Category Archives: politics

Changing the Language of Public Discourse: The I-ARI Institute

Prof. Paul Eidelberg

Israel is trapped in the defeatist and self-effacing rhetoric of contemporary public discourse. I am happy to report, however, that with the help of some very talented and politically astute colleagues in Israel and America, I have founded the Israel-America Renaissance Institute, and one of its functions is to overcome this lethal character of contemporary public discourse. What’s wrong with it?

It’s boring, its weak, and it allows the enemy to set the terms and rules of engagement. Its rhetoric of “peace,” “security,” and “democracy” is self-effacing. The word “peace” appeals to the weak, people who fear violent death. Fear of violent death is most prominent in regimes that have forsaken their spiritual ideas and ideals—regimes steeped in materialism where the Mall and the sports arena have taken the place of the church.

The “peace” people seek in such regimes means nothing more than comfortable self-preservation­—security plus commodious living. Peace and security have become the shibboleths of the declining secular democratic state.

Israel’s government fixates on security. Its timid and pedestrian politicians emphasize security because there’s nothing controversial or distinctively Jewish about this mantra. Security is the legitimate concern of any country. You don’t have to think out of the box. But has Israel’s fixation on security made her more secure? Has it elevated and energized Israel’s morale—the first ingredient of a nation’s ability to defend itself? I don’t think so.

Security is not a defining national goal, one that distinguishes Israel from any other country. It’s not a positive goal that inspires people with national pride. It doesn’t strengthen our ancient faith and fighting spirit.

The one thing lacking in Israel is a goal that systematically invigorates the nation’s collective memory and political creativity, that enhances her identity as the world’s one and only Jewish commonwealth—the nation that gave mankind the Book of Books, the Torah. Yes, it was the Torah that liberated men and nations from idolatry and paganism. It was the Torah, by its lapidary sentence in Genesis that man is created in the Image of God that elevated humanity and proclaimed the moral unity of the human race denied by Islam. This should be Israel’s message, conveyed quietly, as on cat’s paws.

While Islam’s arrogant leaders trumpet Allah, Israel’s leaders should unpretentiously refer to God’s sacred Covenant with the Patriarchs and quote the benign teachings of Isaiah and other prophets. They should softly remind Jews and Gentiles of the centrality of Eretz Yisrael, both in God’s Covenant with the Patriarchs and in the teachings of the Prophets, and they should project a partnership of Jews and Gentiles in building the Jerusalem Temple. Nor is this all.

Israel’s leaders should speak and act in a manner that does justice to what Gentile scholars and statesmen have said about the Jewish People, for example by Harvard graduate John Adams, the second President of the United States and perhaps the most learned of America’s Founding Fathers, who fondly declared: “The Jews have done more to civilize men than any other Nation. They are the most glorious Nation that ever inhabited the earth. The Romans and their Empire were but a bauble in comparison to the Jews. They have given religion to three-quarters of the globe and have influenced the affairs of Mankind more, and more happily than any other Nation, ancient or modern.”

Of course this praise should be said to Jews, but it will be heard abroad, and it will inspire Israel’s Christian friends and perhaps make Muslims stammer and stutter.

Further, Israel’s leaders should sometimes quote the presidents of America’s colonial colleges, such as Ezra Stiles of Yale and Samuel Langdon of Harvard, who were learned in Hebrew, conversed with Rabbis, and regarded the Hebraic Republic of antiquity as an excellent model of government. In fact, prominent Catholic and Protestant Hebraists in Europe praised the laws of the Hebraic Republic as the wisest and most just in history. The great English polymath and Hebraist John Sheldon proposed that Britain scrap its parliament and substitute the Sanhedrin!

Surely discreet references to such historical facts would enhance Jewish national pride on the one hand, and disconcert Israel’s enemies on the other. And it will also bolster Christians in America harassed by the politically-motivated atheism currently sweeping that country—with the encouragement of a post-American president whose left-wing supporters are undermining the American Constitution and trashing what Lincoln deemed the heart and soul of America—her theologically inspired Declaration of Independence.

I have virtually finished a book on the subject, showing that Christian Hebraism profoundly influenced America’s foundational documents, and I believe Israel owes it to America to help her restore her ancient faith. This is a major purpose of the Israel-America Renaissance Institute (I-ARI) mentioned earlier and which I am currently heading.

