An interview with Clarke D. Forsythe, author of Abuse of Discretion: The Inside Story of Roe v. Wade

In CWR

Forty years after Roe v. Wade, we are just now learning the back history to the Supreme Court decision that allowed abortion on demand to become a national policy. In his insightful and well-researched new book, Abuse of Discretion: The Inside Story of Roe v. Wade (Encounter Books, 2013), Clarke D. Forsythe chronicles the complicated history and political details that led to the most sweeping Supreme Court decision in our history. Recently, Catholic World Report caught up with Forsythe, senior counsel at Americans United for Life, to discuss the twenty years of research that went into this important book. 

CWR: The "right to privacy" established in Griswold v. Connecticut served as a precursor for Roe v. Wade. Was Griswold the decision that ultimately paved the way for the justices’ endorsement of legal and unlimited abortion in the United States? 

Forsythe: Not entirely by itself. The Justices pointed to a number of decisions that they said created a right to privacy, including the 1972 decision in Eisenstadt v. Baird—also heard during the fifteen-week twin vacancies after the retirements of Justices Black and Harlan in the fall of 1972—which significantly extended Griswold to strike down regulations on the sale of contraceptives to single people. The justices largely abandoned the right to privacy in 1992 in Planned Parenthood v. Casey and justified Roe on the basis of the “reliance interests” of women in abortion as a back-up to failed contraception—the new glue that holds together the right to abortion. 

CWR: Most non-legal scholars overlook the significance of Roe v. Wade's companion case, Doe v. Bolton. Why do you insist that Doe is so important? 

Forsythe: Two main reasons: First, it is Roe and Doe together which gave us the national policy of abortion for any reason, at any time of pregnancy. Roe declared a right to abortion up to fetal viability; Doe gave us the “health” exception (defined as “emotional well-being”) after fetal viability, which is left to the discretion of the provider.

Secondly, Doe struck down the 1968 Georgia law as too strict, which allowed abortion in certain circumstances, including the health and safety regulations in the Georgia laws. 

CWR: Given the cultural currents of the sixties and seventies—more women in the workforce, increased sexual license, concerns of overpopulation, and so forth—weren't the justices that decided Roe and Doe just confirming public opinion on the matter of abortion? 

Forsythe: No. In Roe and Doe, the Justices imposed a national policy that, when released, went way beyond public support. And that has continued for forty years. Today, only 7% to 9% of Americans support abortion for any reason, at any time of pregnancy. 

CWR: Your book posits that the justices originally agreed to hear Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton because they believed they were only to be ruling on matters of jurisdiction and whether the plaintiffs in these cases could even bring their case to the federal level. Yet upon hearing the cases they soon realized they had taken on a much bigger issue than originally anticipated. In both hearing and deciding the cases, what factual evidence was considered on record?  

Forsythe: More specifically, the Justices took the cases to decide the jurisdictional issue, and then, after the abrupt retirements of Justices Black and Harlan in September 1971, four justices—Douglas, Brennan, Stewart and Marshall—decided to use the cases to eliminate the abortion laws. There was no trial or evidentiary record in either Roe or Doe, but the flour pushed ahead nevertheless, violating a long-standing rule that the Court will not decide constitutional issues without an adequate factual record. The only “facts” that the justices had were presented to them by interest groups, like Planned Parenthood, in the Supreme Court. 

CWR: You note that the United States is an outlier when it comes to abortion rights. How extreme is the United States juridical position compared to the rest of the world? 

Forsythe: The U.S. is only of only four nations across the globe that allows abortion for any reason after fetal viability: China, North Korea, Canada, and the U.S. 

CWR: Why did the justices adopt a standard of "viability" (meaning the stage in development when the child can survive outside the womb independent from the mother) and how does the Court's definition of "health" factor into this? 

Forsythe: For the first year of deliberations, the justices were only considering creating a right to abortion up to twelve weeks (the first trimester). Then after the second round of arguments in October 1972, the Justices began to negotiate behind the scenes as to the scope of the “right” and Justices Powell and Marshall lobbied Justice Blackmun to expand the right to viability, which they thought at the time occurred around 28 weeks. They did so for purely pragmatic reasons: to expand access to abortion. But then they outlined the Doe “health exception” after viability, which means that the states must allow abortion even after viability, at the discretion of the provider, for any reason related to the “emotional well-being” of the woman. 

CWR: You observe that the idea that "abortion is safer than childbirth" was an influential factor in the justices deliberations on the matter. What medical or scientific research is this assumption based on? 

Forsythe: Yes, that notion drove the entire outcome in Roe and Doe; it was the key medical assumption in the cases. Since there was no trial or evidentiary record in the lower courts in Roe and Doe, there was no factual evidence supporting that notion. That too was urged on the Justices by the attorneys and interest groups in the Supreme Court. The notion was based on maternal mortality numbers from the 1950s in Soviet Bloc countries. Today the notion is based on a mechanical comparison of the official published abortion mortality rate and the maternal (childbirth) mortality rate. But these rates are non-comparable because what goes into the numerators and denominators of the two rates is radically different. It’s apples and oranges. 

CWR: So much of the language of abortion rights is touted under the banner of women's health and women's rights. Has legal abortion been a real service to women? And are there long-term studies that evidence the effects abortion has on these women in the long run?  

Forsythe: One chapter in Abuse of Discretion examines the short-term and long-terms risks and negative impact on health and relationships. Abortion isn’t about women’s health; it’s just population control. There has been a growing body of international medical data on the long-term risks of abortion over the past two decades. We now have more than 130 international, peer-reviewed medical studies finding an increased risk of pre-term birth (PTB) after abortion. And we have more than a hundred international, peer-reviewed medical studies finding an increased risk of mental trauma after abortion. 

