From the Annals of What's Wrong With This Picture?

This from Russia Today by way of ASTRA:

Novorossiysk, a city located in Southern Russia near the Black Sea, had the final say in the pro-choice vs. pro-life abortion debate. From the 24th to the 28th of November the city will conduct a "week without abortion". This means that doctors will not conduct termination operations, apart from "the most extreme cases".

At the same time, Novorossiysk's maternity welfare centre will hold open days during which information seminars on family planning will take place and "educational" films will be shown. Psychologists and gynaecologists will work with pregnant women in order to fully prepare them for motherhood. The city's universities will screen films, demonstrating the detrimental effects abortions may have.

A representative of the city's administration said that "doctors will do everything they can to stop women from doing the irreparable".

A hotline will operate in Novorossiysk over the course of the week, intended for pregnant women. Using it, they will be able to easily get in touch with leading gynaecological experts in Novorossiysk. The "week without abortions" was specifically timed to coincide with the Russian Day of Motherhood, which happens on the last Sunday of November every year.

The number of abortions in Russia is amongst the highest in the world. Nearly 70% of pregnancies are terminated. In 2004 the number of abortions in Russia surpassed the number of births by 100,000. According to the statistics published by the national centre of gynaecology and midwifery, around 10-15% of abortions in Russia have complications, leaving 7-8% of operated women sterile. In Western Europe there is, on average, 12 abortions per 1,000 women a year, UN statistics say. In Russia that number stands at 54.

2008 was declared to be the “Year of Family” by the Russian government, with the intention of improving the demographic situation in the country. The propaganda of abortions and their advertising has recently been banned in the Russian media. Other policies intended to boost childbirth in Russia have included welfare payments for childbirth, social advertisements and active improvements of the healthcare system.

Some creative programmes organised by local authorities included a day specifically dedicated to "child making". The Novorossiysk city administration insured that people were let off work early on that day in order to give them more time to boost the demographic situation in the country. A similar event took place in Ulyanovsk, a city in Southwestern Russia. Here, the local authorities went as far as timing the day to be exactly 9 months before The Day of Russia, with the intention of having an influx of new patriots as a result.

Recently, reports have been made that the government's policies have had little effect on increasing the country's population. According to some studies, the growing global financial crisis places people under stress, making them more reluctant to have children.

These very high abortion rates are an unfortunate legacy of Soviet times, when the state viewed ready access to abortion as a means of keeping women in the workforce without needing to make effective and usable means of contraception widely available, promoting male responsibility within families, or resort to other serious measures for preventing abortion. In the early days after the Revolution, it was hoped that family planning would replace abortion, but the state relied so much on abortion and valued women's and children's lives so little that this did not happen.

In present-day, post-Soviet Russia, there is some movement to prevent abortions. But the paradigm remains the same, doesn't it, as under Soviet rule: women and children are properties of the state, to be manipulated to the outcomes that the state prefers, whatever those outcomes may be. The concern is upping the birthrate, not protecting individual children's and women's rights to life and wellbeing.

Any efforts to oppose and reduce abortion are in the end ineffective and morally and politically bankrupt if they are not solidly grounded in these universal human rights. Something for abortion opponents in every nation to consider, if they have not done so already.

It shouldn't be about making women procreate. It should be about ensuring that women have as much say as possible in whether and when (if ever) to conceive, about revering their lives and the lives of any children they may conceive, whether or not according to plan, before, during, and ever after birth.

For Once, A Single-Issue Approach Would Be Better!

I never thought I'd advocate a single-issue approach to abortion, but I have found one situation where I wish this were the case.

December 10 of this year marks the sixtieth anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

And to mark the occasion, the conservative Catholic group C-FAM is sponsoring a petition to call for inclusion of unborn humans in the Declaration.

Ah, but that's not all. In order to declare your support for this proposed revison to the Declaration, you have to declare your undying support for some other stuff, too...after all, it all must automatically go together, no?

