U.S. Attacks Egypt Over Homosexual Rights at UN

C-FAM
Volume 13, Number 30
July 8, 2010


By Susan Yoshihara, Ph.D.

NEW YORK, July 8 (C-FAM) At the United Nations (UN) last month, several U.S. representatives attacked Egypt for asking for further investigation into a homosexual advocacy organization which has applied for special consultative status with the UN Economic and Social Council. These attacks culminated in a sharp rebuke delivered last week by U.S. ambassador Susan Rice. The actions seem to contravene President Obama’s strategy of engaging Egypt and other Muslim societies in key foreign policy aims such as Middle East peace.

At a UN committee meeting, three American representatives rose in protest of an Egyptian-led group of nations seeking further investigation of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (IGLHRC). One U.S. representative attacked Egypt so aggressively that the Egyptian delegate called a point of order on the matter. The committee is in charge of deciding which organizations are granted consultative status to the United Nations Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).

Ambassador Rice then announced, “The United States Mission to the UN is, among other efforts, working to reverse an attempt by some members of the NGO [Non-Governmental Organization] Committee of the Economic and Social Council to deny UN consultative status to the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission.” The U.S. is planning to circumvent Egypt and the committee by bringing the matter to a vote at the upcoming ECOSOC meeting.

Rice used the occasion of the Obama administration’s celebration of “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month” to make the announcement. Rice further asserted that, “In some nations, sexual orientation is considered a crime, and punished with unspeakable violence and humiliation.” However, “sexual orientation” is generally not criminalized, and Rice did not refer to specific cases. Homosexual sex or “sodomy” is banned in nearly half of all UN member states.

Similarly, Rice asserted that “Public pride is sometimes met with brutal, state-sanctioned beatings and arrests.” While Rice did not back up the claim or define “public pride,” the remark seems to be a reference to “Gay Pride” rallies, which according to IGLHRC include “marches, demonstrations and protests” to promote homosexual rights. The US ambassador to Bulgaria, James Warlick, came under fire in June for promoting a demonstration in Sofia, over the objections of the Bulgarian Orthodox Church and pro-family groups.

While campaigning against Egypt at ECOSOC, Rice is seeking to enlist Egyptian support elsewhere at the UN. In April, Rice told reporters that Egypt was essential to U.S. aims during the “complicated and difficult” issue of the Middle East during the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Review Conference. And last year Rice expressed “deep appreciation to President Mubarak and the Government of Egypt for their persistence in promoting a durable ceasefire in Gaza and southern Israel and in hosting Palestinian reconciliation talks.” The U.S. Congress appropriated $250 million in aid to Egypt in 2010. The aid package gives the Mubarak government veto power on which NGOs receive the U.S. funds.

President Obama’s high profile U.S.-Muslim relations strategy, launched in June 2009 at Cairo University, seeks closer relationships with Muslim societies in order to deal successfully with ongoing U.S. military operations, Middle East peace, and the Iran nuclear crisis, as well as to promote democracy, religious freedom, and women’s rights in the region.

Sexual orientation was not mentioned in the president’s hour-long Cairo speech. It is unclear whether Rice’s speech represented a shift in Obama’s policy.

An Out-of-Touch Ogre?

The media’s mau-mauing of Bishop Thomas Olmsted
By George Neumayr | July 2010
Catholic World Report

In the past, bishops sparked shocked headlines in newspapers by betraying Church teaching. Now a brave few make headlines by upholding it. Consider the case of Bishop Thomas J. Olmsted of Phoenix. New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof has likened him to a member of the hierarchy during the “cruel and debauched days of the Borgias in the Renaissance.”

That sounds pretty bad. What, exactly, has Olmsted done? Shown corrupt indifference to the protection of children? Profited off the abuse of them? No, it turns out his cruel sin in the eyes of Kristof and company is that he wants to protect children, including the forgotten unborn ones often killed under the worldly logic of false compassion.

In May, it came out that Bishop Olmsted had upheld canon law after learning, to his alarm, that a nun at a Catholic hospital in the diocese of Phoenix, several months earlier, formally cooperated in the killing of an unborn child from a patient’s difficult pregnancy.

Olmsted had quietly, conscientiously, and properly followed Church teaching and discipline in the matter (under canon law, Mercy Sister Margaret McBride incurred “automatic excommunication” through her action; he simply informed her of that, and she lost her executive position at the hospital).