CWR: Abortion is often described as the most polarizing political issue in the United States, yet you cite polls showing broad agreement that abortion is the ending of a human life and a general desire to limit abortion in most circumstances. If that's the case, why can't we carve out a common ground position in our public policy? 

Forsythe: The Supreme Court (and the lower federal courts) through Roe and Doe control every aspect of abortion law and policy and practice, and prevents the American people from “carving out” any “common ground position.” As a practical matter, that is being done by the states when they pass the twenty week (five month) limits, supported by majority public opinion. But the abortion proponents file a case in federal court to get them blocked. As long as Roe and Doe remain the law, the public is prevented from agreeing on any “common ground position.” 

CWR: If Roe is eventually overturned by the Supreme Court, as so many pro-life advocates are hopeful for, where and when will abortion be legal? And what will the task of the pro-life movement then be? 

Forsythe: If Roe was overturned today, abortion would be legal in 40 to 45 states tomorrow because there are no enforceable prohibitions on the books in those states. Pro-life legislators are preparing for the “day after Roe” by working on abortion regulations and prohibitions right now.

Así han frenado la ampliación del aborto en Nueva York: con unidad entre iglesias y asociaciones

In RL

Falta sólo la firma del gobernador Jerry Brown y en California se aprobará una ley que permitirá a enfermeras y comadronas practicar abortos en los tres primeros meses de embarazo, algo que hasta ahora sólo estaba permitido a los médicos. La propuesta de ley californiana, aprobada con una mayoría compacta de los demócratas, no ha encontrado obstáculos y es difícil que Brown se niegue a aprobarla.

Pero en Nueva York es distinto
Una ley similar ha sido propuesta en el Estado de Nueva York, apoyada por el gobernador Andrew Cuomo, que ha hablado del aborto como de un «derecho fundamental» y, por tanto, realizable en cualquier momento y por cualquier operador sanitario, aunque no sea médico.

Pero a pesar de la mayoría de los demócratas en la Cámara la ley no ha pasado. ¿Por qué?

Ha intentado responder Peter Jesserer Smith en el National Catholic Register, entrevistando a los líderes de los movimientos de oposición a la ley.

Carol Hogan, directora del proyecto pastoral e informativo de la Conferencia Episcopal de California, donde la nueva ley sobre el aborto está a punto de ser aprobada, ha confesado al Register que a pesar de tener «100.000 personas en nuestra network y centenares de email enviados no hemos ganado» porque lo que «ha prevalecido son las diferencias. Parte de los provida se han movilizado proponiendo cada uno la propia estrategia».

El factor unidad
En el Estado de Nueva York, en cambio, cuando en enero pasado Cuomo presentó su programa abortista, el cardenal y líder de la Conferencia Episcopal de los Estados Unidos, Timothy Dolan, intervino contra la ley exhortando a los laicos a oponerse y pidiendo reiteradamente a los fieles que rezaran y educaran a los ciudadanos al valor de la vida. 

Jason McGuire, director de la organización evangélica New Yorkers for Constitutional Freedom (Neoyorkinos por la Libertad Constitucional), propuso a la diócesis católica y a los grupos provida unirse en un proyecto único, denominado New Yorkers for Life (Neoyorkinos por la Vida, www.newyorkersforlife.org), para combatir la ley: «Esto nos ayudó a permanecer cohesionados para no desperdigar las fuerzas», ha declarado al Register Kathleen Gallagher, directora de Pro-Life Activities (Actividades Provida). «Ante el objetivo común no nos hemos dejado dividir por las diferencias».

Desclericalizar la batalla
Esta estrategia ha impedido que la oposición a la nueva ley sobre al aborto se presentara como una batalla clerical. Así, cuando a finales de junio la ley no pasó al Senado, los obispos de la diócesis hablaron del «despertar de un gigante dormido», refiriéndose a la «inmensa mayoría de los habitantes de Nueva York» que «se ha descubierto asqueada por el aborto tardío».

(Traducción de Helena Faccia Serrano)

Amazing Interview With Cardinal Burke . . . Insights On The Church And Modern Society

In The Wanderer

By DON FIER (Editor's Note: Raymond Leo Cardinal Burke, prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura in Rome, who formerly served as bishop of the Diocese of La Crosse, Wis., and archbishop of the Archdiocese of St. Louis, Mo., recently spent some time in the United States. The Catholic Servant was granted the opportunity to interview His Eminence in mid-July on a variety of topics at Eternal Life's The Church Teaches Forum in Louisville, Ky. The Catholic Servant  a Minneapolis- based newspaper  gave The Wanderer permission to reprint the interview.

(Don Fier serves on the Board of Directors for The Catholic Servant and he writes the Learn Your Faith column for The Wanderer.) + + +

Q. Six years ago, Pope Benedict issued Summorum Pontificum, which allowed for the usage of the Tridentine Mass on a wider scale in the Church. In his accompanying letter to the bishops, the Holy Father stated that "the two Forms of the usage of the Roman Rite can be mutually enriching." Do you see concrete benefits that have come to the Church in the past several years because of Summorum Pontificum?

A. I have witnessed a number of benefits. First, there is now a much stronger sense of the divine action in the Ordinary Form. There was a certain tendency in the celebration of the Ordinary Form to center attention on the priest and the congregation rather than on Christ, Who comes into the midst of the congregation through the ministry of the priest acting in His Person to give the gift of His life as He first gave it on Calvary and to make that sacrifice new for us in each holy Mass.

Another closely connected benefit is an appreciation of the true reform of the liturgy desired by the Council, namely a reform that would be in continuity with the centuries-long tradition of the Church, not a renewal that would be a break from that liturgical tradition. The celebration of the two Forms of the Roman rite have led to a growing consciousness of the need to retrieve some of the elements of the liturgical tradition too quickly discarded after the Council, contrary to the intention of the Council.

