Bearing in mind that replacement level fertility is 2.1 children to offset mortality, the latest statistics from the Population Division show that Europe, Northern America and even Eastern Asia fall below that mark.

"Northern America" - which includes Canada, the United States, Bermuda and Greenland are coming in just under replacement level at 2.0 children per woman. Europe as a whole is averaging a 1.5 fertility rate, with Eastern Europe at only 1.3 children per woman. The statistics show that low birthrates are not exclusive to the Western world. In Eastern Asia - including China, Japan, North and South Korea are also experience a "bearth dearth" with total fertility levels at only 1.7 children per woman.

The competition pits Irene Khan of Bangladesh, who stepped down in December as secretary general of Amnesty International, against Heraldo Muñoz, Chile's U.N. ambassador, and David Scheffer, a former U.S. ambassador at large for war crimes. Joanna Weschler, a Polish pro-democracy activist in the 1980s who served as former U.N. representative for Human Rights Watch, is also in the running.

Human rights organizations and governments are closely monitoring the selection process to see whether Ban will select a strong rights advocate for the post or chose a discreet diplomatic operator who can prevent the post from generating controversy in an organization that includes many countries with poor rights records. Ban has gained a reputation as a cautious diplomat who is averse to publicly confronting countries that abuse their citizens, preferring to pursue a policy of quiet diplomacy to convince them to mend their ways. Some officials following the matter said Ban's diplomatic temperament makes it unlikely that he would choose to bring an outspoken rights advocate like Khan into his inner circle in New York, particularly since she has clashed with important member states.

IPPF touts its efforts to use language that is "unambigious" and "unequivocal." The glossary includes but is not limited to medical definitions and a listing of various medical conditions. For example,  IPPF's definition of "gender" refers to "the biological, legal, economic, social and cultural attributes and opportunities associated with male and female."  

IPPF's entry on "human life" is similarly novel. IPPF states that:

"Spermatozoa and ova are living entities, but before fertilization there is no ‘new’ human life. Taking conception (fertilization) as the beginning of a ‘new’ life is controversial because the fertilized egg may be lost through resorption/disappearance, non-implantation resulting in spontaneous miscarriage, ectopic or molar pregnancy. Most laws define the beginning of life as occurring at birth."

The Court's initial ruling was met by both public and state opposition which culminated in a recent statement by several governments that the Court does not have competency in matters effecting intimate cultural mores.

The Judgment, handed down by the Second Section of the Court on 03 November 2009 read more like a Constitutional Court decision than a decision by Europe's human rights court. It confused the doctrine of separation of church and state (which was not before it) with Protocol 1, Article 2 of the Convention on Education. The Section ruled that the mere presence of crosses in Italian schools served to indoctrinate students. The assessment of the Court was a massive departure from any previous ruling on Protocol 1, Article 2 which has until now dealt only with actual matters of curriculum and formal education.

Investing in family planning is the smartest investment the federal government can make, so I think they should just be dropping it out of airplanes...

So lets get this straight – Ms. Richards finds that above education, national defense, national infrastructure, or anything for that matter, making sure there are less Americans is the best investment Americans can make.

That she has been frequent guest at the White House comes as no surprise, given the litany of funding and policy decisions made by the new administration in the last year.

Head of Pontifical Academy for Life Should be Removed: Academy Members

Boston Cardinal: Church Needs 'Clear' Injunction Denying Pro-Abortion Pols Communion

As a lawyer working for the Center for Reproductive Rights, Ms. Gher's primary concern is the promotion of abortion. But besides that, she also is lesbian and has 'married' Ms. Amy Todd during the brief period in which same-sex 'marriage' was legal in California (i.e before it was abrogated by popular referendum).

In her paper, Ms. Gher takes on the charge of promoting the just cause of yet another oppressed sexual minority: polygamists. Though not herself professing to be one, Ms. Gher writes: "As such, strict monogamy, defined in terms of sexual encounters, is likely more of a human ideal than an actual biological reality." 