We shall have more to say about our Institute in future articles. But I want to reiterate one of its goals: to change the subversive language of contemporary public discourse, as we have begun to do in this article. We want to encourage Israel and America to go on the ideological offensive against the enemies of our God-given rights to Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness—immutable rights proclaimed in America’s Declaration of Independence whose authors were educated in colleges that emphasized Hebraic studies in order to better understand the Bible of Israel.

The Israel-American Renassaince Institute website is at http://i-ari.org.

Pro-Abortion Legislation Introduced, Targets Pro-Life Healthcare Professionals

(Columbus) – Planned Parenthood and pro-abortion legislators gathered at the Statehouse today to promote the so-called “Prevention First Act”. The bill would force pro-life pharmacists, religious hospitals and pro-life taxpayers to provide or subsidize the morning-after pill despite religious or moral objections. The legislation would also require persons who took and adhere to the original Hippocratic Oath to violate its requirement that “I will not give to a woman an abortive remedy”.

“The abortion industry, yet again, attempts to characterize this recycled legislation an effort to prevent unintended pregnancies. In fact, it will prevent the exercise of freedom of conscience,” said Mike Gonidakis, Executive Director for Ohio Right to Life. “Violating the conscience rights of health care professionals could force some people to leave the profession, and ironically, decrease access to health care, rather than increase it,” said Gonidakis.

Although proponents claim requiring the provision of “emergency contraception” will decrease unintended pregnancies and abortions, a January 2007 Obstetrics & Gynecology study by leading proponents of the drug found that increased access to “emergency contraception” had not reduced the rates of abortion or unintended pregnancy.

Further, the so-called “Prevention First Act” would require hospitals to provide misleading information stating that “emergency contraception” does not cause an abortion or interrupt an “established” pregnancy. Pro-life Ohioans oppose the morning-after pill because it sometimes ends the life of a human embryo after fertilization by preventing implantation.

Ohio Right to Life expresses its opposition to the legislation for its blatant disrespect for the rights of pro-life Ohioans, and for its failure to respect the dignity of life by forcing increased distribution abortion-causing drugs.

The GOP Presidential Race, and Sarah Palin?

The Republican race for presidential nomination is gaining momentum. According to a recent Ramussen Poll, Mitt Romney leads the pack by 33 percent. Tea partier Michelle Bachmann is gaining on him. Right now, she has 19% of the polled votes. Not far behind Bachman is Herman Cain.

I think Michelle Bachmann is the better candidate. Both candidates have substantial business experience, but Romney is a stuffed suit. His is filled with political jelly, which no doubt keeps him afloat. He rides the waves of the political waters to his political advantage. His tossed-in-the-wind record also has benefited left-wing party agenda.

Did I forget to mention Bachmann is better looking than Romney?

Surprisingly, a majority of Tea Partiers favor shifty Mitt and not TP candidate Bachman. Of those polled by Ramussen, 36% favor Romney and 26% prefer Bachmann. It is tempting to think that the poltically savvy Tea Partiers could possibly be duped by shifty Mitty.

While Tea Partiers favor Romney–the past loser, they also Smarty Sarah should run for president again. Even she is better looking than Romney too, a majority of non-Teas Partiers seem to think a run for the presidency by Palin would hurt Republican chances to regain the White House.

What do they know, anyway?

<strong>Sources:</strong> <a href=”http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/romney_bachmann_cain_lead_the_pack_among_gop_primary_voters” target=”_new”>Romney, Bachmann, Cain Lead The Pack Among GOP Primary Voters</a>  Ramussen Reports June 16, 2011 and <a href=”http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections/election_2012/election_2012_presidential_election/45_of_gop_primary_voters_say_it_s_bad_for_party_if_palin_enters_presidential_race” target=”_new”>45% of GOP Primary Voters Say It’s Bad for Party If Palin Enters Presidential Race</a>  Ramussen Reports June 16, 2011

Smarty the Sarah

By Jim Robbins

Sarah Palin’s critics routinely mock her intellect, so when the state of Alaska released 24,000 emails she wrote while serving as governor, “AOL Weird News,” an offbeat component of AOL.com, had a representative sample analyzed to see how well she wrote. They expected the results to confirm their anti-Palin bias, but they were in for a surprise.

