|
|
Click
Menu Item for More Information
|
|
Tax
funded Abortions in NS [FAQ's]
|
|
by David Krayden for the Calgary Herald October 4, 2004
STEPHEN Harper became leader of the Canadian Alliance in 2002 with the support of many Canadian Christians. He cruised to victory two years later and became the leader of the newly merged Conservative Party of Canada with the endorsement of Concerned Christians Canada. He campaigned in this year's election with the voice of conservative Christians rallying his support.
We had our reservations. We didn't like the way that he sacked Larry Spencer from the caucus because the courageous M.P. had the temerity to criticize the homosexual agenda. We were even less impressed when he chastised M.P. Rob Merrifield for suggesting that women should receive counseling prior to having an abortion. On that occasion he even used the disingenuous language of the pro-abortion forces when he said he would not interfere with a "woman's right to choose."
He stopped talking about repealing the infamous Bill C-250 gag law and said it merely needed to be amended. He tailored his speech to appease the social-liberal word choices of the Ottawa-Toronto-Montreal media axis.
Just last week he appointed a Red Tory, Noel Kinsella, to be Opposition Leader in the Senate and we wondered what to make of Harper's thinking and political direction.
We have been wondering for quite a while. Last summer, when Harper told Abbotsford M.P. Randy White to run for the hills when the prominent critic of Liberal (in)justice dared to suggest that an out-of-control Liberal Supreme Court should be leashed by the notwithstanding clause, Christians were disappointed.
We continue to be disappointed. Stephen Harper has proven to be a crashing failure as a representative for social conservatives or ordinary Canadians in general. Harper continues to issue innocuous and irrelevant statements to the media while telling his caucus that Members of Parliament should refrain from making comments on contentious issues or risk suffering the fate of Larry Spencer. He issued just such a dictate through the national media on the very day that Randy White was scheduled to appear at a CCC fundraising dinner here in Calgary.
It is a pity that Harper cannot be so clear on other issues. But he is not even consistent on fiscal policy. He is for M.P. pay raises and has embraced universal pharmacare with a passion once reserved for staunch New Democrats.
Social policy is off-limits. Traditional marriage is not even on the radar screen. Judicial reform is not worth a mention. And the Triple E Senate?… what Triple E Senate was that? The concept has gone the way of the grassroots in the Conservative Party - to oblivion.
For Harper, the political process used to be about "policy, policy, policy." Now it's about waiting your turn to be Prime Minister. But if a lifetime in the public forum were only about being in power, than we might as well all become Liberals because they are already in power. It should be about getting our principles into power.
If Harper truly wants to be a national leader than he must lead a party that is truly an alternate to the Liberal Party and not a mere facsimile. Instead he merely wants to avoid controversy.
And what is controversial? It seems that any policy that has not been endorsed by the Liberal Party and the liberal national media is too controversial for Stephen Harper. He lost the election, arguably, because social conservatives - the core of the old Reform Party - stayed home in droves and did not vote. It came as no surprise to many of us that the election attracted the lowest voter turnout in Canadian history.
It should have come as no surprise that Harper lost the election.
After losing, he disappeared from public life for months. He spoke to absolutely no issue during that time. When he emerged from his self-imposed exile a month ago, he gave an interview to the CBC and did not once mention the latest Liberal attack on Canadian freedom - the appointment of two more radical leftists to the Supreme Court of Canada.
He said nothing, and his silence was deafening.
Stephen Harper knows better. Principled conservatives deserve better from him.
We did not support Stephen Harper so that he could transform the party into a Red Tory fiefdom. We did not support him so that he could move himself and the party into the mushy middle.
There is already one Liberal Party in Canada. We do not require a second.
We do require some intestinal fortitude from Stephen Harper. We do require some evidence of conviction, of dedication to principle.
According to December 2003 COMPAS Poll, 63 per cent of Canadians support traditional marriage and only 34 per cent agree with the expansionist role of the Supreme Court. It is time for Stephen Harper to recognize that social conservatives comprise not only the core of his party but also of Canada itself.
He will not win without us.
He is advised to remember that.
