El lobby LGBT no es lo que de verdad quieren los Homosexuales....que hay detras de todo esto? ...Be brave, commit to your partner and be Loyal!

"Soy francesa, soy homosexual, la mayoría de los homosexuales no queremos el matrimonio ni la adopción"

"La pareja homosexual es diferente: no podemos dar origen a la vida"

"Los niños tienen derecho a un padre y a una madre"

"Es necesario dar a los niños la imagen más natural"

"No podemos pedir igualdad para situaciones que son diferentes"

"No hemos votado por el lobby LGBT para que nos represente"

I. FERNÁNDEZ | MIÉ, 16/01/2013 - 21:08

Archivado en:

 

matrimonio

Francia

familia natural

Nathalie de Williencourt es una de las fundadoras de Homovox,  una de las mayores asociaciones gays en Francia.

REDACCIÓN HO / ACI.- A diferencia de lo que afirman los medios seculares, considera que la mayoría de homosexuales, incluida ella misma, no quieren ni el matrimonio ni la adopción de niños por lo que están en desacuerdo con el proyecto de ley del presidente François Hollande. En una entrevista concedida el 11 de enero al sitio web italiano Tempi.it, Nathalie señaló que "la pareja homosexual es diferente a la heterosexual por un simple detalle: no podemos dar origen a la vida".

"Los niños estarían sin un padre y una madre por segunda vez"

Williencourt afirmó con claridad: "soy francesa, soy homosexual, la mayoría de los homosexuales no queremos ni el matrimonio, ni la adopción de los niños, sobre todo no queremos ser tratados del mismo modo que los heterosexuales porque somos diferentes, no queremos igualdad, pero si justicia".

La líder gay señaló luego que "creemos que los niños tienen derecho a tener un padre y una madre, posiblemente biológicos, que posiblemente se amen. Un niño que nace del fruto del amor de su padre y de su madre tiene el derecho a saberlo. Si las parejas homosexuales adoptan niños que ya están privados de sus padres biológicos, entonces (los niños) estarían sin un padre y sin una madre por segunda vez".

"Muchos países no permitirán más adopciones"

"Las parejas heterosexuales están esperando años para poder adoptar a un niño, y se corre el riesgo que muchos países no permitan más adopciones a Francia si esta ley se aprueba, ya que países como China y otros de Asia cuentan con procedimientos de tal manera que las parejas del mismo sexo están excluidas".

"Los niños necesitan la imagen más natural"

"La paz se construye en la familia y para tener paz en la familia es necesario dar a los niños la imagen más natural y más seguridad infunde para crecer y llegar a ser grande. Es decir, la composición clásica de hombre y mujer".

Williencourt denunció luego que "en Francia se nos censura (Homovox.com). Se escucha siempre el lobby de los activistas LGBT (lesbianas, gays, bisexuales y transexuales) que siempre hablan en los medios, pero la mayor parte de los homosexuales están molestos por el hecho que esta organización hace lobby en nuestro nombre. No hemos votado por ellos para que nos representen".

"No es la igualdad lo que es importante, sino la justicia"

Nathalie explicó que los miembros del lobby gay ya tienen una herida en relación con su homosexualidad "porque no la aceptan, reivindican ser como los heterosexuales. En vez de eso nuestro movimiento reivindica que los homosexuales sean tratados de modo distinto que los heterosexuales porque somos diferentes". "No podemos pedir igualdad parasituaciones que son diferentes. No es la igualdad lo que es importante, sino la justicia. Esuna desigualdad justa y una igualdad injusta", precisó.

Homovox es la asociación que reúne a la mayoría de homosexuales en Francia. La asociación fue una de las organizaciones gays que marcharon por las calles de París el pasado 13 de enero junto a más de un millón de personas en defensa del auténtico matrimonio.

"It's a Setup": The Note that Saved a Marriage from Adultery at 30,000 Feet

Sometimes all it takes is a simple act of courage.

Marisa Pereira

I was taking the Atlanta to Bentonville, AR flight several weeks ago intending to do business with Wal-Mart. When I got to the gate, my usual people-watching hobby kicked in. I noticed an animated woman who seemed to be doing all she possibly could to get the attention of this man. I noticed they both had wedding rings (hers a whopping diamond) but did not seem to be married to each other.