In other words, what Pope Benedict XVI had in mind was to promote the reform as it was truly desired by the Council, namely a reform in continuity with the centuries- long tradition of the Church and not a rupture. The renewed

reformed rite of the Mass is not a new Mass, but is in continuity with the holy Mass as it has always been celebrated.

Q. It has been about four months since Pope Francis became the 266th Roman Pontiff. From the vantage point of your office in Rome, have you observed any tangible changes in tone or day- today operation in the Vatican? What is the role of the group of eight Cardinals formed by Pope Francis?

A. Certainly Pope Francis, as is the case with every Pope, has his distinctive style which is not the same as Pope Benedict' s. Everyone is adjusting to that. It is a style that has very much appealed to the faithful in terms of the number of pilgrims coming to Rome and their positive and overwhelming response to the new Holy Father. He has a way of communicating with people that is direct and which demonstrates his fatherly concern for them as individuals. When people see the fatherly and spiritual care that he gives to others, they understand that he also has the same care for them.

With regard to changes, the Holy Father has indicated that he wants to study a reform of the Roman curia and that would necessarily mean also a reform in his way of relating to the particular churches throughout the world. He is studying all of that at the present moment. Those of us who hold offices in the Roman curia have been confirmed provisionally until he has finished this study. As Pope Francis has himself said, he was not part of the Roman curia and is just now coming to know the operation of the curia, and that takes time. He has only been in office for four months, so we are waiting to see.

The group of eight Cardinals Pope Francis named [ to advise him on the reform of the Roman curia] is the result of a suggestion made during the general congregation before the conclave and is actually a suggestion that was discussed some years ago. The norms for the functioning of the body have not yet been published and so I cannot say exactly what will be the scope of the considerations presented to the group or precisely how it will operate. I imagine that that type of document will be forthcoming and then we will know more about it. What seems clear is that the Holy Father wants to have a group of close and highly qualified advisors to consult with in carrying out his responsibilities.

Q. On May 13 Pope Francis consecrated his papacy to Our Lady of Fatima. What is the significance of this action?

A. I think it is deeply significant. First, it is an expression of profound devotion to Our Blessed Mother which clearly marks the life of Pope Francis. From the very beginning of his pontificate, he has repeatedly invoked the intercession of Our Blessed Mother whenever he offers holy Mass. He always reverences the image of the Blessed Mother in the sanctuary, not only by incensing her or praying before her  he will always reach up and touch the image in an act of special affection and devotion.

With regard to Our Lady of Fatima, we know well the prophecies that were given to the three seers at Fatima which have all now been published and what they indicate with regard to the attacks of Satan upon the Roman Pontiff. I am sure that Pope Francis has this clearly in mind and is invoking the intercession of Our Lady for her protection even as she protected Blessed John Paul II from an assassin' s bullet. It was on Our Lady of Fatima's feast day that the dreadful attempt occurred, and John Paul was fully convinced that she interceded to save his life. I believe that Pope Francis is imploring that same intercession and protection from her at this time.

Q. Things seem to be declining at an accelerating rate in our country. For example, it is shocking how quickly things happened in Minnesota. A year ago it seemed almost certain that a November ballot referendum would constitutionally define marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Despite a heroic effort by Archbishop John Nienstedt and many other Church leaders, it failed. Just four months later a law was enacted making Minnesota the 12th state to legalize so- called same- sex marriage. How did we get to this point? Aside from prayer and fasting, what can the faithful do?

A. First of all, I would underline the need for much prayer and fasting. The alarming rapidity of the realization of the homosexual agenda ought to awaken all of us and frighten us with regard to the future of our nation. This is a work of deceit, a lie about the most fundamental aspect of our human nature, our human sexuality, which after life itself defines us. There is only one place these types of lies come from, namely Satan. It is a diabolical situation which is aimed at destroying individuals, families, and eventually our nation.

How did we get to this point? The fact that these kinds of "arrangements" are made legal is a manifestation of a culture of death, of an anti- life and anti- family culture which has existed in our nation now for some time. We as Catholics have not properly combatted it because we have not been taught our Catholic Faith, especially in the depth needed to address these grave evils of our time. This is a failure of catechesis both of children and young people that has been going on for fifty years. It is being addressed, but it needs much more radical attention. I can say this because I was the bishop of two different dioceses.

After fifty years of this, we have many adult voters who support politicians with immoral positions because they do not know their Catholic Faith and its teaching with regard to same- sex attraction and the inherent disorder of sexual relations between two persons of the same sex. Therefore, they are not able to defend the Catholic Faith in this matter.

What has also contributed greatly to the situation is an exaltation of the virtue of tolerance which is falsely seen as the virtue which governs all other virtues. In other words, we should tolerate other people in their immoral actions to the extent that we seem also to accept the moral wrong. Tolerance is a virtue, but it is certainly not the principal virtue; the principal virtue is charity. Charity means speaking the truth, especially the truth about human life and human sexuality. While we love the individual, we desire only the best for one who suffers from an inclination to engage in sexual relations with a person of the same sex. We must abhor the actions themselves because they are contrary to nature itself as God has created us.

The virtue of charity leads us to be kind and understanding to the individual, but also to be firm and steadfast in opposing the evil itself. This confusion is widespread. I have encountered it many times myself as a priest and bishop. It is something we simply need to address. There is far too much silence  people do not want to talk about it because the topic is not  politically correct. But we cannot be silent any longer or we will find ourselves in a situation that will be very difficult to reverse.

Canon 915

Q. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, when recently questioned at a press briefing about the moral difference between what Dr. Gosnell did in murdering a baby born alive at 23 weeks as compared to the practice of aborting a baby moments before birth, refused to answer. Instead she is reported to have responded: "As a practicing and respectful Catholic this is sacred ground to me when we talk about this. I don't think it should have anything to do with politics." How are we to react to such a seemingly scandalous statement? Is this a case where Canon 915 might properly be applied? [Editor's Note:Canon 915 of the Church's Code of Canon Law states that those who are "obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to Holy Communion."]

