Historic Survey Indicates Pro-Life Physicians Have Fewer Malpractice Claims

Teens, Young Adults More Likely to Oppose Abortion, Want More Limits

Read the Sunspots: Global Warming or Cooling?

Minnesota Supreme Court Overturns Convictions of Pro-Lifers Who Held Abortion Signs

NAACP Rejects Pro-Life Resolution Despite Abortion's Grave Impact on African Americans

NEW! Ohio Sees Death of 2nd Unborn Child in Attack on Pregnant Mother

Provo Conference Urges UN to Put Families at Forefront of Development...   

HISTORIC SURVEY INDICATES PRO-LIFE PHYSICIANS HAVE FEWER MALPRACTICE CLAIMS. An historic survey is underway to study the medical malpractice rates of pro-life physicians. If those physicians prove to have a lower level of malpractice claims and losses it could lead to lower insurance costs making it easier for pro-life obstetricians to stay in business. Many physicians are leaving the practice of high risk medical specializations, such as OB-GYN, because they cannot afford to pay their malpractice insurance premiums.

It also means that pro-life physicians could provide a set of best practices for use in hospitals and healthcare systems everywhere.

K&B Underwriters, experts in eldercare and medical malpractice insurance in Reston, Virginia are testing the hypothesis that physicians who practice medicine within a "Culture of Life" framework have fewer medical malpractice claims than their colleagues.

To test this premise they initiated a survey on their website www.kbunderwriters.com. Thus far over 400 physicians from 47 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have completed the survey. The respondents represent 85 specialties and sub-specialties of medicine. Completed surveys are continuing to come in, and so far the results firmly attest to lower malpractice losses among pro-life physicians.

The initial results are stunning. Pro-life physicians taking the survey have an average loss rate of 20 cents per dollar of premiums collected compared with an average of 81.4 cents in losses per dollar of premiums collected from all physicians. These results are from a 2007 report by the A.M. Best Co. That's more than a 75 % difference in malpractice losses!

K&B Underwriters is hoping that the pro-life community will encourage more physicians to participate. If enough data can be collected and the present results hold steady then insurance companies may consider lowering medical malpractice premiums for these physicians. Lower costs could then be passed along to patients with the result that an industry struggling to hold down expenses will have found an answer in the moral practices of its practitioners.

Bryan Baird, founder and president of K&B Underwriters explains: "Medical malpractice premiums for physicians are calculated based on the statistical likelihood that physicians, in general, will have lawsuits filed against them. Unfortunately, accidents happen to the best doctors. We believe, however, that physicians who respect human life from conception to natural death are more likely to bring a positive outcome out of a bad situation. If proven true, we will have found a way to establish a new standard of medical care that supports the Hippocratic Oath 'to do no harm.'"

The industry is beginning to take note of the impact of religious belief on medical practices. Recent reports in the Archives of Internal Medicine (Apr. 9, 2007) and the New England Journal of Medicine (Feb. 8, 2007) have noted a high percentage of physicians practice their profession according to religious beliefs. The Archives of Internal Medicine reported that 88% of respondents to a recent survey are religiously affiliated, and 85% of respondents are influenced by religion. (Those numbers indicate that physicians as a group are more religious than the population in general.)

More information can be found in the "Culture of Life White Paper" at www.kbunderwriters.com. Physicians who believe in respecting human life from conception to natural death are encouraged to take the online survey. [http://dealwhudson.typepad.com/deal_w_hudson/2007/05/historic_survey.html;
Deal Hudson email alert]

TEENS, YOUNG ADULTS MORE LIKELY TO OPPOSE ABORTION, WANT MORE LIMITS.  A new poll conducted by a three media outlets finds that teenagers and young adults are more likely than older adults to say that they don't think abortion should be legal or that it should be subject to stricter limits than it is now.

The poll confirms the findings of other surveys showing the next generation of Americans are more pro-life.

The New York Times, CBS News and MTV teamed up for the survey of 659 Americans between the ages of 17 and 29. They conducted the poll from June 15-23. Although the polling question was poorly worded in obtaining the true views of the young Americans on abortion, it provides some insights compared to older Americans.

The media outlets asked responded if they believe abortion should be "generally available to those who want it," "available but under stricter limits than it is now," or "not be permitted."