But the media, hungry for stories that pit “progressive” nuns against “reactionary” bishops, publicized it, at which point Olmsted issued a laudably straightforward comment:

I am gravely concerned by the fact that an abortion was performed several months ago in a Catholic hospital in this diocese. I am further concerned by the hospital’s statement that the termination of a human life was necessary to treat the mother’s underlying medical condition.

An unborn child is not a disease. While medical professionals should certainly try to save a pregnant mother’s life, the means by which they do it can never be by directly killing her unborn child. The end does not justify the means.

Every Catholic institution is obliged to defend human life at all its stages; from conception to natural death. This obligation is also placed upon every Catholic individual. If a Catholic formally cooperates in the procurement of an abortion, they are automatically excommunicated by that action. The Catholic Church will continue to defend life and proclaim the evil of abortion without compromise, and must act to correct even her own members if they fail in this duty….

St. Joseph’s Hospital and Medical Center, where the abortion took place, also made a statement, though considerably more vague, saying that in “this tragic case, the treatment necessary to save the mother’s life required the termination of an 11-week pregnancy,” and that its “ethics” committee signed off on it.

Just the “termination of an 11-week pregnancy”? No, an unborn child was terminated too. But it is easier to say a “pregnancy” was terminated than an innocent unborn child suctioned to death. Showing no interest in that victim, the media’s ensuing coverage cast Sister McBride as the big-hearted “saintly” nun and Bishop Olmsted as the out-of-touch ogre.

Yet he is the only figure in the controversy in touch with what actually happened: an unborn child was killed at a Catholic hospital with a nun’s formal cooperation and help, and he is not about to let that happen again. At a time when derelict bishops are justly criticized for ignoring canon law to the detriment of children, the media’s treatment of the conscientious Bishop Olmsted looks even more outrageous and perverse.

It always comes as a rude surprise to the media these days when an American bishop turns out to be a believing Catholic and displays a willingness to govern his diocese according to Church norms. The Fifth-Column newspaper National Catholic Reporter finds his conduct very puzzling indeed, breaking the news, through one troubled source, that Olmsted is “very much governed by canon law and obedience and fidelity to church teaching and the magisterium….” How odd. This makes him, in NCR’s telling, a “strict constructionist” and a backwoods simpleton. “It helps to know that he grew up on a Kansas farm near the Nebraska border and attended a one-room rural school,” observed another of the paper’s sources.

But, wait, Olmsted is also like a pampered Borgia-era bishop. One of Nicholas Kristof’s sources hissed, “True Christians, like Sister Margaret, understand that real life is full of difficult moral decisions and pray that they make the right decision in the context of Christ’s teachings. Only a group of detached, pampered men in gilded robes on a balcony high above the rest of us could deny these dilemmas.”

It apparently doesn’t occur to commentators like Kristof that the very modernist scorn of canon law they demand from Olmsted is what got decadent bishops into the abuse scandal and exposure of children to harm, both spiritual and physical, in the first place. Kristof speaks of the “cruel and debauched days of the Borgias in the Renaissance” while oblivious to the cruel and debauched days of modern liberalism. Both came through the infidelity of soft and corrupt bishops to canon law and orthodox teaching.

Olmsted, needless to say, is the antithesis of a Borgia-era bishop. He has risked his comfort for the sake of thankless duty. He deserves praise for resisting the media’s mau-mauing and the Catholic left’s claimed monopoly on “compassion,” which never extends to the unborn child torn limb from limb.

George Neumayr is editor of Catholic World Report.

Argentina Wants Mommies, Daddies for Children

National March Against Same-Sex "Marriage" Set for Tuesday

BUENOS AIRES, Argentina, JULY 12, 2010 (Zenit.org).- Marching under the motto "We Want a Mommy and Daddy for Our Children," citizens of Argentina will demonstrate Tuesday before Congress, as legislators contemplate approving same-sex "marriage."

Cardinal Jorge Mario Bergoglio, archbishop of Buenos Aires and primate of Argentina, appealed to parish priests, rectors and chaplains of churches to facilitate the participation of the faithful.

The march is expected to draw participants from a range of social groups, including Church movements and groups from a variety of creeds, as well as labor unions and other civil organizations. The cardinal recalled that marchers are to carry "only Argentinean flags or positive slogans for man-woman marriage."