As fate would have it, when I boarded, I saw them seated in seats 7A and 7B while I was in 7C across the aisle. Soon a lady approached them and the man in 7B offered her his first class ticket, pointed to some papers saying “do you mind, we’re planning on doing some business”. She accepted and the proffered papers promptly disappeared.

Now started my “show.” I found myself in shock at the blatant sexuality this woman (7A) expressed in trying to “capture” the attention of the man (7B). She really didn’t say much of value but was very physical. She had long hair which she tossed making sure it fell on him; she moved the armrest up so there was nothing between them ensuring she was touching him. She had a loose, knit, beach dress and wore a little jacket over it – I guess the “business” touch. She bent down frequently ensuring her neckline gaped open and often hiked her dress up – one time even doing so to point out birthmarks on her thighs.

I noticed 7B, uncomfortable at first and hesitant, even twisting his wedding ring– so I started praying that he would stay strong. Wanting todo something, I tore a piece of paper and wrote the following on it: don’t destroy your marriage for someone who doesn’t respect you. Yesterday she was with someone else, today with you, tomorrow with someone else. Your wife and kids deserve better!!” Later I added, “It’s a setup” at the beginning of the note because of the determination with which the woman operated.

As the flight progressed, the man was losing control and soon I saw his hand on her thigh. She said, “I know what we should do tonight – we should go dancing.” My prayers were now in high gear… As God works, here comes some turbulence - with an extra dip, we are all on high alert and I made eye contact with him saying “Whoa”. In a couple of minutes, I started the following conversation:

Me: “I noticed your unusual wedding ring, is it silver or platinum?”

7B: “Platinum but it hasn’t been cleaned in a while” 

Me: Still looks beautiful. You going to Bentonville on business – with Wal-Mart? (He nodded). Do you go often?

7B: Yes very often – I’m here at least once a week.

Me: So then, you must know the area well. Can you tell me where this is? (At which time I proffered the note I’d written). 

I thought he might read the first line and turn away or tell me it is none of my business – but he actually drew closer to the note, focused and read the whole thing. When he looked up, he said “Thank You.”

The woman noticed him withdraw, and if looks could kill – I’d be dead by now! When we were getting off the plane, he came back and said to me – “Thank you – I really appreciate it”. I said “no problem – good luck to you” and we went our separate ways. 

The setting I described is borne out of lust – of power, control and flesh. Women do not have the corner on the market as predators. In my experience, men can be formidable in their pursuit as well. We have made sex a street sport. Everyone is doing it so it must be right – it must be “normal” and now in order to keep it “fun” we introduce competition – totally disregarding the cost. ....Keep Reading

Just listen to the Pope and answer: Who am I?....Equal pay act: More B*S* from the progressives "communists with patience"....LGBT Historians: "No ONE is born Gay"

Pope: Meditate on Christ's passion during Holy Week

By Kerri Lenartowick

0 Comments

99

Pope Francis celebrates Palm Sunday Mass in St. Peter's Square on April 13, 2014. Credit: Lauren Cater / CNA.

Vatican City, Apr 13, 2014 / 05:41 am (CNA).- In his Palm Sunday homily, Pope Francis urged the congregation to consider how their actions and attitudes reflected the various characters in the story of Jesus’ passion and death.

“We have heard the (Gospel reading of the) Passion of the Lord. Only, it does us good to ask a question: Who am I? Who am I before my Lord? Who am I before Jesus who enters festively into Jerusalem?” the Pope said on April 13.

“This week moves towards the mystery of the death of Jesus and of his resurrection,” noted the pontiff. “Where is my heart and which of these persons am I most like? It is this question that accompanies us throughout the week.”

The crowds filled a sunny St. Peter’s Square to attend the papal liturgy, clutching olive branches and woven palms as they listened to Pope Francis reflect on the different persons in the Gospel.

Departing entirely from his prepared remarks, the Holy Father considered each figure in the story, followed by questions about their relation to Jesus.

First, the Gospel recounts Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem, where he is welcomed by adoring crowds. “Do I have the capacity to express my joy, to praise him? Or do I move away? Who am I, before Jesus who suffers?” queried the pontiff.

Then, there are several groups of leaders, priests, pharisees, and teachers of law who decide to kill Jesus. “Am I like one of them?”

“Am I like Judas, who pretends to love and kisses the master to hand him over, to betray him? Am I a traitor?” he reflected.