Namely, the unborn child not only has the right to life, but "the right to be conceived, born and educated within the family, based on marriage between a woman and a man, the family being the natural and fundamental group unit of society."

So much for us prolifers who believe prolife includes universal public commitment to the equal education of all children, and respect and ample social support for diverse, egalitarian family forms, including families headed by single parents, adoptive and foster parents, and LGBT persons, including of course same-sex couples.

Apparently we are not eligible to support the the unborn child's right to human life. Voila! We are disaqualified! Who needs us God-hating fornicators and sodomites, hunh? We can't be for real anyway, can we?

I bet C-FAM could get a lot more signatures if it did not in this petition put such a "family values" qualification on support for the unborn child's human right of life. If they want to add their beliefs about family life to the Declaration, why not call for that in a *separate* petition?

There are prolifers like me who have thoughtful, compassionate, and even (gasp!) ethical, religious and spiritual motives for not connecting such a view of "family values" to protection of the unborn child.

For one, if an unborn child's right to life is respected by protecting him or her from abortion, but he or she is not conceived, born, and/or educated within the heterosexual nuclear family... then he or she by definition has a wronged and compromised life. He or she has a fundamentally spoiled identity...and how is this so different, from example, from the supposedly no-longer-in-use designation of nonmaritally conceived human beings as "illegitimate"?

When any human is regarded as having a spoiled identity, then he or she becomes *more* vulnerable to violence and discrimination, *not less.* Before birth, as well as after.

Amnesty International's Big Mistake: An Interview with Andrew Eager of Roll Back Amnesty

Except for an uncontroversial stance against forced procedures, the global human rights giant Amnesty International (AI) remained officially neutral on abortion until 2007. Last year, it officially defined (presumed-voluntary) abortion as a human right in certain specified circumstances. Both prolife and prochoice members have protested this highly divisive move-and still protest it.

Roll Back Amnesty (RBA) is an international forum for current and resigned members who hold diverse views on abortion itself, but agree that AI should return to an abortion-neutral policy. Here Andrew Eager discusses the work and purpose of RBA, as well as his own individual reasons for objecting to Amnesty's new policy.
--Marysia


MARYSIA: So please tell us about yourself.

ANDREW: I own/run a small IT Services company in South County Dublin,Ireland. I'm 32 years of age. With regard to personal beliefs, I describe myself as agnostic, and do not subscribe to any organised religion.

I am in principle against abortion and consider it the killing of another human being. But I do accept that there are very specific, extreme instances where its availability is a necessary evil: an immediate threat to the life of the mother; in instances of rape and incest where the mother is deemed suicidal by relevant medical professionals; and finally, where the foetus itself is not viable.

I believe that with rights come responsibilities, and that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Thus I find elective abortions in'normal' pregnancies to derogate responsibility of both the mother and father of the child. Such abortions should neither be encouraged nor facilitated.

MARYSIA: Do you also see a derogation of a wider societal responsibility to help the mother, father, and child to outcomes other than abortion?

ANDREW: The wider society has a complete obligation to the child. The child is no way responsible for his or her existence, and is entirely dependent on others for his or her survival. While the parents should be assisted, I think it should be done in a way that does not risk encouraging growth in the number of unplanned pregnancies. Essentially, there should be a balance struck between the rights and responsibilities that I referred to earlier.

MARYSIA: How long and in what capacities have you been involved with Amnesty International?

ANDREW: I have been a constant member of Amnesty International Irish Section since 1995. In my time as an Amnesty member I have been active as a local group member and national co-ordinator of the Irish Section's Anti-Death Penalty Network. Most recently, I spent the last six years (Sept. 2001 - Oct. 2007) on the Executive Committee of Amnesty's Irish Section. I had to step down from this position owing to constitutional constraints (a maximum six-year term limit - 3 stints of two year terms).

MARYSIA: Why did you help start Roll Back Amnesty?

ANDREW: Roll Back Amnesty was born out of a frustration that I and others felt around Amnesty's seemingly inexorable drive towards a position on abortion, regardless of the consequences. This frustration crystalised at the 2007 Amnesty Annual Conference in Cork, Ireland, which significant numbers (+50) of pro-life activists protested. They received considerable support from passing traffic - not unsurprising given the Irish population's traditional wariness around the issue.