A. Certainly this is a case when Canon 915 must be applied. This is a person who obstinately, after repeated admonitions, persists in a grave sin  cooperating with the crime of procured abortion  and still professes to be a devout Catholic. This is a prime example of what Blessed John Paul II referred to as the situation of Catholics who have divorced their faith from their public life and therefore are not serving their brothers and sisters in the way that they must  in safeguarding and promoting the life of the innocent and defenseless unborn, in safeguarding and promoting the integrity of marriage and the family.

What Congresswoman Pelosi is speaking of is not particular confessional beliefs or practices of the Catholic Church. It belongs to the natural moral law which is written on every human heart and which the Catholic Church obviously also teaches: that natural moral law which is so wonderfully illumined for us by Our Lord Jesus Christ by His saving teaching, but most of all by His Passion and death.

To say that these are simply questions of Catholic Faith which have no part in politics is just false and wrong. I fear for Congresswoman Pelosi if she does not come to understand how gravely in error she is. I invite her to reflect upon the example of St. Thomas More who acted rightly in a similar situation even at the cost of his life.

Q. Many faithful Catholics are troubled when high- profile political figures with unconcealed antilife, anti- family positions are honored in such ways as receiving invitations to speak at Catholic university commencement ceremonies and given honorary degrees or memorialized at public Catholic funeral Masses without having renounced their immoral positions. Faithful Catholics, at the same time, are taught they have committed a serious sin if they vote for these same candidates. How are those who are seriously trying to live out their faith to reconcile this apparent contradiction?

A. You cannot reconcile it, it is a contradiction, it is wrong, it is a scandal, and it must stop! We live in a culture with a false sense of dialogue which has also crept into the Church where we pretend to dialogue about open and egregious violations of the moral law. Can we believe it is permissible to recognize publicly people who support open and egregious violations, and then act surprised if someone is scandalized by it? For Catholic institutions or individuals to give recognition to such persons, to honor them in any way, is a source of grave scandal for which they are responsible. In a certain way, they contribute to the sinfulness of the individuals involved. There is no way to reconcile it; it simply is wrong.

Mass Attendance

Q. Polls consistently report that only 20- 25 percent of those who identify themselves as Catholics regularly attend Sunday Mass. Consequently, many seem to be unaware of how HHS mandate provisions will impact religious liberty despite the USCCB and bishops being outspoken in their warnings. So even though bishops are trying to get the message out about impending dangers to the family, religious liberty, and so forth, how can they do so in such an environment? How can the lay faithful best assist? [Editor's Note:  The  HHS mandate is the mandate by the Health and Human Services department of the federal government that requires all health plans to provide coverage at no cost for contraceptives, abortion- inducing drugs, and sterilization as part of so- called preventative health services for women.] 

A. Sadly, in the time after the Second Vatican Council, there was a reform of the sacred liturgy which made it man- centered and banal. In some cases it actually became hard for people to bear because of illicit insertions, foreign agendas, and imposition of the personalities of priests and congregations into the liturgy to the point that people began to think that the Mass was some sort of social activity. If they did not find it acceptable, they did not go anymore.

If one understands what the Mass truly is, Christ Himself coming down from Heaven to renew the sacrifice of Calvary, how could you possibly not be there on Sunday? In the past people understood this and Mass attendance was in the 80- 90 percent range. We have to restore the sanctity of the celebration of Holy Eucharist so that those who have fallen away will return to the practice.

Secondly, when people are not coming to Mass in great numbers, as is the case, they do not hear the Sunday homily which is the principal means for instruction of faithful adults in the Church. In some places, even where people do attend Mass, they are not being instructed as they should be. The bishops first, and then the priests with them, must be clear and consistent in presenting the truth about the freedom of conscience and the evils of the health-care mandate.

Thirdly, in the situation as it is, which we simply must recognize, lay people giving witness to fellow lay people is the only solution. More and more sincere and informed Catholics must be ready to give an account of their Faith to others even if they are not the most eloquent and articulate. The very fact that they approach and speak with a fellow Catholic about a question like freedom of conscience will not go without a positive effect on that individual.

Q. Are we on the verge of reaching a point when well- educated, well- trained Catholics who are faithful to Church teaching on morality will no longer be hired in fields like health care, education, social services, or counseling where their religious beliefs are at odds with government policies and deviant cultural norms that are considered mainstream in our society? Is widespread persecution imminent? Is it possible to hold the government back?

A. If the present government, which can be described in no other way than totalitarian, is not held back from the course it is on, these persecutions will follow. It will not be possible for Catholics to exercise most of the normal human services whether in health care, education, or social welfare because in conscience they will no longer be able to do what the government demands: to cooperate in grave moral evil. We are heading in that direction and even see it now.

I receive many inquiries from Catholic owners of small companies who are involved with insurance whose consciences are rightly deeply troubled by the present situation in our country. It is not easy to find a way to operate with reasonable health- care coverage for some of them. This is an intolerable situation in our country and it must stop.

Yes, it can be turned back, we are a democracy. A government like ours can and must be stopped in what it is doing. Polls tell us that the majority of Americans are opposed to procured abortion and also are opposed to the idea of recognizing the sexual union of two persons of the same sex in marriage or the equivalent of marriage. Why then is our government imposing this upon a people who, with rightly formed consciences, oppose these matters?

I never thought I would ever say this, but we should follow the example of France. The French people have a government that is sadly much like our own. In a totalitarian way, it passed and is trying to enforce a bill giving legal recognition to so- called marital unions between two persons of the same sex. The French people are out on the streets in protest, one demonstration had upwards of two million people. There has arisen in France among the people the will to resist the government and that is what we need in this country.