A total of 62 percent of young Americans say abortion should not be permitted (24 percent) or more strictly limited (38 percent). That's higher than the 58 percent of older adults who give the same answers (split 21 and 37 percent respectively). The poll also found about one-third of young Americans saying abortion should be available at any time with 37 percent favoring that compared to 39 percent of older adults. While older adults favored no abortions or limited abortions by a 19 percent margin, that number rose to a 25 percent margin for the teens and young adults.

A January 2006 Hamilton College poll found high school seniors take a pro-life position on abortion saying it's morally wrong and supporting legislative proposals that would limit abortions and help women find alternatives. The poll also found 72 percent of females in the class of 2006 would not consider an abortion if they became pregnant.

The Hamilton College poll found a majority of high school seniors do not believe abortions should be allowed for sociological reasons such as when women are too poor to afford another child or unable to have a baby at the time. Studies from the Alan Guttmacher Institute, the research arm of Planned Parenthood, find approximately 95 percent of all abortions are done for such reasons, while less than 5 percent are for rape or incest or to save the life of the mother.

When asked, some 67 percent of high school seniors said abortion is either always (23%) or usually (44%) morally wrong. Just 31 percent said it was a morally correct decision.

Meanwhile, an April 2004 Zogby poll found 51.6% of 18-29 year-olds call themselves "pro-life."

"This is remarkable, not just because it confirms that a majority of the post-Roe generation is pro-life, but that they label themselves so," says Holly Smith, director of youth outreach for the National Right to Life Committee.

Though a majority call themselves pro-life, a much larger percentage actually take a pro-life position on abortion. In the Zogby poll, 60 percent of 18-29 year-olds took one of three varying pro-life positions on abortion while only 39 percent agreed with the three pro-abortion stances.
Smith: "Anecdotal evidence and polling over the last several years have demonstrated a clear trend of youth becoming more and more pro-life. America's youth will never know the unborn victims of abortion, but we know that between one-fourth and one-third of our classmates, friends, teammates and even siblings never saw the light of day because of legal abortion." [Ertelt, 27June07, DC, LifeNews.com]

GLOBAL WARMING 
Read the sunspots: The mud at the bottom of B.C. fjords reveals that solar output drives climate change - and that we should prepare now for dangerous global cooling

Politicians and environmentalists these days convey the impression that climate-change research is an exceptionally dull field with little left to discover. We are assured by everyone from David Suzuki to Al Gore to Prime Minister Stephen Harper that "the science is settled." At the recent G8 summit, German Chancellor Angela Merkel even attempted to convince world leaders to play God by restricting carbon-dioxide emissions to a level that would magically limit the rise in world temperatures to 2C.

The fact that science is many years away from properly understanding global climate doesn't seem to bother our leaders at all.

Inviting testimony only from those who don't question political orthodoxy on the issue, parliamentarians are charging ahead with the impossible and expensive goal of "stopping global climate change." Liberal MP Ralph Goodale's June 11 House of Commons assertion that Parliament should have "a real good discussion about the potential for carbon capture and sequestration in dealing with carbon dioxide, which has tremendous potential for improving the climate, not only here in Canada but around the world," would be humorous were he, and even the current government, not deadly serious about devoting vast resources to this hopeless crusade.

Climate stability has never been a feature of planet Earth. The only constant about climate is change; it changes continually and, at times, quite rapidly. Many times in the past, temperatures were far higher than today, and occasionally, temperatures were colder. As recently as 6,000 years ago, it was about 3C warmer than now. Ten thousand years ago, while the world was coming out of the thou-sand-year-long "Younger Dryas" cold episode, temperatures rose as much as 6C in a decade -- 100 times faster than the past century's 0.6C warming that has so upset environmentalists.

Climate-change research is now literally exploding with new findings. Since the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, the field has had more research than in all previous years combined and the discoveries are completely shattering the myths. For example, I and the first-class scientists I work with are consistently finding excellent correlations between the regular fluctuations in the brightness of the sun and earthly climate. This is not surprising. The sun and the stars are the ultimate source of all energy on the planet.

