the students to cease and desist. The students refuse.

 

Boston College has a non-discriminatory clause. However, the clause has a reservation. The reservation reads that Boston College reserves  its ".....lawful rights where appropriate to take actions designed to promote the Jesuit, Catholic principles."

 

There is a problem, however. Federal and state laws do not permit Catholic institutions to discriminate on the basis of a person's religion.

 

The students claim Boston College is practising religious discrimination against them. Additionally, the students claim that a woman's equality is infringed upon. Birth control costs money. Female students can get it free through the student program. The College's position would prevent this.

 

A referendum was held on the Boston College campus regarding the issue. Ninety per cent voted in favor of the student program. The College was not impressed and remains adamant to this day with a clear and loud No!

 

Boston College recently advised that if the student program does not end, disciplinary action will be taken.

 

The ACLU has entered into the fray on behalf off the students.

 

The lines of battle are drawn. Boston College's initial right of freedom of religion versus the students' right not to be religiously discriminated against. As well as a woman's right not to be sexually discriminated against.

 

A WOW! Major Constitutionally protected religious rights in direct contradiction.

 

I am not sure where this is all going. My sense is that students' rights are superior to Boston College's in this fight.

 

Boston College played the religious card initially to escape an Obamacare requirement. Now the religious card is being used against the College.

 

Amusing.

 

A legal war of major proportions has begun! 

NEW POPE AND U.S. CATHOLIC SOCIAL ISSUES.....RESOLUTIONS?

A new Pope was announced to the world this week. Pope Francis.

 

Apparently a very holy and humble man. I wish him every success in guiding the Catholic Church through its trying times.

 

Some background. He is Argentine by birth. However, he is of Italian extraction. His father was born in Italy. A modest man. The new Pope dances to his own tune. He does things his way.

 

As an Argentine Cardinal, he was entitled to all that goes with the position. From a glamorous home to a limousine to drive him here and there to whatever. He shunned all these things. He lived in a small apartment. Cooked his own meals. Took the subway to his office each day.

 

Pope Francis was ordained a Jesuit. Jesuits are an order of priests within the Catholic Church. They are well educated and considered extremely intelligent. The primary purpose of a Jesuit is to give aid the poor. To assist in providing  basics such as food and shelter.

 

Jesuits are also doctrinaire. They read the Bible literally. What it says, it says. Period. No room for interpretation.

 

In 2010, Argentina recognized same sex marriage. Today's Pope Francis spoke out at the time. He disagreed with the law. Said it was not consistent with God's plan.

 

Argentina is part of the Latin American community. The community is still dealing with poverty. Basics such as of food and shelter. The things Pope Francis was most concerned with as a priest and then Cardinal in Argentina. He had his brush with same sex marriage.He disagreed. Matters such as priests marrying, a woman becoming Pope, dealing with the pedophile problem, birth control, and other matters of a social nature do not appear to have been on his plate. Pope Francis is accustomed to caring for the poor. A Latin American and Third World country problem. A full plate in and of itself.

 

There is significance in the new Pope taking the name of Francis. He took unto himself the name of St. Francis of Assisi. Saint Francis was a wealthy person. He gave all his riches to the poor. He then spent the rest of his life caring for the poor.

 

I doubt that the new Pope will have time to delve into the social ails of the U.S. Catholic Church. When and if he does, it will be in the doctrinaire fashion described before. The word itself with no deviation.

 

Which means in the final analysis that U.S. problems will basically remain unsolved. Priests will continue to be prohibited from marrying, a woman may not become Pope, birth control will be as it has for the past sixty years, gays will be shunned.

 

I smile when these issues arise in the context of the Church. Priests initially were permitted to marry. Some early Popes had wives. It is man made law, not God's law, that prohibits marriage. Jesus respected women. His mother Mary is a prime example. He also was a close friend of the prostitute Mary Magdalen. Such has no present impact on the woman becoming Pope issue. Women continue to be second class citizens. Birth control is an issue that has strangled Catholic and non-Catholic society for years. The fight by those against birth control will go on. Leaving otherwise devout Catholic women in a quandary. The mockery of God's universal love will continue by not recognizing the love between two persons of the same sex.

 

New York's Cardinal Dolan in an interview following the new Pope's election said he doubted the social problems concerning U.S. Catholics would gain attention or be resolved. Things would continue as they have been. A status quo. No solutions.

 

My thoughts answer the question raised in the title to this article. Resolutions? Few, if any.