Thank you, Mr. Editor, for allowing me to respond to Thursday's letters from Colleen Matsebula and David Vost. It is excellent that the Times is open to all opinions on issues.
In 2007, then-Senator Barack Obama said "I am absolutely convinced that culture wars are so nineties; their days are growing dark, it is time to turn the page." The tone of Matsebula's and Vost's letters indicate that such a time has not yet come.
Ms. Matsebula suggests that I insult the intelligence of Swazis. Far from it. My purpose in writing letters about abortion is so that Swazis would be informed on the issue and not make the same tragic mistakes that Americans have made since 1973.
America kills about 1 million of its own children each year through abortion; that's as many people as live in all of Swaziland. Intimately involved in each of those abortions is a mother, and these mothers are at risk of horrendous injury-physical, emotional, and relational-from those abortions. The people of Swaziland have been incalculably generous and kind to me: from my colleagues at work to students past and present to fellow church members to regular acquaintances in the old market to aspiring football stars at local pitches on the weekends. The wonderful people of Swaziland is one reason I stay here. And the reason I write these letters is that I do not want these or any other Swazi to suffer the devastating consequences abortion brings.
For the record, I have no problem with Mr. Obama's skin colour. If I did, spending 9 years of my adult life in rural Swaziland under Swazi leadership would be a strange place for me to do. It is great that less than 50 years after the end of institutional apartheid in America, a black man can be elected president of the most powerful country on earth. Also for the record, it is immature and underhanded for Ms. Matsebula to suggest I have a problem with Obama's skin colour; let us discuss content and not descend to unbecoming, if subtle, accusations of racism.
When it comes to content, there is no question that the content of Mr. Obama's health care reform bill contains substantial support for abortion. It is true that he signed an Executive Order (EO) that purports to restrict federal tax money for paying for abortions. But all but one pro-life group (the one most closely associated with Mr. Obama's party) in America has stated that the EO is inadequate to address certain aspects of the reform bill with respect to abortion. Most
significantly, the head of Planned Parenthood has called it "a symbolic gesture" and has said that "while we regret that this proposed Executive Order has given the imprimatur of the president to Senator Nelson’s language, it is critically important to note that it does not include the Stupak abortion ban." Note that Planned Parenthood commits more abortions than any other
organization in America; they are not worried about the EO.
Briefly for Mr. Vost: I think it would be great if every US citizen could get health care; I just don't think it should come with an abortion mandate. Abortion is manifestly not health care; it always kills a child, and it frequently injures her mother. As for Mr. Vost unsubtly suggesting I belong to the Ku Klux Klan; note my comment above concerning Ms. Matsebula's comment on that issue.
One more for the record: Hillary Clinton, Mr. Obama's Secretary of State, announced in January that the Obama Administration will push for “reproductive health care and family planning” on a massive scale around the world. In April of 2009 Mrs. Clinton told the US Congress "We happen to think that family planning is an important part of women's health and reproductive
health includes access to abortion that I believe should be safe, legal and rare."
When I write to the Times explaining how Mr. Obama moves on the abortion issue, it is not because I personally dislike him; I don't personally know him, so I can't personally dislike him. Rather, I write to let Swazis know what developments may soon affect them. This great nation deserves better than the death and heartbreak of abortion.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Saturday, March 20, 2010
Obama's Health Care Woes
Wednesday's Times told us that US President Barack Obama delivered an "emotional closing argument" for his health care reform proposal. Friday's paper quoted Obama saying "You've got a good package, in terms of substance", "if they vote against it [the bill], they're voting against health care reform" and "This notion that this has not been transparent, that people don't know what's in the bill, everybody knows what's in the bill...the final provisions are going to be posted for many days before this thing passes". Sadly, the articles failed to tell us why the bill has encountered such difficulties in getting passed. That difficulty is that Obama's plan will provide public funding for elective abortions on an enormous scale.