Further investigations led us to believe that the Irish Section's membership was not a lone voice in the wilderness. Members of other Amnesty Sections round the world had significant concerns about this policy initiative. We also were dismayed to learn that the 'consultation process' elsewhere singularly failed to give parity of esteem to the right to life of the unborn in comparison to the rights of the mother.

In our view, the discussion was predicated on the idea that there were no human rights implications to the abortion issue other than those concerning the mother. This idea is at variance with Amnesty's current abortion policy itself, which acknowledges that abortions should only be carried out within 'reasonable gestational limits.' In effect, the current policy implicitly acknowledges that the foetus does have a humanity of some shape or form.

To date we have contacted members in several countries. We are gradually working our way through the various Sections of Amnesty in a bid to reach out to other members. We feel that the discussion has been incomplete, and that ultimately the only sensible, defensible, and pragmatic position for Amnesty to adopt on this issue is one of neutrality. Any other position is detrimental to the organisation and all the other very good and very necessary work it does.

MARYSIA: Amnesty International works for the rights of women to live free of violence, such as rape, sterilization abuse, and domestic violence. Just as vitally, Amnesty takes a stand for the rights of LGBT persons,protesting censorship, police brutality, and hate crimes, among other offenses.

Quite tellingly, I think, Roll Back Amnesty does not argue with Amnesty's definition and defense of any of these as valid sexual and reproductive rights, as human rights. The objection is rather to putting abortion under this rubric.

But what makes abortion so different? Why shouldn't Amnesty treat it as simply another sexual/reproductive right among sexual/reproductive rights?

ANDREW: That's a very good question. Most people, bar those such as Peter Singer, the philosopher (who argues in favour of permitting infanticide), accept that at some point the foetus does obtain a human rights status -irrespective of what the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says of people being "born free and equal in dignity and rights."

It follows that abortion needs to be treated entirely differently than, for example, access to prophylactic contraception or voluntary sterilisation and so forth. Indeed, the fact that taking a position on abortion gets Amnesty involved in the ultimately insoluble issue of when life begins should have been reason enough for the organisation to be far more wary and circumspect than it has been to date.

MARYSIA: Please clarify Amnesty's current position on abortion.

ANDREW: The official position from the Amnesty.org website is here, in .pdf format:

http://www.amnesty.org/sites/impact.amnesty.org/files/PUBLIC/SVAW_srr_extra.pdf

It does call for abortion as a human right in what were referred to as the 'uncontroversial' issues:

1) For pregnancies arising out of rape
2) For pregnancies arising out of incest
3) For pregnancies that present a threat to the lives of the mothers or gravely risk their health.

A fourth clause calls for the decriminalisation of abortion in all circumstances. This, to most people's understanding, would de facto mean legalising abortion. It is also worth noting that the decriminalisation clause does not just pertain to the three criteria outlined above, but also all other abortions, carried out for whatever reasons.

MARYSIA: Please explain what problems might arise from this fourth clause.

ANDREW: As one member in New Zealand has observed, the decriminalisation clause could have the presumably unintended effect that Amnesty will call for the non-prosecution of back-street abortion providers.

And if this is not the case, if Amnesty only wants to decriminalise regulated and self-induced abortions? Others have observed that Amnesty is then indeed in the position of calling for some regulation/legalisation of abortion, despite its protests that it doesn’t seek to introduce abortion-favouring legislation.

Also, the call for decriminalisation in all circumstances can certainly be understood in the context of the ‘as night follows day scenario.’ In many jurisdictions, the decriminalisation of a particular issue usually is a precursor to legislation regulating that issue. A case in point is Ireland’s (entirely proper and belated) decriminalisation of homosexuality in 1993. The relevant piece of legislation was replaced by a piece which set out the age of consent and so forth.