David Krayden is the National Chairman of Concerned Christians Canada www.concernedchristians.ca
Greetings from LifeIssues.net (www.lifeissues.net)
China: Too Many Men-A Surprise? According to the Xinhua News Agency, China has 117 boys for every 100 girls. Under the age of nine there are 13,000,000 more boys than girls. By the year 2020, China will have 40,000,000 men who cannot find wives. The deputy director of family planning committee in China said, "Such serious gender disproportion poses a major threat to the healthy, harmonious and sustainable growth of the nation's population and can trigger such crimes and social problems as mercenary marriage, abduction of women and prostitution."
A Downs Syndrome Gene? The journal "Chemistry and Industry" (3 Nov. 03) has reported "The discovery of a gene involved in memory and learning disabilities in Downs Syndrome means that this condition, one of the most common genetic abnormalities, may soon be treatable." It quotes research that the gene causes the neuron damage that is thought to cause mental retardation. It noted that the general thinking was that there were probably several genes involved in mental retardation. It is now being postulated that possibly only a single gene may be responsible. If so this could lead to treatment.
Premature Survivability Improving. The survivability of pre-mature infants has shown a steady improvement over the last 20 years. An article in "World Magazine" June 26, reports on a thousand early term infants in Minneapolis hospitals. The figures are as follows. From 1986 to 2000 babies at: 26 weeks increased survival from 76% to 93%; 25 weeks the survival rate rose from 69% to 85%; 24 weeks went from 49% to 81%; 23 weeks it rose from 40% to 65%.
Nutrition and Hydration? In the public press, we continually read the phrase "artificial nutrition and hydration." This is simply incorrect. Correctly spoken it is "artificially administered nutrition and hydration." Better yet, "assisted feeding." What's the difference? The phraseology euthanasia supporters use sounds very medical and more like treatment. Treatment can be withdrawn in certain instances. Actually, if you drink a milkshake through a straw, you are artificially administering to yourself food and fluids. Since treatment of an incompetent patient through a gastric tube is no different than drinking fluids through a straw, we really ought to use the same language rather than their pro-euthanasia words.
God Bless and Continue your good work promoting the "Culture of Life".
Jerry Novotny, OMI
Canadian court decisions create
refugees of conscience
For Immediate Release September 30, 2004
OTTAWA – In the past few days, marriage commissioners have begun to surrender their right to solemnize marriages due to court rulings in support of same-sex marriage.
Manitoba marriage commissioners were sent a letter by the director of vital statistics for the province telling them they would be expected to marry gay and lesbian couples – or to resign. As a result, two marriage commissioners in Manitoba have already resigned.
Such Canadians are being marginalized and driven into the closet by ideologues who have no respect for the Canadian spirit of tolerance and mutual respect. Judges are abusing with impunity the fundamental human rights of Canadians who are exercising their conscience. Like a bully in the playground, these judges are giddy with power, yet lacking in the sobriety necessary to wield it with responsibility.
“Canada’s renegade courts are tearing up the constitution as they make decisions which openly violate the constitutionally protected freedom of conscience,” says Conservative Party MP Maurice Vellacott.
“There is absolutely nothing in the Canadian Constitution that permits a ‘read-in’ right to trump explicitly protected conscience rights. As politicians, we need to prevent further damage to our Constitution by supreme court judges,” says Vellacott. “Canada joins the rest of the world in considering persecution as a just cause for granting refugee protection, yet today Canada is creating its own refugees of conscience.”
“Judges and politicians need to rediscover Canada’s spirit of tolerance, human dignity and mutual respect, and put an end to this violent treatment of our Constitution,” concludes Vellacott.
– 30 –
For further comment, call Maurice Vellacott at (613) 992-1899
-----
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - SEPTEMBER 23, 2004
ONTARIO’S TAB FOR LATE-TERM ABORTIONS: $400,000 FOR ONE YEAR
Ontario taxpayers paid $400,000 last year to send 56 women to the states for
late term abortions.
The Ontario Ministry of Health admitted these figures after stories last week
claimed only 15 women were sent
from Ontario and 30 from Quebec. The new information shows that each abortion
costs taxpayers an average
of $7000.00.
The government’s proposed solution to this scandalous situation is to open and
fund a private clinic in Quebec
to specialize in late-term abortions. They seem to think that it would be easier
for women to have their abortions
in Canada.