The version of the bill Obama would like to pass into law would require anyone enrolling in the federal health insurance plan to make a monthly payment into a fund that will pay for other people's abortions. This is outrageously unjust, as people who would like to have the federal insurance but are opposed to abortion will have to choose between going without the federal health care program and helping pay for abortions.
Obama's favourite version would also allow the head of the Health and Human Services Department (Ministry) to declare abortion "preventative medicine" and insist that health insurance plans pay for abortion. Obama put pro-abortion Kathleen Sebelius in that position. It takes little imagination to think what she would do if this bill became law.
Obama's preferred version does not protect medical personnel from penalties if they choose not to participate in abortion. This means that if a doctor or nurse does not want to be involved in abortion, their career may suffer or be ended.
Obama's desired version includes $7 billion ($7,000,000,000) for Community Health Centers. The bill puts no restrictions on this money's use; this means the money could be used for performing and/or promoting abortion. Not surprisingly, the Reproductive Health Access Project and the Abortion Access Project, two pro-abortion organizations, are pushing for Community Health Centers to carry out abortions.
Obama would like people to believe that he has been transparent in this health-care reform debate. In his debates with Hillary Clinton for becoming the Democrat candidate for the presidency, Obama said concerning health care reform that "all of this will be done on C-SPAN in front of the public." In January of this year, it came to light that he, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi held private meetings on how to get Obama's health care bill passed. Secret does not equal transparent. And to call "transparent" the posting of 2,400 pages of complex legislation on the internet "many" days before a vote and expect people to read and thoroughly understand it does test the limits of credulity.
Still, Obama is partly right in saying "everybody knows what's in the bill". The American public has slowly realized how strongly Obama's preferred health care reform scheme promotes abortion, and they are liking it less and less. A recent poll by newspaper The Wall Street Journal found 48% of people think Obama's health care reform idea is a bad one, while 36% think it is a good one. This is the greatest disapproval percentage since the newspaper starting polling in April 2009. A poll by Rasmussen Reports found 53% of respondents opposed to Obama's plan and 43% in favour. This same Rasmussen poll found 46% of respondents strongly oppose Obama's plan, while 23% strongly favour it. Specifically addressing the use of public money for elective abortions, a poll last December found 73% of respondents opposed. Obama's plan will, in fact, divert tremendous amounts of money into publicly-funded abortion. Contrary to Obama's statement "You have a good package", polls consistently show more people disagree with him than agree with him.
Chillingly, a poll by the New England Journal of Medicine found 46% of medical doctors would consider leaving their medical practice if Obama's bill becomes law. The magazine observed that "While a sudden loss of half of the nation's physicians seems unlikely, a very dramatic decrease in the physician workforce could become a reality as an unexpected side effect of health care reform." Kevin Perputua, managing editor of the company which completed the poll for the Journal, said "Health care reform and increased government control of medicine may be the final straw that causes the physician work force to break down."
Obama says he's not "worrying about what the procedural rules are in the House or Senate". Maybe that's because those rules are so complex that an air traffic controller at London-Heathrow would struggle to keep them all straight. The point is that Obama is considering ways to bypass an open, transparent debate and vote on this reform and ram it through over growing disapproval. Whatever happened to all the promise of hope, bipartisanship, unity, and "one United States" he rode into office?
62% of the doctors in the New England Journal of Medicine poll thought health care reform is needed, but Obama's way is too much too soon. Millions of Americans want to see health care costs brought under control and health insurance available for people without it. Millions of Americans would join hands with Obama over health care without abortion coverage; but for some reason, Obama insists that abortion be part of the deal.
Obama has put himself in a no-win situation: if the health care plan fails, no reform will take place and the estimated 50 million Americans without health insurance will still lack it. If the plan goes through, Obama will have needlessly kicked the hornet's nest that is the abortion debate and further divided the people of the United States on this critical issue.
Passage of the bill will not mean the end of the health care reform debate. The state of Virginia has threatened lawsuits should Obama's preferred plan go through, and the decades-long struggle to protect women and children from the abortion machine will continue with added impetus.