My interest in the current climate-change debate was triggered in 1998, when I was funded by a Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council strategic project grant to determine if there were regular cycles in West Coast fish productivity. As a result of wide swings in the populations of anchovies, herring and other commercially important West Coast fish stock, fisheries managers were having a very difficult time establishing appropriate fishing quotas. One season there would be abundant stock and broad harvesting would be acceptable; the very next year the fisheries would collapse. No one really knew why or how to predict the future health of this crucially important resource.

Although climate was suspected to play a significant role in marine productivity, only since the beginning of the 20th century have accurate fishing and temperature records been kept in this region of the northeast Pacific. We needed indicators of fish productivity over thousands of years to see whether there were recurring cycles in populations and what phenomena may be driving the changes.

My research team began to collect and analyze core samples from the bottom of deep Western Canadian fjords. The regions in which we chose to conduct our research, Effingham Inlet on the West Coast of Vancouver Island, and in 2001, sounds in the Belize-Seymour Inlet complex on the mainland coast of British Columbia, were perfect for this sort of work. The topography of these fjords is such that they contain deep basins that are subject to little water transfer from the open ocean and so water near the bottom is relatively stagnant and very low in oxygen content. As a consequence, the floors of these basins are mostly lifeless and sediment layers build up year after year, undisturbed over millennia.

Using various coring technologies, we have been able to collect more than 5,000 years' worth of mud in these basins, with the oldest layers coming from a depth of about 11 metres below the fjord floor.

Clearly visible in our mud cores are annual changes that record the different seasons: corresponding to the cool, rainy winter seasons, we see dark layers composed mostly of dirt washed into the fjord from the land; in the warm summer months we see abundant fossilized fish scales and diatoms (the most common form of phytoplankton, or single-celled ocean plants) that have fallen to the fjord floor from nutrient-rich surface waters. In years when warm summers dominated climate in the region, we clearly see far thicker layers of diatoms and fish scales than we do in cooler years.

Ours is one of the highest-quality climate records available anywhere today and in it we see obvious confirmation that natural climate change can be dramatic. For example, in the middle of a 62-year slice of the record at about 4,400 years ago, there was a shift in climate in only a couple of seasons from warm, dry and sunny conditions to one that was mostly cold and rainy for several decades.

Using computers to conduct what is referred to as a "time series analysis" on the colouration and thickness of the annual layers, we have discovered repeated cycles in marine productivity in this, a region larger than Europe.

Specifically, we find a very strong and consistent 11-year cycle throughout the whole record in the sediments and diatom remains. This correlates closely to the well-known 11-year "Schwabe" sunspot cycle, during which the output of the sun varies by about 0.1%. Sunspots, violent storms on the surface of the sun, have the effect of increasing solar output, so, by counting the spots visible on the surface of our star, we have an indirect measure of its varying brightness. Such records have been kept for many centuries and match very well with the changes in marine productivity we are observing.

In the sediment, diatom and fish-scale records, we also see longer period cycles, all correlating closely with other well-known regular solar variations. In particular, we see marine productivity cycles that match well with the sun's 75-90-year "Gleissberg Cycle," the 200-500-year "Suess Cycle" and the 1,100-1,500-year "Bond Cycle." The strength of these cycles is seen to vary over time, fading in and out over the millennia. The variation in the sun's brightness over these longer cycles may be many times greater in magnitude than that measured over the short Schwabe cycle and so are seen to impact marine productivity even more significantly.

Our finding of a direct correlation between variations in the brightness of the sun and earthly climate indicators (called "proxies") is not unique. Hundreds of other studies, using proxies from tree rings in Russia's Kola Peninsula to water levels of the Nile, show exactly the same thing: The sun appears to drive climate change.

However, there was a problem. Despite this clear and repeated correlation, the measured variations in incoming solar energy were, on their own, not sufficient to cause the climate changes we have observed in our proxies. In addition, even though the sun is brighter now than at any time in the past 8,000 years, the increase in direct solar input is not calculated to be sufficient to cause the past century's modest warming on its own. There had to be an amplifier of some sort for the sun to be a primary driver of climate change.

Indeed, that is precisely what has been discovered. In a series of groundbreaking scientific papers starting in 2002, Veizer, Shaviv, Carslaw, and most recently Svensmark et al., have collectively demonstrated that as the output of the sun varies, and with it, our star's protective solar wind, varying amounts of galactic cosmic rays from deep space are able to enter our solar system and penetrate the Earth's atmosphere. These cosmic rays enhance cloud formation which, overall, has a cooling effect on the planet. When the sun's energy output is greater, not only does the Earth warm slightly due to direct solar heating, but the stronger solar wind generated during these "high sun" periods blocks many of the cosmic rays from entering our atmosphere. Cloud cover decreases and the Earth warms still more.