“Or am I like the disciples who did not understand what it was to betray Jesus?” The Pope continued. They “did not understand anything...they fell asleep while the Lord suffered. Is my life asleep?”

The pontiff went on to several other figures, including Pontius Pilate, who saw that “the situation was difficult” and decided to “wash his hands of it,” refusing to “assume responsibility.”

The crowd who had once welcomed Jesus so joyfully turned on him, finding it “more amusing” to “humiliate Jesus,” while the soldiers “spit on him, insulted him.”

When Jesus takes up his cross, more compassionate figures emerge. “Am I like Simon of Cyrene who was returning from work, tired, but had the good will to to help the Lord carry the cross?” asked the Holy Father.

“Am I like to courageous women, and like the mother of Jesus, who were there, suffering in silence?”

“Am I like the two Marys who remained in front of the tomb, weeping, praying?”

After his homily, the Pope continued the Mass but concluded with a special welcome to those gathered in Rome to plan the next World Youth Day.

At the close of the liturgy, several Brazilian youth handed off the large wooden cross used at World Youth Day to young people from Poland. The 2013 event had been held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, while the next gathering in 2016 will be in Krakow, Poland.

Pope Francis noted that Blessed John Paul II had entrusted the cross to youth 30 years ago. “He asked them to carry it in all the world as a sign of the love of Christ for humanity.”

The pontiff then announced that he hopes to meet with the youth of Asia during his trip to Korea on August 15 of this year.

“Let us ask the Lord that the Cross, together with the icon of Mary ‘Salus Populi Romani’ (Protectress of the Roman People), will be a sign of hope for all, revealing to the world the invincible love of Christ,” said the Holy Father.

He went on to lead the crowds in the Angelus prayer at the conclusion of the Mass.

America's Crisis Isn't About Women's Wages. It's About Men's Wages.

Stephen Moore

April 12, 2014 at 9:15 am

(23)

Photo: Getty Images

The Equal Pay Act, sponsored by Senator Barbara Mikulski (D., Md.), is a laughably bad idea — almost a parody of liberal interventionism in the market. Under the law, there is federal funding for girls’ negotiation training and grant awards for reducing gender discrimination. It bestows on disgruntled employees yet more grounds on which to sue their employers for alleged discrimination – when, in most cases, the malcontents are just sub-par employees.

But that’s not even the major flaw of this latest Democratic measure against gender discrimination. The crisis in America today isn’t about women’s wages; it’s about men’s wages. Men are still the chief breadwinners in most families, and their wages are not moving much at all. If we look at Census Bureau data, we find that while men’s wages have risen by about 6 percent in real terms since 1980, women’s wages have risen by about 60 percent. Any gap in pay — real or imagined — is rapidly shrinking.

President Obama uses the figure of 77 cents earned by a woman for every dollar earned by a man. But that is a comparison of all women with all men (and even Mr. Obama’s own economists say a woman earns 81 cents for every dollar earned by her male counterpart). In fact, a 2009 Labor Department study found that, when we control for work experience and education, the gap is only about 5 percent. And when we account for the fact that men are more likely to be injured or suffer an accident on the job, and do riskier work and often more unpleasant jobs than women, the gap virtually disappears. My friend Mark Perry, an economist who runs the Carpe Diem blog at the American Enterprise Institute, has documented all this.

Furthermore, the latest surveys of college graduates find virtually no pay discrepancy between men and women, so for this generation the 77-cents mantra is as outdated as bell-bottom jeans.

The real wage crisis has to do with men. The latest education statistics show that women are about 53 percent of college enrollees and almost 60 percent of those pursuing advanced degrees. Pay rises with educational attainment. There is almost no gender gap for the latest generation entering the workforce; if the current educational trends continue, it is quite possible that women will start having higher earnings than men, and this will be especially true of women who do not have children.

What are the implications of a society in which women earn more than men? We don’t really know, but it could be disruptive to family stability. If men aren’t the breadwinners, will women regard them as economically expendable? We saw what happened to family structure in low-income and black households when a welfare check took the place of a father’s paycheck. Divorce rates go up when men lose their jobs.