Joanne Byfield, President-Elect of LifeCanada, says “How easy can it be to enter
a clinic, lie down on the table
and wait for the “doctor” to rip your baby limb from limb, crush its skull and
suck the remaining “products of
conception” out of your womb? This is a baby who has moved within your body,
whose kicks and churning
have astonished you with their strength and patterns. For those who like to
define humanity based on
“viability”, this is precisely the population we are talking about. These are
“viable” babies.”
Even well-known abortionist Henry Morgentaler believes it is unethical to destroy
unborn babies at this late
stage of development. "Around 24 weeks I have ethical problems doing that"
says Henry Morgentaler. "What
we do at our clinics is if we have a problem like that we usually counsel the
woman to continue the pregnancy
and put it up for adoption if she is unable to care for it," said Morgentaler.
For once, we agree with him.
When even those in the business object to late-term abortions why is our government
spending scarce health
care dollars on this gruesome procedure?
-30-
For more information, please contact Jakki Jeffs, President of LifeCanada at
(519) 824-7797 or
Joanne Byfield, President-Elect of LifeCanada at (780) 445-0344.
LifeCanada - VieCanada
PO Box 24007 Hazeldean RPO
Ottawa ON K2M 2C3
www.lifecanada.org
1-866-780-LIFE
Phone: 613-722-1552 info@lifecanada.org Fax: 613-722-2201
Canadians Embracing Life!
THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION CONNECTING EDUCATIONAL PRO-LIFE GROUPS ACROSS CANADA
From: Canadian Physicians for Life
Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 3:37 PM
Subject: CMA Doctors: Women Deserve to Know Facts on Fetal Development,
Abortion Pain
(Note: With regards to fetal pain and late-term abortions, many Canadians
are not aware that late-term abortions happen in Canada. This is no doubt
due to the fact that this information is not readily available. A few months
ago, while looking into the 2001 abortion statistics which had just been
released, I found out from Statistics Canada that of the abortions for which
Stats Can has information on gestational age (less than 50,000, which is
less than half the total number of abortions), 246 abortions occurred
between the gestational ages of 21 and 40 weeks--note that this information
was not released to the general public and I only found out about it by
specifically asking Stats Can, "How many abortions happened between 21
and
40 weeks?" We have no information on gestational age for more than 50,000
abortions occurring in 2001. This is because abortion providers do not have
to provide details regarding the abortions they perform. When the Supreme
Court struck down the abortion law in 1988, reporting of this information
became optional. So we understand very little about the abortions occurring
in Canada. Dr. Paul Ranalli, a neurologist in Toronto, was a guest on Lorna
Dueck's show "Listen Up" on Global TV this morning and I am glad he
brought
up this issue of fetal pain. It is important for Canadians to be made aware
of the suffering inflicted on some members of our society in the name of
other members' so-called "right to choose." ....Barbara McAdorey,
Administrator, CPL)
CMA Doctors: Women Deserve to Know Facts on Fetal Development, Abortion Pain
Washington, DC, June 22, 2004--Citing the medical principle of informed
consent, the Christian Medical Association (www.cmawashington.org), the
nation's largest faith-based organization of physicians, today asserted that
women deserve to know the medical facts about fetal development and
abortion-induced fetal pain. Such facts are key to court cases on the
partial-birth abortion ban and to federal legislation that would require
telling women considering an abortion after 20 weeks gestation the full
facts about the pain her baby would experience.
CMA Executive Director Dr. David Stevens observed, "The medical principle
of
informed consent requires that patients receive a complete and candid
presentation of the facts. That's why we physicians applaud Congressman
Smith, Senators Brownback and Alexander and other leaders who have helped
introduce the Unborn Child Pain Awareness Act. Women simply deserve to know
all the facts before making a decision."
Dr. Stevens added, "The medical evidence shows that a partial-birth abortion
inflicts cruel and horrific pain on a conscious baby. Yet the arguments of
abortionists in these cases reveal deep callousness and a determination to
keep the facts from their patients." Stevens cited testimony taken from
the
March 31 transcript of opening arguments by plaintiffs in National Abortion
Federation v. Ashcroft in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District
of New York.
"A doctor called by abortion groups testified that the pain he is causing
a
baby during an abortion never crosses his mind. I can assure you that this
question crosses the mind of many of the women under his knife. This case
has revealed what abortionists and abortion rights lobbyists have tried so
hard to hide from women--that abortion stops a beating heart in the most
painful, gruesome manner imaginable. It's time the truth be told."
