SuccessStories
Conventional wisdom is that boys who grow up without fathers are at greater risk of problems, from doing poorly in school to substance abuse. So how does that account for the high-profile successes of standouts such as presidential candidate Barack Obama, Olympic swimmer Michael Phelps and others who were reared by single mothers?
More
Friday, August 29, 2008
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Catholic University deprives Rosemary Radford Ruether of teaching post
The Catholic University of San Diego (USD)_Department of Theology and Religious Studies published on USD website its election of Professor Rosemary Radford Ruether, an eco-feminist who refers to God as the feminine "Gaia" and supports abortion and contraception, to the Monsignor John R. Portman Chair in Roman Catholic Theology for 2009-2010 academic year. Ruether was expected to teach one undergraduate course and deliver the annual Portman Lecture as part of her honorary position.
Later, USD Assistant Vice President for Public Affairs, Pamela Gray Payton, stated that the decision was reversed "upon review of the specific purpose" of the honorary chair, which was established in 2000 as a "sign of the Catholic character of the University."
More
USD website introduces the University thus: " The University of San Diego's community of scholars is dedicated to the pursuit of truth, academic excellence, and advancement of knowledge in liberal arts and professional programs. Independent, comprehensive, and Catholic, the University provides a values-based education to all students in its College and Schools....
Students are challenged to develop knowledge, values and skills to enrich their lives, and to prepare them for careers that well serve the global, civic, and faith communities." Now her name is removed from their website.
More about Rosemary Radford Ruether:
Oddly enough, however, Ruether has a rather undisguised rejection of and antipathy toward Christianity, especially the Catholic Faith.
A regular columnist for the National Catholic Reporter, Ruether boasts multiple professorships, twelve honorary doctorates, and an extensive list of books, including The Church Against Itself (1967), Sexism And God-talk: Toward a Feminist Theology (1983), Gaia and God: An Ecofeminist Theology of Earth Healing (1992), Goddesses and the Divine Feminine: A Western Religious History (2005), Integrating Ecofeminism, Globalization, and World Religions (January 2005)and America, Amerikkka: Elect Nation and Imperial Violence (2007).
California Catholic Daily reports that Prof. Ruether is an advocate of women's ordination and since 1985 has served as a board member for the pro-abortion dissident Catholics for a Free Choice - now Catholics for Choice (CFC). The group has been described by the US Bishops as "not a Catholic organization, does not speak for the Catholic Church, and in fact promotes positions contrary to the teaching of the Church" and is "an arm of the abortion lobby in the United States and throughout the world."
In 2005 Ruether explained to an audience at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles her view that "Christianity is not necessarily worse than other religions, but it is the vehicle of Western Civilization."
Reuther has stated Christianity is riddled by hierarchy and patriarchy that created a social order in which chaste women on their wedding night "were, in effect, raped by young husbands whose previous sexual experience came from exploitative relationships with servant women and prostitutes."
In the CFC article "Sexual Literacy" from its Summer 2003 Conscience magazine, Ruether continued in this vein saying "The young bride went into marriage without knowledge of how to experience pleasure or prevent pregnancy."
Ruether added, "the Christian Right, Catholic and Protestant, is trying to roll back the sexual revolution by returning to a patriarchal puritanism based on a classist separation of females into 'good' girls and 'bad' girls, exploiting the bad girls while denying the good girls personal freedom."
Read it all from LifeSiteNews :
Northern Peaks: Canada's Porn Channel
The Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission has granted Alberta-based Real Productions approval for a digital pornography channel. It's to be called Northern Peaks.
Why does Canada crave homegrown porn? The broadcast regulations require only 15 percent Canadian content, but Real Productions' owner voluntarily promised 50 percent. How will anyone be able to tell? Will the guys keep their tuques on? Will the women say things like, "I don't have any money, but I bet I can think of another way to pay for this Pizza Pizza, eh?"