Finally, Amnesty USA has said it will campaign against the Partial Birth Abortion Act of 2003, as it criminalises the medical personnel involved. This method of abortion surely poses a very real difficulty for an organisation that vows to protect the right to life and the personal security of individuals born free and equal in dignity and in rights – unless of course that same organisation chooses to consciously turn away from an egregious human rights abuse.

MARYSIA: I personally have been involved with Amnesty for over 20 years. And I also have challenged the group's move away from abortion neutrality. According to reassurances from higher-ups, Amnesty does not intend to ever define abortion as a human right in all circumstances. But those reassurances look and sound mighty false. Do you and other RBA supporters also suspect that Amnesty higher-ups are pushing towards a general human right of abortion?

ANDREW: There is clearly a move on in that direction from some Sections/members. At last year's ICM (International Council Meeting),there was a motion brought forward to that effect. Needless to say, now that abortion is on the agenda, Amnesty conferences around the world will become yet another battleground for pro-life/pro-choice advocates.

We're beginning to see that happening already. AI UK faced an AGM (Annual General Meeting) with five separate motions around the abortion issue. Four years ago that would have been improbable, if not impossible, as everyone understood that Amnesty wanted to stay out of the issue.

As I alluded to previously, there is an intrinsic problem with a position on abortion that calls for abortions to be constrained by 'reasonable gestational limits'. It immediately grants or acknowledges a humanity regarding the foetus. To pretend otherwise is to indulge in semantics and sophistry. Amnesty's position now finds itself in all manner of philosophical and practical problems.

For example, Amnesty, having acknowledged that the foetus has some sort of human rights, now defers to national governments as to when those human rights begin to maintain. Obviously, for an organisation that calls for acknowledging and respecting the universality of human rights, this is very troubling.

Arguably, it is tantamount to Amnesty letting a despot decide what constitutes torture, and then campaigning on the issue from there. Indeed, the Chinese Government is notable in its view that its citizens are different from other humans around the globe, and thus don't share the same rights as the rest of the human race. To say the least, it is regrettable that Amnesty now finds itself playing a similar kind of game.

Also, nation states differ as to the permissible time limit for abortions. This fact throws up a quandary regarding women who are beyond the permitted limits in their countries and are denied abortions there under Amnesty's three limited criteria (rape, incest, threat to life). If the women are also denied the right to travel to other countries for abortions, will Amnesty treat them as prisoners of conscience?

If Amnesty doesn't treat them as prisoners of conscience, then the universality problem comes to the surface again. If Amnesty does not treat them as prisoners of conscience, it de facto supports a lowest common denominator approach regarding when abortions are permitted -which we understand to fall at China's seven month- limit. In this regard it is worth noting that medical advances now enable more and more premature babies born at six months gestation to survive. This trend will only become more prevalent over the coming decades.

Also, Amnesty has never previously taken a position where it could be argued that it advocates the taking of life. Regardless of one's feelings on the issue, and one's philosophical stance on when life begins, Amnesty has now completely destroyed its stance against lifetaking. At the very minimum, even those members who are not ardently 'pro-life' must accept that there is now a perception at large in some quarters that Amnesty advocates for lifetaking.

There are other issues of course, around the practical impact this issue has had, and is going to have on Amnesty in the years ahead. We could go into these problems, but suffice to say they are many, and they are complex.

MARYSIA: It's no surprise that prolifers consider Amnesty's move away from abortion neutrality a big mistake. However, Roll Back Amnesty voices the dissent and discontent of prochoice Amnesty members as well as prolife. Why do your prochoice supporters want Amnesty to go back to abortion neutrality?

ANDREW: The pro-choice Amnesty members who have supported us do so from the perspective of pragmatic concern. They point to the fact that Human Rights Watch and Medecin Sans Frontiers (Doctors Without Borders) already have a position on abortion. These two groups are notably not membership-based. From there our prochoice supporters argue that Amnesty is going into a political space that is already populated. In doing so, Amnesty has damaged its credibility and reputation in the eyes of very many long-time supporters, activists, and campaigning partners - most notably the Catholic Church.

