Virgin Mary and Justin SiselyVirgin Mary and Justin Sisely

Virgin Mary and Justin Sisely

I expect liberal feminists won’t mind this, since they support those formerly known as prostitutes: “sex workers.” From the New York Post, today:

A reality show that promises to sell off 3 virgins to the highest bidder is – to say the least – raising a storm of controversy on 2 sides of the Pacific….

The show is the brainchild of an Australian filmmaker, Justin Sisley [pictured above], and will be made for TV there. But, as of yesterday, the show was set to be filmed in NV.

The 3 virgins – 2 women and 1 man – are to be paid $20k each plus 90% of their “sale price” to take part in the auction, according to a report in the Sydney Daily Telegraph.

Australian authorities forced Sisley to move production of the show out of the country, threatening to charge him and the virgins with prostitution if they went through with their original plan.

But in NV, prostitution is legal.

“Technically, I’m selling my virginity for money,” a 21-year-old woman named Veronica told the paper.



Technically, that would be classified as prostitution.

“But it’s not going to be a regular thing, so in my head I can justify that I’m not going to be a prostitute,” she said. “I don’t think I’ll regret it.”

The male virgin, identified only as Alex [pictured above], said he volunteered for the show as a way to meet a woman.

Sisley says the parents of the young people involved “hate me.”

According to the casting notice, the show entails “our camera follow[ing] the principal cast… as they shed their virginity to a complete stranger in front of a worldwide audience.”

Flyers of the Virgin Mary, with the words “Virgins Wanted,” were posted in several Australian cities in recent months, seeking applicants.

In hindsight aging sex symbol Raquel Welch advises virtuous lifestyle

Writing for CNN on May 8 to commemorate the 50th anniversary of The Pill, 69-year-old sex symbol Raquel Welch had surprising reflections on the sexual revolution she helped create. Her piece was all good, but here are key excerpts…

Margaret Sanger opened the 1st American family-planning clinic in 1916, and nothing would be the same again. Since then the growing proliferation of birth control methods has had an awesome effect on both sexes and led to a sea change in moral values….

And as I’ve grown older over the past 5 decades – from 1960 to 2010 – and lived through this revolutionary period in female sexuality, I’ve seen how it has altered American society – for better or worse….

During my pregnancy, I came to realize that this process was not about me. I was just a spectator to the metamorphosis that was happening inside my womb so that another life could be born. It came down to an act of self-sacrifice, especially for me, as a woman….

Later, I would strike out on my own, with my little ones, as a single mother to pursue a career in the movies. It was far from ideal, but my children didn’t impede my progress. They grounded me in reality and forced me into an early maturity. I should add that having 2 babies didn’t destroy my figure.

But if I’d had a different attitude about sex, conception and responsibility, things would have been very different.

One significant, and enduring, effect of The Pill on female sexual attitudes during the 60’s, was: “Now we can have sex anytime we want, without the consequences. Hallelujah, let’s party!”

It remains this way. These days, nobody seems able to “keep it in their pants” or honor a commitment! Raising the question: Is marriage still a viable option? I’m ashamed to admit that I myself have been married 4 times, and yet I still feel that it is the cornerstone of civilization, an essential institution that stabilizes society, provides a sanctuary for children and saves us from anarchy.

In stark contrast, a lack of sexual inhibitions, or as some call it, “sexual freedom,” has taken the caution and discernment out of choosing a sexual partner, which used to be the equivalent of choosing a life partner. Without a commitment, the trust and loyalty between couples of childbearing age is missing, and obviously leads to incidents of infidelity. No one seems immune.

As a result of the example set by their elders, by the 1990s teenage sexual promiscuity – or hooking up – with multiple partners had become a common occurrence. Many of my friends who were parents of teenagers sat in stunned silence several years ago when it came to light that oral sex had become a popular practice among adolescent girls in middle schools across the country.

The 13-year-old daughter of one such friend freely admitted to performing fellatio on several boys at school on a regular basis. “Aw come on, Mom. It’s no big deal. Everyone is doing it,” she said. Apparently, since it’s not the act of intercourse, kids don’t count it as sex. Can any sane person fail to make a judgment call about that?

Seriously, folks, if an aging sex symbol like me starts waving the red flag of caution over how low moral standards have plummeted, you know it’s gotta be pretty bad. In fact, it’s precisely because of the sexy image I’ve had that it’s important for me to speak up and say: Come on girls! Time to pull up our socks! We’re capable of so much better.

Breast Cancer / Abortion Link

There is an undisputable link between induced abortions and breast cancer. Karen Malec, who is with the Coalition on Abortion and Breast Cancer, says the National Cancer Institute continues to ignore the evidence of increased cases of breast cancer in women who have had abortions. But she says this new British study, published by the British Journal of Cancer, is powerful new evidence. “We’re seeing a repetition; this is just like the tobacco/cancer link,” she says. “But this study is important because we’re seeing similar trends here in the United States. We’re seeing trends where it’s the youngest of three generations that is suffering the increasing incidence of breast cancer.” Malec says the youngest generation’s increase in cancer correlates almost exactly with the legalization of abortion in 1973.
Feminist party loses another founder

Sweden’s Feminist Initiative, the high profile feminist group which last week announced its intention to stand at the 2006 election, has lost a third founder member in as many weeks.

Helena Brandt, who served as the party’s treasurer, quit on Wednesday and promptly directed a volley of scathing criticism at her ex-sisters.

“I feel conned. We worked the whole time to make FI a broad movement but in the end it took a completely different direction,” she told Svenska Dagbladet.

“It’s just a left party with a homosexual, bisexual and transsexual profile,” she told Dagens Nyheter.

Brandt said that the party was discriminatory against men and pointed to the decision made at the conference last week to allow men to take a maximum of 25% of the board positions.

“I can’t consider being a member of an organisation which on the one hand works against fundamental gender discrimination, but promotes sexual orientation issues at the cost of other, at least as important, discrimination issues,” she wrote in a press statement.

She said that FI had become “much worse” than the traditional patriarchal organisations it seeks to replace, with the members having almost no influence over the decisions of the leadership.

On Monday, Susanne Linde left the party, claiming that she was bullied for being a middle class heterosexual. Three weeks ago, Ebba Witt-Brattström, a professor of literature, also quit, citing ‘difficulties in working together’. Both were involved in the razzmatazz surrounding April’s launch of the group.

Helena Brandt, a former member of the Green Party, said she would continue to work with discrimination issues as a private equality consultant.

Swallowing the Gay Marriage Agenda
by Rachel Marsden

VANCOUVER, BC (Dec. 22/04) — “Deep Throat” isn’t just the nickname of the supposed source in the Watergate scandal that brought down President Richard Nixon. It also describes what North Americans are being forced to do with the leftist gay marriage agenda. The notion of ‘equality’ is being used rampantly to leverage attacks on the traditional definition of marriage through the court system in both Canada and the USA.

Equality can be overrated. Flat-chested women have no business working at Hooters Restaurants, because Hooters with A cups is basically just Denny’s. Young children shouldn’t hold down 9-to-5 jobs. Kids who took the short bus to school and were forced to wear those special platform shoes back when they weren’t actually hip shouldn’t be allowed to practice neurosurgery, even though denying them the opportunity to do so could be considered discriminatory on the basis of mental disability. If a bus pulls up to the curb and the driver is clutching the steering wheel with his teeth because he doesn’t have any hands or feet, then I’m sorry, but physical discrimination or not, I’ll be walking to work. I don’t want Mr. Itchy-Scratchy who has a visibly bad case of dandruff flaking out all over my steak at a five-star restaurant. And the list goes on.

Discriminating against gays when it comes to marriage would also be a wise move. Various studies have shown that children from non-traditional families–lacking either a mother or a father’s influence–are more likely to attempt suicide, drop out of high school, commit crime, run away from home, or become teen parents. When society picks up the bill, then it also ought to be able to make the rules.

But it’s not generally the gay community that’s whining about not being able to marry. Gays comprise a very small segment of the population, and they’re not clamoring to have their relationships legitimized through a religious institution such as marriage, when religion has, and always will, consider their lifestyle to be sinful.