Apparently, Canadians are weary of nude Americans. Real Productions President Shaun Donnelly said in a Reuters article, "I think as Canadians there is a bit of a tiredness in seeing all American stuff. There is always that thrill for something that is local and you get the sense that these are people you can meet at the supermarket."
Really? I've lived in the land of American porn my whole life, and I've never once imagined I could meet our porn stars at the supermarket. They don't look local. They don't even look terrestrial.
As Real Productions' VP for marketing, Ashley Corsiatto, told the Herald, "I don't know about you, but I'm tired of seeing the Silicon Valley girls constantly." Well, it may be time to develop a more wholesome hobby.
"Different people like different things. You can't keep serving the same thing over and over and expect them to swallow it."
More
Why does Canada crave homegrown porn? The broadcast regulations require only 15 percent Canadian content, but Real Productions' owner voluntarily promised 50 percent. How will anyone be able to tell? Will the guys keep their tuques on? Will the women say things like, "I don't have any money, but I bet I can think of another way to pay for this Pizza Pizza, eh?"
Apparently, Canadians are weary of nude Americans. Real Productions President Shaun Donnelly said in a Reuters article, "I think as Canadians there is a bit of a tiredness in seeing all American stuff. There is always that thrill for something that is local and you get the sense that these are people you can meet at the supermarket."
Really? I've lived in the land of American porn my whole life, and I've never once imagined I could meet our porn stars at the supermarket. They don't look local. They don't even look terrestrial.
As Real Productions' VP for marketing, Ashley Corsiatto, told the Herald, "I don't know about you, but I'm tired of seeing the Silicon Valley girls constantly." Well, it may be time to develop a more wholesome hobby.
"Different people like different things. You can't keep serving the same thing over and over and expect them to swallow it."
More
Saturday, August 23, 2008
Obesity in the times of hunger
Sun, Aug 24 03:16 AM
There are about 800 million hungry in the world. Coexisting on a planet that has a billion obese people at a time when record food is being produced. and Raj Patel, writer, activist and academic, someone who has both worked at the World Bank and WTO and been part of protests against them, makes a forceful argument in Stuffed and Starved, a book that has the world sit up and take notice as a global 'food crisis' looms even as the world produces record crops. For he graphically establishes how a comparatively small number of global food companies create a divide between those growing crops and those consuming them. Suman Tarafdar caught up with the currently Berkeley-based author as he explained how the modern industry gives a more sinister meaning to 'food chains'.
more
There are about 800 million hungry in the world. Coexisting on a planet that has a billion obese people at a time when record food is being produced. and Raj Patel, writer, activist and academic, someone who has both worked at the World Bank and WTO and been part of protests against them, makes a forceful argument in Stuffed and Starved, a book that has the world sit up and take notice as a global 'food crisis' looms even as the world produces record crops. For he graphically establishes how a comparatively small number of global food companies create a divide between those growing crops and those consuming them. Suman Tarafdar caught up with the currently Berkeley-based author as he explained how the modern industry gives a more sinister meaning to 'food chains'.
more
Gay rights in India
While many countries have moved forward to recognise same-sex marriages, India is still groping in the narrow alleys of public morality and social good.
In this notion of public morality — which is enforced by the state — lies the rationale for Section 377, which dates back to 1860. This archaic law from the days of the Raj criminalises homosexuality by prohibiting "carnal intercourse against the order of nature", and goes on to punish such acts with imprisonment for life, or a term that may extend up to 10 years, and fine.
Union Health Minister Anbumani Ramadoss has raised expectations that the government may repeal the 148-year-old law criminalising sex between men. His declaration, at an international conference on AIDS in Mexico earlier this month, that Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code should be scrapped, had its desired impact back home, with gay rights groups welcoming the proactive stand.
Section 377, which does not prohibit lesbian sexuality or conduct in India, has been used by the police to threaten women, too. In 1992, two women police officers of Madhya Pradesh, who were ‘married’, were charged with ‘obscene conduct’ and forced to resign from their jobs. In 1999-2000, a Malayalam newspaper reported seven suicides by lesbians in Kerala. In the same year, a lesbian couple from Orissa was separated forcibly following police intervention, forcing the two to attempt suicide leading to the death of one of them.