It boggles the mind as to why Obama has placed himself, and the United States, in such a position when a large number of people will be disappointed with either passage or defeat of the bill. Women and children deserve better than abortion. If only Mr. Obama understood and acted on that truth.
The version of the bill Obama would like to pass into law would require anyone enrolling in the federal health insurance plan to make a monthly payment into a fund that will pay for other people's abortions. This is outrageously unjust, as people who would like to have the federal insurance but are opposed to abortion will have to choose between going without the federal health care program and helping pay for abortions.
Obama's favourite version would also allow the head of the Health and Human Services Department (Ministry) to declare abortion "preventative medicine" and insist that health insurance plans pay for abortion. Obama put pro-abortion Kathleen Sebelius in that position. It takes little imagination to think what she would do if this bill became law.
Obama's preferred version does not protect medical personnel from penalties if they choose not to participate in abortion. This means that if a doctor or nurse does not want to be involved in abortion, their career may suffer or be ended.
Obama's desired version includes $7 billion ($7,000,000,000) for Community Health Centers. The bill puts no restrictions on this money's use; this means the money could be used for performing and/or promoting abortion. Not surprisingly, the Reproductive Health Access Project and the Abortion Access Project, two pro-abortion organizations, are pushing for Community Health Centers to carry out abortions.
Obama would like people to believe that he has been transparent in this health-care reform debate. In his debates with Hillary Clinton for becoming the Democrat candidate for the presidency, Obama said concerning health care reform that "all of this will be done on C-SPAN in front of the public." In January of this year, it came to light that he, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi held private meetings on how to get Obama's health care bill passed. Secret does not equal transparent. And to call "transparent" the posting of 2,400 pages of complex legislation on the internet "many" days before a vote and expect people to read and thoroughly understand it does test the limits of credulity.
Still, Obama is partly right in saying "everybody knows what's in the bill". The American public has slowly realized how strongly Obama's preferred health care reform scheme promotes abortion, and they are liking it less and less. A recent poll by newspaper The Wall Street Journal found 48% of people think Obama's health care reform idea is a bad one, while 36% think it is a good one. This is the greatest disapproval percentage since the newspaper starting polling in April 2009. A poll by Rasmussen Reports found 53% of respondents opposed to Obama's plan and 43% in favour. This same Rasmussen poll found 46% of respondents strongly oppose Obama's plan, while 23% strongly favour it. Specifically addressing the use of public money for elective abortions, a poll last December found 73% of respondents opposed. Obama's plan will, in fact, divert tremendous amounts of money into publicly-funded abortion. Contrary to Obama's statement "You have a good package", polls consistently show more people disagree with him than agree with him.
Chillingly, a poll by the New England Journal of Medicine found 46% of medical doctors would consider leaving their medical practice if Obama's bill becomes law. The magazine observed that "While a sudden loss of half of the nation's physicians seems unlikely, a very dramatic decrease in the physician workforce could become a reality as an unexpected side effect of health care reform." Kevin Perputua, managing editor of the company which completed the poll for the Journal, said "Health care reform and increased government control of medicine may be the final straw that causes the physician work force to break down."
Obama says he's not "worrying about what the procedural rules are in the House or Senate". Maybe that's because those rules are so complex that an air traffic controller at London-Heathrow would struggle to keep them all straight. The point is that Obama is considering ways to bypass an open, transparent debate and vote on this reform and ram it through over growing disapproval. Whatever happened to all the promise of hope, bipartisanship, unity, and "one United States" he rode into office?
62% of the doctors in the New England Journal of Medicine poll thought health care reform is needed, but Obama's way is too much too soon. Millions of Americans want to see health care costs brought under control and health insurance available for people without it. Millions of Americans would join hands with Obama over health care without abortion coverage; but for some reason, Obama insists that abortion be part of the deal.
Obama has put himself in a no-win situation: if the health care plan fails, no reform will take place and the estimated 50 million Americans without health insurance will still lack it. If the plan goes through, Obama will have needlessly kicked the hornet's nest that is the abortion debate and further divided the people of the United States on this critical issue.
