Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘CNSNews.com’

CNSNews brings us a story where the International Planned Parenthood Federation has published a guide that encourages HIV-infected youth to have sex, not tell their sexual partners they are infected, and denounces laws requiring persons with sexually transmitted diseases to tell their sexual partners or face criminal charges.

Planned Parenthood Guide Tells HIV-Infected Youth to Enjoy Sex, Denounces Laws on Disclosure of HIV/AIDS to Sexual Partners

Friday, April 09, 2010
By Penny Starr, Senior Staff Writer

(CNSNews.com) – In a guide for young people published by the International Planned Parenthood Federation, the organization says it opposes laws that make it a crime for people not to tell sexual partners they have HIV. The IPPF’s “Healthy, Happy and Hot” guide also tells young people who have the virus that they have a right to “fun, happy and sexually fulfilling lives.”

HIV is the virus that causes AIDS.

“Some countries have laws that say people living with HIV must tell their sexual partner(s) about their status before having sex, even if they use condoms or only engage in sexual activity with a low risk of giving HIV to someone else,” the guide states. “These laws violate the rights of people living with HIV by forcing them to disclose or face the possibility of criminal charges.”

Under the heading “Sexual Pleasure and Well-Being,” the guide declares that it is a human right and not a criminal issue as to whether a person decides if or when to disclose their HIV status, even if they engage in sexual activities.

“You know best when it is safe for you to disclose your status,” the guide states. “There are many reasons that people do not share their HIV status. They may not want people to know they are living with HIV because of the stigma and discrimination within their community.”

The guide continues: “They may worry that people will find out something else they have kept secret, like that they are using injecting drugs or, having sex outside of marriage or having sex with people of the same gender. People in long-term relationships who find out they are living with HIV sometime fear that their partner will react violently or end the relationship.”

“Young people living with HIV have the right to sexual pleasure,” the guide states under the heading “Sexual Pleasure; Have Fun Explore and Be Yourself.”

“Sex can feel great and can be really fun!” the guide says. “Many people think sex is just about vaginal and anal intercourse …. But, there are lots of different ways to have sex and lots of different types of sex.”

“Sex can include kissing, touching, licking, tickling, sucking and cuddling,” the guide states. “Some people like aggressive sex, while others like to have soft and slow sex with their partners (sic).”

“It’s a vile and vulgar brochure,” Austin Ruse, president of the United Nations watchdog group Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, told CNSNews.com.

Ruse’s group has been reporting on the “Healthy, Happy and Hot” guide in recent weeks after Sharon Slater, president of Family Watch International, attended an event for the U.N.’s Commission on the Status of Women and found copies of the guide in a room where Girl Scouts were meeting.

The Girls Scouts of the USA released a statement denying they were distributing the guides and suggesting the guides may already have been in the room they were using.

Ruse said that aside from the graphic promotion of sex for young people with HIV, the guide also falsely claims that there are international laws to protect their “human rights.”

“There is no such international right that says that you are not required to reveal your HIV status before having sex,” Ruse said. “There’s no such thing.”

“It is a flat-out lie to say otherwise, and in this brochure it is lies from stem to stern,” he said.

Peter Sprigg, senior fellow for policy studies at the Family Research Council, told CNSNews.com:  “To the extent that ‘sexual rights’ and ‘reproductive rights’ are mentioned in documents of the U.N. or other international agencies, even informally, these terms often have a meaning contrary to that which IPPF gives them. For example, ‘sexual rights’ usually means the right to say NO to unwanted or coerced sex — not a right to HAVE sex under almost any circumstances.”

“By the same token, ‘reproductive rights’  usually involve the right to have children — not the right to destroy them through abortion,” Sprigg said, adding that laws requiring people to disclose to sexual partners that they have HIV protect people and promote sexual health.

IPPF defends its position, saying laws aimed at people with HIV hurt efforts to prevent the spread of the disease and discriminate unfairly against people who have the virus.

“Punitive laws that criminalise HIV transmission will jeopardise global HIV prevention efforts by acting as a disincentive for knowing one’s HIV status and by incorrectly placing an undue burden of responsibility for all safe sex behaviour on people living with HIV (who in many societies are already marginalised and stigmatised),” Kevin Osborne, IPPF senior advisor on HIV told CNSNews.com. “Alternatives to the criminal law must be used to foster increased HIV prevention efforts and behaviours.”

The guide also makes a plug for Planned Parenthood’s profitable “reproductive services.”

“Your local family planning clinic can help you create a plan, whether it is for having children safely, preventing or terminating unplanned pregnancies, or figuring out how to start a family if you are single or in a same-sex relationship,” the guide states.

The Planned Parenthood Federation of America receives more than $350 million of taxpayer funding annually, although federal law prohibits those funds from being used for abortion.

In his early days in office, President Barack Obama signed an executive order reversing the Mexico City Policy that prohibited the use of taxpayer funds to promote or provide abortions abroad, opening the way for U.S.-funded abortions around the world.

Read Full Post »

CNSNews is now reporting that Facebook has reversed its decision and apologizes for removing the NoStimulus.com ad established by Americans for Prosperity.  The organization says it will not put the ad back saying that they are going to focus on large outlets like FOX and Drudge since the bill is expected to be signed soon.