Dr. Gene Rudd, an obstetrician-gynecologist and CMA Associate Executive
Director, said, "Court and congressional testimony by experts including
Dr.
Jean Wright indicates that sensory perception appears on the face of the
human fetus in the seventh week of development, and over their entire body
by the 20th week. Studies reveal that newborns not only feel pain; they
react to pain with three to five times more sensitivity than adults."
Dr. Rudd added, "Medical science since Roe v Wade in 1973 and new technology
such as '4-D' ultrasound and in-utero surgery are yielding new light on the
miracle and wonder within the womb. These technologies and facts on fetal
pain are helping more women to realize that the life they hold within them
is wonderful and precious."
To schedule an interview please contact Margie Shealy at (423) 844-1047 or
by e-mail: margie@cmdahome.org. The Christian Medical Association is
equipped with Ku Band Digital Uplink satellite and ISDN lines.
--30--
Web site: www.cmdahome.org
Michael Izzotti, BSc (Pharm)
Coordinator, PFLI/Canada
http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/30487.htm
'SEX PATCH' TIED TO 17 DEATHS: FDA
By SUSAN EDELMAN
September 19, 2004 -- EXCLUSIVE
A trendy contraceptive patch — which has been aggressively marketed using
sexy ads, fashion models and Olympic athletes — has been linked to the
deaths of at least 17 young American women in the past two years, The Post
has learned.
Scores of other women using the Ortho Evra patch have suffered
complications, including 21 "life-threatening" cases of blood clots
and
other ailments, according to Food and Drug Administration reports obtained
by The Post.
Doctors who reviewed the reports said they were alarmed at the number of
fatalities.
"This is a cause for concern," said Dr. John Quagliarello, a professor
of
obstetrics and gynecology at NYU Medical Center.
He and other doctors said The Post's discovery was the first they've heard
of multiple deaths linked to the popular device, which the manufac turer
claims has been used by 4 mil lion American women since it went on sale in
2002.
The first fatality publicly blamed on the patch came this past April 2, when
Zakiya Kennedy, 18, a Manhattan fashion student who hoped to compete on the
TV show "America's Next Top Model," collapsed in a Mid town subway
station.
An autopsy found a blood clot had moved to her lung, and the medical
examiner ruled it a side effect of the birth-control device.
Zakiya's grand mother, Roberta Alloway, was shocked to learn that so many
other young women using the device have also dropped dead.
"My grand daughter was an A student — her life was cut short because she
wore a patch to protect herself from getting pregnant," she said.
Ortho Evra — the only contraceptive patch on the market — delivers
pregnancy-blocking hormones into the bloodstream. The patch is pitched as
more convenient than the daily Pill, because it has to be changed just once
a week.
Commercials show attractive young women calling the patch "birth control
that's on your body, and off your mind." A voice-over warns that, like
The
Pill, "serious side effects include blood clots, stroke and heart attack."
FDA records, obtained by The Post under the Freedom of Information law, show
that 17 patch users, ages 17 to 30, suffered fatal heart attacks, blood
clots, and possible strokes since August 2002.
Ortho-McNeil has paid supermodels like Naomi Campbell and the Norwegian
Olympic beach volleyball players to promote the patch.
An FDA spokesman said the agency discusses such reports only with the drug
maker, but reviews them for possible actions ranging from requiring stronger
warnings to removing the product from the market.
Ortho-McNeil said the illnesses and deaths are "consistent with the health
risks" of The Pill, which it says kills 0.3 to 1.9 women in every 100,000
users ages 15 to 29. Smoking dramatically raises the risk.
About 18 million Americans use The Pill each year.
"We've received six reports of fatalities in which the role of our product
is unclear. We are continuing to investigate those reports," spokeswoman
Mona Terrell said. She would not elaborate on those cases or the FDA
reports.
Additional reporting by Lindsay Powers
Stop the cloning madness
First, there is no credible scientific debate on whether human embryos are
alive and human. The important debate is over whether human embryos should be
killed for the gain of others. Second, given the unresolved debate about whether
this research is ethical, no reviewing body could, in good faith, approve it.