The opposite occurs when the sun is less bright. More cosmic rays are able to get through to Earth's atmosphere, more clouds form, and the planet cools more than would otherwise be the case due to direct solar effects alone. This is precisely what happened from the middle of the 17th century into the early 18th century, when the solar energy input to our atmosphere, as indicated by the number of sunspots, was at a minimum and the planet was stuck in the Little Ice Age. These new findings suggest that changes in the output of the sun caused the most recent climate change. By comparison, CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long, medium and even short time scales.

In some fields the science is indeed "settled." For example, plate tectonics, once highly controversial, is now so well-established that we rarely see papers on the subject at all. But the science of global climate change is still in its infancy, with many thousands of papers published every year. In a 2003 poll conducted by German environmental researchers Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, two-thirds of more than 530 climate scientists from 27 countries surveyed did not believe that "the current state of scientific knowledge is developed well enough to allow for a reasonable assessment of the effects of greenhouse gases." About half of those polled stated that the science of climate change was not sufficiently settled to pass the issue over to policymakers at all.

Solar scientists predict that, by 2020, the sun will be starting into its weakest Schwabe solar cycle of the past two centuries, likely leading to unusually cool conditions on Earth. Beginning to plan for adaptation to such a cool period, one which may continue well beyond one 11-year cycle, as did the Little Ice Age, should be a priority for governments. It is global cooling, not warming, that is the major climate threat to the world, especially Canada. As a country at the northern limit to agriculture in the world, it would take very little cooling to destroy much of our food crops, while a warming would only require that we adopt farming techniques practiced to the south of us.

Meantime, we need to continue research into this, the most complex field of science ever tackled, and immediately halt wasted expenditures on the King Canute-like task of "stopping climate change." [by R. Timothy Patterson is professor and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre, Department of Earth Sciences, Carleton University. National Post, R. TIMOTHY PATTERSON, Financial Post, Published: Wednesday, June 20, 2007]

Comment related to above article:

That was pretty good.  I've been attacked by a number of people over merely entertaining the possibility that "global warming" may not be due to man.  I started doing a bit of research on it, and the more I read the less I believe it [global warming] -- never mind the almost endless propaganda we get on the news.
 
There also seems to be a real relation between this issue and evolution. Whether adherents of it admit it or not, both are in fact religions -- and more often than not anti-Christian.
Although at least the global warmist messiah, Al Gore, has admitted as much by now.
 
...The way we were taught the scientific method works is: construct a hypothesis and perform experiments.  If you receive falsifiable evidence then you must go back to the hypothesis stage and re-construct a new or modified hypothesis.  Then start the process all over again.  The inherent goal should be to be objective.
 
Part of the problem with both these theories [evolution, global warming] is that there is plenty of falsifiable evidence contradicting their theory, yet they still maintain their theory is correct and valid -- even in light of that.  Once we scuttle the scientific method and ignore the rules, we can no longer claim to be scientific or objective.
 
The adherents are usually far from objective, often with a political or monetary agenda behind their beliefs.  So, in those cases, that variable has to be added to the equation.
 
They also tend to not just treat it as a mere theory, but as if it is a scientific fact or law.  That's why we hear people like Al Gore trying to convince us that "the debate is over" -- when in truth he is probably scared that it's only just beginning.
 
The other common thing about both these theories is that they both rely on long periods of time.  Time is on their side because one can not definitively prove them as a result.  We can't travel back millions and bazillions of years to see animals evolving on a macro-scale.  Nor can we travel decades into the future to see what the climate will be like then.  Do you remember the "global cooling" scares in the 70s?  Or the ozone layers scares in the 80s?  Whatever happened to those?  Why don't we hear about them anymore?
 
However, that doesn't mean everything is scientifically unprovable.  Something like the law of gravity for instance, can be objectively proven almost immediately and definitively.  We can test it over and over again and still yield the same results.  We don't have to wait decades or go back eons to find out.
 