One of the few reasons ever given for why gays would actually want to marry is that they want ‘legal benefits’. According to the Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders (GLAD) website, these benefits include access to family health and auto-insurance policies, family bereavement leave, and dependency benefits through worker’s compensation. They also want to marry so that they can drag each other through the court system in a messy
divorce, just like straight people do.

This last reason actually provides the best justification for allowing gay marriage. Picture gay “Divorthe Court”, with singer/actress-turned-judge, Cher, deciding who gets the chaise lounge, the accent chair, the crock pot, and the Tom Cruise DVD collection. It’s hard to imagine gays wanting
to sell out to an institution that has rebuffed them, just for the sake of cheap car insurance, a little time off, a few compo bucks, and legitimized access to Judge Judy and Jerry Springer.

Gays don’t want marriage for gays. Liberals do. The gay marriage agenda is only the latest attempt by leftist elites at social engineering and devaluing the concept of Holy Matrimony. The idea has been in the liberal playbook since the 1970s. Socialists hate the idea of traditional marriage, and prefer the ‘common property’ model exemplified by Bill and Hillary Clinton. It’s a marriage that “takes a village”–not to raise a child, but to figure out which floozy Bill has been busy banging behind Hillary’s back on his morning McMuffin errands. Having a respectful, loyal husband is ‘patriarchal’, unless of course you’re ‘progressive’ enough to allow him to openly cheat on you and totally disrespect you however he
pleases while bragging to your friends about how hip your blasé attitude makes you. Apparently, that’s supposed to be far more empowering for

Gay marriage is a top-down shove, with little appetite for the notion being detected in the general public. This past November, voters in the USA passed eleven out of eleven marriage bans. In the most recent Canadian survey, only 39 percent of adults believe that gay unions ought to be
recognized as fully equal to heterosexual marriages.

Neither these figures, nor a Canadian Supreme Court refusal to declare the traditional definition of marriage unconstitutional, have discouraged Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin from wanting to shut down debate on the issue completely and ramming through his gay marriage agenda. For the very same reason that there shouldn’t yet be a federal Constitutional Amendment banning gay marriage in the USA that would circumvent any further debate at the state level, the Canadian Prime Minister shouldn’t be imposing this legislation on the Canadian people without a full national debate and referendum. If a referendum was good enough for a little group of whiny, militant Quebec separatists in the early 90s, then it’s good enough for the whole country.

Unlike in America, where marriage is defined on a state-by-state basis, Canadian Parliament is constitutionally mandated to legally define the concept for the entire country. Once Parliament sets the law, no single province or territory can opt out of the legislation any more than they can with the Criminal Code. So far, over half of Canada’s provincial and territorial jurisdictions have legalized gay marriage through court decisions. Each one of these decisions has cited the equality provision of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Referendum Act of 1992 provides for referendums on the Constitution of Canada. It has already been used to determine how Canadians feel about the notion of Quebec being considered distinct from the rest of the country.
And if all gay marriage opponents resided in the province of Quebec, you’d better believe that Paul Martin would be having one. But Martin is denying Canadians a debate and direct vote on gay marriage. His Justice Minister is saying, “You don’t subject minority rights to a referendum. That’s not
what we do in Canada.” Oh, no! We can’t have anything resembling an actual democracy with majority rule in Soviet Canuckistan! What would Castro andStalin think?

There is no excuse for the Canadian Prime Minister not to hold a referendum on the issue, unless he fears that his party’s attempt at social engineering would be met with far less support in the general population that he would like to think there is.

When there’s no real passion for change–as is the case with the gay marriage debate–people tend to gravitate to the status quo. A national referendum resulting in majority defeat of gay marriage would mean that Martin would be pressed to use the Notwithstanding Clause loophole of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to override court decisions legalizing gay marriage, or risk voter wrath in the next election for ignoring the will of the people. He would have to re-open the debate, and possibly even consider tabling legislation that is exempt from the provisions of the Charter in order to meet the demands of Canadians and protect the definition of marriage. It’s a result that every single Canadian who has
any respect left for the institution of marriage ought to be fighting for. Right now, you still have a voice. Use it or lose it–unless you re cool with a bunch of socialists making up your mind for you.

Now isn’t the time to be tuning out of the marriage debate in North America. Take a look at where complacency has led thus far: Is marriage even an institution worth preserving anymore, with TV shows like “Who Wants to Marry My Midget Cousin” coupling off total strangers in less time
than it typically takes to pick out a new pair of shoes? Defenders of traditional marriage obviously didn’t put up enough of a fight against the concept of quickie, no-fault divorce. As a result, people now switch spouses like Paris Hilton changes accessories. Is it really too much to let a couple of guys who like to engage in ‘naked sword fighting’ call themselves ‘spouses’ instead of just kinky roommates? If any of this actually matters, then it’s time to stop hitting the snooze bar, because at the end of your next 10 minute nap, you could very well be waking up to a whole new reality–courtesy of the very same people who successfully
redefined the term “documentary filmmaker” to include Michael Moore.

Rachel Marsden ( is a public affairs and communications strategist, columnist and talk show host who has worked in politics and media in the United States and Canada and is not associated with The Knights

What No One is Asking in Aruba
by Jeff Adams

For several months now we have watched as the authorities on Aruba have tried to determine what happened to Alabama teen Natalee Holloway. We’ve been told what a good girl she is and all the great plans for her future she had. We’ve also been told she stayed out late partying and left a bar with three local men, which to me doesn’t sound like the actions of a ‘good girl,’ unless she was incredibly naïve.

Authorities have rounded up witnesses and suspects alike, and this is what I gather from what I’ve seen reported in the media:

Natalee Holloway was partying her last night in Aruba, but I’ve not heard if she was drinking, was drunk, or what (please define ‘partying’). She was last seen leaving a bar with three local men that last night, but no one has clarified if she was walking under her own power or if these men were ‘helping’ her leave with them, as if she was drunk. To me it’s not clear if she had just met these men, or had met them earlier and was hooking up with them at the bar.

The three men have been picked up, questioned, held, and two have been released. Their stories have changed some, don’t match, and don’t make a lot of sense. Police and hundreds of volunteers have searched the island and have not found once trace of Natalee.

The authorities are at a dead end. Natalee’s mother has criticized how the Aruba authorities have conducted the investigation, and Aruba’s prime minister agrees with her. Currently it appears as if the investigation is dead in the water, and Natalee Holloway’s disappearance is going to remain a mystery.

To me, there is a huge, glaring question that no one is asking, at least based on the reports I’ve seen. There appears to be no trace of Natalee any where on the island. Might it not make sense to ask if she’s still even on the island? From this one simple question there could be a series of questions asked that might actually lead to discovering where Natalee Holloway is and what exactly has happened to her.

Suppose the answer to my question is,”No she’s not on the island.” Then one should ask,”Where did she go?,””Why?,” “How did she get off the island?,””Who helped or forced her off the island, and why?” There are more questions, but these will do for starters.

One might wonder why Natalee would want to sneak off the island, considering the declared bright future awaiting her back in Alabama. Perhaps there were troubles at home that we aren’t being made aware of. But let’s assume that everything was ‘hunky-dory’ back home, and Natalee was truly just having her last blow out before heading off to college. If Natalee is no longer on the island, then that would mean she was forced to leave the island by means other than her planned flight.

A report concerning the actions of one of the men Natalee was seen leaving with her last night in Aruba, the one still being held, brings up some interesting possibilities. And I want to stress here that this is all speculation, but considering the state of our fallen world these days, I would not rule what I’m about to say out of the realm of reality.

Joran van der Sloot, the man still being held, is the son of a highly respected Dutch Judge. The impression given in the media is that van der Sloot comes from a family of affluence. Joran van der Sloot is reported to have a bit of a gambling problem and supposedly had run up a considerable debt in Aruba. However, it now appears as if he is no longer under pressure from his ‘creditors.’

Granted, folks may just want to distance themselves from a young man in trouble with authorities concerning a very public issue. They know they’ll have to wait in line behind the government to try and collect any debt owed to them. However, there is another possibility (and again, I stress this is pure speculation).

Natalee is nowhere to be found on the island, alive or dead. Who’s to say Joran van der Sloot didn’t take care of his gambling debt by trading a ‘commodity’ in lieu of paying actual cash. Is it impossible to consider that van der Sloot and his companions might have given Natalee a ‘mickey’ and helped her out the door into their car, only to drive her to a location where they traded her for the forgiveness of a debt they owed?

