Culture war in Mexico--Catholics and gay marriage forces battle over Mexico's future

[mdgspencer]

There has long been powerful opposition to Catholicism in Mexico, including a terrible persecution of Catholics early in the Twentieth Century. Now there is an intense struggle in Mexico over the legalization of gay marriage. Earlier this year the Supreme Court of Mexico in effect singlehandedly legalized gay marriage throughout the country. It has also legalized gay adoption, something most Mexicans don’t like. For the Supreme Court’s legalization of gay marriage, see:
www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/aug/10081003.html
A leading Mexican cardinal then said that he had proof that the Mayor of Mexico City bribed the members of the Supreme Court to legalize gay marriage, and he could prove this in court. The mayor then sued him, and Mexico is waiting for this case. For the cardinal’s accusation, see:
www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/aug/10081801.html
Another Mexican cardinal, the cardinal of Mexico City, also spoke out, and in a message read at mass said that gay marriage legislation could destroy the family and that the Church cannot cease to call evil evil. See:
www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/aug/10081013.html
Now too the first cardinal has accused the Supreme Court of treason for approving of abortion and legalizing gay marriage and adoption by gay people… See:
www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/aug/10082413.html
Catholic tradition has held that countries as well as individuals have guardian angels. In our prayers we might ask Mexico’s guardian angel to intercede with God for Mexico.

 

[Julian0404]

The Lady of Guadalupe came at a time when infants were still be sacrificed. HER appearance stopped the infanticide by sacrifice, but satan has returned to Mexico and they have already legalized abortion a few months past, thus returning the infanticide which Our Lady has stopped.
Mexico is going the way of the USA. It is abandoning GOD.

 

[bkayw]

Least we forget how Obama spent $461 million of U.S. taxpayer money forcing abortion on Mexico:

freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2170794/posts

(catholicnewsagency.com)

Saturday, January 24, 2009 3:44:59 AM by GonzoII

**Obama overturns Mexico City Policy, pro-lifers react **

Pro-life leaders reacted critically to President Barack Obama’s Friday reversal of President George W. Bush’s ban on federal funding for international groups that promote or perform abortions. One Latin American commentator charged that the policy weakens anti-poverty efforts and had enabled a coercive sterilization campaign in Peru under the Clinton administration.

The ban, known as the Mexico City Policy, earned its name from a population conference that took place in the Mexican capital in 1984, where it was introduced by President Ronald Reagan. It was reversed by President Bill Clinton in 1993 and then reinstated by President Bush in 2001.

Controversy particularly focuses upon the mission of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), where an estimated $461 million at stake.

Critics supportive of abortion have characterized the Mexico City Policy as a “gag rule.”

“Women’s health has been severely impacted by the cutoff of assistance,” argued Tod Preston, a spokesman for the advocacy group Population Action International, according to Fox News. “President Obama’s actions will help reduce the number of unintended pregnancies, abortions and women dying from high-risk pregnancies because they don’t have access to family planning.”

Pro-life advocates were critical of the policy reversal.

Carlos Polo, a Peruvian who is Director for Latin America of the Population Research Council, asked “Where is Obama’s promise to fight poverty in order to reduce the number of abortions?”

He predicted the consequences of the new policy, telling CNA:

**“The money that USAID has been distributing to fight poverty, relief hunger and droughts, will end up in the pockets of feminist and pro-abortion organizations to push the legalization of abortion in our countries.”

“The hard-earned American tax payers’ money will be diverted from poor children and women to the fat salaries of feminist leaders.

“This is not a potential scenario; it is exactly what happened in South America during the Clinton administration, when he reversed the Mexico City policy.

“In Peru during those years, USAID financed the most brutal, compulsory campaign of sterilizations, with the open support of feminist, pro-abortion organizations, despite the fact that poor, peasant women were the victims of the campaign.”

Polo reported that international outcry forced USAID to end its funding of then-President Alberto Fujimori’s sterilization campaign.**

**“But by then, thousands of women, most of them in their late teens and early 20s had been sterilized, and several died as a consequence of the procedure.”

The reversal of the Mexico city policy, Polo said, “clearly demonstrates that President Obama is not interested in fighting poverty to reduce abortions, and that there is no possible common ground with those who want to fight for the right to life.

“President Obama has chosen to do exactly the opposite in the poorest countries: increase abortions and reduce help for the poorest.”

Fr. Thomas Euteneur of Human Life International told CNA the change of policy was “expected.”

“It is standard operating procedure for people who are adamant promoters of the culture of death and seek to impose the culture of death on the rest of the world through our tax dollars.

“It is both very harmful and dangerous,” he added.**

 

[bkayw]

According to Susan B. Anthony List President Marjorie Dannenfelser, the president’s action signals the beginning of the “abortion bailout.”

“Abortions here in the U.S. are at their lowest number in years – so it’s unfortunate that President Obama is poised to make subsidizing abortion abroad one of his first priorities,” she remarked in a statement.

