Japan considers limits to children's cell phones

(CHICAGO) -- The Japanese government is concerned about how elementary and junior high school students are getting sucked into cyber-crimes--reportedly spending long hours exchanging e-mail messages and suffering other negative effects of cellphone overuse, said Masaharu Kuba, a government official.

"Japanese parents are giving cell phones to their children without giving it enough thought," he said. "In Japan, cell phones have become an expensive toy."

Officials claim that some youngsters are spending hours at night on e-mail with their friends. One fad is "the 30 minute rule," in which a child who doesn't respond to e-mail within half an hour, gets targeted and picked on by other schoolmates.

Other youngsters have become victims of Internet crimes. In one case, children sent in their own snapshots to a Web site and then ended up getting threatened for money, Kuba said.

Some Japanese children commute long distances by trains and buses to schools and cram-schools and parents rely on cell phones to keep in touch with their children.

About a third of Japanese sixth graders have cell phones--while 60 percent of ninth graders have them, according to the education ministry.

Cell phones tend to be more personal tools than personal computers. Parents find that what their children are doing with them are increasingly difficult to monitor, Kuba said. Parents typically pay about 4,000 yen ($39) a month for cell phone fees per child.

Recommendations have been submitted from an education reform panel to Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda's administration, and were approved this week. The panel is also seeking the help of cellphone makers to develop phones with only the talking function, and a GPS satellite-navigation feature to help ensure children's safety.

Dallas Judge Tracks Chronic Truants with GPS devices

A county juvenile judge in East Dallas has ordered nine students at Bryan Adams High to wear a GPS monitoring unit as part of an Attendance Improvement Management Program, funded by a mix of county, nonprofit and private funds, according to a report in the Dallas Morning News.

Students are being fitted with a Global Positioning System device that allows truant officers to zero in on their location 24 hours a day. The device also contains a cellphone programmed with voice recognition software to prevent students from giving it to a friend to take to school in their place.

The project's use of GPS tracking devices is unusual but not unique.

"We're still evaluating the program," said Jon Dahlander, citing cost concerns and the number of students currently enrolled in the project.

Last year, Maryland lawmakers proposed something similar for truants in Prince George's County, but the measure went nowhere. And this spring, a Midland, Texas, judge created a GPS-based monitoring program for 15 truants in his court.

In Dallas, the program exists only in Judge Chavez's court, and thus far has touched just 55 students. Judge Chavez places teens into the program only after their truancy becomes so bad that they face the prospect of being sent to juvenile detention.

The students selected for the program averaged 55 missed school days a year and were at the bottom 1 percent of the approximately 9,000 students adjudicated by Dallas County Truancy Court last year. If the students continue to skip school, they end-up back in Judge Chavez's court and face a misdemeanor contempt of court charge.

Years ago, the criminal justice system discovered that Global Positioning System devices are useful in tracking parolees and those under house arrest. GPS units proved to be an inexpensive and effective alternative to incarceration.

Debates on technology-related blogs and among civil libertarians center on whether GPS devices are too invasive for misdemeanor truants.

Nifong and HRES 590

By David Heleniak

The Nifonging of the three lacrosse players from Duke University did not rise out of a vacuum. Rather, it was the product of two systemic problems in America, the tendency amongst many prosecutors and judges to replace the concern for justice with the concern for self-promotion and career advancement, and, in cases of certain politically charged crimes, anti-male bias.

Illustrative of the bias, on September 25, 2007, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a resolution on domestic violence, HRES 590, that stereotypes men as wife-beaters. A thorough analysis of the resolution by RADAR (Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting) found that 18 of its 23 statements are either misleading or simply wrong. Two in particular unfairly smear fathers:

• "Whereas 40 to 60 percent of men who abuse women also abuse children."
• "Whereas according to one study, during court ordered visitation, five percent of abusive fathers threaten to kill their spouses, 34 percent of abusive fathers threaten to kidnap their children, and 25 percent of abusive fathers threaten to physically hurt their children."

With the passage of HRES 590, savvy prosecutors and judges will clearly perceive the political winds as blowing against men, as they have been for some time.

In the April 24, 1995 issue of the New Jersey Law Journal, a judicial training program on domestic violence caught on tape was recounted. The program openly encouraged judges to ignore constitutional considerations in granting temporary restraining orders. “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,” they were advised. “Throw him out on the street, give him the clothes on his back, and tell him, ‘See ya’ around.’” Attendees were given additional advice: “If you’ve got any hint whatsoever there’s a problem, sign the TRO. Don’t take the chance;” “Quite frankly, the standard really is by a preponderance of credible evidence. That’s what the law is. But what he’s saying to ya, ‘Don’t make that mistake at three o’clock in the morning.’ You may be a little tired. Err on the side of being cautious;” and “So don’t get callous about the fact that these people are pestering you again. You know, grant the restraining order. It’ll be the one time that you don’t grant the restraining order that you’ll be tomorrow’s headlines.”