The problem here is especially acute with respect to black families. Black women have been on a 30-year trend of outpacing black men in terms of education and thus earnings. Men are becoming financially expendable. It is also true that the decline in men’s wages is necessitating women to work to supplement family income. Sometimes this is by the woman’s choice, but in this rough economy it is less a matter of free will than of economic necessity.

Gender gaps in pay are also a distraction from the other real financial problem, which is declining pay for almost all groups. Between 2009 and 2012, every racial group and both genders have done worse. Actually, women’s paychecks have fallen slightly more than men’s in this phony recovery — and that is despite the fact that one of Mr. Obama’s first acts as president was to sign the Lilly Ledbetter paycheck-equality act. So much for the government’s being able to equalize incomes through edict.

Since more and more families have two earners — the husband and the wife — women are hardly going to cheer if the gender gap falls only because their husbands are earning less. But that is the way Mr. Obama has pursued equality — by devising policies that make us all a little poorer.

Income, race, and gender inequality have been clever distractions for the president. The gap that matters most he chooses to ignore: the gap between what middle-class people should be earning and what they are in fact taking home. Wages are falling for nearly everyone, Mr. President: for men, women, blacks, whites, the poor, and the middle class.

The $1,800 decline in middle-class incomes since the recovery began is the issue that matters to most Americans, and this is what Republicans should be shouting from the rooftops.

Originally published in National Review Online.

Even LGBT Historians Admit No One Is 'Born Gay'

7:00AM EDT 4/9/2014 ALEX KOCMAN

 

7398

 

180

 

13

 

90

 

In his article, David Benkof writes, "Sure, there’s substantial evidence of both discreet and open same-sex love and sex in pre-modern times. But no society before the 19th century had a gay minority or even discernibly gay-oriented individuals." (Original photo: Flickr/Mike Krzeszak)

Whether it's Macklemore's "Same Love" or Lady Gaga's "Born This Way," our culture is pretty convinced that homosexuality is inherent from birth.

But as it turns out, those within the LGBT movement aren't that convinced themselves.

In an article in the Daily Caller, gay writer David Benkof presents the solid case of the historians—several of whom are also LGBT—who maintain that the sexual orientation of homosexuality didn't exist until about 150 years ago.

While same-sex relationships and behavior have happened from time to time throughout history, LGBT scholarly studies show zero evidence of any culture with gay-oriented individuals at any point in history.

The mountain of scholarly research also continues to show no "gay gene" accounting for sexual orientation from birth.

The basis of these claims is that sexual orientation, as part of a person's identity, is entirely a modern invention. Even in Greek culture, where homosexual behavior is known to have occurred, the line of reasoning goes, there is nothing to show that even a minority of individuals identified as gay or homosexual in any way. Rather, homosexuality was supposedly considered a supplement to one's regular heterosexual relationships.

The reasoning of such historians also reveals that there was no heterosexual orientation in cultures past at all. Not that no one was attracted to the opposite sex—hardly—but that the idea of heterosexuality as an identifier couldn't have existed in a world were homosexualit didn't exist either. (Fish don't know they're wet.)

In other words, sexual orientation isn't a core identifier like race or gender; it's fully a social construct.

Although Benkof maintains that the LGBT cause can survive in spite of such findings, only the biblical worldview fits in with the facts. So shouldn't this lead to a victory in the so-called culture war?

The Challenge for Christians

The Bible doesn't directly mention the gay orientation because the concept of sexual orientation is a non sequitur both in Scripture and in (as we now know) most of history. The Bible clearly condemns homosexual actions and desires, along with any kind of sexual action or desire outside of marriage. Genesis 5:2, Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13, Matthew 5:28, Romans 1:27, and 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 leave no room for doubt.

But as long as the LGBT movement keeps the debate framed around sexual identity, Christians will be seen as hating people for who they are.

Christians are seen as saying, "Who you are is wrong, so here's some moral actions that will fix it." But that isn't the gospel at all. When we identify ourselves with Christ's death, we are rendered dead to our human nature and forgiven of all our sins; and through Christ's resurrection, we are both declared innocent and given the ability to live in a new nature—a righteous nature—through God's own Spirit.

On the question of "Who am I?" the New Testament really gives only two options: I am either a natural-born sinner or reborn righteous through Christ. (See Romans 5.)