On June 29 this year, Delhi, Bangalore, Kolkata and Puducherry celebrated their first-ever gay pride parades, with over 2000 persons turning up for the assertion of their rights.
Many prominent men openly admitting their sexual preferences have further strengthened the cause of gay rights. Prince Manavendra Gohil from a conservative principality in Gujarat risked family criticism and public ostracism by openly declaring his gay preference. Famous fashion designer Wendell Rodericks formalised his union with his French partner in Goa. The two got married under the French law to skirt Section 377.
But not all homosexual men have the courage shown by Rodericks. Close to 10 million Indians pay a heavy price for their chosen sexual preferences by subsisting on the margins. As the state denies them the right to interact openly in society, they cruise in public spaces, under the prying eyes of the police. The encounters often turn devastating, thanks to a law that victimises more than it shields.
Read more
In this notion of public morality — which is enforced by the state — lies the rationale for Section 377, which dates back to 1860. This archaic law from the days of the Raj criminalises homosexuality by prohibiting "carnal intercourse against the order of nature", and goes on to punish such acts with imprisonment for life, or a term that may extend up to 10 years, and fine.
Union Health Minister Anbumani Ramadoss has raised expectations that the government may repeal the 148-year-old law criminalising sex between men. His declaration, at an international conference on AIDS in Mexico earlier this month, that Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code should be scrapped, had its desired impact back home, with gay rights groups welcoming the proactive stand.
Section 377, which does not prohibit lesbian sexuality or conduct in India, has been used by the police to threaten women, too. In 1992, two women police officers of Madhya Pradesh, who were ‘married’, were charged with ‘obscene conduct’ and forced to resign from their jobs. In 1999-2000, a Malayalam newspaper reported seven suicides by lesbians in Kerala. In the same year, a lesbian couple from Orissa was separated forcibly following police intervention, forcing the two to attempt suicide leading to the death of one of them.
On June 29 this year, Delhi, Bangalore, Kolkata and Puducherry celebrated their first-ever gay pride parades, with over 2000 persons turning up for the assertion of their rights.
Many prominent men openly admitting their sexual preferences have further strengthened the cause of gay rights. Prince Manavendra Gohil from a conservative principality in Gujarat risked family criticism and public ostracism by openly declaring his gay preference. Famous fashion designer Wendell Rodericks formalised his union with his French partner in Goa. The two got married under the French law to skirt Section 377.
But not all homosexual men have the courage shown by Rodericks. Close to 10 million Indians pay a heavy price for their chosen sexual preferences by subsisting on the margins. As the state denies them the right to interact openly in society, they cruise in public spaces, under the prying eyes of the police. The encounters often turn devastating, thanks to a law that victimises more than it shields.
Read more
Thursday, August 21, 2008
Tuesday, August 19, 2008
Monday, August 18, 2008
Doctors Can't Deny Lesbians Care on Religious Grounds
Ruling Was Unamimous, Unlike Legalization of Gay Marriage Case
By SUSAN DONALDSON JAMES
Aug. 18, 2008
The California Supreme Court today ruled unanimously that doctors cannot cite their religious beliefs as grounds to deny gay and lesbian patients medical care.
Guadalupe Benitez sued two doctors for refusing to artificially inseminate her for religious reasons and won.
Justice Joyce Kennard ruled that two Christian fertility doctors who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian couple cannot claim a free speech or religious exemption from California's anti-discrimination law.
The ruling extends a state law barring sexual orientation-based discrimination to the medical profession.
Guadalupe Benitez, now 36, had maintained that the California medical clinic that was treating her polycystic ovary syndrome had "dumped" her when she asked for artificial insemination.
In 1999, after a year of surgeries and hormone treatments — all covered by insurance — Benitez was finally ready to get pregnant. But at the crucial moment, her doctor refused to do the procedure for "religious" reasons.