Passage of the bill will not mean the end of the health care reform debate. The state of Virginia has threatened lawsuits should Obama's preferred plan go through, and the decades-long struggle to protect women and children from the abortion machine will continue with added impetus.
It boggles the mind as to why Obama has placed himself, and the United States, in such a position when a large number of people will be disappointed with either passage or defeat of the bill. Women and children deserve better than abortion. If only Mr. Obama understood and acted on that truth.
Youth Maternity Rights
Friday's Times devoted a full page to the challenges of single motherhood and the rights these mothers have. Single motherhood is indeed a hard road; single moms and their children run a much higher risk of poverty than moms who are married.
We should help those mothers who find themselves with a child but without a husband. We can reduce the frequency of such difficult circumstances by teaching our youth to save sex for marriage and to keep sex only inside marriage. This avoids both unmarried motherhood and STDs. It also develops character during the single life, as well as the opportunity to develop work and/or educational skills to support a family. Two often overlooked advantages of saving sex for marriage are much lower divorce rates for those men and women who were married as virgins, and greater sexual satisfaction within marriage for those women who saved their sexual debut for their wedding night.
A proverb says "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure". We should aid those young women who find themselves with child but not a father to provide. At the same time, we should teach our children by our actions and our words to save sex for marriage. This will drastically reduce unwed motherhood, and will lead to stronger couples, families, and a stronger Swazi nation.
We should help those mothers who find themselves with a child but without a husband. We can reduce the frequency of such difficult circumstances by teaching our youth to save sex for marriage and to keep sex only inside marriage. This avoids both unmarried motherhood and STDs. It also develops character during the single life, as well as the opportunity to develop work and/or educational skills to support a family. Two often overlooked advantages of saving sex for marriage are much lower divorce rates for those men and women who were married as virgins, and greater sexual satisfaction within marriage for those women who saved their sexual debut for their wedding night.
A proverb says "An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure". We should aid those young women who find themselves with child but not a father to provide. At the same time, we should teach our children by our actions and our words to save sex for marriage. This will drastically reduce unwed motherhood, and will lead to stronger couples, families, and a stronger Swazi nation.
Saturday, March 6, 2010
Dads and Abortion
This space has spent much ink detailing abortion's terrible effects on women. But why do women have abortions in the first place? The reasons are innumerable; the Alan Guttmacher institute reports that an average woman gives 4 reasons for having an abortion. One recent study discovered an unexpected influence: the dad's involvement in raising a previous child.
Drawing on statistics from Princeton University's Fragile Families and Well-Being Study, Priscilla Coleman and her co-workers surveyed hospitals in sixteen American cities. The survey focused on families which already had one child and were identified as "fragile": along with poor financial and educational factors, 87% of the couples were not married. Interestingly, over 75% of the women indicated that the father of the first child was also the father of the second one.
The survey found that women were more likely to abort a second child if the father was poor in taking care of the first one. If the mom could not trust the dad to "watch the child for a week," "take good care of the child," "watch the child when the mothers needs to do things," or "does not support the mother's way of raising the child," the second child was in danger of being aborted.
The study found that factors usually expected to result in abortion-including a child with frequent sicknesses, a hard-to-manage child, or a low level of income-did not push moms toward abortion. Though material factors are of course important, these moms said a man who would help her with child-rearing was more important.
What do we learn from these results? Men can protect their unborn children-and benefit the whole family-by taking good care of their born children. Common sense dictates that everyone in the family prospers from an active, involved, loving dad. It also appears that future generations are more likely to enter life if fathers fulfill their protecting, providing, and supporting role.
May all fathers reading this column step forward and take care of their wives and children, for the sake of current and future generations. May Swaziland build a culture of life.
Rudy Poglitsh
rpoglitsh@live.com
Drawing on statistics from Princeton University's Fragile Families and Well-Being Study, Priscilla Coleman and her co-workers surveyed hospitals in sixteen American cities. The survey focused on families which already had one child and were identified as "fragile": along with poor financial and educational factors, 87% of the couples were not married. Interestingly, over 75% of the women indicated that the father of the first child was also the father of the second one.