The sex slave trade is huge business in the world today. Eastern European women are often lured/tricked into going to other countries, promised legal work only to be turned into abused prostitutes. The same is true of Asian women. Who says this can’t happen to women from America as well? Blond women are said to be highly prized in the orient. Could Natalee have been abducted and swept away to some distant country against her will?

My concern is that authorities in Aruba are focused on their island, as they should be, but don’t appear to be broadening the possibilities as time goes by. They need to ‘think outside the box’ a little to help them do a better job of investigating. Consider all possibilities and eliminate them one by one. Right now the authorities are making it look like they are stuck on the concept that Natalee is on the island, but there doesn’t appear to be any evidence that she still is. They can’t get past that point, and they need to.

Authorities don’t appear to be asking certain questions that might help bust their case wide open, or at least help ensure they are focused in the right direction. To me, the questions of whether or not Natalee is still on the island, and if Joran van der Sloot had anything to do with getting her off the island are to big questions no one in Aruba appears to be asking. Maybe they don’t want to know the answers.

Chivalrous Men and the Victim-Princess Complex
by Carey Roberts

I recently came across an article sporting the irresistible title, A Nation of Little Princesses. Author Christopher Healy explores the archetype of the princess, which he asserts”is one of the longest-lived in all of literary history.” []

My first reaction was to think,”Here’s some Neanderthal guy trying to peddle outdated gender stereotypes.” But Healy points to the fact that the Disney Corporation has assembled a Princess brand consisting of eight animated film heroines including Cinderella, Snow White, Pocahontas, Belle of Beauty of the Beast, and others. In 2003 the Princess line racked up an astonishing $2.5 billion in sales, up from a mere $300 million in 2001.

And that’s just for starters.”We’ve gone beyond the dress-up and toys, and begun to look at the brand as a lifestyle, filling out all the other things girls need in life,” according to Mary Beech, Disney’s director of franchise management. Things girls need in life?

Healy, proud dad of a three-year-old girl, notes with an equal mix of astonishment and horror,”The ease and rapidity with which a princess obsession can take hold of a young girl’s psyche is mind-blowing.”

Eventually those little Jennifers and Bethanies grow up, go to college, and enroll in their first Women’s Studies course. There they learn that the kiss by their Prince Charming really represents non-consensual sexual assault, that Belle’s Beast is a closet bodice-ripper, and that the fable of the Princess talking to the Green Frog at the side of the well is an allegory of serial rape.

But the Women’s Studies gurus explain they can still make their dreams of tiaras and sequin-studded dresses come true:”Join the Sisterhood, and we’ll turn you into a real princess!”

According to the feminist fable, women were kept under heel for so many millennia that members of the fairer sex need to play”catch-up.” So now women should be the beneficiaries of an ever-expanding array of legal protections, government programs, commercial products, and lifestyle options. That’s the Victim-Princess Complex.

What princess who has just been betrayed by her Handsome Green Frog could resist that offer?

Before long these Wicked Witches of the North have cast a spell on their Little Pretties. These young women soon graduate from college believing that women are paid less for the same work, that women were routinely excluded from medical research, and a multitude of other tragedies that have befallen womankind. Victimization has become a mainstay of their self-identity.

It’s not just the feminist propaganda mill that endlessly replays the woman-as-victim mantra. Chivalrous men, acting out their fantasies of the White Knight in Shining Armor, are guilty as well.

Pick up a copy of your local newspaper and you will see articles – usually written by male reporters and columnists – that reinforce the notion of the downtrodden female. Accounts of women who are stressed-out, undervalued, and abused form the staple of daily news reporting.

Recently I attended a conference where a speaker blandly made the claim that 60 million women around the world had “disappeared.” He didn’t bother to offer any details or proof. And he certainly didn’t say anything about men who were never heard from again.

I imagine that catering to women’s insecurities makes these men feel gallant and proud. But chivalry is defined as being”considerate and courteous to women.” Slanting and distorting the truth – that’s chicanery, not chivalry.

Yet there’s a downside to the Princess-Victim Complex.

Myrna Blyth, former editor of Ladies Home Journal, reveals how women’s magazines turn female victimization into a hard sell for the latest beauty products or weight control program. Blyth decries how these magazines promote “narcissism as an advanced evolutionary stage of female liberation. Me, me, me, means you’re finally free, free, free.”

But the problem goes beyond self-absorbed narcissism.

In his Nation of Little Princesses article, Christopher Healy quotes a father who observes,”Well, that’s the magic of Disney: It’s addictive. It’s like crack for 5-year-olds.”

So the Victim-Princess Complex begins to resemble a dysfunctional habit in which the negative feelings of being a victim require ever-larger”fixes” for women to feel good about themselves. And those fixes come with a hefty price tag. Princesses”only find true happiness once they’re married off with royal expense accounts,” Healy laments.

These women are undoubtedly the most prosperous, pampered, and protected group in the history of the world. But they would still have you believe that women aren’t getting a fair shake.

What is the truth of feminism? A fairytale come true, or a royal deception that appeals to the most primitive instincts of men and women alike?

Restraining Orders for Abusive Grandmas?
by Carey Roberts

The women’s shelter activists have devised a nuclear first-strike weapon in their jihad to stop domestic violence. Insiders call it the TRO — the “temporary restraining order.”

Here’s how the ploy works. A woman who feels in the slightest way abused goes to a judge to request a restraining order (called an Order of Protection in some states). This is usually done at an “ex-parte” hearing, meaning the hearing is done in secret and the judge does not bother to invite testimony from the alleged abuser. The judge seldom demands any hard evidence to back up the woman’s testimony.

Because abuse is defined broadly in most states, the woman’s request is given a rubber-stamp approval.

Ten days later the woman goes back and requests that the temporary restraining order be made permanent. That decision has a devastating impact on the family: the father is permanently vacated from his house, the mother is awarded full custody of the children, and he is ordered to begin child support payments.

Obviously this Kafkaesque system is ripe for abuse. And that’s exactly what Arlene Soucie of Illinois, proud grandmother of two, recently found out.

In November 2002 Mrs. Soucie’s daughter-in-law decided to leave the family home, and opted to take along her nine-month-old grandson for good measure. “With the slow process of the court system, my grandson was concealed for 3 months. We missed his first Thanksgiving, first Christmas, first New Years, and his first birthday,” Mrs. Soucie sadly writes.

Finally the father, who works in law enforcement, was granted formal visitation rights. That’s when the nightmare began.

Somehow the mother got irate because dad and grandma wanted to see junior from time to time. And someone told her that under the Illinois Domestic Violence Act, causing a woman to feel even “emotional distress” is considered a form of abuse.

“In October 2003, my son and myself were placed under an Order of Protection. We did nothing to break the law, we did not harass, stalk, intimidate, or try to annoy. Our only purpose was to pick up the child and deliver him back at the appointed time.”

Apparently the mother told the judge she found dad and grandma picking up the child to be “distressing.”

“The mother has learned the system and uses it to her advantage,” laments the disillusioned grandmother.

The abuse of restraining orders has now become widespread.

In Massachusetts, 30,000 restraining orders are issued each year. Half of those do not involve even an allegation of physical violence.

Elaine Epstein, former president of the Massachusetts Women’s Bar Association, notes that “allegations of abuse are now used for tactical advantage” in divorce hearings. “Everyone knows that restraining orders and orders to vacate are granted to virtually all who apply,” she admits.

The June 2005 issue of the Journal of Family Violence features an analysis of all of the requests for restraining orders that came to the Massachusetts Gardner District Court in 1997. Author Steve Basile found that only 10% of requests from women were deferred or turned down. In contrast, 34% of requests from abused men were deferred or denied – a three-fold sex bias.

In Washington state, attorney Lisa Scott writes, “Originated to immediately protect victims of severe abuse, protection orders have become ‘weapons of mass destruction’ in family courts. Whenever a woman claims to be a victim, she is automatically believed. No proof of abuse is required.”

In Colorado, Dr. Charles Corry explains how one judicial district employs a so-called Fast Track system in which “men are not allowed to consult a defense attorney before being pressured and cajoled to enter a guilty plea.”

