If there are images in this attachment, they will not be displayed.  Download the original attachment

World Family Policy Center Newsletter

* News relative to protecting the family worldwide * 

Volume 4 Issue 32 - August 29, 2005 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *  * * * * * * * * * * * * *  * * * * * * * *

Quote of the Day“We need family policy today: first, to insure

protection of the family as an institution in the context of the

modern centralizing state; second, to shelter the integrity

and the necessary functions of the family from excessive intrusion

by ‘modernity’, and third, to respond to the ‘post family’ idealogies

that dominated policymaking from the mid-1960's into the

1980's, and that damaged the only institution capable of

sustaining ‘ordered liberty’.”

              —Allan Carlson, The Family in America, July 2005

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 
 

Today’s Contents:  

A. Featured Articles: 

      1. Access to Abortion Pared at State Level

      2. After Age 44, Fertility Successes Are Few 

      3. California court affirms gay parenting

      4. Net porn called a threat to marriage 

      5. Liberals Reveal 'Destructive Trends' in Mental Health Profession 

      6. Teens’ petition asks stores to stock more modest clothing 
 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

FEATURED ARTICLES

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * 

1. Access to Abortion Pared at State Level

By Ceci Connolly

Washington Post

August 29, 2005 

This year's state legislative season draws to a close having produced a near-record number of laws imposing new restrictions on a woman's access to abortion or contraception. 

Since January, governors have signed several dozen antiabortion measures ranging from parental consent requirements to an outright ban looming in South Dakota. Not since 1999, when a wave of laws banning late-term abortions swept the legislatures, have states imposed so many and so varied a menu of regulations on reproductive health care. 

Three states have passed bills requiring that women seeking an abortion be warned that the fetus will feel pain, despite inconclusive scientific data on the question. West Virginia and Florida approved legislation recognizing a pre-viable fetus, or embryo, as an independent victim of homicide. And in Missouri, Gov. Matt Blunt (R) has summoned lawmakers into special session Sept. 6 to consider three antiabortion proposals. 

To read entire article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/28/AR2005082800981.html 

Related Article: Fetuses May Not Feel Pain in Early Months

By Lindsey Tanner

The Associated Press

August 23, 2005 

CHICAGO -- A review of medical evidence has found that fetuses likely don't feel pain until the final months of pregnancy, a powerful challenge to abortion opponents who hope that discussions about fetal pain will make women think twice about ending pregnancies.

Critics angrily disputed the findings and claimed the report is biased. 

"They have literally stuck their hands into a hornet's nest," said Dr. Kanwaljeet Anand, a fetal pain researcher at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences, who believes fetuses as young as 20 weeks old feel pain. "This is going to inflame a lot of scientists who are very, very concerned and are far more knowledgeable in this area than the authors appear to be. This is not the last word--definitely not." 

The review by researchers at the University of California, San Francisco comes as advocates are pushing for fetal pain laws aimed at curtailing abortion. Proposed federal legislation would require doctors to provide fetal pain information to women seeking abortions when fetuses are at least 20 weeks old, and to offer women fetal anesthesia at that stage of the pregnancy. A handful of states have enacted similar measures. 

To read entire article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/23/AR2005082300854.html 

Related Article: Pro-Life Group Says Study on Fetal Pain 'Misses the Point'

By Melanie Hunter

CNSNews.com

August 24, 2005 

(CNSNews.com) - A pro-life group said a new study that says unborn babies do not feel pain until the 7th month "misses the point" on the issue of abortion. 

The American Life League (ALL) criticized the report published in the Journal of the American Medical Association that said the brain's neurological pathways, which allow the perception of pain, do not work until after the 28th week of pregnancy.

"It is unjustifiable that researchers from the University of California have received wide-ranging coverage for their bogus claim that preborn children do not feel pain until well after their twentieth week of gestational life, said Judie Brown, president of ALL, in a statement. 

"We know this claim to be not only completely baseless but also terribly insensitive to the rights of these human persons," said Brown, who pointed to a video titled "The Silent Scream," which shows how an unborn baby in the uterus "not only feels pain but will move when necessary to avoid the discomfort."

To read entire article:

http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200508\NAT20050824c.html

.................. 

2. After Age 44, Fertility Successes Are Few

Friday, August 26, 2005

By Salynn Boyles 

Women who seek treatment for infertility have a "reasonable" chance of having a baby with their own eggs in their early 40s, but success rates drop to close to zero once they reach age 44, a new study suggests. 