Facebook Says It Erred in Removing Conservative Group’s Anti-Stimulus Petition

Thursday, February 12, 2009
By Edwin Mora and Pete Winn

(CNSNews.com) – Facebook has done an about face. The Internet social networking site told CNSNews.com that it made a mistake when it took down an ad for “NoStimulus.com” — a Web site sponsored by a conservative nonprofit group that is running a petition campaign in opposition to the stimulus bill under consideration in Congress.

“As part of our efforts to remove other ads with misleading offers related to the stimulus package, we erroneously removed the ad in question,” Facebook corporate spokesman Matt Hicks told CNSNews.com in an e-mail. “We have since restored that ad. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused.”

The petition says: “Congress should not enact an expensive spending bill under the pretense of stimulus or recovery.  We cannot spend our way to prosperity, and such an expansion of the federal government will put a crushing burden on taxpayers in the long-term.”

CNSNews.com reported earlier that Americans for Prosperity, which sponsored “NoStimulus.com” and its petition to stop the stimulus bill, said it has been told by Facebook that the ad violated Facebook’s rules governing advertising.

Facebook told CNSNews.com yesterday, however, that the ad had been removed because of “user complaints.”

“At Facebook, we strive to create a trusted environment for our users and advertisers,” Facebook spokeswoman Erin Zietler said in an e-mail on Wednesday, Feb. 11. “We encourage users to report any advertisements they find offensive or misleading, and we offer the ability for them to provide immediate feedback on our ads. We have a team dedicated to investigating ads and user complaints.

“In this case, users informed us about misleading offers in many ads with promotions related to the U.S. economic stimulus package,” the spokeswoman said. “We are in the process of removing ads with these types of misleading offers as they are brought to our attention.”

Phil Kerpen, national policy director for Americans for Prosperity said he believed Facebook changed course because of CNSNews.com’s report on the removal of the ad.

“We’re really pleased to see the powerful and solid journalism, and that your story got them to stop doing something that really was indefensible that they thought they could get a way with just because nobody was paying attention,” Kerpen said.

“They were wrong, we didn’t violate their rules, they were capricious in trying to enforce their rules in the first place, and they did the right thing,” Kerpen added. “I think it’s a great victory.”

Ironically, Kepren said his group has decided not to put the ad back up on Facebook.

“We’ve only got a day or two left before they vote on the stimulus bill, and any of the ad dollars we have left at this point we’d rather put toward Drudge or Fox, where we’re getting better ‘clicks’ than we were with the Facebook ad,” Kerpen said.

“But we’re glad, as a matter of political speech that we can make that decision and we’re glad that we have the right to do that without someone taking them down.”

Kerpen said his group has no intention of holding a grudge, and they may purchase ads on Facebook in the future.

“If we can get a good result there and drive people–they offer great targeting and that’s valuable for the things that we do–we’d go back,” Kerpen said.

Related Posts: No Stimulus!

Read Full Post »

The Wall Street Journal has an editorial on how Obama was able to lure religious voters, helping him secure a victory over John McCain.  Combining his views with the report that CNSNews.com has compiled, we can conclude the following about religious voters who voted for Obama:  the further away from the Body of the Church the person was, the more likely they were to vote for Obama.  This along with Obama’s persuasive speech and charisma, charmed the weaker Church members into voting for him.

“Let no man deceive you with vain words: for because of these things cometh the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience.” — Ephesians 5:6

How Obama Lured Millions of Religious Voters

stevenwaldman

Steven Waldman is president and editor-in-chief of Beliefnet.com, and author of Founding Faith. Previously the national editor of U.S. News & World Report, he is a recognized expert on religion, social issues and politics. Click here for Mr. Waldman’s full bio.

Though the economy clearly was the defining issue of the election, Barack Obama forged a new coalition by luring millions of religious voters who had avoided Democrats in recent years.

Here’s what Sen. Obama did:

He narrowed the God Gap.

President George W. Bush beat Sen. John Kerry among weekly churchgoers by 61%-39% four years ago. Election night, Republican Sen. John McCain was ahead of Sen. Obama among the same group 54%-44%. Most of that gain appears to have come from Protestants rather than Catholics.

He won Catholics back.

Early exit polls indicate he won 54% of the Catholic vote compared with 45% for Sen. McCain. Mr. Bush won the Catholic vote 52%-46%. Most of those gains came from Catholics who don’t attend Mass weekly.

He also attracted a a greater portion of vote among white Catholics, according to the early exit polls. Mr. Bush got 56%-43% of the Catholic vote, while Sen. McCain lead by just 51%-49%. This was despite an aggressive push by more than 50 Catholic bishops to encourage Catholics to focus on abortion as the election’s central issue.

He made real improvements among Evangelicals.

Evangelicals and born-again Christians made up a greater portion of the electorate this year than last election, but that didn’t all accrue to Sen. McCain’s benefit, as predicted. The president-elect improved slightly on a national level, getting 25% compared with Sen. Kerry’s 21%.