Far from being an illiterate bumpkin, the standard Flesch-Kincaid readability test showed that Ms. Palin’s emails were written at an 8.5 grade level. This was “an excellent score for a chief executive,” AOLWN reported. To put some perspective on this number, Martin Luther King’s August 1963 “I Have a Dream” speech — much more heavily edited than Ms. Palin’s emails — ranked at 8.8 on the same scale, while Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address came in at 9.1.

A study by Smart Politics on the readability ratings of recent State of the Union addresses also showed Ms. Palin in good company. President George H.W. Bush’s average SOTU score was 8.6. Bill Clinton came in at 9.5. Ronald Reagan, who like Ms. Palin was heavily criticized by liberals and regarded as a doddering old fool, logged an impressive 10.3 rating. And George W. Bush, who earned even more left-wing contempt than Mr. Reagan, if that’s possible, edged the Great Communicator with a10.4 ranking.

Then there is President Obama, heralded as the smartest president and the most gifted orator in living memory, but whose 2008 “Yes we can!” victory speech came in at a comparatively anemic Flesch-Kincaid  rating of 7.4. Some numbers just speak for themselves.

James S. Robbins is senior editorial writer for foreign affairs at the Washington Times. His latest book is “This Time We Win: Revisiting the Tet Offensive,” published by Encounter Books. He can be contacted at jrobbins@washingtontimes.com.

Gallup: American Public is Pro-Life

By David E. Smith

A new national opinion survey reveals growing support for the pro-life viewpoint on the subject of abortion. That survey, conducted by the Gallup Organization, shows a decisive majority believe that unborn children should be protected under the law.

Sixty-one percent of those surveyed said they believe abortion should be illegal in all circumstances or legal only under certain circumstances. Thirty-seven percent of respondents believe abortion should be legal under all circumstances or most circumstances.

Under the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton decisions, abortion is currently legal in the United States under all circumstances.

Support for providing legal protection to preborn children was consistent regardless of age or gender. Sixty-one percent of men and 60 percent of women said all or most abortions should be illegal. Pro-life views were also expressed by 59 percent of those in the 18-34 age category, 58 percent of those aged 35-54, and 64 percent of those over the age of 55.

In its analysis of the results, the Gallup Organization provided this assessment: “The results make it clear that, despite their labeling of their own abortion views, a majority of Americans clearly not only oppose abortion and believe it to be a morally improper ‘choice,’ but they believe the legal status of abortions should change, and all or virtually all abortions should be prohibited.”

The Gallup organization even offered the pro-life movement some advice: “Pro-life groups need to educate Americans on what constitutes a pro-life position — and to encourage them to call themselves pro-life when they want all or almost all abortions made illegal.”

First published by Illinois Family Institute (June 18,2011) where David Smith Executive Director.

Research Reaffirms Traditional Understanding of Gender

By Lauren Funk

NEW YORK (C-FAM) New research reaffirms that gender is grounded in the biology of men and women, supporting the traditional understanding of gender agreed on by the international community.

UN delegates are receiving copies of the research at a time when debates about “gender identity” are heating up: member states are engaged in a contentious vote on the issue at the Human Rights Council this week and they are preparing for a battle on sexual orientation and gender identity during this fall’s General Assembly.

“The Psycopathology of Sex Reassignment Surgery,” a peer-reviewed article authored by Richard Fiztgibbons, Phillip Sutton, and Dale O’Leary, questions the medical and ethical implications of performing sexual reassignment surgery (SRS).  The authors approach the issue from the medical and biological perspective that human gender is a matter of genetic composition, explaining that “sexual identity is written on every cell of the body and can be determined through DNA testing.  It cannot be changed.”

The authors affirm that biological sex cannot change, and they renounce the concept of “gender identity,” or the idea that gender, as a social construct or personal perception, is separate from one’s biological sex.  Citing the work of psychoanalyst Charles Socarides, they explain that “there is no evidence that gender identity confusion – a gender identity contrary to anatomical structure- is inborn.”

The article acknowledges that there are genetic abnormalities that can cause discordance between genetic sex, hormone receptivity, and sexual organs.  However, those who seek SRS are virtually always genetically normal men and women with intact sexual and reproductive organs and hormone levels proper to their sex, the paper says.  In these cases, according to the authors, “when an adult who is normal in appearance and functioning believes there is something ugly or defective in their appearance that needs to be changed, it is clear that there is a psychological problem of some significance.”