We cannot go along with government policies and laws which are destroying the most innocent and defenseless among us. This will also redound to great harm to those who have grown weak through advanced age or serious illness. This is all a pattern: the complete corruption about the truth of human sexuality which has already wrought such terrible harm to individuals and families and to our society has to be stopped.

Encourage The Young

Q. To close, what have you observed in your travels throughout the world that gives you the greatest reason for hope?

A. The greatest sign of hope for me is the young people I meet who believe more than my generation and recognize how bankrupt our culture is and want the truth. They realize that this whole bill of goods we have been sold with regard to abortion, same- sex unions, and so forth is ultimately destructive. So I would say that is the greatest single cause for hope.

But these young people need the encouragement of those of us who are older. They need to have the wisdom from those of the older generation who have valiantly fought the battle for the truth, for what is truly charitable because it is true and in accord with God's law. Those of us who are older should take great encouragement; at the same time, we must invest ourselves in communicating with the younger generation and helping them to build a better future.

I think of the little ones who are growing up now my great- nieces and nephews  and I am sometimes filled with much sadness because I see their parents work so hard to raise them in a truly Christian home and are adhering to the truths of the Faith and practicing their faith. But the world which they will enter as adults, if they are going to remain true to their faith, will require them to be courageously strong.

"Crime contra a humanidade" - Juiz Permite Ação Legal Contra Pastor por Oposição à Homossexualidade - por Wendy Wright

NOVA IORQUE, EUA, 23 de agosto (C-FAM) Um juiz dos EUA está permitindo uma ação legal de um grupo homossexual de Uganda acusando um pastor evangélico de “crime contra a humanidade.” O pastor americano está sendo acusado de violar as leis internacionais por falar contra a homossexualidade e discutir legislação com líderes de Uganda.

Scott Lively, advogado e escritor, dirige a lanchonete Solo Sagrado em Massachusetts onde cafés e Bíblias são gratuitas e onde os cultos de domingo ministram para pessoas que vivem nas ruas, viciados em drogas e outros. Em 2009, ele foi convidado para falar numa conferência em Uganda onde ele disse que a meta do movimento homossexual é “derrotar a sociedade com base no casamento e no lugar colocar uma cultura de promiscuidade sexual.”

A ONG Minorias Sexuais de Uganda (MSU) acusa Lively de incitar “perseguição” por meio de palestras públicas e de aconselhar os líderes ugandenses que introduziram legislação contra a homossexualidade. A MSU defende a aceitação legal e social de indivíduos lésbicos, homossexuais, bissexuais, transgêneros e intersexuais. Ela se opõe à legislação que fortalece as leis anti-homossexualidade.

O processo descreve vários eventos em Uganda, tais como uma batida policial no escritório da MSU. Lively não é mencionado uma “única vez dentro das muitas páginas da queixa que descrevem” esses eventos, disse o Conselho da Liberdade, o escritório de advocacia que representa Lively.

Um acontecimento que a MSU tenta ligar a Lively é o assassinato de David Kato, um co-líder do grupo. O processo não menciona que um prostituto homossexual confessou ter assassinado Kato por causa de um bate-boca com relação a pagamento. Ele foi condenado e sentenciado a 30 anos de prisão.

Se a MSU tiver êxito, qualquer pessoa “que insistir em opor-se a classificações especiais para homossexuais se tornaria uma criminosa dos direitos humanos internacionais,” Horatio Mihet, advogado de Lively, disse ao WND.

O processo tem como base a Lei do Delito Estrangeiro, uma lei federal que permite que os tribunais dos EUA tratem de casos sobre violações da lei de nações ou de um tratado dos EUA. O Supremo Tribunal recentemente decidiu que a lei não se aplica a uma conduta que ocorreu fora dos EUA.

O processo parece ser um “golpe publicitário sem mérito com o objetivo de atormentar Scott Lively até fazê-lo ficar em silêncio,” um especialista legal disse o Friday Fax. O direito à liberdade de expressão nos EUA proíbe “tal absurdo” de responsabilizar legalmente alguém por tentar convencer as pessoas contra uma ideia oposta.

O litigante veterano comenta que isso poderá voltar a assombrar os ativistas homossexuais. A teoria da MSU atrairia processos contra “ativistas homossexuais que estão tentando reprimir seus próprios oponentes políticos e culturais em países estrangeiros.”

Em sua decisão, o juiz Michael Ponsor descreveu os líderes e legisladores ugandenses como “co-conspiradores” com Lively. Ponsor disse que algumas autoridades consideram que “perseguição” com base na orientação sexual e identidade de gênero “constitui um crime contra a humanidade que viola as normas internacionais,” mas é questionável se viola as leis dos EUA.

O juiz Ponsor virou notícia em junho quando sua primeira novela publicada, um romance de suspense legal encenado em Massachusetts, foi lançada. Ponsor originalmente aspirava ser um escritor, mas depois de duas novelas sem êxito reorientou seus escritos quando foi nomeado juiz.

“Em algum ponto percebi que os juízes são legisladores não eleitos da humanidade, e o que fazemos é simplesmente sermos criativos,” Ponsor disse numa entrevista.

Tradução: Julio Severo

JONATHAN LAST’S What to Expect When No One is Expecting: America’s Coming Economic Disaster - by William E. May

In Culture of Life Foundation 

Last’s Thesis
America’s fertility rate is falling precipitously and if nothing is done to reverse this situation the nation’s population will no longer be able to care for the swelling numbers of the elderly, or have adequate financial resources to maintain a military force capable of resisting hostile and populous nations.  This is the thesis of Jonathan Last’s recent book, What To Expect When No One is Expecting.