Some judges seem to delight in turning family breadwinners into homeless vagrants: “Your job is not to become concerned about all the constitutional rights of the man that you’re violating as you grant a restraining order. Throw him out on the street, give him the clothes on his back, and tell him, ‘See ya around,’” boasts judge Richard Russell of New Jersey.

Early next month lawmakers return to Washington from their August recess. One of their first orders of business will be to take up the Violence Against Women Act. VAWA is the controversial bill that fuels the ever-expanding use of restraining orders around the country.

And as they ponder their votes, let’s hope our elected officials don’t forget about all the grandmas and grandpas out there who are looking forward to birthday cake and ice cream with their grandkids this coming year.

VAWA: Making Divorce Easy, Profitable and Fun
by Carey Roberts

Man-hating feminist Andrea Dworkin once admitted to The New Republic,”Senators don’t understand the meaning of the legislation that they pass.” Dworkin was referring to the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), a law that is now up for reauthorization in the U.S. Congress.

In case you’re wondering, here’s the meaning of VAWA: the Violence Against Women Act is a $1 billion-a-year law that turns every marital tiff into a hate crime against women.

The linchpin of the VAWA marriage wrecking-ball is a series of state-level laws enacted at the behest of local N.O.W. chapters. These laws define”violence” in the broadest possible terms. For example, the Illinois Domestic Violence Act defines any action that causes a person to experience”emotional distress” to fall within its umbrella of abuse.

Then the VAWA propaganda mill revs up to bombard women with a series of perverted messages that amount to a how-to divorce manual:

1. Wife-battering is rampant, and”the patriarchy requires violence or the subliminal threat of violence in order to maintain itself,” as Gloria Steinem once put it. And since women are powerless, they are obviously incapable of inflicting violence on their partners.

2. Remain on constant alert for the dead give-aways of impending domestic violence, such as,”My partner acts one way in front of others, and another way when we are alone.” [] Yes, abusive men are lurking behind every bush.

3. If you think there’s a slight possibility of being abused, call 911. That will instantly bring a couple squad cars roaring to your rescue. VAWA encourages police departments to institute”mandatory arrest” policies, so just huddle in the corner of the room and put on your pouty face — that will take care of it.

4. If a 911 call sounds too messy, get a judicial protection order. Restraining orders are the handy,”no-fuss” solution to the problem of husbands who can’t remember to put the seat down. If you don’t know how to do this, a VAWA-funded Court Advocate will be there to help you fill out the forms.

5. Once the bum is evicted, file a petition for divorce and temporary custody of the kids. This is by far the cheapest and sure-fire way to win permanent custody and guarantee yourself many years of tax-free child support payments.

6. If you have second thoughts about pursing the domestic abuse case, don’t worry. Thanks to VAWA, many state attorneys have implemented a”no-drop” policy. That way you don’t have to testify in the case, even if you know in your heart that you started the whole incident.

7. If your house is getting run-down, check out your local women’s shelter. Don’t worry, they don’t ask for proof that you were actually battered. You can get free room and board while you start tallying up your child support checks.

8. Finally, if you need help finding a good divorce lawyer, VAWA-funded organizations such as AARDVARC will connect you to pre-screened lawyers in your area. []

See girls, this is easier than you could have imagined!

Recently Senator Joe Biden (D-DE) proposed that VAWA be renewed for another five years – what better way to nail down the feminist vote and steal the Democratic nomination from Hillary? But this time around Mr. Biden’s bamboozle is hitting some unexpected snags.

Word is beginning to leak out that VAWA represents a grotesque violation of men’s civil rights. Worse, people are hearing that VAWA is based on a bald-faced lie – that in truth, women commit half of all domestic violence. []

Normally Senate hearings feature witnesses who voice the full gamut of opinions. That’s democracy at work. But at Tuesday’s Judiciary Committee hearings, only hand-picked apparatchiks who were willing to spout the VAWA party line were invited to speak.

A few men who claimed to be DV victims had requested to testify at the hearings, but they were sent away since obviously they were liars. In politically-correct society, only people who tell the truth enjoy the right to free speech.

And in the House of Representatives, VAWA operatives plan to skip the committee hearings altogether. They plan to bundle VAWA into a larger Department of Justice bill and steam-roller a floor vote by the end of the month. That’s warp speed by Washington standards.

Clearly, someone wants to keep the Senators and Representatives from hearing the truth. Andrea Dworkin was right. Our elected officials in Washington don’t have a clue what the Violence Against Women Act is really about.

Scream Queens Fuel Nightmarish VAWA System
by Lisa Scott

Picture this: Ordinary citizens arrested in the middle of the night, thrown in jail on false charges, never seeing the inside of their homes again. Show trials with predetermined outcomes. Dissidents forced into treatment for politically incorrect thoughts.

Does this describe Stalinist purges? Totalitarian repression? The USA Patriot Act in action?

No, this nightmarish scenario is our current domestic violence system. Introduced in the 1980’s with good intentions, these laws have mutated into a system of repression, power and control, manipulated by the domestic violence industry and exploited by vengeful spouses seeking advantage in divorce and child custody.

The crowning achievement for the victim industry was the passage in 1994 of VAWA, the federal Violence Against Women Act. VAWA codifies gender-based myths that domestic violence (DV) is virtually always committed by men against women. VAWA is up for reauthorization in 2005.

VAWA was based on lies and distortions about the true extent of intimate partner violence, yet it continues to be funded at astounding levels. Feminist groups, led by the domestic violence “scream queens,” tout hysterical claims such as “the leading cause of emergency room visits by women is domestic violence,” and “95 per cent of victims of domestic violence are women.”

The government’s own statistics contradict these ubiquitous factoids, yet Congress can’t help pandering to the women’s vote with a billion-dollar gravy train. The Justice Department’s 1998 “Intimate Partner Violence” report reveals that 1/3 of total domestic violence murder victims are male. Further, less than one per cent of females (and males) are victimized each year. Hardly an epidemic justifying a monstrous government system.

In today’s domestic violence police state, it’s expected the woman is the victim. All she has to do is call 911 and report her husband assaulted her. In many cases she conveniently fails to mention she slapped, punched, kicked or pummeled him to the point that he pushed her away. As a family law attorney for 17 years, I have experienced the DV system personally. Every example cited in this article has happened to one of my clients.

The stereotype that the man is always the abuser ensures he has no chance of being believed when he says he is the victim. The police take him to jail, and in many cases, he never goes home again.

The next scene in his nightmare is getting served with an order for protection. Originated to immediately protect victims of severe abuse, protection orders have become “weapons of mass destruction” in family courts.

Drive-by protection orders (obtained ex parte, with the accused not present) almost always prohibit contact with his children and presence at the family home, virtually guaranteeing full custody to the accuser.

After 14 days living in a van down by the river, the accused gets a hearing, an “opportunity to be heard.” In reality, it is a show trial with a predetermined outcome. Whenever a woman claims to be a victim, she is automatically believed. No proof of abuse is required.

Judges with “do-something disease,” afraid of some real victim being denied relief, hand out protection orders like candy. In fact, the accused is sometimes treated more harshly for having the audacity to object. Meanwhile, real victims must share crowded courtrooms with DV fakers.

In many cases, the accused is sent to “domestic violence perpetrator treatment,” following an “assessment” with the foregone conclusion that he needs treatment. If he admits any abuse, it will always be used against him. Denial of abuse is punished more severely than actual abuse. Those who profess their innocence are often forcibly “re-educated” for two or even three years.

The only escape is to unconditionally surrender to the authority of the oppressors (the court and treatment providers), bow down and capitulate to the accuser, then you might get some time with your children. You still don’t get to go home.

Ten years of VAWA has resulted in the wholesale criminalization of being a man. VAWA didn’t originate this nightmarish system, but it legitimizes and subsidizes it. To some, the solution is a gender-neutral law, such as “Violence Against Persons Act.” Even without overt gender bias, federal intrusion into local domestic violence policies is corrupting. It nourishes a gargantuan beast and ensures a massive stream of taxpayer dollars creating endless constituent groups lining up to feed at the federal trough.

We must de-fund and de-fang VAWA. We must let police do their jobs without fear of making politically-incorrect decisions. In the old days they used their discretion on how to handle domestic conflict. The parties were often separated until things cooled down. Without evidence of serious assault or injury, that was the proper response.