Benitez is a lesbian and sued her doctors under California's civil rights laws, charging that they discriminated against her because of her sexual orientation.
"For me this is a case about doing the right thing and being fair," Benitez told ABCNEWS.com. "Not discriminating against people and doctors not playing the role of God, saying because you are gay, you are not worthy of having a child or a family.
The doctors received support from the American Civil Rights Union and anti-abortion groups, according to the Associated Press.
The California Medical Association initially supported the Christian doctors, until they received criticism from gay rights groups and joined the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan to oppose them.
The American Civil Liberties Union, California Attorney General Jerry Brown, the National Health Law Program and the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association backed Benitez.
Benitez sued The North Coast Women's Care Medical Group of San Diego, which had an exclusive contract with her health insurance plan. Also named in the suit were two of the clinic's doctors — Dr. Doug Fenton and Dr. Christine Brody — who lawyers say had a constitutional right to refuse a procedure that violated their religious beliefs.
Read the full story
By SUSAN DONALDSON JAMES
Aug. 18, 2008
The California Supreme Court today ruled unanimously that doctors cannot cite their religious beliefs as grounds to deny gay and lesbian patients medical care.
Guadalupe Benitez sued two doctors for refusing to artificially inseminate her for religious reasons and won.
Justice Joyce Kennard ruled that two Christian fertility doctors who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian couple cannot claim a free speech or religious exemption from California's anti-discrimination law.
The ruling extends a state law barring sexual orientation-based discrimination to the medical profession.
Guadalupe Benitez, now 36, had maintained that the California medical clinic that was treating her polycystic ovary syndrome had "dumped" her when she asked for artificial insemination.
In 1999, after a year of surgeries and hormone treatments — all covered by insurance — Benitez was finally ready to get pregnant. But at the crucial moment, her doctor refused to do the procedure for "religious" reasons.
Benitez is a lesbian and sued her doctors under California's civil rights laws, charging that they discriminated against her because of her sexual orientation.
"For me this is a case about doing the right thing and being fair," Benitez told ABCNEWS.com. "Not discriminating against people and doctors not playing the role of God, saying because you are gay, you are not worthy of having a child or a family.
The doctors received support from the American Civil Rights Union and anti-abortion groups, according to the Associated Press.
The California Medical Association initially supported the Christian doctors, until they received criticism from gay rights groups and joined the Kaiser Foundation Health Plan to oppose them.
The American Civil Liberties Union, California Attorney General Jerry Brown, the National Health Law Program and the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association backed Benitez.
Benitez sued The North Coast Women's Care Medical Group of San Diego, which had an exclusive contract with her health insurance plan. Also named in the suit were two of the clinic's doctors — Dr. Doug Fenton and Dr. Christine Brody — who lawyers say had a constitutional right to refuse a procedure that violated their religious beliefs.
Read the full story
Sunday, August 17, 2008
Limits of Power: A contemporary take on Niebuhr
Andy Lang introduces Andrew Bacevich to Confessing-Christ group:
Andrew Bacevich is a Vietnam veteran, retired U.S. Army colonel and professor of international relations at Boston University. His son died in Iraq last year.
Bacevich uses what he describes as a "Niebuhrian" perspective in his recent book, "The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism." Bacevich begins his book, with an epigraph taken from the Bible: "Put thine house in order." In his interview given to Bill Moyers' "Journal" he explained his choice to Bill Moyers:
Read it all here
Read the full introduction to the Limits of Power
Also read from Moyers' Journal Bacevich's lecture on "Illusions of Managing History: The Enduring Relevance of Reinhold Niebuhr."
Andrew Bacevich is a Vietnam veteran, retired U.S. Army colonel and professor of international relations at Boston University. His son died in Iraq last year.
Bacevich uses what he describes as a "Niebuhrian" perspective in his recent book, "The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism." Bacevich begins his book, with an epigraph taken from the Bible: "Put thine house in order." In his interview given to Bill Moyers' "Journal" he explained his choice to Bill Moyers:
Read it all here
Read the full introduction to the Limits of Power
Also read from Moyers' Journal Bacevich's lecture on "Illusions of Managing History: The Enduring Relevance of Reinhold Niebuhr."