Thus, who we all areis wrong because we're naturally born into a state of sinfulness. But no actions can change our nature. (No amount of time spent in airplanes will make me a bird, and no amount of time doing good deeds will make me anything other than a sinner.) We need a new nature, and only then can we exchange sinful actions and desires for righteous ones.

Evangelicals must not only 1) faithfully represent the Word's teachings on controversial issues like homosexuality, but also 2) make it known that your true identity from God's standpoint is far weightier than modern social constructs about sexuality.

If culture catches up to the fact that the gay sexual identity is a social construct, then perhaps it will understand that the Bible's condemnations of sexual immorality are directed against our sinful actions, thoughts and nature—not our basic personalities.

But until then, we in the church still have an uphill battle: to preach a gospel that doesn't just correct wrong behavior but creates rebirth.

US and EU to push for abortion and homosexuality..they want to impose their views no matter what!...Igualdad Salarial - progresistas (comunistas) en Acción...Constitutional amendment to ban Abortion: Yes is Possible!

US and EU push Africans once more on abortion and homosexuality

BY STEFANO GENNARINI, J.D.

• Thu Apr 10, 2014 17:45 EST

NEW YORK, April 10, 2014 (C-FAM.org) - Africans are crying foul after wealthy Western countries ambushed them with a draft resolution that re-opens the troublesome issues of abortion and homosexuality in UN negotiations.

“You have set a precedent here that will not be forgotten,” said a representative from Cameroon at a briefing three weeks ago. Western countries have proposed a resolution for the annual UN Commission on Population and Development that surreptitiously endorses abortion and homosexuality, even though Africans asked to avoid those controversies.

The U.S., European and some Latin countries are increasingly insistent on homosexuality and abortion ahead of negotiations over a new UN development agenda in September, desperate to include homosexuality and abortion in future development efforts.

Africans for their part don’t want to be pressured on these issues, and have repeatedly stated that these are matters best left to countries individually.

When powerful western governments made their intentions for the resolution known, the Africans on the commission were furious.

The resolution includes references to regional agreements that touch on abortion and sexual orientation and gender identity—contentious issues that do not enjoy universal support at the United Nations. It was prepared by Uruguay, which is chairing the commission this year.

During negotiations this week the Africans repeated their position.

They don’t want a resolution to touch on substantive issues. They would rather have a resolution that defers to the UN General Assembly with regards to abortion and homosexuality in UN development policies.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE! 

In 2010 the General Assembly re-committed countries to the development policies agreed to at the 1994 Cairo Conference on Population and Development, and clearly announced that it would not re-negotiate those policies. This year marks the 20^th anniversary of the seminal development scheme that made sexual and reproductive health a UN development issue.

The Cairo conference dealt with sexual and reproductive health, but did not include homosexual rights or a right to abortion.

African countries and other developing nations are adamant, now as in 2010, that the Cairo policies should not be re-negotiated or re-interpreted to include abortion and homosexuality.

They are worried about re-opening sensitive issues like sexual rights, abortion and homosexuality. The Cairo policies could not have been adopted had they included such rights, and the issues are still controversial 20 years later.

In fact, no UN treaty or political document recognizes homosexuality or abortion as rights. The General Assembly has been conspicuously silent on these issues because so many countries still have laws that prohibit and restrict abortion as well as laws that punish sodomy.

Together with key allies in Asia and Latin America, Western countries insist that the UN framework must recognize homosexuality and abortion. It is a human rights issue to them.

The commission comes on the heels of another UN conference where Western countries had to twist arms in order to get their way with the Africans. It remains to be seen how far they are willing to go this time around.

All indications are that Western governments have invested heavily in this meeting. Several of the UN officials and government officials that negotiated the Cairo agreement 20 years ago are at UN headquarters. Abortion groups and UN agencies are also out in force raising the issue of abortion and homosexuality at every turn.

Día de la “Igualdad Salarial”: Perjudicando a las mujeres en el trabajo

Amy Payne

Hoy es el “Día de la Igualdad Salarial” para aquellos que creen que el macho somete a las mujeres.

Convencer a la gente de que está teniendo lugar una injusticia es una magnífica manera de impulsar la propia agenda política y de ahí es de dónde surge el “Día de la Igualdad Salarial”. Eso es lo que supone la afirmación por parte de la izquierda de que las mujeres de Estados Unidos sólo cobran alrededor de 77 centavos por cada dólar ganado por los hombres.