In fairness to the Catholic Church, they didn't rock the boat when Amnesty campaigned contrary to Catholic Church ethos around contraception. They didn't threaten a schism when Amnesty publically described the Catholic Church as being in an 'unholy alliance' back in the late nineties. And they gave Amnesty quite a bit of warning that Amnesty's taking of a position on abortion would threaten the previous 46 years of partnership between the two institutions.

The pro-choice members also acknowledge that the issue isn't going to go away any time soon. Such is the divisiveness and emotive nature of the debate that it could only hurt the organisation over the long term. Only pro-choice advocates will now feel comfortable joining Amnesty, with the inevitable effect that eventually Amnesty would be perceived in some quarters as 'just another abortion-friendly lobby group' populated by pro-choice minded people. In real terms, our prochoice supporters are concerned that Amnesty is going to paint itself into a corner from which it won't be able to extricate itself.

It might also be worth noting what an Orlando, Florida-based local Amnesty Group said of the decision.

"Our Orlando chapter of Amnesty International recently voted to not support AIUSA's recent position on abortion. We feel that this position upsets both pro-lifers, because of its acknowledgement that abortion is sometimes necessary, and pro-choicers who feel the organization falls short in advocating for women's right to choose. We feel that there are a number of groups advocating for both sides and that Amnesty International should continue its much-needed work on it' current campaigns. "

MARYSIA: Thank you very much, Andrew.


Whatever your own personal take on abortion, current and former AI members are most welcome to join the work of Roll Back Amnesty at http://www.rollbackamnesty.com/

If you advocate a consistent life ethic, please also stand up and be counted at peace psychologist Rachel MacNair's Registry of Consistent-Life Supporters of Amnesty International at http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/consistentlife

Prolife and Prochoice: A Chance to Work Together (Part Two)

Part One of this post series tells the story of Alicja Tysiac. She is a disabled single mother in Poland who struggles to take care of herself and her three children on a state disability pension of 140 Euros/~190 US Dollars per month. Yes, there are people in the world living on much less, but that is a fraction of what the average Pole has to live on, this is still deep poverty, and no person in any country deserves this (let alone less than this).

Whether you are prolife, prochoice, or something else, you can take these concrete, practical steps to help Alicja and her children--as well as other human beings in similarly difficult situations.

1. Send Alicja and her children a financial gift.

--You can do this from many countries through Western Union.
--At the Western Union website, name your recipient as "Alicja Tysiac, Warsaw, Poland" and send your donation in zlotys or PLN.
--Immediately send an email to Elwira Chrusciel, info@astra.org.pl. On behalf of the nongovernmental organization ASTRA, Ms. Chrusciel will notify Alicja of your wired gift. She is also glad to answer any questions you may have about Alicja and her situation.

Note: ASTRA is a prochoice feminist organization; Nonviolent Choice is prolife feminist. But we are glad to cooperate with them on these substantial areas of shared concern.

2. Speak up and act for ALL families in Poland who deal with poverty, disability, and/or single motherhood.

--Write a letter to Roman Giertych, Poland's Deputy Minister and Minister of Education:

Roman Giertych, Ministerstwo Edukacji Narodowej, Al. Szucha 25, 00-918 Warszawa, Poland

(Sorry; couldn't find a fax number or email address. If you have one, by all means, do tell!)

--The proper salutation is "Dear Minister."

--Please make the following points in your letter, politely but firmly.

• Minister Giertych, even though you disagree with Alicja Tysiac's lawsuit against the Polish government, surely you can understand that she and her children, like any other human beings, deserve far more than the tiny pension they struggle to live on. No one deserves such poverty.
• All families in Poland who face poverty because of disability, single motherhood, and/or unemployment deserve at the very least a public commitment (in deed, not merely word)to giving them with the Polish equivalent of a "living wage."
• Minister Giertych, you profess to be prolife. However, does prolife begin at conception and end at birth? Adequate pensions for people like Alicja Tysiac and her family are prolife in at least two ways. They actively express respect for the lives of vulnerable Polish citizens, and in many, many situations, they can relieve the very problems that cause women to consider having abortions.