The authors argue that individuals who claim to have a “gender identity” contrary to their anatomical and biological structure cannot resolve their issues through SRS.  Individuals who find it difficult to self-identify with their biological sex often suffer from more serious psychological problems, including depression, severe anxiety, masochism, self-hatred, narcissism, and the results of childhood sexual abuse and troubled family situations. These individuals experience social and sexual difficulties as a result of these disorders and negative experiences, not because they were born into the “wrong body,” the paper says.  Sexual reassignment surgery, because it proposes a surgical solution to deep psychological disorders, is categorically inappropriate – and thus medically and ethically unsound, according to the authors, and those individuals who undergo SRS continue to have “much the same problems with relationships, work, and emotions as before” their surgery.

The study discredits the “gender identity” as a social construct, and it reinforces international consensus that gender is defined “traditionally” as “men and women” in the context of society.

<em>This article first appeared in the Friday Fax, an internet report published weekly by C-FAM (Catholic Family &amp; Human Rights Institute), a New York and Washington DC-based research institute (http://www.c-fam.org/). This article appears with permission.</em>

President Obama – No, He Can’t!

By Yoram Ettinger
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4082463,00.html, June 15, 2011

President Obama pressures Israel to adopt his initiative, which is based on the 1949 cease fire lines, including the repartitioning of Jerusalem and land swaps. He implies that Israeli rejection of his initiative would undermine US-Israel relations, while advancing Palestinian maneuvers at the UN.

However, Obama lacks the domestic backing to effectively pressure Israel, which has recently gained in bi-partisan support on Capitol Hill and among constituents, while Obama lost the “Bin Laden Bounce” and is struggling with a less-than-50% approval rating.

Obama’s power constraints are derivatives of the Federalist system, which is based on limited government with a complete separation of powers and checks and balances between Congress and the White House, Congressional “Power of the Purse” and the centrality of the constituent in a political system of bi-annual elections. Therefore, legislators are more loyal to – and fearful of – their constituents than to their party or to the president.  Moreover, the loyalty to constituents constitutes a prerequisite for re-election.

Obama’s constraints in pressuring the Jewish State emanate from the unique attitude of Americans – as early as the 1620 landing of the Mayflower, as well as the Founding Fathers – to the idea of reconstructing the Jewish Commonwealth in the Land of Israel.  The solid and sustained support enjoyed by Israel in the USA derives its vitality from the American people and from their representatives on Capitol Hill and in the legislatures of the 50 states more than from the president.  While the president plays a major role in shaping US-Israel relations, constituents and legislators laid the foundations for this relationship and they continuously codetermine its direction, tone and substance.  They can also initiate, suspend, terminate and amend policies, direct presidents and overhaul presidential policies.

The results of the November 2010 Congressional elections revealed that Obama’s policies had lost the support of most constituents.

According to a May 26, 2011 poll by CNN – which is usually critical of Israel – most Americans do not share Obama’s attitude towards Israel.  82% consider Israel an ally and a friend, compared with 72% in 2001.  67% support Israel, while only 16% support the Palestinians, compared with 60%:17% in 2009.  In fact, the Palestinians (16%) are as unpopular as are Iran (15%) and North Korea (17%).

These CNN findings exceed the February, 2011 Gallup poll (68% considered Israel an ally), the April 2011 Rasmussen Report (most Americans opposed foreign aid to Arab countries but supported foreign aid to Israel) and the April 2010 Quinnipiac Polling Institute (66% expected Obama to improve treatment of Israel).

But, the “Poll of Polls” is conducted daily in Congress – a coequal branch of government – where hard-core support of the Jewish State has been bi-partisan, robust and steady.  Majority Leader Senator Harry Reid and Minority Whip Congressman Steny Hoyer publicly criticized (fellow-Democrat) President Obama’s focus on the 1967 ceasefire lines. Other key Democrats – whose cooperation is critical to Obama’s reelection campaign – have clarified that they expect him to veto any anti-Israel UN resolution.  Just like their constituents – most Democrats value Israel as a unique ally, whose alliance with the US is based on shared values, mutual threats and joint interests.