Pero como ha explicado Genevieve Wood, colaboradora sénior de The Foundry, ese argumento proviene de comparaciones creativas, es decir, no precisas.

El problema de esta estadística del 77%, calculada por la Oficina del Censo de Estados Unidos, es que no compara los salarios de mujeres y hombres con la misma profesión. En su lugar, agrupa a todas las profesiones. De ese modo, si los profesores de secundaria ganan menos que los congresistas (¡hablando, por cierto, de algo que se debería arreglar!) y hay más mujeres que son profesoras y más hombres en el Congreso de Estados Unidos, entonces sí, las cifras mostrarán que los hombres ganan más que las mujeres. Pero si se compara el salario de una congresista con el de un congresista, ¿sabe qué? Ganan lo mismo.

De hecho, la discriminación laboral por razón de sexo ha sido ilegal desde 1963. Y desde entonces, “Las mujeres no sólo han alcanzado a los hombres en muchos ámbitos profesionales, sino que las mujeres jóvenes y solteras está superando a sus homólogos masculinos de áreas urbanas”, comenta la analista de la Fundación Heritage Romina Boccia, adscrita a la donación Grover M. Hermann. “No hay de qué sorprenderse, puesto que las mujeres ya obtienen más títulos de licenciatura, máster y doctorado que los hombres”.

El “Día de la Igualdad Salarial” se supone que ha de servir de estímulo para las mujeres, pero el presidente Obama y sus socios están aprovechando la oportunidad para impulsar dos propuestas normativas que perjudicarían a las mujeres (y a los hombres) en sus puestos de trabajo.

1. Subir el salario mínimo.

La Casa Blanca está impulsando la idea de que un aumento del salario mínimo ayudaría a las mujeres, ya que éstas componen la mayoría de la población activa en diversas industrias caracterizadas por sus bajos salarios. Lo que eso realmente implica, sin embargo, es que subir el salario mínimo supondría un duro golpe para las mujeres, puesto que esos son los trabajos que se perderían con una subida salarial. De hecho, la Oficina de Presupuesto del Congreso estima que aumentar el salario mínimo federal hasta $10.10 a la hora acabaría con 500,000 empleos, mientras que el Instituto de Políticas de Empleo prevé que el 57% de esos trabajos pertenecería a mujeres.

2. “Justicia salarial” obligatoria.

Otra mala idea que el Congreso ya ha rechazado en el pasado y que está surgiendo de nuevo: la “Ley de Justicia Salarial” (PFA). Sin embargo, ya existe una ley que prohíbe la discriminación basada en el sexo del trabajador, se trata de la llamada Ley de Igualdad Salarial y que ha estado en vigor desde 1963. ¿Entonces qué haría la Ley de Justicia Salarial por el sueldo de las mujeres?

El experto laboral de la Fundación Heritage, James Sherk, explica que la propuesta está más relacionada con favorecer las demandas judiciales que con cualquier otra cosa.

La PFA permite que los empleados demanden a las empresas que pagan a sus trabajadores sueldos diferentes, incluso si esas diferencias no tienen nada que ver con el sexo de los empleados. Esas demandas judiciales se pueden presentar por perjuicios ilimitados, concediéndoles unos ingresos extraordinarios a los abogados litigantes.

¿Cómo perjudicaría eso a los trabajadores? Pues bien, no se puede obtener un aumento por ser un empleado con un alto desempeño, ya sea un hombre o una mujer, si es obligatorio que todo el mundo con el mismo puesto de trabajo gane el mismo salario. Sherk observa la presión a la baja que eso supondría para los sueldos:

Se debería permitir que las compañías recompensen el buen desempeño sin arriesgarse a ser demandadas. Castigar a las compañías que no adopten unas escalas salariales uniformes reduciría los sueldos tanto de hombres como de mujeres.

El líder de la mayoría en el Senado, Harry Reid (D-NV), ha indicado que esta semana presentará ambas normativas y que el presidente Obama va a firmar órdenes ejecutivas que aumentarán la cantidad de información disponible sobre los salarios de los contratistas federales en nombre de la “igualdad salarial”.

En realidad, son normativas como éstas las que están sometiendo a todos los trabajadores americanos.