Note: A future action alert here will take on Giertych's homophobia and hostility to contraception for those whose beliefs permit it. These are also stances that in our opinion equally sabotage his professed commitment to prolife. However, for the time being, a short letter focused on the single issues of adequate pensions is most likely to have an impact.

3. If you are from another country besides Poland: speak up and act for ALL families in your country who deal with poverty, disability, and/or single motherhood.

--Families in these situations everywhere tend to have unnecessary, preventable difficulties, although their precise nature and the amounts and kinds of available social supports can vary from country to country. Try looking through the Nonviolent Choice Directory (direct URL http://www.nonviolentchoice.info)for ideas on how you personally can take other global and local actions.

4. Email this action alert to at least two other people you know!

With thanks for all you can do!

Part One of this post tells the story of Alicja Tysiac, a Polish woman who is disabled and the single mother of three children. Despite medical expenses she cannot afford, she struggles to take care of herself on a government pension of 140 Euros/~190 USD per month--a fraction of the average Polish income.

Here is a step you are some steps that you can take to help Alicja and her children.

Send a gift of money through Western Union in zlotys.

Then immediately email Elwira Chrusciel at info@astra.org.pl She is with the orgnization ASTRA and can answer any questions you may have about Alicja.

ASTRA is a prochoice feminism organization, the Nonviolent Choice Directory is prolife feminist, but we agree on the need to support Alicja Tysiac and her children.

Prolife and Prochoice: A Chance to Work Together (Part One)

Now in her late 30s, Alicja Tysiac is a Polish citizen and single mother of three children. She has had eye disease since she was a young girl, and thus difficulty finding employment and (as far as I can determine) state-of-the-art preventive medical care.

In February 2000, through contraceptive failure, she became unexpectedly pregnant with her third and youngest child. Doctors told her that the pregnancy might cause her to go blind. She then sought an abortion (legal in Poland for health reasons).

Her doctors at the public hospital declined to perform the abortion. I don't know if, after declining to perform the abortion, they offered her the utmost help for her and her child during and after the pregnancy. If they didn't, they utterly, miserably failed their responsibilities towards these two vulnerable human beings, and Tysiac's other children as well.

After giving birth to her daughter, Tysiac had a retinal hemorrhage, and now she can see only five feet (one and a half meters) in front of her. She brought a case before the European Court of Human Rights, which on March 20, 2007 ruled that she was entitled to 25,000 Euros (roughly 33,000 USD) in damages from the Polish government.

The Polish government has just appealed the decision, which means that Tysiac may not receive the compensation, or at least not for some years. Meanwhile, she and her three children continue in their chronic, longstanding poverty--like so many other single-mother families and disabled-parent families in Poland and around the world.

Whether you believe the case and the court ruling are just or unjust, whether or not you believe she had a right to abortion that was violated or that her child had a right to live...I hope we can all agree that Alicja Tysiac and her children, like any other human beings, deserve to be free of the chronic, longstanding poverty they are stuck in...and that each of us is responsible for their lives and well-being, just as we are for all human beings in parallel situations.

Tysiac is now classified as totally unemployable. In a tiny Warsaw apartment, she struggles to take care of herself and her three children on a state disability pension of 140 Euros--roughly 190 USD.

By comparison, the monthly per capita income (average income per person) in Poland is a little less than 1200 USD.

All the same, or so I have heard....the wife of a prominent Polish politician branded Alicja Tysiac an inherently unfit mother for seeking an abortion in her desperate situation---even said that Tysiac's children should be taken away from her.

Whatever different positions we may each take on abortion or on the justice/injustice of Tysiac's case before the European Court, I hope people of all views can at least agree on the following.

• Alicja Tysiac and her three children need and deserve at the very least a living wage, life-saving and life-enhancing medical care, and access to all the other social supports they each require to live and to develop to their fullest possible potentials. All disabled persons, single mothers, and their families need and deserve the same.