It seems logical, therefore, that she should explore the possibilities of coalition building between LGBT activists and the polygamist movement. She concludes:

"It is important when building a civil rights movement to be cognizant of analogous struggles faced by other minority populations, and attempt to build bridges with other subordinated groups.  The LGBTQ and polygamous communities face different struggles and present varying harms; however, they are similarly persecuted for their interpersonal relationships.  In this regard, same-sex marriage advocates should carefully tread around slippery slope arguments to ensure that they do not play into the cultural narrative that polygamy is resoundingly barbaric and misogynistic.   As polygamy is practiced world-wide, women and men likely enter plural unions for significantly different reasons and likely have wide-ranging experiences.  As such, polygamous relationships should not be essentialized as harmful and evil.  In the end, the LGBTQ community should avoid building its cause by demeaning another, and direct its time and energy toward respecting diversity while fighting for equality." 

It definitely seems that abortion, homosexuality and polygamy are part of one and the same agenda.... 

It was, from the outset, quite unclear why a legal framework for homosexual relationships is needed (except, of course, a law providing due protection of minors against attempts by homosexuals to approach them indecently...). The main argument was that this law was needed because other European countries already had similar legislation. 

Also, some argued that this law was needed to eliminate 'discrimination' or, even more daringly, that it was required to fulfill obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights. But these arguments were hardly convincing, given that the Austrian Constitutional Court had already examined and dismissed them in 2003.

The newly created institution 'Registered Partnership' is rather similar to marriage. The only differences are that registered partners are not allowed to adopt children, nor to undergo a procedure of assisted procreation, and that they are  obliged to live in a "relationship of mutual trust" (and not of "mutual fidelity", as in marriage). Ah yes, and then there is another difference: they do not automatically acquire a common name, but have to specifically apply for it.  

But in all other areas, including regarding tax and social benefits, civil partners are treated as if they were spouses.

Strangely, the new law was not only not opposed, but even actively promoted, by the country's (formerly?) christian-democratic Volkspartei ('People's Party'). The new leader of that party, Vice Chancellor Joef Pröll, said that "a separate institution should be created for homosexuals wishing to enter into a permanent relationship. But it should be different from marriage. Marriage is a unique institution."

He also asked: "what damage is done to marriage if two people of the same sex are allowed to enter into a formal relationship that is not called 'marriage'? Giving such a right to homosexuals does not take anything away from married couples."

It is difficult to judge whether Mr. Pröll was sincere when he made these remarks. But one thing is clear: reality disproves him.

Firstly, the creation of the new 'Registered Partnerships' entails that registered same-sex partners will get access to the same tax and insurance benefits that accrue to married couples. These benefits create a wealth transfer. And who finances this wealth transfer? The rest of society, i.e. all those who are not 'registered same-sex partners', including (of course) all married couples. The law in fact generates a massive subsidy for the homosexual lifestyle, to the expense of those who already, by raising children, provide for the country's future.

Secondly, it was hopelessly naïve to believe that claims for 'equal treatment' (i.e. for opening the venerable institution of 'marriage' to homosexual and lesbian couples) could be silenced or stalled by this new law. On the contrary, these ambitions have been spurred. As the Viennese daily 'Die Presse' reports, a number of new lawsuits have been lodged in the immediate wake of the coming into force of the new law. One of these lawsuits is by a homosexual couple that wants to have access to marriage and feels 'discriminated' by having access only to a 'registered partnership'. Another one is by a heterosexual couple wishing to contract a 'registered partnership' rather than a marriage; - maybe they prefer 'mutual trust' to 'mutual fidelity. Both couples are represented by the same attorney, Mr. Helmut Graupner, who is a legal activist of ILGA.

Mr. Graupner also plans to file another lawsuit (for which, it appears, he is still in search of suitable plaintiffs) to address the fact that 'registered partners' will be mentioned as such in official documents. This is certainly strange, given that one of the main arguments in favour of the new law was that homosexuals wanted to have their relationships officially recognised, and to celebrate them in public. As it turns out now, they also want their officially recognised relationships to be kept secret....