America’s Falling Fertility
In Last’s Introduction, he describes the situation in Old Town Alexandria, VA where he and his wife lived until they had children and moved to rural Virginia.  In 2008, a children’s clothing store closed because of sluggish sales.  By 2012, “the average family in Old Town consist[ed] of a mother, a father, and 0. 57 children,” which means that “the average Old Town married couple has a bit more than half a child!”  More broadly, “the fertility rate for white, college-educated women (we’ll use them because they serve as a fair proxy for our middle class), is only 1.6,” almost as low as the fertility rate in China and far below the replacement level of 2.1.

Accompanying the decline in fertility is the proliferation of pet shops and facilities to care for pets. In Old Town, this growth was spectacular, but it is widespread throughout the country. In Old Town, when people went on holiday, they could leave their dog at “Dog Town,” where each dog had a “separate house complete with air conditioning.”

Opponents will say there’s no need to worry about America’s population, pointing out that in 2010, 50.5 million Americans were of Hispanic descent and that the fertility rate for Hispanic women was 2.3 in 2012.  Moreover, between 2000 and 2009, the total population of the U.S. increased by 27.5 million people—more than half of which were Hispanic.  In addition, the growing population of Americans of Asian descent also had healthy fertility rates.  But Last shows that this is not likely to continue.  The fertility of Hispanic women in the U.S. quickly trends downward toward America's national average.  Furthermore, the fertility rates of the Latin American nations from which these immigrants come, though higher than rates in the U.S., are falling even more sharply.

The decline of American fertility “is the result of a complex constellation of factors, operating independently, with both foreseeable and unintended consequences.  From big things—like the decline in church attendance and the increase of women in the workplace—to little things—like a law mandating car seats in Tennessee or the reform of divorce laws in California—our modern world has evolved in such a way as to subtly discourage childbearing.”  Last also notes the impact of the birth control pill, legalized abortion and the delay in marriage and child-bearing.

How to Make Babies, Wanted and Desired
Having described the many roadblocks to having children, Last makes several proposals to remove them, including:
1.  Reform Social Security. The present system distorts the “market value” of children and forces fertility rates down. Last describes several thoughtful ways to reform the system so that it recognizes the value of children for parents. These different schemes share the same goals: (1) “Let parents keep more of their money” now paid in taxes; and (2) “Reduce the fundamental distortion that Social Security now creates by giving everyone welfare state payouts, regardless of whether or not they bore the cost of creating the relatively few workers who now fund them. These reforms do not hand out money to parents; they simply lessen the economic disconnect created by the government in the first place.”

2.   Rethink College. Higher education is a major roadblock. It often delays marriage and results in enormous debts.  Since 1960 “the real cost of college has increased more than 1000 percent. Meanwhile the ‘value’ of a college degree has increased even in jobs where a college degree is not required and has no bearing at all on work-related knowledge. And all of this has happened as the objective quality of the average college degree has, by most standards, declined.”

Last proposes three measures to address the shortcomings of the current system:

a.  Eliminating the need for college.  In many instances, a college degree has little bearing on a person’s qualification for employment.  Employers require degrees in part because the 1971 Supreme Court decision Griggs v. Duke Power held that employers could not rely on IQ-type tests if minorities performed poorly on them, and Blacks and Hispanics show a persistent underperformance on such tests. “But colleges are allowed to use such considerations. The colleges get rich, students and their parents go into hock…If Griggs were rolled back, it would upend the college system at a stroke.”

b.   Encouraging the college system to become more responsive to market forces. One way to reduce exorbitant tuition and be more responsive to the market would be to create a no-frills, federal degree-granting body that would let students “leapfrog the four-year system” by getting certificates when they met standards for such courses as English, the sciences, mathematics etc.  After they gained sufficient certificates, students could receive a national Bachelor’s Degree Equivalency without going to college.  Government agencies would accept the Equivalency, and grad schools receiving any federal funds would be required to accept it.

c.  Government stipulation that public universities become family-friendly. One cannot, and should not, “try to force college students to marry and have children, but for some students starting a family while they’re in college is ideal.”  Last highlights Brigham Young University in Provo, UT, the “flagship school of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.  BYU provides not only dormitory-style housing but family housing just off campus, and there is no reason why state schools should not provide such housing for the relatively few undergraduate married couples who desire such an arrangement.”

3.  Eliminate the “Dirt Gap.”  Most Americas live in large cities where real estate and associated costs are disproportionately much higher than in rural areas, and many must seek housing in the suburbs where real estate and a home are more reasonable; but commuting to jobs in the central cities is expensive and time consuming. The answer, Last argues, is not more public transportation for married couples both of whom  work and must get children to school, leave their car at the rail station, retrieve car when they return etc. Building more roads is the way to go, and Last points out that Dallas has twice as much road pavement as Los Angeles and a higher fertility rate.

An important way to overcome the Dirt Gap is telecommuting. Currently, over 40 % of American workers telecommute for a good part of their work week.  By increasing both the number or telecommuters and the number of hours they are able to telecommute, the Dirt Gap could be significantly reduced.
Conclusion
Last’s book counters forcefully the widespread secularist view that the greatest threat to the survival of Americans and, indeed, the planet, is people. Those holding this view still embrace the philosophy popularized by Paul Ehrlich’s 1968 book The Population Bomb. The idea that overpopulation is the greatest threat to the planet’s survival has led governments throughout the world to take steps to curb population growth, punishing couples who choose to have more than the replacement number of babies. Last presents compelling evidence to show that under-population is the real threat to our survival.
- See more at: http://www.culture-of-life.org/e-brief/jonathan-last%E2%80%99s-what-expect-when-no-one-expecting-america%E2%80%99s-coming-economic-disaster#sthash.oAfaN7yn.dpuf

Last’s Thesis
America’s fertility rate is falling precipitously and if nothing is done to reverse this situation the nation’s population will no longer be able to care for the swelling numbers of the elderly, or have adequate financial resources to maintain a military force capable of resisting hostile and populous nations.  This is the thesis of Jonathan Last’s recent book, What To Expect When No One is Expecting.