Last Sunday, the bishops' statement "On the Unalterable Good of Marriage and the Family," was read at Masses.

There, the bishops stress that "marriage as a stable relationship between man and woman, who in their diversity complement one another for the transmission and care of life, is a good that does much for the development of persons as well as society. We are not before a private event or religious option, but before a reality that has its root in the very nature of mankind."

They affirmed that "heterosexuality as a requisite for marriage is not to discriminate," but rather to base marriage on an objective premise. "The contrary would be to ignore its essence."

"Marriage is not a purely human institution despite the numerous variations that it might have undergone in the course of the centuries in various cultures, social structures and spiritual attitudes," the prelates noted. "These differences must not make one forget its common and permanent features."

ZE10071203 - 2010-07-12
Permalink: http://www.zenit.org/article-29862?l=english

Venezuelan Cardinal Denounces Marxist Socialism

Responds to Criticisms of President Chávez

ROME, JULY 9, 2010 (Zenit.org).- The archbishop of Caracas, Venezuela, is denouncing the government's attempts to install a Marxist Socialist regime through "unconstitutional" and "illegal" methods violating the rights and will of the people.

Cardinal Jorge Urosa Savino underlined the need to speak publicly, to voice "my conscience as a Venezuelan and as archbishop of Caracas, given the reality that we are experiencing."

He wrote a statement, issued Wednesday, denouncing "the danger that is threatening our beloved homeland."

"Going beyond the national constitution," the cardinal wrote, President Hugo Chávez "and his government want to lead the country on the path of Marxist Socialism, which monopolizes all spaces, is totalitarian, and leads to a dictatorship, not even of the proletariat, but of the leadership that governs."

"Going against the popular will, which on Dec. 2, 2007, rejected the proposal of nationalizing and the socialist reform of the national constitution, through unconstitutional laws, there is an attempt to implant in Venezuela a Marxist regime, as the president has openly proclaimed on repeated occasions," the prelate stated.

He asserted that "such conduct is unconstitutional and illegal but, above all, it attempts against the human, civil and political rights of Venezuelans."

"The failure of Marxist Socialism in other countries is more than evident," Cardinal Urosa noted.

Economic concerns

He continued, "Moreover, the pretension to monopolize all productive activities through, for example, the progressive monopolization of importation, distribution and commercialization of foods, is in the line of dismantling the national productive apparatus so that we will all depend on the government even to eat."

Chávez has progressively nationalized many major national companies in various industries: oil, telephone, electric, steel, and cement. In addition, he has taken over supermarkets and large areas of farmland. This nationalization, along with government-issued price controls and other factors, has contributed to a rapid decrease in food production in the country. Thus Venezuela currently imports around two-thirds of its food needs.

The cardinal pointed out that this will not benefit "the Venezuelan producers, peasants and workers, but those of other countries."

"Together with the progressive indebtedness of the country," he added, it will lead "to the ruin of our economy as well as to a foreign dependence, totally contrary to the necessary food sovereignty."

"Concerned about installing a Marxist Socialist system, the government neglects its primary constitutional tasks: to protect the security of the people hit especially in the poorest sectors by violence and delinquency; to promote better care in the field of health, to build and maintain the infrastructure of highways and means of transport," among other things, Cardinal Urosa stated.

Attacks

The prelate, who wrote the statement while on a scheduled trip to Rome for various meetings, published these words after Chávez leveled attacks against the cardinal himself and the entire Venezuelan episcopate.

During a national assembly on Monday, the day his nation celebrates its independence, the Venezuelan president called the archbishop of Caracas a "troglodyte" for trying to "scare people about communism."

"This gentleman is unworthy of calling himself cardinal," Chávez said, and asked the papal nuncio to Argentina, Archbishop Pietro Parolin, to tell Benedict XVI to send a replacement.

Cardinal Urosa said in response, "The president does not have license to insult, defame or abuse any Venezuelan."

"He has attacked me verbally on several occasions, exposing me unjustly to public ridicule," the prelate stated. "I totally reject these aggressions, which are unbecoming to the one who does them."

"The appointment of all the bishops of Venezuela and of the world is in the hands of the Church," he emphasized, "not in the hands of politicians."