Barack Obama and John McCain differ on abortion
Presidential contenders Barack Obama and John McCain differed sharply on abortion Saturday, with McCain saying a baby's human rights begin "at conception," while Obama restated his support for legalized abortion.McCain, who adopted a daughter from Bangladesh, also called for making adoption easier.Obama said America's greatest moral failure is its insufficient help to the disadvantaged. He noted that the Bible quotes Jesus as saying "whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me." He said the maxim should apply to victims of poverty, sexism and racism.
McCain said the nation's greatest moral shortcoming is its failure to "devote ourselves to causes greater than our self-interests."
Read it all here
McCain said the nation's greatest moral shortcoming is its failure to "devote ourselves to causes greater than our self-interests."
Read it all here
Saturday, August 16, 2008
The deafening silence of dissent: Humanae Vitae after Forty years
The deafening silence of dissent
Humanae Vitae insists that the Church’s writ runs as far as the marital bedroom, but many married couples have disagreed. The ensuing breakdown in communication between Church and society has cost both dear
What kind of Church has the Catholic Church become in the last 40 years since Humane Vitae was published? To focus only on its rejection of artificial birth control would be to do the encyclical a disservice. For it is not without its understanding of love and acknowledges the unitive purpose of sexual intercourse.
The encyclical was published at a time when Victorian prudery had been undermined by dramatic social changes in postwar Britain – and in Europe – and literature and film offered radically different ideas about the nature of sexual love from the conventions of Christianity. Humanae Vitae acknowledged how changes in society affect marriage and family life. It refreshingly recognises the “new understanding of the dignity of woman and her place in society”.
The encyclical insisted that there must be no division between the unitive and procreative aspect of sexual intercourse. The alternatives were abstinence or natural family planning, restricting sex to the infertile periods of a woman’s cycle. Its critics argue, of course, that the very fact that women have this infertile period suggests that for a woman at least nature makes a division between the unitive and procreative aspects of sex.
One of the greatest ironies of the last 40 years is that the pressures on couples now seem to have reversed. For many of them, the difficulty is not avoiding pregnancy but getting pregnant at all. Research suggests that professional couples are often too exhausted for lovemaking during their most fertile years so that procreative sex is the problem today. The interest in the natural cycle of a woman is to often track her fertility in order to conceive. Pharmacy shelves are filled with kits to analyse ovulation. Even natural family planning practitioners are often asked to help people conceive, rather than help avoid pregnancy. They do so by encouraging a more holistic approach to life, helping people find ways of dealing with stress, the most insidious cause of damage to the contemporary relationship.
Does this therefore make Humanae Vitae prophetic, given the sexual dysfunctioning of society? The theologian Tina Beattie has argued the opposite – that in fact “Humanae Vitae has had a disastrous effect on the Church’s capacity to influence the public sphere with respect to sexual morality”. It damaged the authority of the Church for many loyal and faithful Catholics, she says, and also gave those outside the Church reason for ignoring it. While it is not the role of the Church to bend to the will of society, it clearly has a role to play in dialogue with the world. Both are losing from this breakdown in communication.
Read here the full article by Catharine Pepinster, editor of The Tablet
Humanae Vitae insists that the Church’s writ runs as far as the marital bedroom, but many married couples have disagreed. The ensuing breakdown in communication between Church and society has cost both dear
What kind of Church has the Catholic Church become in the last 40 years since Humane Vitae was published? To focus only on its rejection of artificial birth control would be to do the encyclical a disservice. For it is not without its understanding of love and acknowledges the unitive purpose of sexual intercourse.
The encyclical was published at a time when Victorian prudery had been undermined by dramatic social changes in postwar Britain – and in Europe – and literature and film offered radically different ideas about the nature of sexual love from the conventions of Christianity. Humanae Vitae acknowledged how changes in society affect marriage and family life. It refreshingly recognises the “new understanding of the dignity of woman and her place in society”.