Will Prime Minister Netanyahu leverage this unique American support, defying pressure and solidifying Israel’s posture of deterrence in the face of an unpredictably violent Middle East, where concessions breed radicalism, terrorism and war?  Or, will he succumb to the psychological warfare launched by the White House?

<em>Yoram Ettinger is former Israeli Ambassador to the United State and author of the Ettinger Report.</em>

Live Action President Lila Rose On Planned Parenthood Defunding in NC

(RALEIGH) Lila Rose, president of the pro-life youth organization Live Action, issued the following statement yesterday morning on North Carolina’s defunding of Planned Parenthood:

“North Carolina is now the fourth state this year to step up to the plate and ensure that no taxpayer dollars go towards funding the biggest abortion business in America, Planned Parenthood. This corrupt organization is responsible for killing over 332,000 defenseless unborn children each year. Planned Parenthood manipulates women to choose abortion and routinely aids and abets the sexual exploitation and trafficking of young girls. Governors of other states should take note of how Gov. Perdue’s legislature has decisively rejected her veto and realize that the American people do not want to subsidize abortionists.”

Indiana, Kansas, and New Jersey have recently passed laws to prevent taxpayer funds from going to Planned Parenthood. Planned Parenthood is challenging the Indiana law in federal court, although a federal judge has already denied the abortion business’s request for a temporary injunction.

Over the past four years, Live Action has released undercover videos revealing Planned Parenthood clinics across the country covering up the sexual abuse of children and violating mandatory reporting laws for statutory rape. In February, Live Action released new undercover footage showing 7 Planned Parenthood clinics in 4 states willing to aid and abet the commercial sex trafficking of underage girls. The videos prompted the House of Representatives to vote twice to defund Planned Parenthood of all federal taxpayer subsidies.

“North Carolina joins Indiana, Kansas, and New Jersey in standing up for the rule of law, human rights, and responsible government,” says Rose. “While we wait for Congress to defund Planned Parenthood at the federal level, responsible state governments should do their part to protect women and unborn children and end local public subsidies of this lawless abortion chain.”

To see the videos, visit: liveaction.org/traffick

Gay Journalist Continues Aggressive Campaign Against Christian Counsellor

Lesley Pilkington, the Christian counsellor who is being investigated by the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (BACP) for giving counselling to an undercover gay reporter, has had her confidence breached once again after Patrick Strudwick released a misleading article about the hearing, while the investigation still continues, and against the express instructions of the BACP.

The Professional Conduct Hearing took place on 4th May 2011 in relation to Mrs. Pilkington providing Reparative Therapy to Mr. Strudwick. The decision was communicated to the parties on 23rd May, with a stipulation that its contents were confidential.

Reparative Therapy is recognised in the primary textbook <em>Essential Psychopathology and its Treatment</em> (2009) which reads:

“[H]omosexual orientation can be theraputically changed in motivated clients, and that reorientation therapies do not produce harm when attempted”.

Mr. Strudwick is a gay activist seeking to end the practice of Reparative Therapy. In 2009, Mr. Strudwick pretended to be a Christian individual who wished to undertake Reparative Therapy. He approached Mrs. Pilkington at a Christian conference pretending to want counselling for unwanted same-sex attraction. He attended two counselling sessions with Mrs. Pilkington during which he secretly recorded her. He then reported her to the BACP.

What happened at the Hearing on 4th May 2011:

The BACP did not question the validity and effectiveness of Reparative Therapy, and found that:

The Professional Conduct Panel found that certain procedural rules had been breached by Mrs. Pilkington, such as extending the session over the allotted hour and for failing to counsel Mr. Strudwick after a meeting with her husband whilst Mr. Strudwick was on a purported toilet visit, but in fact, his purpose of going to the toilet was to change the tapes he was using to record Mrs. Pilkington. Further, the BACP found that Mr. Strudwick was a “client” and “was the recipient of counselling related services”.

A Complaint to the Press Complaints Commission:

Lesley Pilkington said:

“I am deeply concerned that the privileged and confidential relationship between a counsellor and her patient will be undermined by a journalist seeking a sensationalist story without any substance. It is an abuse by the Guardian newspaper. Accordingly, I propose to act with restraint. I will seek to make a joint complaint with the BACP to the Press Complaints Commission in relation to the subterfuge and deceit used by Mr. Strudwick. Reparative Therapy is a valid therapy that many people want and it should not be damaged by irresponsible reporting. The hearing is still subject to an appeal.”