• Many, many women, just like Alicja did, contemplate abortion because they are in very difficult circumstances where they honestly--and understandably-- feel they have no other or better choice. It is wrong and cruel to scapegoat and point the finger at women like Alicja. A far more constructive response would be to channel that sense of outrage into fighting poverty, ableism, health care inequity, and stigmatizing discrimination against single mothers--which after all are major causes of abortion. Comprehensive public commitment to relief of these problems will help to prevent abortion, whatever law or ethics say about it.
  
  
  Whether you are prochoice, prolife, or none of the above on abortion: I hope you are moved to help Alicja Tysiac and her children, and other people in similar straits. In a forthcoming post I will offer some positive steps that you can take to do just that.

How to Save 13 Million Lives A Year (Part Two)

In response to the World Health Organization report, I have expanded and improved the Eco-Friendly Living section(direct URL http://www.nonviolentchoice.info/ecolife.html) of the Nonviolent Choice Directory. Here you can find dozens of ways that you can foster life-saving environmental changes at every level from the individual and household to the widescale-institutional and global.

It took me a little longer than expected to do this because while rechecking one of the websites--an online listing of animals available for adoption from shelters--I began to think again about whether it was time to add to our household's small flock of guinea pigs. And I found--and adopted!-- a very sweet-natured little fellow. He will be ready to join the two girls (also adopted from a no-kill shelter) once his quarantine is over and he has properly recovered from his neutering surgery. He already contributes copiously to the local good cheer and to the compost bin, just like his pals.

Amnesty International & Abortion (Part One)

A Vatican official, Cardinal Martino, just poured gasoline on an already quite gasoline-fed fire by demanding that all Roman Catholics refuse to support Amnesty International because of its recent decision to define abortion in certain situations as a woman's right, in contrast to its previous neutral stance.

Now this is an interfaith/nonsectarian website, that welcomes visitors and contributors of all faiths and none....so, please, no one take this assessment as any blanket condemnation or endorsement of Roman Catholics or their religious faith. I am simply focusing here on whether this was a constructive response or not. In my opinion it wasn't.

If he didn't like the policy change, he could have done wonders by placing his criticism in the context of praise and acknowledgment of the many, many things that Amnesty International does which, to the best of my understanding, are prolife according to the beliefs of all manner of Catholics (as well as people from all religions & none.) Such as protesting against forced abortion, other forms of violence against women, the death penalty, and torture, to name a few.

(And Nota Bene: opposing abortion is not a solely or exclusively Catholic endeavor, it crosses all manner of nonstereotypical lines including religious ones.)

He could have done even more wonders by insisting that the Roman Catholic Church at every level respond to the Amnesty policy change in an even more deeply radical way. A way that I think (but what do I know??) would seriously engage that whole pesky "What Would Jesus Do?" question....

He could have demanded that the Catholic Church, even as--no, because, it disagreed with Amnesty on this one point--- respond by fighting profoundly, thoroughly, energetically against violence towards women and the other misogynist injustices that cause the abortions that Amnesty now defines as under the rubric of human rights...even cooperating with Amnesty upon these areas of common ground.

He could have worked even more wonderful wonders by coming up with a specific, fully funded, worldwide action plan to accomplish just this way of preventing those very abortions.

He's a big wig, he gets a global hearing---so why didn't he use this opportunity to make a genuine difference more constructively?

Sigh...[Wailing, weeping, & gnashing of teeth.]


To evalute for yourself the man in his own words:
http://ncregister.com/site/article/2916

Food: A Basic Human Right, Part of the Right to Life

The United States marked Hunger Awareness Day this week. As much wealth as there is in this country, one in ten Americans suffers from hunger or malnutrition. This reality is part of the urban "food desert" where I have spent much of my life. And in much of the globe, the situation is much worse.

America's Second Harvest is to be commended for having an annual Hunger Awareness Day. It has a good & necessary purpose, to be sure. But those of us who have enough to eat, and nutritious enough things to eat, need to practice hunger awareness every day.