Finally, the research is unsound, making the destruction of human lives even
more tragic. The research is unsound because it is well-established that cloned
cells contain genetic defects. The Harvard scientists suggest no choice but
to accept these defects and hope for the best. Well, their response is not good
enough for a public that hopes so desperately for timely new therapies for incurable
diseases. Their response is not good enough when there are better approaches
that do not require destruction of human embryos.Adult stem cell research is
predicted to beat the pants off human therapeutic cloning research when it comes
to yielding significant advances in cell medi
cine.
And adult stem cells provide better approaches. These cells that naturally function in the regeneration and repair of adult tissues pose no ethical concerns. Some stem cell biologists at Harvard, who have disparaged adult stem cells, neglect to inform the public that therapeutic cloning strategies must address the same problems that they ascribe to adult stem cells, as well as difficulties that are unique to human embryonic stem cells. I call on Harvard's institutional review board to listen carefully to what its scientists are saying and to what they are not saying. Why do scientists who promote therapeutic cloning decry reproductive cloning? These stem cell biologists, who would kill a human embryo without a second thought only to turn it into a tube of genetically defective cells, sit piously at microphones in Senate hearings and denounce reproductive cloning which has the goal of human birth.
View full text at boston.com:
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2004/10/20/stop_the_cloning_madness/
.
*************************
TOPReflections on what is happening.
In 1989 the United Nations declared that Canada was no longer a Christian country and it truly show in the results of this election. For all the fearmongering by Paul Martin and the Liberals as well as the strident idealogy of the NDP that supports abortion, anywhere, anytime for any reason, should have driven Christian voters to the Conservatives despite the media spin. It did not happen. Why, perhaps because for the most part NS society is Christian only in name and not in substance.
The best the Liberals and the NDP can offer a pregnant woman is to kill her child and have taxpayers fund the destruction and if she decides to keep the child to raise it in a government sponsored daycare institution. There is something wrong with this picture, don't you think?
The Conservatives on the other hand had some excellent candidates running in this election in NS but failed to capitalize on the support that was offered. When the national scene is analysed, it can be said where a pro-life candidate articulated his/her position well they were elected, no matter which party the ran with. This has been the general scene in the US as well. Being able to articulate the respect for life is a true mark of a statesmen that can be trusted. Hopefully, in the next election those candidates who were pro-life will be able to take a stand to defend life and family.
When we reflect back on the political scene in our Country for the past 20 years, we have seen pornographers virually protected from proscecution on the internet. (Now over 1 Million porno sites on the Internet). The age of sodomy reduced from 18 years of age to 14. No protection whatsoever for unborn children. The advancement of homosexual marriages as equal to heterosexual marriages. Vasectomies covered by health plans, morning after pills, embryo experimentation, cannabalization of human fetuses, late term abortions, increases in breast cancer and denials by government and media and the list goes on.
Kerby Anderson in his article at Probe Ministeries, "When Nations Die" spells out quite nicely what is taking place in our society has happened before and is unfolding as it has in the past. Our nation, our society is dying and becoming weak, because of the weakening of the traditional family, the desire not to have children, and the acceptance as homosexuality and sexual mores run loose. You may wish to read and article "Crisis of the Century", that sums up the observations put forth by noted experts who have studied the death of societies.
Nevertheless, we must continue to seek the higher ground in the saving of unborn children from the hands of abortionist and in doing so improve the nation. For a nation that honors and protects children, is a nation worth fighting for. We must save the family, for as the family goes, so goes the nation.
House of Commons Hansard - October 22, 2004
Mrs. Joy Smith (Kildonan-St. Paul, CPC): Mr. Speaker, Canadians feel
strongly in the freedom of expression, the freedom of speech and the
freedom of religion. Prior to the June election, Revenue Canada
attempted to quiet charitable organizations opposed to same sex
marriage. It called in representatives from the Catholic church and the
evangelical fellowship, to remind them of the dangers of speaking
against the Liberal government. Could the minister tell us, whatever
happened to the separation of church and state?
Hon. John McKay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Revenue Canada has fairly significant rules with
respect to the debate whereby a registered charity involves itself in
political discourse. Those rules need to be followed because I do not
think any of us would wish to have charitable donations used for
improper purposes. Therefore, any views that are based by a well
reasoned position are acceptable, but activities which actually involve
themselves in political partisanship are not acceptable activities.