The cardinal affirmed that all the bishops are builders of peace, and thus "without pretending to assume quotas of power or becoming political operators, we claim our right to pronounce ourselves on everything that has to do with the life and future of the Venezuelan people."

"We want the good, coexistence and progress of Venezuela," he affirmed, "with opportunities for all, without exclusions or injustices or intolerance, with longings for unity, well-being, progress and peace."

Cardinal Urosa encouraged "all men and women of good will to work ceaselessly and fearlessly, in the framework of the national constitution, so that fraternity and solidarity, liberty, justice and peace will reign in Venezuela."

He affirmed, "We Venezuelan bishops are solidly united in the task of serving the people as witnesses and ambassadors of Jesus Christ, and pastors of the People of God in Venezuela."

Solidarity

Several Church entities have expressed support and solidarity for Cardinal Urosa.

The semi-official Vatican newspaper, L'Osservatore Romano, stated its Thursday edition, "The Catholic Church in Venezuela firmly rejects the indescribable verbal aggression of which the cardinal archbishop of Caracas has been the object."

It added that the president took "advantage of the celebrations of the bicentenary of national independence," to pour "gasoline on the fire of Church-state relations."

The secretary-general of the Venezuelan episcopal conference, Auxiliary Bishop Jesús González de Zárate Salas of Caracas, also publicly rejected the accusations.

The council of priests of the Archdiocese of Caracas issued a communiqué, in which it stated that, "as a Venezuelan citizen, Cardinal Jorge Urosa Savino has the full right and duty to opine and contribute to the common good."

It added, "As archbishop of Caracas he has the full right, more than that, he has the sacred duty to guide Catholics on religious and moral principles and values that are at stake in the present social and political situation of our country."

Manuel Arcaya, president of the National Council of the Laity of Venezuela, said in a communiqué Wednesday, on behalf of the laypeople, movements and diocesan councils, "We categorically reject the adjectives and insults" brought against the cardinal.

Arcaya said he shares "with His Eminence the very grave concern that the country is being led to a Cuban style Communism."

"The objective of the government's campaign of despair is to generate sadness and passivity, sentiments that are foreign to our faith," he said.

This electoral year, Arcaya affirmed, "is an opportunity for us to be involved in the problems that afflict the country and to revise the basic proposals that the candidates of the various political parties offer us because our active and conscious participation will have consequences in the immediate future."

ZE10070910 - 2010-07-09
Permalink: http://www.zenit.org/article-29851?l=english

Chávez Launches Attack Against Cardinal Urosa

Permalink: http://www.zenit.org/article-29825?l=english
ZE10070707 - 2010-07-07



Venezuelan President Asks Pope for Replacement

CARACAS, Venezuela, JULY 7, 2010 (Zenit.org).- Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez is playing with fire, says the semi-official Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano.

The newspaper reported this in reference to the insults the Venezuelan president leveled Monday against Cardinal Jorge Liberato Urosa Savino, the archbishop of Caracas, calling him a "troglodyte" for trying to "scare people about communism."

“We don’t deserve a cardinal like [Urosa],” Chávez said during a national assembly on the day his nation celebrates its independence. “This gentleman is unworthy of calling himself cardinal.”

He asked the papal nuncio to Argentina, Archbishop Pietro Parolin, to tell Benedict XVI to replace the current cardinal with Bishop Mario del Valle Moronta of San Cristobal.

L'Osservatore Romano says the president took "advantage of the celebrations of the bicentenary of national independence," to pour "gasoline on the fire of Church-state relations."

"Addressing the National Assembly in a solemn commemorative session, Chávez directed very harsh insults to the cardinal, who recently criticized the closing of many of the opposition media and invited the government to respect the democratic rights recognized by the Constitution, insults also repeated in a television broadcast," reports the Vatican newspaper.

"The Catholic Church in Venezuela firmly rejects the indescribable verbal aggression of which the cardinal archbishop of Caracas has been the object," states the article, which will appear Thursday in the Italian edition.

In an interview with Globovision network, the secretary-general of the Venezuelan episcopal conference, Auxiliary Bishop Jesús González de Zárate Salas of Caracas, rejected the accusations. He has become the spokesman of the manifestations of solidarity that the cardinal has received from the whole country.