The global warmists are really not much different than ancient civilizations that used to sacrifice innocent people when there was a drought or some other environmental upheaval they didn't fully understand.  We tend to blame other people when things go wrong.  
 
Only today, the global warmists want you to sacrifice your dollars, lifestyle, and your unborn.  We can't be having more than two children because people are a "virus,"  "we destroy and scar the earth" I've heard them say.
 
...Their lack of observing common sense is no excuse.
 
For evolutionists, if we are mere animals, what other "animal" can read, write, paint a picture, perform mathematics, build tools etc...  For all practical purposes, why are we the only ones?  Why is there something entirely unique and special about humans that is not found in other creatures on the planet.
 
For global warmists, why do they ignore the effects of the sun?  When one goes on a vacation and wants to enjoy warm weather, don't we tend to travel someplace sunny?
 
Here's a link to the first episode.  I think it's broken down into about 8 or 9 parts.  It's very informative if you haven't seen it already.
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8f8v5du5_ag; Goeff B.]

MN SUPREME COURT OVERTURNS CONVICTIONS OF SIGN-HOLDING PRO-LIFERS. On Thursday, July 12, the Minnesota Supreme Court handed down an important ruling, reversing the criminal convictions of pro-life protesters Ron Rudnick and Luke Otterstad for displaying large signs on an overpass on two occasions in the Twin Cities suburb of Anoka, Minnesota just weeks before the 2004 national elections.

One sign displayed a large color photo of the aborted infant, "Baby Malachi," while next to it was a large handwritten sign that branded a local Congressional candidate as "pro-abortion." On both occasions the pro-lifers were arrested and jailed by Anoka police, who also took their signs. Charges of "criminal nuisance" and a violation of Anoka's sign ordinance were upheld by a trial judge. Stiff fines and prison sentences were imposed. Chicago's Thomas More Society was asked to help and underwrote an appeal, but appellate Judges upheld both convictions. Thomas More Society reassembled its team of appellate and Minnesota's Supreme Court allowed a further appeal.

Oral arguments were held last November, and last week when a four Justice plurality ruled that the prosecution hadn't proven the signs a criminal "nuisance" or that Anoka's sign ordinance even applied. Two other Justices agreed with Justice Alan Page who wrote in his concurrence that defendants' First Amendment rights were violated as the prosecution had been "content-based" – aimed at the pro-life message.

Tom Brejcha, chief counsel of the Thomas More Society told LifeNews.com, "Graphic photos are controversial even among pro-lifers. We urge that they be used prudently and sparingly – with warning signs wherever possible. But our society has to confront the brutal, bloody realities of this murderous atrocity, as mere abstract rhetoric too often fails to trigger the deep, visceral reaction needed to overcome contemporary America's bland indifference to this carnage." [18July07, MN, LifeNews.com] 
 

NAACP REJECTS PRO-LIFE RESOLUTION DESPITE ABORTION'S GRAVE IMPACT ON AFRICAN AMERICANS. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) once again rejected a pro-life resolution that would attempt to address the pressing issues of abortion and infant mortality in the American African community.
 
This July approximately 8,000 NAACP members met in Detroit for the organization's annual convention. While Saturday's major theme was improving access to heath care, NAACP authorities rejected the pro-life resolution of the Macon, Georgia, chapter for the second time since 2004.
 
Christian News Wire reports that according to Rev. Clenard Childress Jr., the national director of LEARN, an African American pro-life organization, 36% of abortions (a total of 1,452 per day) are performed on African Americans.
 
Noting these numbers, Childress called it "deplorable" that the "noble institution with such a rich history would choose again to censor one of its own chapters."
 
He asked, "What have we come to when those whom (sic) have the charge of protecting our rights willfully choose to take them away?"
 
Dr. Alveda King, niece of Martin Luther King Jr. and pastoral associate for Priests for Life, strongly urged the NAACP to recognize the importance of the pro-life resolution. "The NAACP has always been about justice," said King, quoted in the Christian Post. "Today, there is no greater injustice facing black people than abortion."
 
She continued, "Over 13 million African Americans are not here because they died by legal abortion. It's as if a plague swept through our cities and towns and took one of every four blacks. Talk about inconvenient truths." She also emphasized that the national leadership of the NAACP, "needs to address what abortion has done to the African American community and our nation as a whole, even if it means making some people in high positions uncomfortable."
 