VAWA turns every argument into a potential murder case, and what police officer wants to risk making a wrong decision? The easy way out is to arrest the man.

It’s time to stop systematic violence against civil rights and recognize that even well-intentioned laws can be used as a bludgeon. Like the war on terrorism, the war on domestic violence can go too far.

The laudable goal of ending domestic violence cannot justify nullification of the fundamental rights of an entire gender. We should all be outraged at what is being done to innocent people in the name of helping victims.

Lisa Scott is a Bellevue, Washington attorney practicing in the areas of family law, divorce and domestic violence. She is also a founding member of TABS, Taking Action against Bias in the System,

Betrayal of Women – VAWA 2005
by Trudy W. Schuett

In Congress today, legislators of both parties from many states are congratulating themselves and each other, feeling good about themselves and their concern for battered women.

They are wrong. They are badly misinformed and misguided.

VAWA 2005 cannot help women much, if at all. Worse, it belittles their anguish, ignores their needs and insults their intelligence. In many cases, it makes a bad situation so much worse, it’s a wonder this kind of approach has lasted a full decade, since originally being signed into law in 1994. At the heart of VAWA is the mistaken presumption that by removing women from their homes, jailing their husbands and indoctrinating their children, this will have a positive impact on intimate partner abuse.

Ten years out, there is no evidence that VAWA and its myriad programs has been of benefit to anyone beyond those municipalities, organizations and individuals who are recipients of VAWA funding, or employed by VAWA-funded agencies. Claimed decreases in domestic violence may well represent only a growing number of women unwilling to turn to these programs for help.

The newest incarnation represents expansion of the scope and penetration of the Federal government into state, local, tribal, and family affairs. It also introduces federally-approved bias against ethnic groups and Native Americans.

One Solution to a Complicated Human Problem?

While proponents of VAWA would like to believe that what they call”gender violence” is aptly solved by female victims separating from their male abusers, the actual problem is far more intricate. There may be a case of mutual abuse, or an addiction to violence, or a dogged belief that the abuser will magically change someday. Not all cases of intimate partner abuse escalate to murder, or even serious physical harm.

It’s much easier for anyone to embrace a proffered solution to a human problem when a clear and apparently obvious solution is provided. It all seems very simple: men = abusers; women = victims. It has nothing to do with the rest of the world. The rest of the world is made up of men and women who want to live together and raise children, because that’s the way our society works.

However, if a woman who loves her husband is not offered any choice but to leave him, and regard him as a criminal, and her boys if she has them are targeted as suspects in future crimes, that is an insult beyond measure. She does not come out ahead.

Public Knowledge

Fueled by disinformation and misunderstanding of statistical data, the mainstream media has done its part to pander to the agenda of bureaucrats and feminist ideologues. During the past year, I’ve seen hundreds of newspaper, TV, and radio reports from all over the world.

They are nearly all identical, except for local details. It is like everyone from Maine to Malaysia uses the same press release, but claims it as their own local work. Only in a handful of cases has any reporter from any news outlet challenged the word of their local shelter advocates.

What isn’t reported much is the number of shelter programs in the US where somebody is facing litigation or criminal charges, the number of shelters losing funding due to the fact they are ineffectual or badly managed, or the shelters expanding for women only without question, despite the need otherwise.

The Sacred Cow

It’s true that the social institution of the Domestic Violence shelter has become a sacred cow, never to be challenged or disputed. How is it acceptable to give some women and girls priority over all men and boys, when there is a need for help across the board?

Yet we do it anyway. This sacred cow needs to be slain, and autopsied. There are far too many women and families running afoul of the shelter culture, and being destroyed as a result. The feminist ideal on which VAWA rests has long ago moved into the area of the dusty, best-forgotten archives. Why can there not be any realistic approach, that takes into account the intents and desires of today’s women?

The answer to that question is easy – so many programs (and the people who run them) are simply dependent on VAWA and the self-perpetuating illogic entailed in the law. Only the most desperate or manipulative women will enter a residential program and stay within the untenable options presented. So the women they see are in dire straits, or practiced con artists, and it’s easy for program managers to presume all women are in need of this kind of program.

There is nothing in VAWA or shelter bylaws or rules that require any program to keep track of their successes or impact on the community. They don’t know if they actually help any women maintain lives free of violence, and they don’t seem to actually care if they do. What appears to be important to shelter advocates is the number of women who divorce or leave their communities. Some agencies actually count these women as”successes.”

Anyone concerned about the fate of women in abusive relationships will be best served by contacting their legislator and asking them to vote against VAWA 2005. Only then will the issue be approached in a practical manner that does not destroy women or their families.

72% of teens say abortion wrong …… ‘The young people are more conservative than their parents’
A new Gallup survey of teens finds 72% believe abortion is morally wrong.
The survey of youth, aged 13 to 17, indicated just 19% believe abortion should be legal in all circumstances, compared to 26% for adults. About 47% of teens said it should be legal under some circumstances, while 55% of adults agreed.

About 32% of teens thought abortion should never be permitted, while only 17% of adults said the same.

The poll showed teens who do not attend church are more likely to believe abortion is morally acceptable, about 38%, compared to 12%t among churchgoers.

About 40% of churchgoing teens believe abortion should be illegal under any circumstance, compared to 26% for non-churchgoers.

The Gallup Youth Survey was done through a scientific methodology via the Internet to ensure a representative sample of the U.S. population.

Conservative Women Want Military Committee Disbanded

A coalition of conservative women’s groups is calling on President Bush to disband a feminist-oriented committee that advises the Pentagon on women’s issues.

The Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services — or ACOWITS — was established in 1951 by then-Secretary of Defense George Marshall to provide recommendations on policies and matters relating to women in the military. At the group’s 50th anniversary celebration last year, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz described DACOWITS as a source of “practical and sensible advice that cuts to the heart of issues.”

But Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, says DACOWITS has been pushing a ridiculous feminist agenda that amounts to nothing more than using the U.S. military for social experiments. And she says the group has way too much power.

“DACOWITS is a privileged, unaccountable advisory committee,” Donnelly says. “It’s primarily composed of civilian women, [and] it constantly promotes policies that would actually hurt the war effort by taking ‘political correctness’ to an extreme. The members are appointed to advise the Secretary of Defense, and they do so with the protocol rank of three-star generals and admirals.”

According to Donnelly, DACOWITS has pressured the Pentagon into a series of policies that must be changed. “If our troops are to receive the best training and the best equipment, as the President said, then co-ed basic training should be brought to an end,” she says.

Donnelly does not stop there. “The Defense Department should also discontinue gender quotas, pregnancy policies that subsidize single-parenthood and create … problems [with deployments],” she says. “They have to stop incremental steps to force women into land combat. And they need to end Clinton-era social policies that undermine discipline.”

Donnelly heads up a coalition of women’s groups that is encouraging the Administration to disband DACOWITS and put an end to its influence. She believes that will improve military readiness and send morale soaring. She notes the Bush Administrations has been receptive to the concerns her coalition has voiced.

Harmful to Minors” Garners LA Times Honor

The Los Angeles Times has honored a book that has been widely criticized for promoting pedophilia.

The Times judging panel praised the book, “Harmful to Minors,” saying it “gives affirmative support to children’s and teenagers’ sexual development.”

LaVerne Tolbert, author of “Keeping Your Kids Sexually Pure,” said the book by Judith Levine puts children at risk.

“Children want boundaries,” Tolbert said. “Boundaries keep them safe. It keeps bad things out, and boundaries keep good things in. Children need to feel loved and they need to feel protected. That’s why God gave them parents.”

Levine makes the case that children are entitled to a satisfying sex life. Tolbert calls the award “shockingly irresponsible.”

— Written by Trish Amason, Terry Phillips, Stuart Shepard and Steve Jordahl

Congress Considers Fetal Homicide Law

Congress is considering a federal law protecting the preborn. The Laci Peterson case prompted the renewed effort.

The tragic deaths of Laci and Connor Peterson in California have renewed calls for a federal law protecting the preborn. While more than half of the states already have fetal homicide laws of one sort or another, Congress is considering a federal law: the Unborn Victims of Violence Act.

The bill’s sponsor, Sen. Mike DeWine, R-Ohio, said under current law a person who assaults a pregnant woman on federal property could only be charged with simple assault, even if her child dies.