The untold story of how El Salvador passed its total ban on abortion with prayer and a socialist

BY PETER BAKLINSKI

• Fri Apr 11, 2014 13:54 EST

TORONTO, April 11, 2014 (LifeSiteNews.com) – It is totally illegal for a mother to abort her child in El Salvador, the smallest country in Central America. But the amazing story about how a country with a name meaning “savior” came to constitutionally protect its unborn children from conception — despite ongoing massive international pressure to the contrary — remains practically unknown.

“It was a miracle,” said Julia Cardenal, president of Sí a la Vida (Yes to Life Foundation) of San Salvador, to attendees at Campaign Life Coalition’s national pro-life conference last weekend in Toronto.

Dan Zeidler, president of the Family Life Council, and Julia Cardenal, president of Yes to Life Foundation, speak at the National Pro-life Conference in Toronto April 5, 2014.

Credit: Pete Baklinski / LifeSiteNews.com

Cardenal related to about 200 attendees how underdeveloped countries like El Salvador depend on foreign aid to help improve the country. But she said that such aid usually comes with “reproductive rights” strings attached.

She remembers one cabinet minister saying after returning from a foreign assistance meeting in Europe: “All these people want to do is talk about abortion.”

“If you go to the international conferences of the United Nations, it’s incredible how in every treaty they want to put [in] abortion,” she said.

In 1998, a massive pro-life effort resulted in El Salvador removing from its 1973 penal code exceptions that permitted abortion, including to save the mother’s life, and in cases of rape and serious congenital disorder. Abortion was now illegal, but the victory was tenuous.

Pro-lifers feared foreign aid groups would too easily woo the country into signing onto a treaty that would override the penal code and effectively bring back abortion. They knew the only way to guarantee protection for the unborn was a constitutional amendment that no treaty could override.

Cardenal and her group began a national campaign for a constitutional amendment that would “defend the right to life from conception.”

They went mainstream with their message. They visited schools. They educated people across the country “about abortion and why it is important to defend life from conception.”

They passed the first hurdle when about half of the country’s legislators voted for the amendment. But for the amendment to be enshrined in the constitution, it had to be ratified by a two-thirds majority in the next parliamentary period.

But then an election was called and a significant number of pro-life legislators lost their seats to socialists. Pro-lifers felt sure the amendment was doomed.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE! 

“We thought it was going to be impossible to get it, but we said we have to try. We have to do our best,” said Cardenal.

Pro-lifers immediately ramped-up their efforts, calling for a national prayer campaign. The spiritual battle reached its height during the last three days of the legislative period for that year.

“We sat for three days inside and outside the legislative assembly praying the rosary. We would go [up to legislators] with holy water on our hands and [pat their back or shake their hand and] say: ‘Hi how are you.’”

What happened next shocked everyone.

“When the time came for the vote, the first one who spoke was a socialist woman who said: ‘I’m going to give my vote as a woman and as a medical doctor for the constitutional amendment.”

“After that, there was no vote against it,” said Cardenal to applause.

“We could not believe [it]. It was a miracle.”

As of February 3, 1999, El Salvador began to “recognize as a human person every human being since the moment of conception.”

In spite of such a decided victory, the international abortion lobby has continued attempts to bring abortion back, even though El Salvador boasts a relatively low maternal mortality rate, said Cardenal.

In 2006, the New York Times produced what critics denounced as a ‘hit piece’ against the country’s pro-life movement. The piece highlighted a tale of woe of a woman who was reported to have had an illegal abortion when she was 18 weeks pregnant and was sentenced to thirty years in prison.

A LifeSiteNews investigation at the time, however, found the story to be entirely false since court documents prove the woman was actually found guilty of infanticide after she strangled her full-term baby shortly after birth. The New York Times initially refused to correct the story, but later issued a correction after the paper’s ombudsman called them out.

Last June, United Nations human right experts and abortion advocates attempted to use the ‘hard case’ of a Salvadoran woman who suffered from lupus and who carried a baby with a fatal condition to change the law against abortion. The “Beatriz” case backfired when the mother delivered a baby girl through an emergency caesarian section who died within hours from natural causes. The mother meanwhile progressed towards recovery.

Cardenal said that El Salvador’s pro-lifers have to be constantly on their guard against opening the door to abortion even the slightest bit.

She says hard work and prayer will win in the end. “We have to do our work, but our work is done through prayer, because if we don’t have the Spirit … there is no way,” she said.