Austin Ruse, director of the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, also opposed the move, telling CNA:

“One of the abortion questions that is almost unanimous in America is that we do not want federal funds being spent on abortions. By striking down the Mexico City policy, President Obama gives lie to the claim that he wants fewer abortions. In fact, he is the most pro-abortion President in the history of the Republic. Those so-called pro-life Catholics who supported Obama have a lot to answer for.”

Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), characterized the action as the first in an “anticipated series of attacks” on longstanding pro-life policies opposed by President Obama’s “sweeping abortion agenda.”

He suggested that the agenda includes the repeal of the Hyde Amendment, which prohibits taxpayer funding of abortion.

“President Obama not long ago told the American people that he would support policies to reduce abortions, but today he is effectively guaranteeing more abortions by funding groups that promote abortion as a method of population control," Johnson said.

“Obama’s order will predictably result in a redirection of funds to groups such as the International Planned Parenthood Federation, which are ideologically committed to the doctrine that abortion on demand must be universally available as a birth control method,” Johnson further charged.

Stephen Mosher, President of the Population Research Institute, predicted possible political fallout for Obama:

“By signing a series of pro-abortion Executive Orders, President Obama will be perceived as governing from the Left. The die will be cast, and pro-lifers will rally against him from that moment. They will start looking towards 2010 to restore some checks and balances on this man they will rightly perceive as a pro-abortion zealot.

“Clinton’s pollster argued strongly against acting on abortion policy as one of the new administration’s first pieces of business, but he went ahead regardless. The debacle of the 1994 House elections for the Democrats began at that moment.”

 

[Elizabeth502]

In Peru during those years, USAID financed the most brutal, compulsory campaign of sterilizations, with the open support of feminist, pro-abortion organizations, despite the fact that poor, peasant women were the victims of the campaign.

But by then, thousands of women, most of them in their late teens and early 20s had been sterilized, and several died as a consequence of the procedure.

I have not looked into the details on the lack of medical safety regarding any sterilizations (and I should, I will – the situation, if so, sounds horrific), but I am familiar with a couple of aspects of the high level of abortion both in Mexico and in South America.

I would hardly characterize it as any foreign-led “campaign” to “force” sterilization, let alone to “victimize poor peasant women” [with abortion or with sterilization]. What is indisputable is that a fairly large percentage of married, impoverished women have abortions in Mexico. (Ditto for S.America.) This problem is bigger than the US supposedly not giving enough aid. We do not have enough aid to correct the massive poverty south of our border. We cannot even do it Mexico (and shamefully, have not tried to pressure their oligarchy when we had more leverage in Mexico). South America is even more of a challenge. The fact is that very poor women in Latin America are not much better off than those in other third world locations such as Africa, Indonesia, parts of southeast Asia. It is the culture (especially if you are not educated) to get married early, and usually that means to a husband who is of a similar status and thus not able to support you and your joint children. Yet the double-standard internal culture rewards the man for youthful adventures (sexual freedom) and even abandoning his wife, so that she is relegated to second-class citizenship, at best. Often, in desperation, such married but virtually abandoned women seek abortions. Yes, it’s sickening, but it’s the culture and their economic system(s) which are the sources of the problem. Naturally they seek out amateur surgical sources, and the result is often botched abortions. They even perform primitive abortions on themselves. All of it is disgusting, but most especially to me – the cause of all of this is disgusting. The U.S. is not to blame for their cultural preferences and their economic structures which strip poor mothers of their dignity.

As to sterilizations, my sister who practices medicine and whose family of marriage is Mexican, tells me that when a woman comes in for an abortion and already has had several children, she is approached after the abortion in a medical facility by medical professionals, who then ask her, “Do you want your tubes tied?” The woman is hardly “forced.” You could certainly say that such a question might encourage her to say yes, particularly after the anxiety and ordeal she has just encountered. But she is not told that she “must” or even should be sterilized. She is merely offered that choice, at that time.

I’m not arguing for the morality of the latter; I’m just correcting a post that seemed to be rather high on the drama quotient.

 

[Timothy17]

You guys are doing great work and research here - please keep it up !!! I STRONGLY recommend you save all this information to your hard drives, on discs, and even print-outs. Trusting the record of truth to the internet is dangerous, as hacking, system failures, etc., can destroy or forever lose the information.

I promise you this kind of information, records, history, etc., has a tendency to disappear down the memory hole, and fall victim to spin and re-write. Napoleon boasted arragontly how it is the victors who write the histories. This kind of research is evidence of the evil that goes on in the highest halls of power, outside the public spotlight. It is damning stuff, and should be protected and kept for sake-keeping.

Please, keep building up records like this. The truth is a powerful medicine. As always, be sure to carefully study and note i) content, and ii) the source(s), especially - if possible - the persons involved or mentioned or works, quotes, statistics, etc., cited as or used for justification. The pro-abortion lobby, and those who want to dramatically reduce the human population, strongly believe in the ends justify the means, which means exagerations, lies, etc., can and will sometimes be used to defend their progroms.

Again, keep up the excellent work. In can be a life-saver (quite literally) one day.

Pax,
Tim