But far more important, Sen. Obama made significant progress in the pivotal Rust Belt states that won him the election. For instance, evangelicals flooded the polls in Ohio, and Sen. Obama significantly improved on Sen. Kerry’s showing.

He made some gains among mainline Protestants.

Mainline Protestants, once a core of the Republican Party, still went for the GOP in 2004 even though they have been shifting toward the center in recent years. Last night’s exit polls didn’t ask specifically about mainline Protestants, but it appears Sen. Obama improved slightly with this group.

He made big gains among “lightly religious” voters.

Though secular voters already voted Democratic, they did so by an even bigger margin this year. Even more important, a quarter of the electorate says they go to worship services but only a few times a year. Sen. Kerry won that group 54%-45% four years ago. Sen. Obama won it 61%-38%.

Here’s how Sen. Obama did it:

“We worship an awesome God in the blue states,” Sen. Obama declared during his 2004 Democratic convention keynote. Thunderous applause greeted that line, in part because Democrats felt frustrated that they’d been unfairly cast as a secular or even anti-religion party, and by the political dominance of religious conservatives.

To a large degree, he was able to make such progress with these groups because of the economy. Some antiabortion voters went with Sen. Obama in spite of his positions on “values issues” — not because of them.

But Sen. Obama helped ease their way to his side through a canny set of tactics and strategies unlike anything we’ve seen from Democrats in years.

He emphasized his personal faith.

No Democrat since Jimmy Carter has spoken as openly, and as often, about his personal faith. In his Call to Renewal speech in 2006, Obama chastised some Democrats “who dismiss religion in the public square as inherently irrational or intolerant, insisting on a caricature of religious Americans that paints them as fanatical, or thinking that the very word ‘Christian’ describes one’s political opponents, not people of faith.”

Indeed, some of his comments would have been mocked by the left had they come out of a Republican mouth. Sen. Obama’s campaign distributed literature during the primaries that described “That day Obama felt a beckoning of the spirit and accepted Jesus Christ into his life.” One panel on the brochure, “Called to Bring Change,” declares, “We do what we do because God is with us.” Another described his belief in “the power of prayer,” and another, labeled, “Called to Christ,” stated, “Kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side, I felt I heard God’s spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth and carrying out His works.”

This had two purposes: one was reaching out to religious voters. The other was to show him as a mainstream, culturally conservative person. Sen. Obama might not be able to bowl, but he sure could pray.

He capitalized on the rise of the Religious Left.

Sen. Obama’s religious outreach efforts were orders of magnitude greater than Sen. Kerry’s. The campaign’s religious outreach arm has initiated 950 “American values” house parties. Initially, the campaign had hoped for a significant turnout of moderate evangelicals, especially among the young. That apparently happened in a few key states such as Ohio and Indiana.

Just as significant, the efforts paid dividends among mainline Protestants, a heretofore Republican-leaning group that apparently went for Sen. Obama. Sen. Obama’s frequent discussions of his personal faith seemed targeted at evangelicals but may have given comfort as well to traditional mainliners. “Obama planting seeds in the evangelical garden has borne fruit in the mainline garden,” says Mara Vanderslice, founder of a progressive religious group Matthew25 and religious outreach director for Sen. Kerry’s 2004 campaign.

Just as important, a bevy of “religious left” groups sprouted up since 2004, and they ran ads and organized grassroots activities in battleground states. Among the newcomers on the scene: Catholics United, Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, Faith in Public Life, Network of Spiritual Aggressives, and Red Letter Christians.

He emphasized reducing the number of abortions.

As the campaign went on it became clear that many moderate evangelicals and Catholics agreed with Sen. Obama on the economy and the Iraq war but couldn’t get past his consistently pro-choice views. As conservatives hammered Sen. Obama on his opposition to the born alive bill, he could see moderate evangelicals and possibly Catholics slipping away. At the urging of progressive pro-life activists, the campaign began talking about an “abortion reduction” agenda — helping reduce unintended pregnancies through education and birth control, and providing financial assistance to pregnant mothers to make it easier for them to carry a baby to term. They included language in the Democratic platform suggesting as such, and Sen. Obama touted the idea in a few comments during debates. Dial-ometers soared when, during the third debate, he emphasized common ground on abortion and “sacred sex.”

As the election approached, antiabortion progressives ran radio and TV ads pushing the idea that one could be pro-life and pro-Obama.

His vice-presidential pick helped.

Sen. McCain’s selection of Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin created an opportunity for Sen. Obama. She revved up the evangelical base (possible when full election numbers are analyzed we’ll be saying the “traditionally Republican core of the evangelical base” – or some other qualifier) but created greater concerns among mainline Protestants, a group that had leaned Republican.

Meanwhile, Sen. Obama’s selection of Joe Biden was meant to improve his chances with white Catholics — not because Sen. Biden is a theological conservative but because he’s a cultural Catholic. Over and over, Sen. Biden tied the ticket’s economic messages to Catholic language– emphasizing, for instance, “the dignity of work.” This particularly seemed to help in the Catholic areas of Pennsylvania, where they know Sen. Biden well.

Read Full Post »