Researchers reviewed birth outcomes among 1,263 women over the age of 40 treated at a large infertility clinic in Boston. After three attempted high-tech infertility treatments, birth rates for women 40 years old were 25 percent. By age 43 the corresponding birth rate was around 10 percent, and by 44 it was 1.6 percent.

For women who became pregnant with these high-tech procedures, the miscarriage rate per cycle was 24 percent for 40-year-olds, 38 percent for 43-year-olds, and 54 percent for 44-year-olds. 

The findings are published in the August issue of the journal Fertility and Sterility.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,166946,00.html

....................... 

3. California court affirms gay parenting

Ruling sets responsibilities, rights of homosexual parents but spurs backlash by same-sex marriage opponents.

By Amanda Paulson and Daniel B. Wood | Staff writers of The Christian Science Monitor

CHICAGO AND LOS ANGELES – Defining parenthood is far less simple than it used to be. 

That fact was made abundantly clear by the California Supreme Court's ruling this week in three cases involving reproductive technology and lesbian relationships. 

In California, the landmark decisions - which granted full parenthood to former partners despite the absence of legal adoption or, in two of the cases, a biological connection - have made the terrain a little clearer and solidified the direction in which many courts are moving: conferring the rights and responsibilities of parenthood based on intent and psychology rather than biology, adoption, or marriage. 

But as the decisions have been lauded and decried across the country, they've also underlined the vastly different patchwork of how states handle the often-murky relationships at the nexus of reproductive technology and shifting family structures. 

"I regard these three decisions as unprecedented because they go so far toward protecting children without regard to marital status or biology or gender of the parent, but at the same time they're not unique," says Joan Hollinger, an adoption and parentage law expert at the University of California in Berkeley. "They're part of the quest on the part of so many states to figure out how to define parentage when sex is separated from reproduction." 

To read entire article:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0825/p02s02-ussc.html 

Related Article: California Court Declares One Child Can Have Two Moms

Pro-Family Advocates Call Rulings Nonsense, Harmful to Kids

By Jenni Parker

August 23, 2005 

(AgapePress) - A spokesman for a leading West Coast pro-family organization says his group is shocked and saddened over an August 22 ruling by the California Supreme Court abolishing the traditional definition of parenthood. In three separate cases that raised fundamental issues as to the definition of family and parent, the court decided in each case that a child may legally have two mothers. 

In the case of Elisa B. v. Superior Court, the California Supreme Court held that a lesbian who had agreed to raise the children born to her partner, but who then split up with her partner, was required to pay child support for the minors as a parent. And in K.M. v. E.G., the court held that the existence of a written waiver of rights did not prevent a lesbian woman who had donated ova to her partner for in vitro fertilization from asserting rights as a parent. Meanwhile, in Kristine H. v. Lisa R., the court found that a stipulation signed by the natural mother conferred a legal right to her lesbian partner to exercise the role of a parent over the child. 

This trio of decisions by the state high court means that parenting, custody, and child support laws in California will now apply to homosexual couples who conceived through artificial insemination. And according to Steve Crampton, chief counsel for the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy, the rulings clearly point to the increasingly egregious judicial activism of liberal, pro-homosexual judges. 

"The California Supreme Court is determined not to be outdone in the aggressive fashioning of new social policy under the guise of deciding legal cases," Crampton says. "These cases, read together, demonstrate beyond question the social and political agenda of the court. They have little or nothing to do with law." 

The AFA attorney says the California court's arrogance in attempting to redefine the family with the mere stroke of a pen is "nothing short of extraordinary," and it is time this "runaway judiciary" were reined in. But if pro-family citizens fail to stand up and let their voices be heard, he warns, "the courts will continue to take over every aspect of our lives." 

To read entire article:

http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/8/232005a.asp

.................... 

4. Net porn called a threat to marriage

By Jerry Spangler

Deseret Morning News

August 25, 2005 

WASHINGTON — A flood of highly graphic Internet pornography — much of it illegally targeting children — will keep eroding "an already vulnerable culture of marriage" unless social norms change drastically, a Brigham Young University researcher and family therapist said here Tuesday.

     

Jill C. Manning was in the nation's capital to muster support for more research and spent the day sharing her findings with congressional aides in the absence of senators and representatives, most of whom spend the August recess of Congress in their home districts.

