November 20th is Universal Children’s Day, an event created by the UN to mark the day that they adopted the Declaration of the Rights of the Child. It reads,

Whereas the United Nations has, in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, proclaimed that everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth therein, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status,

Whereas the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth, […]

Whereas mankind owes the child the best is has to give,

Austin Ruse has called the UN a “paper tiger”, stating that it only has the power people are willing to give it. Officially, the UN has adopted those aforementioned rights for children (they’re a beautiful thing to read actually). Unofficially, the UN Human Rights Commission has blatantly acted as if those rights and charters do not exist, imposing their own ideals in various publications, charters and frameworks. Over the past few years, they have aggressively campaigned to criticize and coerce countries (like Ireland) into upholding what they call the Benefits of Scientific Progress,

which obligates governments to ensure the availability of reproductive technologies such as modern contraceptives, access to safe abortion services…

On this November 20th, maybe it’s time UN Commissions were reminded of all the UN adopted rights they violate. You can contact the UN Human Rights Commission at [email protected]

Think the UN made abortion a human right? Think again.

 It is now commonplace that people around the world are told there is a new international right to abortion.

Those who receive this message are people who have the power to change abortion laws; parliamentarians, lawyers, judges and others.
Those delivering this message are influential and believable people; UN personnel, human rights lawyers, judges and others.

The assertion they make is false. No UN treaty makes abortion an international human right.

So the San Jose Articles were born, as a tool to help countries and their citizens stand up to these false claims. Read them, print them, reference them, and pass them along.

Recently, there has been a lot of debate around the national population growth in Canada, many people fearing that there simply aren’t enough Canadians (and nowhere near enough Nova Scotians), once populated industrial towns now only operate senior centres. For me, these are negatve arguments to make, as they make me feel like part of the GDP and less like a human being. I’ve heard the statistic of 2.1 children needed for every fertile female, and this insinuates that I have a social, dare I say patriotic, obligation to have at least that many. Conversely, I don’t want to be told that the fewer children I have, the better it is for the world. This too turns my reproductivity into a social and patriotic act, a duty and a commodity. But of course, we aren’t saying both of these things to Canadian women, we’re saying a little more here, and a little less there.

Yes, of course, the developed world should decrease its consumption – and the co-benefit of providing women with services to avoid unwanted pregnancies is particularly large in the UK because of its high per capita emissions. But does she realise that a reduction of 8-15% in carbon emissions can be obtained by providing family planning to all women who want it. This reduction would be equivalent to stopping all deforestation, or increasing the world’s use of wind power 40-fold.

Here, the writer is speaking about those poorer regions of our world. Those who she claims “want” family planning but don’t have it. I would like to point out, that most of the women I have heard interviewed from those poorer countries don’t want to keep getting pregnant but are never asked if they want to have as much sex as they’re having. Many want something they can hide, keep secret from partners etc. This, to me, illustrates that it’s not a family planning issue so much as a women’s rights issue. Shouldn’t they have the freedom to say no to sex? Should we really be giving them contraception and telling them to stop having children, in the name of having a little less there and a little more here?

Studies have consistently shown that time is of the essence when it comes to getting children to their adoptive homes. The older a child gets, the harder it is to place them in permanent homes, but when we focus our resources on adoption the percentages for adopted children, even the most difficult to place, rise.

A new study suggests that so-called “unadoptables” — older foster children with disabilities, behavior problems or siblings — can find permanent homes, even in states such as Minnesota, which has lagged behind others in placing children.

Foster children were 1.7 times more likely to be adopted when “child-focused” recruiters helped them find new parents […]

“It’s one more person in there that can help support the kids,” she said. […]

She said the state is seeking to improve foster care adoptions in other ways. The University of Minnesota is unveiling a new certification program to train counselors and therapists to work with adopted children and to keep adoptive families intact.

A picnic is also scheduled in Oakdale next week to highlight the 588 foster care adoptions in Minnesota last year and to call attention to the children still awaiting permanent homes.

You can find out more about how to support adoption efforts in your area here, or check out Wendy’s Wonderful Kids.

A free public lecture is taking place tomorrow at St. Michael’s College, University of Toronto exploring links between abortion and breast cancer.

If you asked the average Canadian if they were satisfied (not happy, just satisfied) with their life, 78 percent would say yes. But if you asked the average person with Down Syndrome if they were happy, that percentage would shoot up to nearly 99%.