“That just does not make sense,” DeWine said. “What we ought to have is a separate offense and a separate penalty for the injury to that child or the death to that child.”

Although similar measures have failed twice in the Senate, DeWine thinks this one will pass.

“I am more optimistic because I think this horrible tragedy in California just brings home the reality that there really are, in fact, two victims in this particular case,” DeWine said.

Republican Pennsylvania Congresswoman Melissa Hart is sponsoring the House version of the bill. She said the measure has broad public backing.

“It doesn’t appear that the public cares whether the act was perpetrated against a born child or an unborn child,” Hart said. “I think that’s good.”

She said the legislation sends a message to states that don’t have fetal homicide laws: “It’s important that we be consistent as far as the way a crime is treated.”

The Senate bill is in committee and the House version should be introduced shortly.

Pro-abortion groups are opposing the legislation even though abortion is exempted.

The Peterson case has prompted proposed legislation in several states as well. Fifteen states already have fetal homicide laws on the books that penalize a person that kills a preborn baby in any stage of

Supreme Court Refuses Abortion Privacy Case

On Monday the U.S. Supreme Court chose not to consider a case concerning whether states have the power to inspect medical records at abortion clinics. That action paves the way for a long-litigated regulation to take effect in
South Carolina.

The regulation, which was passed by the South Carolina Legislature in 1995, sets minimum medical standards for abortion facilities. As part of that, the state mandated certain items that must be included in patients’ medical

Denise Burke, with the national pro-life law firm Americans United for Life, said the regulations are comparable to those for other surgical facilities.

“Now, while the clinic should be keeping this information already, we have no way of knowing that,” Burke said. “That’s why the regulations also mandate that the state health department’s going to come in and check them.”

She called opposition by pro-abortion groups to the regulations “disingenuous.”

“The regulations in South Carolina were modeled on national abortion clinic standards championed by groups like Planned Parenthood,” Burke said.

Mary Spaulding Balch, a spokeswoman with the National Right to Life Committee, said abortion providers simply don’t want standards.

“They want to be exempted from even the minimum standards that most people assume abortion facilities must comply with,” Balch said.

America’s Largest Women’s group Pleased with Pickering Appointment

America’s largest women’s organization is elated over the appointment of Charles Pickering to the federal bench. Concerned Women for America, which is the largest women’s advocacy group in America reports they are pleased that the democrat imposed filibuster that would not give congressman a chance to vote, was finally bypassed. Concerned Women for America points out that Pickering is a champion for women and stands up for their right to enjoy the privileges that Christianity has bestowed upon women. Pickering opposed the Equal Rights Amendment, a radical proposed constitutional amendment that would have forced military draft on women, He stands against the exploitation of women by opposing the UN’s proposed treaty on women which would force millions of young girls into prostitution, fights for women yet unborn, and supports the traditional family, which statistics prove is the safest environment for girls and women.

Sex Trade Alive in Israel

Jerusalem – About 3,000 women, mainly from the former Soviet Union, are sold each year into Israel’s sex industry, which takes in about $1-billion (U.S.) annually, a parliamentary report said Sunday, slamming the country’s justice system for being lax on punishments.

The women, seeking to escape poverty at home, are usually smuggled in by traffickers who promise them legitimate jobs. Once in Israel, they are sold to pimps for between $3,000 and $6,000 each, the preliminary report said.

The women receive between $25-$30 per customer, of which the pimp takes between 80 and 90 per cent, the report said. The women work about 12 hours a day, six or seven days a week and receive an average of 10 to 15 clients daily, it added. Often, the women live in dismal conditions and sometimes they are physically abused or live in fear of their pimps.

Israeli courts generally reach a plea bargain with the pimps and sentence them to either a few months of community service or up to an average of two years in prison, punishments which the committee said are too weak to serve as deterrents.

It suggested that these crimes should have minimum prison sentences to deter the sex traders, who often jail, blackmail and enslave the women.

In July of 2001, a U.S. State Department report placed Israel on a black list of countries whose laws don’t meet U.S. criteria for dealing with this crime and threatened economic sanctions.

Israel has reformed the law somewhat since then, but the committee said it is not enough to confront the problem effectively. In addition to changes in the law, the committee suggested an authority be formed to fight the “war against trafficking in people.”

Marriage is Good for Society and Individuals

Critics call marriage irrelevant, but now there’s new proof that marriage not only matters, it’s critical to society.

“Marriage is good because it’s good for the family,” said Dr. Janice Crouse, director of the conservative Beverly LaHaye Institute. “Marriage is good because it’s good for society. Marriage is good because it’s economically good.”

The social scientists find marriage is more than personal. “It is a matter of public policy,” Crouse said. “Marriage is a foundation stone for an ongoing, thriving country. And as a national concern, we’ve got to be concerned about marriage and we have to promote marriage and we have to find ways for our government to support marriage.”

Jennifer Marshall, an analyst at the Family Research Council, said the study is also practical. “(The report acknowledges) that ‘times will get tough,’ but (it is) also a reality check about the blessings of marriage and the benefits of marriage — emotionally, behaviorally, in terms of health, in terms of children, academic performance,” Marshall said.

She said marriage has been getting a bad rap for the past 20 years. “It’s time now to restore the high place that we have historically given to marriage in this country,” Marshall said.

Said one University of Virginia professor who worked on the report: “Asking why marriage matters is like asking why oxygen is good for you.”

More than a dozen scholars and social scientists contributed to the 10-year study.

Ultrasound Machines for Pregnancy Care Centers

Rep. Cliff Stearns (R-FL) recently introduced legislation enabling pregnancy care centers, a.k.a., crisis pregnancy centers (CPCs) to obtain ultrasound equipment for their facilities. Many pregnancy care center staff and volunteers believe that a look inside the womb will help pregnant women understand that a new life has begun within them, thus dissuading them from choosing abortion and instead focus on positive alternatives like adoption.

The legislation, H.R. 3686, would specifically authorize the Secretary of Health and Human Services to make grants to nonprofit tax-exempt organizations for the purchase of ultrasound equipment to provide free examinations to pregnant women needing such services.

Rep. Stearns’ legislation truly enables women to make informed decisions for themselves and their unborn children by giving them more information. Of interest is the fact that abortion advocates and organizations that claim to defend the rights and interests of women are almost always the opponents of legislation that truly serves to inform women. For example, Women’s Right to Know legislation that informs women about the abortion procedure, potential side effects, health consequences and information about the unborn child, is always “killed” by abortion advocates.

As might be expected, abortion advocates are bitterly opposed to Rep. Stearns’ legislation providing for ultrasound equipment. Gloria Feldt, president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, says of the Stearns legislation, “They’re using medical technology as
political propaganda.” Kate Michelman, president of the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL), claimed ultrasound is a valuable technology that is being misused by abortion foes. “It never fails to amaze me how little respect they have for women’s capacity to understand what goes on in our bodies,” Michelman said.

We agree with the comment of Tom Glessner, president of the National Institute of Family and Life Advocates, “Shame on NARAL for opposing a woman’s right to choose life…This [ultrasound legislation] scares them, because they know what women do when they see the images.”

Nation’s Largest Abortion Provider Gets Support from Charity

Research pointing to a link between abortion and breast cancer is massing. So why would a group devoted to fighting breast cancer donate money to the biggest abortion provider in the nation?

The Susan G. Komen Breast Cancer Foundation calls itself “the nation’s leading catalyst in the fight against breast cancer.” Since 1982 it has raised more than $240 million for breast-cancer research, education, screening and treatment. But part of that money is going to Planned Parenthood.

Karen Malec, of the Coalition on Abortion and Breast Cancer, calls that a contradiction. “Twenty-eight out of 37 studies published since 1957 have implicated abortion as a risk factor for breast cancer,” Malec said. “Thirteen out of 15 American studies have reported increased risk.”

Wendy Wright, spokeswoman for Concerned Women for America, questions the foundation’s motives in making the donations. “The fact that (the) Komen (Foundation) is actuallygiving money to an organization that is complicit with helping to cause the high rates of breast cancer in America should cast some doubts onto whether Komen is really doing its job,” Wright said. “(Is) Komen really concerned about lowering the rates of breast cancer or merely looking for more job security for their organization?”