The encyclical insisted that there must be no division between the unitive and procreative aspect of sexual intercourse. The alternatives were abstinence or natural family planning, restricting sex to the infertile periods of a woman’s cycle. Its critics argue, of course, that the very fact that women have this infertile period suggests that for a woman at least nature makes a division between the unitive and procreative aspects of sex.
One of the greatest ironies of the last 40 years is that the pressures on couples now seem to have reversed. For many of them, the difficulty is not avoiding pregnancy but getting pregnant at all. Research suggests that professional couples are often too exhausted for lovemaking during their most fertile years so that procreative sex is the problem today. The interest in the natural cycle of a woman is to often track her fertility in order to conceive. Pharmacy shelves are filled with kits to analyse ovulation. Even natural family planning practitioners are often asked to help people conceive, rather than help avoid pregnancy. They do so by encouraging a more holistic approach to life, helping people find ways of dealing with stress, the most insidious cause of damage to the contemporary relationship.
Does this therefore make Humanae Vitae prophetic, given the sexual dysfunctioning of society? The theologian Tina Beattie has argued the opposite – that in fact “Humanae Vitae has had a disastrous effect on the Church’s capacity to influence the public sphere with respect to sexual morality”. It damaged the authority of the Church for many loyal and faithful Catholics, she says, and also gave those outside the Church reason for ignoring it. While it is not the role of the Church to bend to the will of society, it clearly has a role to play in dialogue with the world. Both are losing from this breakdown in communication.
Read here the full article by Catharine Pepinster, editor of The Tablet
Eugenic abortion for disabled infants
The leader of Britain's Tory opposition party has stated that he supports eugenic abortion for disabled infants up to the time of birth. In the build-up to party conference season in the autumn, David Cameron was asked if he would be willing to change the law, amended in 1990, that allows disabled children to be aborted at any time of gestation up to the point of birth.
Read it all here
Read it all here
Sunday, August 10, 2008
Obama Promises "Change" for America One Homosexual Adoption at a Time
Obama Promises "Change" for America One Homosexual Adoption at a Time
Obama Promises "Change" for America One Homosexual Adoption at a Time
By Peter J. Smith
WASHINGTON, D.C., August 7, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Barack Obama has once again reaffirmed his support for homosexual adoptions and his intentions to repeal federal regulations protecting the traditional family built on marriage.
The Illinois Senator sent a letter outlining his position to Jennifer Chrisler, Executive Director of the Family Equality Council, after the homosexual lobby group demanded his response to Republican presidential contender John McCain's statement to the New York Times three weeks ago: "I don't believe in gay adoption." (http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jul/08071408.html)
The letter gave Obama an opportunity to curry favor with the Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender (LGBT) lobby.
"We also have to do more to support and strengthen LGBT families," wrote Obama. "Because equality in relationship, family, and adoption rights is not some abstract principle; it's about whether millions of LGBT Americans can finally live lives marked by dignity and freedom."
He continued, "That's why we have to repeal laws like the Defense of Marriage Act. That's why we have to eliminate discrimination against LGBT families. And that's why we have to extend equal treatment in our family and adoption laws."
Obama had prefaced his letter by emphasizing the "vast array of diverse traditions, cultures and histories" of the United States and said that the "desire to build a life with a loved one, to provide for a family and to have children who will grow and thrive ... are desires that all people share, regardless of race, sex, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity."
"We know," he said, "that the cost of the American dream must never come at the expense of the American family. For decades we've had politicians in Washington who talk about family values, but we haven't had policies that value families. Instead, it's harder for working parents to make a living while raising their kids. It's even harder to get a break."
See related coverage by LifeSiteNews.com:
Obama Promises "Change" for America One Homosexual Adoption at a Time
By Peter J. Smith
WASHINGTON, D.C., August 7, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - Barack Obama has once again reaffirmed his support for homosexual adoptions and his intentions to repeal federal regulations protecting the traditional family built on marriage.