The survey found that women were more likely to abort a second child if the father was poor in taking care of the first one. If the mom could not trust the dad to "watch the child for a week," "take good care of the child," "watch the child when the mothers needs to do things," or "does not support the mother's way of raising the child," the second child was in danger of being aborted.
The study found that factors usually expected to result in abortion-including a child with frequent sicknesses, a hard-to-manage child, or a low level of income-did not push moms toward abortion. Though material factors are of course important, these moms said a man who would help her with child-rearing was more important.
What do we learn from these results? Men can protect their unborn children-and benefit the whole family-by taking good care of their born children. Common sense dictates that everyone in the family prospers from an active, involved, loving dad. It also appears that future generations are more likely to enter life if fathers fulfill their protecting, providing, and supporting role.
May all fathers reading this column step forward and take care of their wives and children, for the sake of current and future generations. May Swaziland build a culture of life.
Rudy Poglitsh
rpoglitsh@live.com
Monday, March 1, 2010
Contraceptive Talk
The 19 February issue of the Times of Swaziland carried a full-page story about the advent of male hormone contraceptives, perhaps within the next 5 years. We were told that "safe, effective and reversable" contraception has been available for women since the 1960s and that male contraceptives will "empower" men. It is expected that male hormonal contraceptives will widen the gender equality avenue in Swaziland and will allow men to "take full responsibility on reproductive health matters".
Actually, there has been a "safe, effective, and reversible" method available for years that allows men to take full responsibility on reproductive health matters. It is cheap. It doesn't require hormones that alter body chemistry, and it has been shown to help couples build better marriages. It is called Natural Family Planning.
When my wife and I want to avoid pregnancy, I take her temperature every morning. I record this on a chart and with a simple analysis of the temerature day by day, we can tell when she is fertile and when she isn't. We adjust our behavior accordingly. This requires us to talk about important issues such as family size, workloads and child spacing. This communication helps us build a stronger marriage. We develop many ways to show love to each other. This strengthens our respect for each other and for ourselves. We do not view the normal functioning of our healthy bodies as an enemy to be overcome by whatever modern weapons (creams, caps, condoms, injections, synthetic hormones, surgery) are available.
Our sexuality needs to move beyond "Using others and being used by them." As the newspaper reports daily show, this leads only to self-centered misery. Natural Family Planning helps us mature so that we can learn to genuinely love our spouse with our whole body and with our whole self. This approach will empower not just men, and not just women, but couples and, by extension, families.
For a free cd explaining the pitfalls of contraception and a very brief introduction to the advantages of Natural Family Planning, visit http://www.omsoul.com/catalog/index.php?target=products&product_id=531
Actually, there has been a "safe, effective, and reversible" method available for years that allows men to take full responsibility on reproductive health matters. It is cheap. It doesn't require hormones that alter body chemistry, and it has been shown to help couples build better marriages. It is called Natural Family Planning.
When my wife and I want to avoid pregnancy, I take her temperature every morning. I record this on a chart and with a simple analysis of the temerature day by day, we can tell when she is fertile and when she isn't. We adjust our behavior accordingly. This requires us to talk about important issues such as family size, workloads and child spacing. This communication helps us build a stronger marriage. We develop many ways to show love to each other. This strengthens our respect for each other and for ourselves. We do not view the normal functioning of our healthy bodies as an enemy to be overcome by whatever modern weapons (creams, caps, condoms, injections, synthetic hormones, surgery) are available.
Our sexuality needs to move beyond "Using others and being used by them." As the newspaper reports daily show, this leads only to self-centered misery. Natural Family Planning helps us mature so that we can learn to genuinely love our spouse with our whole body and with our whole self. This approach will empower not just men, and not just women, but couples and, by extension, families.
For a free cd explaining the pitfalls of contraception and a very brief introduction to the advantages of Natural Family Planning, visit http://www.omsoul.com/catalog/index.php?target=products&product_id=531
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)