     

"While much remains unknown about the impact of Internet pornography on marriages and families, the available social science data reveal many negative trends and provides a foundation from which social policy and research agendas may be explored," she said. "As the first Internet generations reach adulthood, it is anticipated that the full magnitude of online pornography's effects will become more evident and alter the pornography debate accordingly."

     

With access now literally at the fingertips via the Internet, virtual hard-core images have never been easier to get or hide from other family members, she said, noting that the unprecedented growth of sex-oriented online businesses will continue unabated without more education, revised parenting approaches, more law enforcement attention and altering the Internet itself.

     

Manning, who has reviewed myriad studies of pornography's influence on marriage, family and children, concludes that Internet-distributed pornography is more devastating than its print and video predecessors. Lawyers in one recent nonscientific study reported that an obsessive interest in Internet porn was a factor in more than half of the divorce cases they were handling. 

To read entire article:

http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/1%2C1249%2C600158179%2C00.html

................... 

5. Liberals Reveal 'Destructive Trends' in Mental Health Profession

by Aaron Atwood

Citizen Link

August 26, 2005 

The hidden politics of mental health associations are brought to light in what some call "the most important book of the decade." 

Psychologists Rogers H. Wright and Nicholas A. Cummings, in the book they edited entitled, "Destructive Trends in Mental Health: The well-intentioned path to harm," included an expose' on the American Psychological Association's (APA) political—rather than clinical—bias. They don't hesitate to confront taboo subjects often left without representation within the organization. 

A. Dean Byrd, clinical professor at Brigham Young University and the University of Utah, called it "The most important book of the decade, perhaps of the last several decades, in mental health." 

It's important to note that Wright and Cummings are not writing from years of conservative platform building. Both have been highly visible in the leadership of the APA and are self-proclaimed progressives. That has not tempered their message. . . . 
 

There is a disturbing anti-therapy bias deeply rooted in the APA's upper echelon according to Wright. The bias has squelched some therapists' desire to help. 

"(G)ay groups within the APA have repeatedly tried to persuade the association to adopt ethical standards that prohibit therapists from offering psychotherapeutic services . . . on the basis that such efforts are unsuccessful and harmful to the consumer," writes the former APA fellow. "Such efforts are especially troubling because they abrogate the patient's right to choose the therapist and determine the therapeutic goals. They also deny the reality of data demonstrating that psychotherapy can be effective in changing sexual preferences in patients who have a desire to do so." 

To read entire article:

http://www.family.org/cforum/feature/a0037683.cfm

................ 

6. Teens’ petition asks stores to stock more modest clothing

By Julie England,

Arizona, East Valley Tribune

August 26, 2005 

Gilbert teenager Cassi Castleton and an entourage of supporters, calling themselves "Youth for Modesty,’’ plan to converge upon Chandler Fashion Center on Sept. 7 to present store managers with a message: They want more modest clothing. 

Castleton, 17, and a few girlfriends conceived the idea while chatting about the lack of choices they had when shopping for clothes. They talked about how they shouldn’t have to show their stomachs, how they didn’t want to expose their breasts, or have every curve in their bodies precisely outlined by shirts and pants that were much too tight. 

Then they talked about how they wished the stores they loved would offer more options for people like them. They wanted to be more modest, but still be stylish and modern. 

Sounds easy enough, but the girls say it’s not. Castleton said many of her friends even have to "make their own prom dresses" because most of the available dresses have spaghetti straps, low necks, are way too tight or are way too short. . . . .  

The petition is asking for more options in "modest and wholesome clothing" and targets the group’s four favorite stores: Abercrombie and Fitch, Hollister Co., Wet Seal and Charlotte Russe.  

To read entire article:

http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/index.php?sty=46826

.................... 
 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *       

Note: The preceding article excerpts are highlights of current events and

do not necessarily represent the views of the World Family Policy Center

or Brigham Young University. 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *     

Newsletter created and distributed by:

World Family Policy Center

J. Reuben Clark Law School

Brigham Young University

Managing Director:      Richard Wilkins

Executive Director:     A. Scott Loveless

Newsletter Editors: Joy S. Lundberg and Gary B. Lundberg

If you have any articles, editorials, or papers you would like

circulated through the WFPC News network, you may submit them to

lundberg@lawgate.byu.edu 

If you do not wish to receive a copy of WFPC News you may unsubscribe

by sending an email to listserv@listserv.byu.edu. The subject should be

left blank and the body should read, "unsubscribe wfpc-news".