Welcome to Call to Decision 

 

Friday Fax  March 19, 2009 | Volume 12, Number 14 Dear Colleague, We report today on the refunding of the UN Population Fund, a UN agency that assisted in setting up and running the Chinese one-child program which has resulted in millions of coerced abortions. The refunding of UNFPA once more brings into question the support Obama received from self-proclaimed pro-life Catholics and Evangelicals during the last campaign. We report also on a bill enacted by the Serbian parliament that includes radical notions of social policy. This is something we are seeing all over the globe, under pressure from the UN and the EU and no doubt soon from the US. Spread the word. Yours sincerely, Austin Ruse UNFPA to Receive Renewed US Funding   by Austin Ruse      (WASHINGTON, DC – C-FAM)  Though not confirmed, pro-abortion groups are reporting that the United States (US) State Department has released $50 million to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), money that had been withheld for eight years by the Bush Administration because of UNFPA complicity in China’s forced abortion program. This week the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR) praised President Barak Obama for the release of the funds and for living up to campaign promises.      Even if CRR is wrong, it is only for the moment. What is certain is that UNFPA will be refunded, as money for UNFPA was included in the Omnibus Appropriations bill just passed by both houses of Congress. In order for UNFPA to be refunded, however, the Congress had to come up with language that would place UNFPA outside consideration of what is known as Kemp-Kasten, which forbids US money from supporting groups complicit in forced abortions. Though Congress had appropriated money for UNFPA every year during the Bush years, it was contingent on the President certifying that UNFPA was not complicit in the Chinese one-child policy which has resulted in 50 million abortions, many of them forced.      The US and the United Kingdom both sent investigators to China in the 00’s to determine if UNFPA was complicit in the Chinese program. Both teams of investigators concluded that UNFPA did play a role in setting up the program, including technical assistance in devising computer tracking of Chinese women. The US team concluded that UNFPA did not knowingly support the Chinese program and urged the US to begin refunding the controversial agency. The State Department, however, determined that UNFPA was in violation of US law and funding was halted.      UNFPA advocates complained that withdrawal of US funds would result in the death of hundreds of thousands of women over the years. Putting aside the accuracy of such claims, in fact, the withdrawal of US funds resulted in a dramatic expansion in the UNFPA budget. Foreign governments were quick to replace withdrawn US funds many times over.      UNFPA consistently denies it has anything to do with abortion, though evidence to the contrary is overwhelming. UNFPA lobbyist consistently haunt UN negotiations to ensure that abortion-supportive language is included in new documents, sometimes threatening governments with losing money if they disagree. UNFPA intervened with Nicaragua’s legislature when it was considering banning abortion for any reason, a measure that eventually passed overwhelmingly.  UNFPA gave its annual highest award to the founder of China’s one-child policy and UNFPA personnel consistently praise the program.      UNFPA personnel have also been consistently hostile to Christian non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that lobby the UN. During the Cairo+5 negotiations in 1999, then-UNFPA chief Nafis Sadik invited a number of Muslim Ambassadors to her office where she berated them for working so closely with Christian NGOs.      Pro-abortion Congressmen are not going to be satisfied with the resumption of $50 million annually. A coalition of Democratic Congressmen has begun lobbying their colleagues to increase UNFPA funding to $530 million. www.c-fam.org European Union Pressures Serbiato Adopt “Gender Identity” Legislation by Katharina Rothweiler, Piero A. Tozzi, J.D.      (NEW YORK – C-FAM )  Serbia’s legislature has just passed a law providing for “freedom of expression of sexual orientation and gender identity” under pressure from the European Union (EU) and non-governmental organizations advocating homosexual rights. Passage of the legislation is understood to be a precondition for further Serbian reintegration with Europe, including the right to participate in an EU-wide visa waiver program allowing Serbs to travel freely among EU member states.      Proponents claim that the law, which also contains an array of human rights protections for minority groups like gypsies (or “Roma”), would help Serbia meet the “Copenhagen Criteria” – a checklist for EU membership that includes stable democratic institutions and human rights guaranties.      Critics charge, however, that nebulous “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” provisions create new “human rights” categories that will inhibit legitimate criticism of the homosexual lifestyle and undermine free speech and religious exercise guaranties.      Roger Kiska, an attorney with the Alliance Defense Fund and a close observer of the progress of the Serbian legislation, told the Friday Fax that the law creates a category of rights far broader than any currently in force in the various nations of the EU.  It also conflicts with Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guaranties freedom of thought, conscience and religion.        Kiska noted that the bill provides strict liability for discriminatory acts without regard to culpability, as well as a subjective standard for assessing “harassment,” as opposed to a “reasonable person” standard.      In response to Orthodox Church concerns, parliament revised an earlier version of the bill to protect clergy and religious officials from liability for actions consistent with Church doctrine or for seeking to preserve the integrity of ecclesial or religious communities.  A provision that explicitly outlawed discrimination against “transsexuals” was removed, though an alternative clause prohibiting discrimination based on “sex” or “change of sex” was proposed in its place.      Critics charge that this law is the latest example of the push to realize the coercive Yogyakarta Principles, a non-binding statement on gender identity and sexual orientation crafted by United Nations (UN) bureaucrats and civil society activists as a “norm” governing conduct. They note persistent advocacy by Human Rights Watch’s Boris Dittrich and other activists in promoting both the Serbian legislation and the Yogyakarta Principles.      Implementation of the Yogyakarta Principles among its member states was also promoted at the Council of Europe, a grouping distinct from the EU, last month. Last December France, as rotating head of the EU, spearheaded a statement at the UN General Assembly advancing “sexual orientation and gender identity” – which the Obama administration announced it would now support – as a human rights category. Dutch Foreign Affairs Minister Maxime Verhagan explicitly used the occasion of the French-led statement to promote the Yogyakarta Principles.        Serbia’s apparent capitulation to EU demands may not, however, be enough to gain admission to the 27-member club. While a number of nations led by Italy and the United Kingdom hope to see Serbia join the EU, Germany and Holland are reportedly opposed to expanding the Union to include Serbia and other Balkan nations.    Editor in Chief  –  Austin Ruse Managing Editor  –  Piero Tozzi