Ed Szymkowiak, spokesman for Stop Planned Parenthood International, shares the concern about the support going to the nation’s top abortion provider. “This is a big organization and we find it appalling that they’re funding Planned Parenthood,” Szymkowiak said.

The Komen donations to Planned Parenthood have spread to at least nine states.

While the government can’t prevent a private group from donating funds to abortion providers, last session Congress debated the Vitter Amendment to Title X funding. It would have cut back on taxpayer money going to groups like Planned Parenthood. The
amendment was pulled by its sponsor and never came up for a vote.

The National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League is harassing crisis pregnancy centers. But it’s abortion clinics that deserve a closer look.

The first signs showed up last May, in the local newspaper, the Thousand Oaks Star, in a letter written by a nurse practitioner working with Planned Parenthood. The letter warned area women to steer clear of the Conejo
Valley Women’s Resource Center-the Ventura County, Calif., crisis pregnancy center (CPC) directed by Sally Rosiek. The letter alleged that the center advertises medical services it is unlicensed to offer.

No sooner had Rosiek and a few members of her staff refuted the false charges-the center is licensed by the state, and two board-certified obstetrician/gynecologists conduct free prenatal exams-than the attack intensified. A woman brought in a flier she’d found in the restroom of a local restaurant. “Beware,” it read, “Deceptive Crisis Pregnancy Centers are in Our Neighborhood.” The sheet named the Conejo Valley Women’s Resource Center as one that “refuses to give information or referrals for abortion or family planning” and “pressures women into parenthood or adoption.”

But the smear campaign didn’t stop there. Soon, volunteers started getting hostile phone calls at 1 or 2 a.m. from women asking about the center’s services-women who then said they didn’t need those services and hung up.
Despite these subversive tactics, CPC opponents haven’t inflicted much damage, Rosiek said.

“I think we’re going to be fine,” she told Citizen. “Actually, it helps us more than hurts us because it strengthens our donor base. They get upset about it.”

Though Rosiek isn’t sure who else in Thousand Oaks is responsible for smearing her CPC, one thing is clear: The tactics fit to a T the course prescribed in A Step-by-Step Guide: Unmasking Fake Clinics, published by the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL). It claims clinics use false advertising to “lure” women into their centers, where CPC workers “answer questions with evasion and lies” and “subject them to anti-abortion propaganda, misinformation, and intimidation,” using pregnancy tests to “hold women hostage” while showing them “disturbing and misleading anti-abortion films and slide shows.”

What’s motivating the smear campaign? In a word, money.

Though NARAL spokesman William Lutz did not return calls from Citizen seeking comment, the guide points out that U.S. Rep. Joe Pitts, R-Pa., has vowed to push legislation giving federal grants to states to help fund abortion
alternatives. Meanwhile, states like Indiana and Missouri have considered legislation to fund alternatives to abortion services through tobacco settlements and the sales of pro-life license plates. Missouri and Pennsylvania also receive state funding for pro-life outreach.

“Because anti-choice organizations and legislators increasingly seek to enmesh CPCs into the fabric of government-supported services, it is crucial for the pro-choice movement to act now to unmask fake clinics that mislead, misinform, and coerce women,” NARAL’s guide says (p. 9).

When it comes to money, the abortion movement has never shown much interest in spreading the wealth.

“They talk about how they’re geared to serve the health needs of American women. That’s baloney,” said Peter Brandt, director of Focus on the Family’s Issues Response Department. “They’re there to protect what historically has been a monopoly on taxpayer funds. They don’t like sharing even a crumb from the pie.”

The NARAL guidebook expresses concern that crisis pregnancy centers in the U.S. outnumber abortion clinics, 3 to 2. “What they’re saying is, they’re losing abortion patients,” said Carol Everett, a former abortion-clinic owner
who now runs The Heidi Group, a pregnancy ministry in Texas. “We’re hurting their business, and now [pro-life congressmen] are trying to help us get their money, and [abortionists see] that their $150 million in federal funds
might be going away.”

Liberal lies

NARAL accuses CPCs of using “deceptive” tactics to keep women from aborting their babies. “In the Yellow Pages, crisis pregnancy centers typically list their names (and numbers) under Abortion Alternatives, which comes
before Abortion Providers,” the manual states under the heading “Tactics Used by Deceitful Crisis Pregnancy Centers to Entice Women.”

What NARAL doesn’t say is that Yellow Pages headings are selected solely by phone book publishers, not CPCs-and that in an alphabetical listing, alternatives always comes before providers.

“To my knowledge, except in cases where the Yellow Pages puts them under the wrong heading-which does happen-we stay clean and stay out of their category,” said Kurt Entsminger, general counsel for CareNet, one of the nation’s largest CPC chains.

“Any pregnancy center that intentionally put itself under the wrong heading would definitely be going off the reservation as far as our standards are concerned.”

Entsminger, however, has a file of Planned Parenthood advertisements he’s found under “Abortion Alternatives” in the Yellow Pages. Are they also due to mistakes on the phone company’s part?

“I’ve seen it enough times to think that’s an awful high number of mess-ups,” he said. “When the same ad is in there two years in a row, you tend to think it’s intentional.”

NARAL won’t comment on Planned Parenthood’s Yellow Page ads, yet it apparently doesn’t mind using deception in to seeking dirt on CPCs. Among NARAL’s guidebook suggestions:

o Recruit three couples-one white, one minority and one biracial-to pose as unmarried and pregnant, then compare notes in search of discrimination (p. 13). Julie Parton, director of Focus on the Family’s Crisis Pregnancy Ministry, rejects the charge that different races receive different kinds of counsel at a CPC.

“All of us who have run pregnancy centers know that minorities usually comprise a majority of your clients,” Parton said. “If you’re not interested in ministering to people of those backgrounds, you’re in the wrong business.”

“If they want to talk about racial discrimination,” Brandt added, “all they have to do is go back to the roots of Planned Parenthood and [founder] Margaret Sanger,” who described African Americans as “human weeds” which must be eradicated.

o Pose as a single pregnant girl and take a friend along. “Your buddy doesn’t say much,” the manual advises. “She nods frequently and comforts you. . . . She is there to keep you feeling safe while you are acting out this difficult
role” (p. 44).

o Always give your real first name, but a “fictitious but easily remembered last name” (p. 45) when posing as a fake client. NARAL offers to supply informants with fake addresses, phone numbers, schools, college majors, ages, name and race of father and other convincing facts.

o Remember to “keep an eye on the clock and time your tape recorder. If possible, don’t let the recorder turn off while CPC staff are in the room. It makes a distinctive noise” (p. 45). The guide also includes tips for checking the legality of covert taping to avoid breaking the law while gathering “evidence” for a potential lawsuit.

Most large CPC chains have witnessed evidence of covert NARAL operations. Several of the 700 centers in the Virginia-based CareNet chain have reported encountering fake clients-women who don’t act quite the same
way or ask the same questions regular clients do.

A year ago, someone posted fliers taken word-for-word from NARAL’s guidebook on the front door of a CPC in Cleveland Heights, Ohio, and at a local college; the same fliers appeared near centers in the Atlanta-based
Birthright International chain. Meanwhile, Heartbeat International President Peggy Hartshorn reported receiving a phone call at the Columbus, Ohio headquarters from someone claiming to seek help for a pregnant sister, and
asking the kinds of questions outlined in NARAL’s guide. But the Caller ID box gave away the caller’s location: “Planned Parenthood.”

Above reproach

CPC directors aren’t assuming their ministries are safe just because NARAL’s charges are largely inaccurate. Nine of the country’s largest CPC chains recently joined Focus to publish their own manual-Serving Clients with Care
and Integrity: A Step-by-Step Guide for Responding to NARAL’s CPC Campaign. It offers tips for good pregnancy-center practices and outlines ways to help volunteers deal with fake clients, insurance considerations and public relations strategies.

“Your phone volunteers and peer counselors should always proceed upon the initial assumption that each client with whom they interact is a person in genuine need,” the response guide states. “When peer counselors are
following proper center procedures, any fear about how the fake client could hurt the center should be minimized.”

Heartbeat International has five guiding principles: Centers must offer positive choices for pregnant women; they must not discriminate on the basis of race, creed, color, national origin, age or marital status; the services must
be confidential and nonjudgmental; they may not advise, provide or refer for abortions; and they should encourage chastity.