Mr. Brian Pallister (Portage-Lisgar, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the facts are
these. Revenue Canada threatened to revoke the charitable status of the
Roman Catholic bishop of Calgary. It threatened to audit Focus on the
Family after it expressed its view contrary to the government's. Yet the
United Church of Canada, on side with the government, received no such
threats. There is a clear pattern emerging here. Those opposed to the
government are threatened, those who support the government are
hands-off. I would like the minister to stand in his place today and
acknowledge that this and all public policy debates are the property of
Canadians, not the property of the Liberal Party of Canada.
Hon. John McKay (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, of course public policy debates are the property of
all Canadians. That is not the issue. The issue is whether a charity
stepped into partisan activity. When any charity from any source,
whether it is religious or otherwise, steps into partisan activity it
catches the attention of Revenue Canada. I would imagine that the hon.
Dear Colleague:
Halloween is just around the corner, and once again UN Children's Fund is
recruiting millions of little children to fundraise on its behalf. But if a
cute little ballerina (or superman) comes to your door bearing a little
orange box marked UNICEF, give them candy instead of coins. The UN
Children's Fund, which promotes abortion, sterilization and contraception,
does not deserve to have its coffers fattened. Read on.
Steven W. Mosher
President, PRI Weekly Briefing
18 October 2004
Volume 6 / Number 32
UNICEF: The Mask is Off!
For several decades the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) has used
children to fundraise on its behalf, collecting over $100 million in
nickels, dimes and quarters. Having children "Trick or treat for UNICEF,"
as
the slogan went, was seen as a way for privileged American children to help
poor, hungry and sick boys and girls elsewhere.
But today's UNICEF is not the same organization it was as recently as ten
years ago. Where it once spent its energies on child survival, primary
health care, and development, it is now heavily into family planning and
sex education. In the words of a recent Catholic Family and Human Rights
Institute (C-FAM) report, "UNICEF now engages in a number of controversial
programs centered upon the promotion of a radical feminist ideology."[1]
UNICEF has become just one more UN organization run by an unholy alliance of
radical feminists and population controllers, who apparently believe that
promoting the "reproductive and sexual rights" of children is more
important
than providing them with clean water, decent food and legitimate medical
care. The Vatican, dismayed by this turn of events, withdrew its support
from UNICEF in 1996.
Let me give you some specifics, starting with abortion. UNICEF denies
promoting abortion, but it has endorsed, and even helped to draft, documents
that call for the legalization of abortion. The organization also approves
of the distribution of abortion-causing "emergency contraception"
to refugee
women.
UNICEF also helps to fund organizations that promote abortions. One such
organization is the Population Council, the group which holds the U.S.
patent for the "abortion pill" RU-486. Another is a South African
group
called LoveLife, which actively encourages teenage girls to have abortions.
LoveLife provides a toll free number to Marie Stopes International abortion
clinics, recommending abortion "... if you are happy to pay for the
services. Remember, it is your right to get counseling [and] an abortion. If
people are unhelpful, don’t get discouraged. Keep trying. You don’t need
permission from anybody to have an abortion." LoveLife, which describes
an
abortion as a "gentle suction," encourages girls to "Talk to
someone--a
health worker, a counselor, or someone you can trust."
Afterwards, LoveLife tells girls, "You will feel a sense of relief. Some
people like to do a ritual to end the process--light a candle, plant a
flower, write a poem or go for a long walk." No mention of post-abortion
trauma here, one is merely "ending a process," not taking the life
of the
child.[2]
This is not your mom or dad's UNICEF.
This Halloween, "Trick or treat for UNICEF" is the scariest trick
of all.
ENDNOTES
[1] Douglas A. Sylvia, The United Nations Children's Fund: Women or Children
First? C-FAM White Paper Series, 2003. The quote is from the Executive
Summary, pp.1-2. htp://www.c-fam.org/pdfs/unicef-execsum.pdf,
[2] Douglas A. Sylvia, The United Nations Children's Fund: Women or Children
First? pp. 26-27. It should be noted that LoveLife and UNICEF ran for cover
after their website was reported in the media, making significant changes to
the text. http://www.c-fam.org/pdfs/unicef.pdf
_______
© 2004 Population Research Institute. Permission to reprint granted.
**********************
**********************
TOP