Quite obviously, the Austrian 'registered partnerships' for homosexuals are a caricature and parody of marriage. But if they are opened for heterosexuals, or if homosexuals get access to marriage, then the institution 'marriage' is undermined and destroyed: it would no longer be the natural union between a man and a woman with the purpose of founding a family. In this way, 'marriage' and 'family' would be turned into legal artifices.

And this precisely appears to be what ILGA-activists like Mr. Graupner want to achieve.

I commented in yesterday's "Dear Colleague" that accompanied the e-mail edition of the Friday Fax on how proponents of a new treaty for the aged were furthering a "balkanization" of rights, and how this was generally a bad thing.  We received thoughtful readership feedback on this point, essentially asking what's wrong with emphasizing the rights of special-needs groups such as the disabled, children, etc.

To expand on this theme:

On one level there is no problem with asserting particularized rights – children, the disabled, the aged, women, all possess rights (such as the right to life), and reiterating such rights, especially where they are endangered, is a good thing.  I assume most people who assert such claims are certainly acting in good faith, and want to protect those who are vulnerable.

But if one looks deeper at the issue, and looks at the underlying philosophical viewpoint as to how such rights are framed and what motivates certain advocacy groups to advance certain policy positions, problems come to light.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (as well as, for example, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights), conceive of rights as universal, that is, as shared by all and indivisible. See, e.g., UDHR art. 3 ("Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person."); ICCPR art. 6(1) ("Every human being has the inherent right to life").

When, however, you start parceling rights out to certain distinct classes of people -- women, children, the disabled, the elderly -- you slip into a dialectical framework that lends itself to viewing social relations in terms of class struggle (thesis v. antithesis), with one class needing rights protection against another "oppressor" class. This essentially Marxist world view has been appropriated by (among others) feminist thinkers, whose worldview often divides the people into categories of oppressors (men) and oppressed (women) – ditto by "queer theorists," who view heterosexist society and stereotypes as oppressing homosexuals.

Feminist theorists thus view conventions such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, or CEDAW, as a vehicle by which to wage a class-based revolution against men and the family, which they regard as an inherently oppressive institution. (Per the CEDAW Committee, “Family violence is one of the most insidious forms of violence against women.  It is prevalent in all societies.”). 

Portions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child also lend themselves to interpretations by advocates who pit children against parents, viewing parents as a class against which children as a class must be able to assert rights, instead of viewing parents as the natural protector of children. CRC article 12, which mandates that "the child who is capable of forming his or her own views" be given the right "to express those views freely in all matters affecting the child," has been interpreted by the Committee charged with monitoring compliance with the CRC as preventing parents from unilaterally opting their children out of sex ed programs in schools.

This is a far cry from the holistic (harmonious, non-confrontational) anthropology of the UDHR which, reflecting upon the natural law principles and how men and women interact as a practical matter, views people as a social beings who naturally form families: "The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society." UDHR 16(3).  Families are pre-political (they precede the state), and parents are seen as the natural protectors and educators of their children, a relationship which the state cannot intrude upon. Thus, per the Universal Declaration, "Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children."  UDHR art. 26(3).

The hostility that modern rights theory has to the family is underscored by remarks reported on in the Friday Fax with regard to how rights are to be envisioned in the proposed treaty on the elderly.  Rather than seeing the elderly as existing in a familial context to be cared for and nurtured by family members, they are to be viewed as solitary rights bearers, much as in the way that the CRC views children as solitary rights bearers, with their rights guaranteed by the state. 

The problem is that when you eliminate mediating institutions – most importantly the family, but also churches – nothing lies between the individual and the state.  A state that grants (positive) rights – i.e., rights that are not inherent in nature – can also take them away. This should be of special concern when discussing the elderly, as they face increasing societal pressure with regard to end-of-life decisions.  Given the way things are trending in much of the West, one can see pressure put upon the aged, as solitary rights bearers, to exercise their right to die, despite (or perhaps even because of) what rights are to be recognized in any newly-fashioned convention…

Family violence (http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/cedaw/recommendations/recomm.htm) 

CRC http://www.unhchr.ch/tbs/doc.nsf/(Symbol)/CRC.C.15.Add.34.En?OpenDocument