The Illinois Senator sent a letter outlining his position to Jennifer Chrisler, Executive Director of the Family Equality Council, after the homosexual lobby group demanded his response to Republican presidential contender John McCain's statement to the New York Times three weeks ago: "I don't believe in gay adoption." (http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/jul/08071408.html)
The letter gave Obama an opportunity to curry favor with the Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender (LGBT) lobby.
"We also have to do more to support and strengthen LGBT families," wrote Obama. "Because equality in relationship, family, and adoption rights is not some abstract principle; it's about whether millions of LGBT Americans can finally live lives marked by dignity and freedom."
He continued, "That's why we have to repeal laws like the Defense of Marriage Act. That's why we have to eliminate discrimination against LGBT families. And that's why we have to extend equal treatment in our family and adoption laws."
Obama had prefaced his letter by emphasizing the "vast array of diverse traditions, cultures and histories" of the United States and said that the "desire to build a life with a loved one, to provide for a family and to have children who will grow and thrive ... are desires that all people share, regardless of race, sex, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity."
"We know," he said, "that the cost of the American dream must never come at the expense of the American family. For decades we've had politicians in Washington who talk about family values, but we haven't had policies that value families. Instead, it's harder for working parents to make a living while raising their kids. It's even harder to get a break."
See related coverage by LifeSiteNews.com:
Saturday, August 9, 2008
Most unsafe abortions in India - The Hindustan Times
The Hindustan Times - Indian Newspapers in English Language from three editions
Most unsafe abortions in India
Namita Kohli, Hindustan Times
New Delhi, August 09, 2008
First Published: 23:36 IST(9/8/2008)
Last Updated: 23:45 IST(9/8/2008)
The Mumbai High Court judgment disallowing the abortion of a 26-week-old foetus has sparked off a nationwide debate on abortion and a woman’s right of choice. But for a majority of Indian women, ‘medical termination of pregnancy’ (MTP, the medical term for abortions) remains largely unsafe.
Unsafe abortions are those performed illegally, by untrained practitioners with faulty equipment, leading to injuries, infections and even death.
India has the highest number of unsafe abortions in the world. According to government estimates, 8.9 per cent of maternal deaths in India every year — around 15,000 — are caused by unsafe abortions. The irony is apparent when doctors say MTP, if done right, is among the safest medical procedures.
Of the 6.4 million abortions performed in India in 2002 and 2003, 56 per cent or 3.6 million were unsafe, says the Abortion Assessment Project I, 2004. The study — one of the largest in recent times — was managed by the Mumbai-based Centre for Equity into Health and Allied Themes and Healthwatch Trust. It included qualitative and quantitative studies across various states by non-governmental organisations (NGOs), researchers and healthcare professionals.
It also pointed out problems of reach and access with public investment in abortion facilities being woefully inadequate. Only 25 per cent of abortion facilities in the organised sector are government-owned; the rest are private clinics. These are so expensive that they completely exclude the poor sections.
“There’s inadequate, inequitable distribution of facilities for safe abortions. Contraceptive usage is low in India, hence the great demand for safe abortion services,” said Dr Jaydeep Tank, chairperson of the MTP Committee at the Federation of Obstetric and Gynaecological Societies of India (FOGSI). Besides, only six per cent of India’s 23,000 primary health centres (PHCs) provide abortion services.
“Besides risk to life, unsafe abortions have serious long-term repercussions like life-long disabilities and reproductive tract infections,” said Sushanta Banerjee, senior advisor at Ipas, an NGO.
For a country with a ‘liberal’ law on abortion, Banerjee said awareness about it is extremely low even three decades after it was enacted. “In Jharkhand, for instance, we found that 82 per cent of women didn’t even know abortion was legal,” he said. In a related study by the Population Council in Rajasthan in 2002, the figure was 84 per cent and in Maharashtra at least 37 per cent of those who had had abortions thought they were illegal. This misconception leads many women to unqualified professionals. Other barriers to safe abortion are “social stigma and myths attached to MTP”, said Tank. “Awareness about abortion through drugs like Mifepristone and Misoprostol is also low, despite they being legal and easily available.”