Andrea Minichiello Williams, CEO of the Christian Legal Centre said:

“We are grateful that the decision of the Professional Conduct Committee has not questioned the validity of Reparative Therapy and individuals are still free to seek counselling services for reorientation when they choose to change their behaviour.

“Christians are being targeted and increasingly unable to access justice in this country. To think a gay activist, engaged in deception, can seek out a Christian therapist by pretending to be a Christian seeking to choose to change his behaviour, manipulate the counselling sessions for the purpose of a story, use a clandestine taping device and then report the therapist to the professional body is almost beyond belief. The fact that the BACP even entertained the complaint is wholly unacceptable. Lesley Pilkington is a caring and devoted counsellor, inspired by her Christian faith to help people. She is being persecuted by persons who dislike the love, ethics and transforming power of Christ. One can only imagine the reaction if a Christian tried to do this to a Pink therapist.”

<strong>Source:</strong> Christian Legal Center, May 27, 2011.

UN Report Calls for Comprehensive Sex Ed for Ten Year Olds as a way to Fight AIDS

By Lauren Funk

NEW YORK (C-FAM) Some in the UN believe that comprehensive sexuality education is the main intervention needed to prevent new HIV infections – even for adolescents as young as 10 years old.

“It is time to seize the opportunities to promote sexuality education and comprehensive knowledge of HIV and other health matters among very young adolescents before they become sexually active,” explains a new UN report on HIV/AIDS. “This is the window in which to intervene, before most youth become sexually active and before gender roles and norms that have negative consequences for later sexual and reproductive health becomes well established.”

The report recommends comprehensive sexuality education as the primary strategy to prevent HIV/AIDS for adolescents aged 10 – 24.  There is a lack of evidence that such programs have a significant positive effect on youth’s sexual behavior or on HIV prevention.  A 2009 UNESCO report, one of the few existing assessments of such programs, did not find that comprehensive sexuality education programs significantly reduce sexual risk-taking.  UNESCO did not assess the programs’ effect on HIV/AIDS prevention.

Critics question why UNICEF, UNAIDS, and the WHO chose to focus primarily on comprehensive sexuality education, a method of HIV prevention that is largely untested, when proven alternatives, such as behavioral modification, exist to stop the spread of HIV.  Some international observers see this move as part of a larger agenda to promote comprehensive sexuality education among youth.

Jane Adolphe, Associate Professor at Ave Maria School of Law, suggests that the promotion of comprehensive sexuality education is a form of sexualization of children.  “There is a growing awareness of the sexualization of children in the media, music videos, advertising, and fashion industries, and one might argue that Comprehensive Sexuality Education is another example of this tragic phenomenon,” Adolphe told the Friday Fax.  “Children are targeted through the vehicle of Comprehensive Sexuality Education where they are gradually introduced to the ideology of sexual freedom.”

Commenting on how promotion of comprehensive sexuality education intersects with efforts to combat HIV/AIDS, Adolphe explained “those promoting the ideology of sexual freedom, inclusive of its risky and dangerous behavior, advance risk reduction (e.g. condom use) not risk elimination (e.g. abstinence and fidelity) as the solution to HIV/AIDS, even in areas of Africa where condom use has been proven to be ineffective.”  And any opposition to such a narrow vision is stifled when people are stigmatized as so-called homophobics or religious fanatics.”

Ideology has in fact supplanted evidence in guiding AIDS interventions at the UN in recent years.  Dr. Edward Green, former director of the AIDS Prevention Research Project at Harvard School of Health, wrote in a 2009 Lancet article that UNAIDS had switched from urging that AIDS prevention be “evidence based” to “evidence informed.” Green writes, “This seems to acknowledge departure from evidence-based planning and programming. It seems to say, we will do things our way, and we need only be informed by the evidence that supports what we are doing, and we can ignore the rest…in truth, this agency [UNAIDS] has become primarily an advocacy and not a science-led organization.”

This article first appeared in the Friday Fax, an internet report published weekly by C-FAM (Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute), a New York and Washington DC-based research institute (http://www.c-fam.org/). This article appears with permission.