Her address concluded, "The National Board of the NAACP needs to know that its membership loves our children and wants what is right for them, and what is right is for them to be allowed to live." [DETROIT, July 10, 2007 LifeSiteNews.com, E. O'Brien]

OHIO SEES DEATH OF SECOND UNBORN CHILD IN ATTACK ON PREGNANT MOTHER. The state of Ohio has experienced another case of the death of an unborn child in an attack on the baby's mother. This latest case comes shortly after the state received national attention when a Canton police officer killed his pregnant girlfriend and her unborn baby, who was days away from birth. Channel 5 news reports that 15 year-old Alfonzo Price and a friend beat up his 18 year-old girlfriend Kerria Anderson early Thursday while she was walking along a street with her one year-old daughter. “She said the guy that was with her hauled off and hit her in the face,” Betty Payne, the victim's grandmother, told the television station. “While he hit her in the face, the other guy came in and jumped on her, too.” Price and his friend dragged Anderson behind a building and beat her and stomped on her stomach. After the attack, Anderson found a security guard in a nearby building and called police.

"She's five months pregnant, she has bruises everywhere, they just jumped her, like three guys had just jumped her," the guard told the 911 operator, according to the news station. "She knows one of them, it's her baby's daddy. Well, the unborn child's father. And I guess it was over her not getting an abortion or something like that." Anderson was reportedly hospitalized for bruises and other injuries but her baby died as a result of the attack.

Her family said she confirmed Price attacked her because he is the father of her baby and she refused his request to have an abortion. Ohio is one of 35 states that currently have a law holding criminals accountable when they kill an unborn child in the course of an attack on the baby's mother. Some 25 of the states protect pregnant women throughout pregnancy while another 10 offer protection only in the latter stages. The laws give prosecutors the ability to bring charges for both the death or injury to the mother and child. [16July07, Cincinnati, OH LifeNews.com]

PROVO CONFERENCE URGES UN TO PUT FAMILIES AT FOREFRONT OF DEVELOPMENT. Academics and experts from around the world warned UN delegates this week about the dangers of ignoring the family in governmental policies and programs while trying to achieve development. The delegates were attending the World Family Policy Forum hosted by Brigham Young University and the World Family Policy Center.

Dr. Maria Sophia Aguirre [CUA] presented a paper saying that "healthy families are essential for a country as they have a direct impact on human, moral and social capital, and therefore, on resource use, economic activity and economic structures."

Aguirre's research underscored both the economic and social consequences of family breakdown.

Abuse of women is 25 times more likely to occur in an irregular family.

Men who have witnessed domestic violence are 3 times more likely to abuse their own wives and children.

Women and children living in broken families have a higher probability of living in poverty. The breakdown of the family thus costs governments by increasing social welfares expenditures.

Aquirre studied the relationship of wealth and family structure in Canada, Guatemala, and the United States - three countries with very different government systems - and found that across the board, families with parents in stable marriages did much better economically than any other domestic arrangement in terms of net wealth, savings, and property ownership.

Other presenters at the conference highlighted various societal implications of family breakdown such as the impact of divorce, the family in conflict situations, the lack of paternal involvement and its negative effect on children and the demographic consequences of fewer marriages and plummeting fertility.

In an address by satellite from Doha, Qatar, Professor Richard Wilkins, founder of the World Family Policy Center surmised, "Despite the importance of the family, not enough private, academic, non-governmental and governmental energy has gone into the imagination and creation of a family-friendly modern world. This is an on-going tragedy because substantial evidence suggests that stable, well-functioning families are extraordinarily successful in reducing and even eliminating human suffering. The world needs policies to strengthen the family."

The World Family Policy Forum was established in 1999 as a yearly meeting of concerned United Nations diplomats, opinion leaders, and scholars, focusing on international family policy issues. Participants discuss emerging trends on such topics as the natural family, the United Nations, human rights, marriage, gender, children's rights, and sovereignty. Dozens of senior UN diplomats attend each year.

A UN delegate and a first-time participant to the World Family Policy Forum told the Friday Fax, "This conference has provided me with information to bring back to the United Nations and will serve to help my country and my delegation to bring the family to the forefront of our policy discussions. [13July07, http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006/sep/06091102.html; 13July07, By Samantha Singson C-Fam.org]