Right and duty

In the same line, the council of priests of the archdiocese of Caracas issued a communiqué, in which it states that, "as a Venezuelan citizen, Cardinal Jorge Urosa Savino has the full right and duty to opine and contribute to the common good, in keeping with his ample cultural preparation and his personal convictions."

The note continued: "As archbishop of Caracas he has the full right, more than that, he has the sacred duty to guide Catholics on religious and moral principles and values that are at stake in the present social and political situation of our country. This is a part of his office that he cannot give up as principal pastor of our Caracas Church and eminent member of the Venezuelan episcopate.

"In this connection it should be pointed out that all the public statements on topics that affect the collectivity and, hence, the common good, have been very pointed and specific and have been made from the plane of the great principles of the Gospel, and from the systematic application of the latter in the field of social topics, that is, from the Social Doctrine of the Church."

The council also stated that it rejected Chavez's attempt to interfer with the internal decision s of the Church by telling the Pope who he should name as archbishop of Venezuela. "The Holy Father, as Universal Pastor of the Catholic Church, enjoys total autonomy and liberty to appoint the bishops for the different diocesan sees in the whole world and to institute the members of the College of Cardinals.

"The clergy of the archdiocese, together with their faithful, reiterate their unbreakable communion with the archbishop of Caracas, Cardinal Jorge Urosa Savino, our legitimate pastor."

Pius XII's Efforts to Save Jewish Culture Revealed

Mobilized Church Leaders to Defend Synagogues

NEW YORK, JULY 1, 2010 (Zenit.org).- The recently opened sections of the Vatican Secret Archives have revealed that Pope Pius XII not only helped save thousands of Jews, but also their patrimony, from the Nazis.

Pave the Way Foundation reported Tuesday that its researchers found documents of "great importance."

Michael Hesemann, a historian and foundation representative from Germany, has been researching documents in the Vatican archives and he found a letter sent by Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli, who would later become Pius XII, on Nov. 30, 1938, only three weeks after the Kristallnacht.

In this letter, which was sent to the nunciatures and apostolic delegations as well as 61 bishops, the cardinal requested 200,000 visas for "non-Aryan Catholics." Just over a month later, on Jan. 9, 1939, he sent three additional letters.

Hesemann explained that this language, in which Cardinal Pacelli speaks about "converted Jews" and "non-Aryan Catholics," is most likely a cover to hide the real scheme from the Nazis.

At that time, under the concordat of 1933, Germany allowed the Holy See to aid those considered "non-Aryan Catholics."

The foundation added that Cardinal Pacelli specifically requested in his letter: "Care should be taken that sanctuaries are provided to safeguard their spiritual welfare and to protect their religious cult, customs and traditions."

Persecuted

The communiqué explained that this seems to refer to a group other than converted Jews, who, upon their baptisms, "just became normal Catholics" without any "sanctuaries, customs, or traditions on their own."

Furthermore, many of the bishops responded to the cardinal's request, and documents show that they referred to aiding the "persecuted Jews" rather than the "converted Jews" or "non-Aryan Catholics."

Matteo Luigi Napolitano, political science professor at the University of Urbino, Italy, told ZENIT that one of the Jan. 9, 1939, letters was even more explicit.

It too was sent to over 60 prelates, and the instructions, written in Latin, "leave no room for doubt about the intentions of the Holy See and about Eugenio Pacelli's thoughts," the scholar said.

The letter, he reported, reads, "Do not engage in saving only Jewish people but also synagogues, cultural centers and everything that pertains to their faith: the Torah scrolls, libraries, cultural centers, etc.)."

The foundation explained that this point is important, because many historians have only acknowledged the efforts of Pius XII to save converted Jews, but the evidence seems to paint a different picture.

It continued: "Since many of the critics of this papacy have not yet accepted the proven Nazi threat against the Vatican State and the life of Pope Pius XII directly, they seem not to understand that there was a need for deception sending only encrypted or verbal directives.

"In many cases the historians are ignorant of the unique Vatican language sometimes using ancient Latin to express the hidden meaning of these requests."

It added that "the terms non-Aryan Catholics, non-Aryans, and Catholic Jews all indeed meant Jews," thus coded so that "if documents were intercepted, this deception would not raise a red flag since the concordat signed in 1933 specifically provided protection for Jews who converted to Christianity."