“It’s not like we have the affiliation police out there constantly checking on people, but if we do hear a center is not living up to those principles, we take it up with them,” said Beth Diemert, Heartbeat International’s affiliate-services director. “We’ve only had one center (out of 700) that we’ve asked not to renew their affiliation because they weren’t living up to the principles. We heard they were referring for the morning-after pill and immediately took them out last year-they weren’t your typical center. But it’s definitely on the honor system.”

Birthright International’s U.S. National Director Terry Weaver described a more vigilant approach to enforcing its charter principles.

“We have regional consultants over various states and provinces, and it’s their job to know what’s going on in the centers,” she said. “If we found out a policy wasn’t being followed, we would immediately investigate.”

Paramount in Birthright’s charter is the ban on deception. Though counselors can and frequently do discuss abortion and how it’s performed with clients, they can never help them have an abortion and cannot lead them to believe they will.

“She must be given the freedom to choose this evil just as God gives us the freedom to choose evil over good,” Weaver said, quoting from Brithright’s charter. “We do not condemn. We do not judge.”

At the same time, CPCs remain unapologetically pro-life. No changes will be made in their mission, directors said, because they have nothing to hide.

Bottom lines

So what will NARAL’s campaign accomplish? CPC and policy experts say the outcome could be beneficial-if pro-life citizens turn the spotlight on abortion clinics.

Planned Parenthood received roughly $150 million in federal funds last year and turned a tidy $100 million profit, yet it has never undergone a government audit of how those funds are spent.

“We have the responsibility, as taxpayers, to tell our legislatures to audit the abortion clinics. They’re getting federal and state funds and should be audited simply because they’re receiving them,” Everett said. Besides, “What
kind of organization is NARAL, if they’re targeting the free clinics-CPCs-and not the ones that are turning a profit?”

Focus’ Brandt expected NARAL’s tactics to backfire.

“I think they’ll do little more than reveal the agenda of dis-ingenuousness that characterizes everything else they do,” he said. “When so many women go through post-traumatic stress disorder after their abortions, it’s not NARAL that is there with loving arms.

“It’s the church and CPCs.”

Jerusalem – About 3,000 women, mainly from the former Soviet Union, are sold each year into Israel’s sex industry, which takes in about $1-billion (U.S.) annually, a parliamentary report said Sunday, slamming the country’s justice system for being lax on punishments.

The women, seeking to escape poverty at home, are usually smuggled in by traffickers who promise them legitimate jobs. Once in Israel, they are sold to pimps for between $3,000 and $6,000 each, the preliminary report said.

The women receive between $25-$30 per customer, of which the pimp takes between 80 and 90 per cent, the report said. The women work about 12 hours a day, six or seven days a week and receive an average of 10 to 15 clients daily, it added. Often, the women live in dismal conditions and sometimes they are physically abused or live in fear of their pimps.

Israeli courts generally reach a plea bargain with the pimps and sentence them to either a few months of community service or up to an average of two years in prison, punishments which the committee said are too weak to serve as deterrents.

It suggested that these crimes should have minimum prison sentences to deter the sex traders, who often jail, blackmail and enslave the women.

In July of 2001, a U.S. State Department report placed Israel on a black list of countries whose laws don’t meet U.S. criteria for dealing with this crime and threatened economic sanctions.

Israel has reformed the law somewhat since then, but the committee said it is not enough to confront the problem effectively. In addition to changes in the law, the committee suggested an authority be formed to fight the “war against trafficking in people.”


The United Nations continues to debate legitimizing prostitution as a career for women. The vote on whether to add a “consent” exception to prostitution has been delayed. The U.S. State Department advocates that prostitution and sexual trafficking should be illegal only when they are”forced,” thus effectively legalizing
prostitution when there is”consent.” Please continue to express your opposition to this definition of prostitution by calling:

White House Chief of Staff Office: 202-456-6798
President’s Interagency Council on Women: 202-647-6227
State Dept. Office of the Chief of Staff for the Secretary: 202-647-5548

Thank you for your past weeks’ work on this issue. Many of you have told us that the White House claims our information is incorrect. Please don’t let them intimidate you. Politely, insist that they do all they can to stop the U.N. from legitimizing prostitution as a “career.”

The World has fallen into Sexual Degeneracy

The sheer numbers:
Two million children are forced into prostitution every year, half of them in Asia.
An estimated 10,000 women from the former Soviet Union have been forced into prostitution in Israel.
Over 50,000 women are trafficked into the United States every year.

Existing laws in the United States and other countries are inadequate to deter trafficking, primarily because they do not reflect the gravity of the offenses involved.  Each number is a woman or child who has lost everything—his or her family, dignity and hope. Each has a tale of abduction, kidnapping or fraud.  Where countries do have laws against sexual trafficking, there is no enforcement. In 1995, the Netherlands prosecuted 155 cases of forced
prostitution, and only four resulted in the conviction of the traffickers.4 In some countries, enforcement
against traffickers is hindered by indifference, corruption, and even official participation.

Provisions of recent bill proposed before Congress

It provides severe punishment for persons convicted of operating trafficking enterprises within the United
States and the possibility of severe economic penalties against traffickers located in other countries. Establish an Interagency Task Force to monitor and combat trafficking, in order to facilitate and evaluate progress in trafficking prevention, victim assistance, and the prosecution of traffickers. Authorizes funds to help foreign countries meet minimum anti-trafficking standards. Prohibits non-humanitarian U.S. assistance (beginning
2002) to foreign governments that tolerate or condone sexual trafficking. The president can waive this provision. American taxpayers should not be obliged to send monetary aid to regimes that practice abhorrent human rights abuses. This is not a sanctions bill; it is the withdrawal of non-humanitarian taxpayer subsidies.

Offers assistance and protection for victims, including authorization of grants to shelters and rehabilitation
programs, and a limited provision for relief from deportation for victims who would face retribution or other hardships if deported.


The sexual trafficking of women and children is the deepest violation of human dignity and an unspeakable tragedy. The United States must take the lead in stopping this abuse of women and children.


1.ECPAT (End Child Prostitution, Child Pornography, and Trafficking of Children for Sexual Purposes) representative Carol Smolenski, quoted by Alexandra Marks in “Activists Unleash Campaign to Shut Down Sex Tours,” Christian Science Monitor, 16 January 1999.
2.”Israel Prostitution Ring Targeted,” Associated Press, 23 December 1998.
3.United States Department of State, 1999.
4.”Trafficking and Prostitution: The Growing Exploitation of Migrant Women from Central and Eastern Europe,” International Organization for Migration, May 1995.

Conservative Women Want Military Committee Disbanded

A coalition of conservative women’s groups is calling on President Bush to disband a feminist-oriented committee that advises the Pentagon on women’s issues.

The Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services — or ACOWITS — was established in 1951 by then-Secretary of Defense George Marshall to provide recommendations on policies and matters relating to women in the military. At the group’s 50th anniversary celebration last year, Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz described DACOWITS as a source of “practical and sensible advice that cuts to the heart of issues.”

But Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, says DACOWITS has been pushing a ridiculous feminist agenda that amounts to nothing more than using the U.S. military for social experiments. And she says the group has way too much power.

“DACOWITS is a privileged, unaccountable advisory committee,” Donnelly says. “It’s primarily composed of civilian women, [and] it constantly promotes policies that would actually hurt the war effort by taking ‘political correctness’ to an extreme. The members are appointed to advise the Secretary of Defense, and they do so with the protocol rank of three-star generals and admirals.”

According to Donnelly, DACOWITS has pressured the Pentagon into a series of policies that must be changed. “If our troops are to receive the best training and the best equipment, as the President said, then co-ed basic training should be brought to an end,” she says.

Donnelly does not stop there. “The Defense Department should also discontinue gender quotas, pregnancy policies that subsidize single-parenthood and create … problems [with deployments],” she says. “They have to stop incremental steps to force women into land combat. And they need to end Clinton-era social policies that undermine discipline.”

Donnelly heads up a coalition of women’s groups that is encouraging the Administration to disband DACOWITS and put an end to its influence. She believes that will improve military readiness and send morale soaring. She notes the Bush Administrations has been receptive to the concerns her coalition has voiced.