Steve Farrell
Friday, May 5, 2006

Reprint Information

Book on Katie Couric Makes Waves White House: We're Not Subject to FOIA FBI Seeks 2 Mysterious Men on Ferry Publisher: Conservatives Do Read As Much As Liberals Romney Shrugs Off Mormon History Film

When it comes to political legislation, moral integrity matters. Sharon Slater, president of United Families International (see unitedfamilies.org), helped bring that home in her latest newsletter.

Her topic was "The Danger of Redefining the Family." Her focus: "challenges that United Families International and other pro-family groups constantly face at the UN."

More specifically, two trials were mentioned:

1. "Regardless of the proposed topic or problem bringing UN member states together in international forums under the UN's Economic and Social Council, negotiations seem to inevitably focus on abortion, homosexuality or ‘sexual freedom.'"

2. Those who champion these issues are less than honest about their intentions. "They are," she repeatedly said, "very sneaky."

Mrs. Slater notes: "[T]he advocates of these positions ... obscure their intentions. They use terms like ‘reproductive health services' for abortion, ‘various forms of the family' to promote homosexuality and ‘responsible' or ‘comprehensive sex education' to promote irresponsible teen sex.

Slater continues, "It has never been clear to me why the UN is even dealing with these issues at these meetings, which should be convened to work on world peace, sanitation, world hunger and stamping out deadly diseases."

Story Continues Below

And yet they do – unrelentingly.

Here's an example from the population conference Slater attended:

UFI was making progress to include language in the conference outcome document supportive of "the migrant family." "No way," said the European Union and Canada. They refused to accept any language supportive of policies that support "the family." They preferred substituting "families" as a word that denotes a more inclusive definition. A stalemate ensued and the entire proposal was dropped.

In defending their position, these groups pretended that they needed to have more inclusive language to recognize single-parent families and extended families. But when we have in past conferences offered counter proposals to mention single mother-led families and extended families so that it was clear we meant to include them, too, they flatly rejected this proposal. Only "families" would do, they said.

The same thing goes for abortion. Nations favoring the term "reproductive health services," which is proposed at almost every negotiation session, insist that it does not include abortion. Yet, when a proposal is made to "footnote" that it does not include abortion, they strenuously oppose it ... revealing the true agenda behind their words. They are very sneaky.

At one conference, I tried to convince a "reproductive health specialist" representing an African nation who was puzzled over why there would be a debate about the term "reproductive health" encompassing abortion. She refused to believe me. I showed her some UN materials that included "fertility regulation" under "reproductive health services" and then showed her where in another place it included "menstruation regulation" under "fertility regulation." A woman who is pregnant does not menstruate, so the best way to help her menstruate is to abort the baby. They are very sneaky.

Finally, this African UN delegate understood that I had to be right ... She was so angry that she pinned on one of our "Motherhood" buttons, marched back into the negotiations and demanded a definition for "reproductive health services." [S]he never got one.

And who are the most vulnerable? Developing nations, she answers, who receive pressure "to change their laws and customs accordingly, in return for badly needed foreign assistance."

International loan officers refer to this sort of manipulative business innocuously as "structural loans" – more word trickery.

But the threat to families doesn't end there. "These terms become ‘international soft law' ... and ... surface as arguments justifying domestic court decisions," she warned. The U.S. Supreme Court, for instance, "[referenced] international soft law and the homosexual policies of several liberal nations when it overturned a number of state anti-sodomy laws several years ago."

There is a broader problem, as well: "changing the meaning of these terms will eventually and inevitably change popular perceptions around the world about what a family truly is and why it is important."

The chickens of secularism have come home to roost. We need to stop, think, and then think again.

Crafty, hidden redefinitions of what for thousands of years has been clearly defined regarding the family – coupled with activist courts willing to unveil and enforce the crafty and hidden without conscience, nor fidelity to constitutional oaths – is the natural by-product of a morally neutered generation – and so is nearly every other betrayal of the public trust.

Did we really think we could have it otherwise?

Call it common sense calling out to us – an old settled truth: If we want honesty and transparency, fidelity and loyalty, it begins with a love or appreciation for religion and morality, not so-called national ‘indifference' toward them.

Contact Steve.

NewsMax pundit Steve Farrell is associate professor of political economy at George Wythe College, editor of the Liberty Letters (LibertyLetters.blogspot.com), and the author of the highly praised inspirational novel "Dark Rose" (available at amazon.com).

Editor's note:
Hey: Browse NewsMax's Online Classifieds for Great Offers – Click Here Now!
Get the Picture That Made America Proud on 9/11 – Click Here
David McCullough: God Saved America in 1776. Read It – Click Here

Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
United Nations