America’s Falling Fertility
In Last’s Introduction, he describes the situation in Old Town Alexandria, VA where he and his wife lived until they had children and moved to rural Virginia.  In 2008, a children’s clothing store closed because of sluggish sales.  By 2012, “the average family in Old Town consist[ed] of a mother, a father, and 0. 57 children,” which means that “the average Old Town married couple has a bit more than half a child!”  More broadly, “the fertility rate for white, college-educated women (we’ll use them because they serve as a fair proxy for our middle class), is only 1.6,” almost as low as the fertility rate in China and far below the replacement level of 2.1.

Accompanying the decline in fertility is the proliferation of pet shops and facilities to care for pets. In Old Town, this growth was spectacular, but it is widespread throughout the country. In Old Town, when people went on holiday, they could leave their dog at “Dog Town,” where each dog had a “separate house complete with air conditioning.”

Opponents will say there’s no need to worry about America’s population, pointing out that in 2010, 50.5 million Americans were of Hispanic descent and that the fertility rate for Hispanic women was 2.3 in 2012.  Moreover, between 2000 and 2009, the total population of the U.S. increased by 27.5 million people—more than half of which were Hispanic.  In addition, the growing population of Americans of Asian descent also had healthy fertility rates.  But Last shows that this is not likely to continue.  The fertility of Hispanic women in the U.S. quickly trends downward toward America's national average.  Furthermore, the fertility rates of the Latin American nations from which these immigrants come, though higher than rates in the U.S., are falling even more sharply.

The decline of American fertility “is the result of a complex constellation of factors, operating independently, with both foreseeable and unintended consequences.  From big things—like the decline in church attendance and the increase of women in the workplace—to little things—like a law mandating car seats in Tennessee or the reform of divorce laws in California—our modern world has evolved in such a way as to subtly discourage childbearing.”  Last also notes the impact of the birth control pill, legalized abortion and the delay in marriage and child-bearing.

How to Make Babies, Wanted and Desired
Having described the many roadblocks to having children, Last makes several proposals to remove them, including:
1.  Reform Social Security. The present system distorts the “market value” of children and forces fertility rates down. Last describes several thoughtful ways to reform the system so that it recognizes the value of children for parents. These different schemes share the same goals: (1) “Let parents keep more of their money” now paid in taxes; and (2) “Reduce the fundamental distortion that Social Security now creates by giving everyone welfare state payouts, regardless of whether or not they bore the cost of creating the relatively few workers who now fund them. These reforms do not hand out money to parents; they simply lessen the economic disconnect created by the government in the first place.”

2.   Rethink College. Higher education is a major roadblock. It often delays marriage and results in enormous debts.  Since 1960 “the real cost of college has increased more than 1000 percent. Meanwhile the ‘value’ of a college degree has increased even in jobs where a college degree is not required and has no bearing at all on work-related knowledge. And all of this has happened as the objective quality of the average college degree has, by most standards, declined.”

Last proposes three measures to address the shortcomings of the current system:

a.  Eliminating the need for college.  In many instances, a college degree has little bearing on a person’s qualification for employment.  Employers require degrees in part because the 1971 Supreme Court decision Griggs v. Duke Power held that employers could not rely on IQ-type tests if minorities performed poorly on them, and Blacks and Hispanics show a persistent underperformance on such tests. “But colleges are allowed to use such considerations. The colleges get rich, students and their parents go into hock…If Griggs were rolled back, it would upend the college system at a stroke.”

b.   Encouraging the college system to become more responsive to market forces. One way to reduce exorbitant tuition and be more responsive to the market would be to create a no-frills, federal degree-granting body that would let students “leapfrog the four-year system” by getting certificates when they met standards for such courses as English, the sciences, mathematics etc.  After they gained sufficient certificates, students could receive a national Bachelor’s Degree Equivalency without going to college.  Government agencies would accept the Equivalency, and grad schools receiving any federal funds would be required to accept it.

c.  Government stipulation that public universities become family-friendly. One cannot, and should not, “try to force college students to marry and have children, but for some students starting a family while they’re in college is ideal.”  Last highlights Brigham Young University in Provo, UT, the “flagship school of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.  BYU provides not only dormitory-style housing but family housing just off campus, and there is no reason why state schools should not provide such housing for the relatively few undergraduate married couples who desire such an arrangement.”

3.  Eliminate the “Dirt Gap.”  Most Americas live in large cities where real estate and associated costs are disproportionately much higher than in rural areas, and many must seek housing in the suburbs where real estate and a home are more reasonable; but commuting to jobs in the central cities is expensive and time consuming. The answer, Last argues, is not more public transportation for married couples both of whom  work and must get children to school, leave their car at the rail station, retrieve car when they return etc. Building more roads is the way to go, and Last points out that Dallas has twice as much road pavement as Los Angeles and a higher fertility rate.

An important way to overcome the Dirt Gap is telecommuting. Currently, over 40 % of American workers telecommute for a good part of their work week.  By increasing both the number or telecommuters and the number of hours they are able to telecommute, the Dirt Gap could be significantly reduced.
Conclusion
Last’s book counters forcefully the widespread secularist view that the greatest threat to the survival of Americans and, indeed, the planet, is people. Those holding this view still embrace the philosophy popularized by Paul Ehrlich’s 1968 book The Population Bomb. The idea that overpopulation is the greatest threat to the planet’s survival has led governments throughout the world to take steps to curb population growth, punishing couples who choose to have more than the replacement number of babies. Last presents compelling evidence to show that under-population is the real threat to our survival.
- See more at: http://www.culture-of-life.org/e-brief/jonathan-last%E2%80%99s-what-expect-when-no-one-expecting-america%E2%80%99s-coming-economic-disaster#sthash.oAfaN7yn.dpuf

Last’s Thesis
America’s fertility rate is falling precipitously and if nothing is done to reverse this situation the nation’s population will no longer be able to care for the swelling numbers of the elderly, or have adequate financial resources to maintain a military force capable of resisting hostile and populous nations.  This is the thesis of Jonathan Last’s recent book, What To Expect When No One is Expecting.