Eliminate obstacles

The foundation's president, Gary Krupp, underlined the mission "to identify and eliminate non-theological obstacles between religions," such as the discrepancies regarding the World War II papacy of Pius XII.

In this light, he said, the foundation undertook a "document retrieval project of the war time era to publicly post as many documents and eye witness testimonies as possible to bring the truth to light."

Elliot Hershberg, the foundation's chairman, stated that the organization "will continue to reveal as many documents as possible since everything we have found thus far seems to indicate the known negative perception of Pope Pius XII is wrong."

The foundation has over 40,000 pages of documents on its Web site, along with eyewitness videos available for public perusal.

Hershberg affirmed, "We also believe that many Jews who were successful in leaving Europe may not have had any idea that their visas and travel documents were obtained through these Vatican efforts."

Ronald Rychlak, author of "Hitler, the War and the Pope," acknowledged that this discovery by the foundation is "another confirmation" of the "good works of Pope Pius XII and the Catholic Church."

He stated, "The important aspect of this document is that it shows what many of us have been saying all along: Efforts that appear to have been directed to protect only converted Jews actually protected Jews regardless of whether they had converted."

[With the contribution of Jesús Colina]

--- --- ---

On the Net:

Pave the Way Foundation: http://www.ptwf.org

ZE10070105 - 2010-07-01
Permalink: http://www.zenit.org/article-29766?l=english

G8 Countries Launch Global Initiative on Maternal Health without Reference to Abortion

C-FAM / Volume 13, Number 29 / July 1, 2010
http://www.c-fam.org/publications/id.1657/pub_detail.asp

By Terrence McKeegan, J.D.
Co-Authored by Nick Dunn

TORONTO, July 2 (C-FAM) The Group of Eight (G8) leading industrial countries held their annual forum here last week and, following the lead of the Canadian government, launched a new global initiative on maternal and child health. The Muskoka Initiative pledges “to accelerate progress” towards the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) dealing with maternal and child health. While the host government was successful in keeping references to abortion out of the final document, the initiative calls for G8 countries to “commit to promote integration of HIV and sexual and reproductive health, rights and services within the broader context of strengthening health systems.”

Since announcing his plan for an initiative to improve maternal health in January, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper had insisted that it would contain no funding of abortion, but would include clean water, sanitation, better nutrition, and treatment and prevention of diseases. Beverley Oda, Canada’s International Cooperation Minister, has said that the government would consider the use of family planning methods such as contraception, but reinforced its opposition to abortion funding.

The initiative has as one of its global targets “universal access to reproductive health by 2015”—a direct allusion to MDG 5b, a controversial target that was never accepted by Member States in the negotiations of the MDGs, but only included in the annex of a report by the United Nations (UN) Secretary General.

The G8 initiative has drawn the support of pro-abortion organizations, such as the UN Population Fund (UNFPA) and Planned Parenthood. Thoraya Obaid, UNFPA’s Executive Director, praised the initiative earlier this week, particularly its emphasis on “expanding sexual and reproductive health services.”

Cecile Richards, president of Planned Parenthood Federation of America, calls the Muskoka Initiative “an important step forward,” but noted her frustration with Harper’s opposition to the inclusion of abortion in improving maternal health. “No effective maternal health improvements can occur without comprehensive reproductive health care, including access to safe and legal abortions,” Richards says.

Earlier this year, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reacted to Harper’s announcement that there would be an initiative to improve maternal health, saying: “You cannot have maternal health without reproductive health and reproductive health includes contraception and family planning and access to legal, safe abortions.” Over 100 women’s rights groups agreed, and last week wrote Harper a letter, urging him to include access to contraception and safe abortion in the initiative.

Abortion advocates usually cite research suggesting that maternal deaths could be cut by up to 70 percent with a greater emphasis on access to “safe” abortion and family planning. However, this “research” was sponsored by the Guttmacher Institute (the research arm of Planned Parenthood) and UNFPA, not exactly a neutral source on this issue.

In fact, the newest available research shows that there is no verifiable data to back the claim that abortion improves maternal and child health, and reveals lower maternal mortality rates in countries with more restrictions on abortions.

G8 pledges to the Muskoka Initiative totaled $5 billion, including $1.3 billion from the United States over two years, while another $2.3 billion came from non-G8 countries and the Gates Foundation.