This study asks people with Down syndrome (DS), ages 12 and
older, about their self-perception so that their information could
be shared with new and expectant parents of children with DS.
We analyzed valid and reliable survey instruments from 284
people with DS on the mailing lists of 6 non-profit DS organizations around the country. Among those surveyed, nearly 99%
of people with DS indicated that they were happy with their lives,
97%liked who they are, and 96%liked howthey look. Nearly 99%
people with DS expressed love for their families, and 97% liked
their brothers and sisters. While 86% of people with DS felt they
could make friends easily, those with difficulties mostly had
isolating living situations. A small percentage expressed sadness
about their life. In our qualitative analysis, people with DS
encouraged parents to love their babies with DS, mentioning
that their own lives were good. They further encouraged healthcare professionals to value them, emphasizing that they share
similar hopes and dreams as people without DS. Overall, the
overwhelming majority of people with DS surveyed indicate they
live happy and fulfilling lives.

From The New York Times,

A new test was introduced Monday that can determine if a fetus has Down syndrome using a sample of the mother’s blood. […]

…most women who find they are carrying a fetus with Down syndrome, which causes mild to moderate mental retardation, terminate the pregnancy. […]

“Will we slowly start to see babies born with Down syndrome disappear?’’ asked Dr. Skotko, who has a sister with the condition.

He and some colleagues recently published the results of a survey in which nearly 99 percent of people with Down syndrome said they were happy with their lives.

Parents of such children also said they were happy. About 79 percent of parents said their outlook on life was more positive because of their child.

There is also an upsurge in efforts to develop drugs to improve the learning ability of those with Down syndrome. One of the drug researchers, Alberto Costa, who has a daughter with the condition, told The New York Times Magazine:

“It’s like we’re in a race against the people who are promoting those early screening methods. These tests are going to be quite accessible. At that point, one would expect a precipitous drop in the rate of birth of children with Down syndrome. If we’re not quick enough to offer alternatives, this field might collapse.’’

Hills Bro. Coffee heiress Harriett Hills Stinson is urging women to come forward and speak about their abortions, as she has done.

I want women to speak out as well, but the type of stories I expect to hear when women do start coming forward about their abortions are going to be a little different from hers. Unlike the wealthy Ms. Hills, when I have heard women recant their stories, they are told painfully and are not free of regret.

On the rare occasions when there has been a lack of pain in the retelling, the pain was replaced by something sinister, like minimisation or denial.

Harriett Hills Stinson may be surprised to find that many women whom have had abortions (forty-two percent of women obtaining abortions have incomes below 100% of the federal poverty level) may not have much in common with her story.

Harriett Hills Stinson, 85, a prominent member of the wealthy San Francisco family that founded Hills Bros. Coffee, says it took a push by GOP conservatives to cut funding for family planning and abortion services to move her to reveal a long-held personal secret: She once had an illegal abortion.

“I’ve never regretted it,” Stinson told The Chronicle this week. As a mother in her 20s with three young children, Stinson said, she came to the decision that “for the sake of my family, it was not right for me to have a fourth child.” Now, she said, “I’m hoping women who have had abortions will come forward.”

Desperate acts of vandalism continue across the state as the voting day (November 8) for personhood approaches,

Pelahatchie resident Buddy Hairston relayed that a 4 foot by 6 foot sign at his local church had been knocked over by the vandals. “It took some serious force to bend the metal posts,” he said.

A southern Mississippi gas station was forced to call the police when a woman attempted to destroy a large Yes on 26 campaign sign that had been erected on the property. “She just got out of her car, walked up to it, and started tearing it apart,” reported Personhood Mississippi Director Les Riley. “When police arrived, she told them that she was ‘exercising her First Amendment right to free speech.’” […]

“We welcome vigorous debate. That’s what this country was founded upon. However, theft, vandalism, and intimidation efforts are not acceptable,” stated Riley. “Perhaps, if those who would resort to such tactics would realize there will be consequences, they might not do it.” […]

“Planned Parenthood and the ACLU’s attempts to have the Mississippi Personhood Amendment removed from the ballot failed, and the pro-abortion proponents are showing signs of desperation,” said Personhood USA President Keith Mason. “They’re realizing that the abortion era is almost over, but our message that every human being is a person, and every person has a right to live, will not be silenced.”

From The Washington Post,

WASHINGTON — The House on Thursday returned to an abortion issue that nearly sank President Barack Obama’s health care law last year with legislation that bars an insurance plan regulated under the new law from covering abortion if any of its customers receive federal subsidies.

Providers that offer abortion coverage would have to set up identical plans without abortion coverage to participate in the health insurance exchanges to be set up under the new law.