America’s Falling Fertility
In Last’s Introduction, he describes the situation in Old Town Alexandria, VA where he and his wife lived until they had children and moved to rural Virginia.  In 2008, a children’s clothing store closed because of sluggish sales.  By 2012, “the average family in Old Town consist[ed] of a mother, a father, and 0. 57 children,” which means that “the average Old Town married couple has a bit more than half a child!”  More broadly, “the fertility rate for white, college-educated women (we’ll use them because they serve as a fair proxy for our middle class), is only 1.6,” almost as low as the fertility rate in China and far below the replacement level of 2.1.

Accompanying the decline in fertility is the proliferation of pet shops and facilities to care for pets. In Old Town, this growth was spectacular, but it is widespread throughout the country. In Old Town, when people went on holiday, they could leave their dog at “Dog Town,” where each dog had a “separate house complete with air conditioning.”

Opponents will say there’s no need to worry about America’s population, pointing out that in 2010, 50.5 million Americans were of Hispanic descent and that the fertility rate for Hispanic women was 2.3 in 2012.  Moreover, between 2000 and 2009, the total population of the U.S. increased by 27.5 million people—more than half of which were Hispanic.  In addition, the growing population of Americans of Asian descent also had healthy fertility rates.  But Last shows that this is not likely to continue.  The fertility of Hispanic women in the U.S. quickly trends downward toward America's national average.  Furthermore, the fertility rates of the Latin American nations from which these immigrants come, though higher than rates in the U.S., are falling even more sharply.

The decline of American fertility “is the result of a complex constellation of factors, operating independently, with both foreseeable and unintended consequences.  From big things—like the decline in church attendance and the increase of women in the workplace—to little things—like a law mandating car seats in Tennessee or the reform of divorce laws in California—our modern world has evolved in such a way as to subtly discourage childbearing.”  Last also notes the impact of the birth control pill, legalized abortion and the delay in marriage and child-bearing.

How to Make Babies, Wanted and Desired
Having described the many roadblocks to having children, Last makes several proposals to remove them, including:

1.  Reform Social Security. The present system distorts the “market value” of children and forces fertility rates down. Last describes several thoughtful ways to reform the system so that it recognizes the value of children for parents. These different schemes share the same goals: (1) “Let parents keep more of their money” now paid in taxes; and (2) “Reduce the fundamental distortion that Social Security now creates by giving everyone welfare state payouts, regardless of whether or not they bore the cost of creating the relatively few workers who now fund them. These reforms do not hand out money to parents; they simply lessen the economic disconnect created by the government in the first place.”

2.   Rethink College. Higher education is a major roadblock. It often delays marriage and results in enormous debts.  Since 1960 “the real cost of college has increased more than 1000 percent. Meanwhile the ‘value’ of a college degree has increased even in jobs where a college degree is not required and has no bearing at all on work-related knowledge. And all of this has happened as the objective quality of the average college degree has, by most standards, declined.”

Last proposes three measures to address the shortcomings of the current system:

a.  Eliminating the need for college.  In many instances, a college degree has little bearing on a person’s qualification for employment.  Employers require degrees in part because the 1971 Supreme Court decision Griggs v. Duke Power held that employers could not rely on IQ-type tests if minorities performed poorly on them, and Blacks and Hispanics show a persistent underperformance on such tests. “But colleges are allowed to use such considerations. The colleges get rich, students and their parents go into hock…If Griggs were rolled back, it would upend the college system at a stroke.”

b.   Encouraging the college system to become more responsive to market forces. One way to reduce exorbitant tuition and be more responsive to the market would be to create a no-frills, federal degree-granting body that would let students “leapfrog the four-year system” by getting certificates when they met standards for such courses as English, the sciences, mathematics etc.  After they gained sufficient certificates, students could receive a national Bachelor’s Degree Equivalency without going to college.  Government agencies would accept the Equivalency, and grad schools receiving any federal funds would be required to accept it.

c.  Government stipulation that public universities become family-friendly. One cannot, and should not, “try to force college students to marry and have children, but for some students starting a family while they’re in college is ideal.”  Last highlights Brigham Young University in Provo, UT, the “flagship school of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.  BYU provides not only dormitory-style housing but family housing just off campus, and there is no reason why state schools should not provide such housing for the relatively few undergraduate married couples who desire such an arrangement.”

3.  Eliminate the “Dirt Gap.”  Most Americas live in large cities where real estate and associated costs are disproportionately much higher than in rural areas, and many must seek housing in the suburbs where real estate and a home are more reasonable; but commuting to jobs in the central cities is expensive and time consuming. The answer, Last argues, is not more public transportation for married couples both of whom  work and must get children to school, leave their car at the rail station, retrieve car when they return etc. Building more roads is the way to go, and Last points out that Dallas has twice as much road pavement as Los Angeles and a higher fertility rate.

An important way to overcome the Dirt Gap is telecommuting. Currently, over 40 % of American workers telecommute for a good part of their work week.  By increasing both the number or telecommuters and the number of hours they are able to telecommute, the Dirt Gap could be significantly reduced.

Conclusion
Last’s book counters forcefully the widespread secularist view that the greatest threat to the survival of Americans and, indeed, the planet, is people. Those holding this view still embrace the philosophy popularized by Paul Ehrlich’s 1968 book The Population Bomb. The idea that overpopulation is the greatest threat to the planet’s survival has led governments throughout the world to take steps to curb population growth, punishing couples who choose to have more than the replacement number of babies. Last presents compelling evidence to show that under-population is the real threat to our survival.