Social barriers like spousal consent and judgmental doctors are also deterrents, though the law requires no such consent. Under the government’s Reproductive and Child Health Project, safe abortions are a key concern and some progress is being made — maternal mortality due to abortion was 11 per cent in 2001. “We need to generate awareness at the community level about contraception and safe abortion, in both rural areas and urban slums,” said Thomas Chandy, CEO, Save The Children in India. Ipas also advocates training of mid-level service providers like nurses and non-allopathic doctors in remote areas where access to trained doctors is a problem.
(non-text potions removed)
Most unsafe abortions in India
Namita Kohli, Hindustan Times
New Delhi, August 09, 2008
First Published: 23:36 IST(9/8/2008)
Last Updated: 23:45 IST(9/8/2008)
The Mumbai High Court judgment disallowing the abortion of a 26-week-old foetus has sparked off a nationwide debate on abortion and a woman’s right of choice. But for a majority of Indian women, ‘medical termination of pregnancy’ (MTP, the medical term for abortions) remains largely unsafe.
Unsafe abortions are those performed illegally, by untrained practitioners with faulty equipment, leading to injuries, infections and even death.
India has the highest number of unsafe abortions in the world. According to government estimates, 8.9 per cent of maternal deaths in India every year — around 15,000 — are caused by unsafe abortions. The irony is apparent when doctors say MTP, if done right, is among the safest medical procedures.
Of the 6.4 million abortions performed in India in 2002 and 2003, 56 per cent or 3.6 million were unsafe, says the Abortion Assessment Project I, 2004. The study — one of the largest in recent times — was managed by the Mumbai-based Centre for Equity into Health and Allied Themes and Healthwatch Trust. It included qualitative and quantitative studies across various states by non-governmental organisations (NGOs), researchers and healthcare professionals.
It also pointed out problems of reach and access with public investment in abortion facilities being woefully inadequate. Only 25 per cent of abortion facilities in the organised sector are government-owned; the rest are private clinics. These are so expensive that they completely exclude the poor sections.
“There’s inadequate, inequitable distribution of facilities for safe abortions. Contraceptive usage is low in India, hence the great demand for safe abortion services,” said Dr Jaydeep Tank, chairperson of the MTP Committee at the Federation of Obstetric and Gynaecological Societies of India (FOGSI). Besides, only six per cent of India’s 23,000 primary health centres (PHCs) provide abortion services.
“Besides risk to life, unsafe abortions have serious long-term repercussions like life-long disabilities and reproductive tract infections,” said Sushanta Banerjee, senior advisor at Ipas, an NGO.
For a country with a ‘liberal’ law on abortion, Banerjee said awareness about it is extremely low even three decades after it was enacted. “In Jharkhand, for instance, we found that 82 per cent of women didn’t even know abortion was legal,” he said. In a related study by the Population Council in Rajasthan in 2002, the figure was 84 per cent and in Maharashtra at least 37 per cent of those who had had abortions thought they were illegal. This misconception leads many women to unqualified professionals. Other barriers to safe abortion are “social stigma and myths attached to MTP”, said Tank. “Awareness about abortion through drugs like Mifepristone and Misoprostol is also low, despite they being legal and easily available.”
Social barriers like spousal consent and judgmental doctors are also deterrents, though the law requires no such consent. Under the government’s Reproductive and Child Health Project, safe abortions are a key concern and some progress is being made — maternal mortality due to abortion was 11 per cent in 2001. “We need to generate awareness at the community level about contraception and safe abortion, in both rural areas and urban slums,” said Thomas Chandy, CEO, Save The Children in India. Ipas also advocates training of mid-level service providers like nurses and non-allopathic doctors in remote areas where access to trained doctors is a problem.
(non-text potions removed)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Sex Workers