Some ideas:

--Please visit the Food & Nutrition section (direct URL http://www.nonviolentchoice.info/foodnutrition.html)of the Nonviolent Choice Directory and look at the programs and organizations there to see which ones you can benefit with your gifts of political support, time, money, expertise, or something else.

--Many more prosperous Americans wonder what to do in the situation when individual hungry people directly approach them and ask for some sort of aid. Even people with big hearts are reluctant to give money because they're afraid it will go to support someone's drug habit.

Well, why not offer food? Everybody needs to eat, right? You can do one to all of these things on a regular basis, whenever the occasion calls upon you.

A. Make a habit of carrying some lightweight, nutritious, nonperishable, easily consumed (no cooking, can openers, etc. required) but tasty (to a lot of folks, anyway) foodstuffs around with you--tuck a few bars of something that foots the bill into your purse, backpack, briefcase, whatever. If the person refuses, you can try (C) (but don't be pushy about it).

B. Make a habit of carrying cards, sheets of paper, etc. with the names, addresses, phone numbers, etc. of local food pantries and other helpful agencies on them. You can offer these, too, also some people will already know the resources. But you never know when someone will need and want the information.

C. Take the person to a nearby grocery store or restaurant so he or she can choose food s/he wants and likes and you can be right there to pay for it. Just because someone is poor and hungry, doesn't mean they are required to be Properly Grateful About and Unquestioningly Accept anything at all a richer person offers them.

D. Often another valuable gift you can offer is a listening ear. As in any other human encounter, that doesn't mean you have to believe everything you hear. But basic human kindness is quite distinct from being a dupe!


Food is part of the right to life. And we all need to fight for this part of the right to life (as well as all other parts) on every level from the individual to the global, for those who are born as well as those who are unborn.

"Not Traditional"

Sacred Circle, a national resource center for healing violence against Native women, often insists:


Violence Against Native Women Is Not Traditional.


Indeed, though few Euro-American feminists realize it today, the women's rights movement in this country, including the struggle to abolish and heal violence against women, has direct roots in at least one group of First Nations, the Haudenosaunee ("People of the Long House") Six Nations Confederacy of Upstate New York (the Mohawk, Seneca, Onondaga, Oneida, Cayuga, and Tuscarora).

Anglo early feminists like Matilda Joslyn Gage and Elizabeth Cady Stanton were both astounded and inspired by the much greater freedoms that Haudenosaunee women enjoyed within their own cultures, not the least of which was freedom from sexual coercion.

To learn more about Native American beliefs in everyone's right to bodily integrity, and about this underrecognized origin of US feminism, you can:

--Read ProLife Feminism Yesterday and Today, Second Expanded Edition, which thoroughly documents these matters.

--Visit the website of Sacred Circle and order from their publications catalog, which offers educational materials for both Native and non-Native people who want to both understand and take action on the current horrific problems of violence against Native women.

Violence Against Native American Women

The freedom to live without sexual assault is one of the most basic nonviolent choice rights.

Amnesty International USA recently published the report Maze of Injustice--the Failure to Protect Indigenous Women Against Sexual Violence in the USA. It found that Native American women were 2.5 times more likely than other American women to have sexual violence inflicted on them. Yet perpetrators of violence against Native women were far less likely to be brought to justice.

Why is this so? Along with the pervasive denial in Anglo-dominant US culture that women are human, Native American women are struggling with the fallout from centuries of colonial occupation and racism.

To read the Amnesty report and take action:

http://www.amnestyusa.org/Womens_Human_Rights/Join_Voices_with_Native_American_and_Alaska_Native_Women/page.do?id=1021163&n1=3&n2=39&n3=1410

The Amnesty materials include links to Native American shelters and efforts to end violence against women. Here are two ways you can aid their work most effectively:

1. Donate generously and regularly to one or more of these courageous but chronically underfunded organizations.
2. Write your representatives (Amnesty has a sample letter) to demand an increase in funds under the federal Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).