Similarly, in “Criminal Law Comes Home,” Harvard Law School professor Jeannie Suk reveals that in Manhattan, the vast majority of “domestic violence” cases do not involve serious physical injury, and many do not involve any physical injury. But “[e]ven as the ‘violence’ of DV has been defined down,” to the point where harassment is considered violent, these cases “trigger application of a ‘mandatory domestic violence protocol’ different from other crimes.” As Suk explains, “[t]he uniform application of a mandatory protocol in every case represents the prosecutorial response to a paradigm story in which DV victims can turn into murder victims overnight. In the oral culture of a prosecutor’s office, a misdemeanor DV defendant has the potential to turn out to be an O.J. Simpson.” Indeed, reminiscent of the warnings given to the New Jersey judges, “[r]ookie prosecutors are warned that their DV misdemeanors are the cases that could get their names in the newspaper for failure to prevent something serious.” Consequently, “every case is treated as a potential prelude to murder.”

In light of the legal culture that has developed around the issue of domestic violence, it is no wonder that rape cases are sometimes prosecuted despite the absence of good evidence to support them. The actions of DA Nifong in the Duke rape case should not be viewed as the actions of a “rogue prosecutor,” but as a predictable result of years of prosecutors being encouraged to zealously prosecute crimes involving women, and of judges and prosecutors being discouraged to respect the due process rights of men. What makes the Duke case unique is defendants with the resources to vigorously and successfully defend themselves. Can anyone doubt that there are innocent men in prison right now who simply did not have the ability to oppose a rush to judgment?

Legislatures must tell the executive and judicial branches that Nifonging is unacceptable. Repealing HRES 590 would be a good start.

PC Feminism and the DV Courts

Political correctness is not, as many believe, the act of being non-offensive. It is, rather, an ideology resulting from the transformation of the Marxist concept of class oppression. Orthodox Marxism teaches that the world is made up of two economic classes, the capitalist class and the working class, and that the capitalist class oppresses the working class. The rich get richer while the poor get poorer.

When the orthodox Marxist theory of class oppression was shown to be a dead end, some leftist intellectuals turned their attention from economic classes to social classes. It’s not capitalists oppressing workers, they determined, it’s dominant social groups oppressing non-dominant groups, as in whites oppressing blacks, heterosexuals oppressing homosexuals, Christians oppressing non-Christians, and men oppressing women. Of the various branches of political correctness, PC feminism has arguably been the most successful.

PC feminism is not your mother’s feminism. As Cathy Young states in her book Ceasefire: Why Women and Men Must Join Forces to Achieve True Equality, we owe a lot to the feminists of the past. “They deserve credit for helping break down the barriers of discrimination in the public arena; for making gender neutrality an accepted legal principle; for challenging stereotypes about women’s nature. Thanks to them, achievement and ambition are no longer considered unfeminine and women are expected to make something of themselves, not just marry. Thanks to them, most of us believe that both parents can nurture young children.” Thanks to PC feminists, in contrast, we have the theory of the patriarchy and the PC conception of domestic violence (DV), two ideas that are responsible for widespread violations of the civil rights of men and pervasive damage to father-child relationships.

PC feminist Adrienne Rich defines patriarchy in her book Of Woman Born: Motherhood as Experience and Institution as “the power of the fathers: a familial--social, ideological, political system in which men--by force, direct pressure or through ritual, tradition, law, and language, customs, etiquette, education, and the division of labor, determine what part women should or shall not play.”

In her article “Disabusing the Definition of Domestic Abuse: How Women Batter Men and the Role of the Feminist State,” law professor Linda Kelly states the PC feminist definition of domestic violence “as the use of physical power by men against women not motivated simply by a desire to inflict physical pain or even emotional suffering but rather as part of a larger effort by men to gain and maintain control over women.” A more detailed explanation of the relationship between domestic violence and the patriarchy is provided by social psychologist Donald G. Dutton, in his article “Patriarchy and Wife Assault: The Ecological Fallacy,” where he observes that according to the PC feminist theory of domestic violence, “wife assault is seen to be a systematic form of domination and social control of women by men. All men can potentially use violence as a powerful means of subordinating women. Men as a class benefit from how women's lives are restricted because of their fear of violence. Wife abuse reinforces women's dependence and enables all men to exert authority and control.... Wife assault is mainly ‘normal’ violence committed, not by madmen who are unlike other men, but by men who believe that patriarchy is their right, that marriage gives then unrestricted control over their wife and that violence is an acceptable means of establishing this control.” Wendy McElroy sums up the PC feminist approach to domestic violence in her book Sexual Correctness: The Gender-Feminist Attack on Women this way: “men are said to beat women to retain their place in the patriarchal power structure.”

A critical component of the PC feminist conception of domestic violence is the denial that women commit domestic violence against men. Studies of domestic violence have consistently revealed that women are at least as likely as men to commit domestic violence, that in about half of all cases, minor and severe, the aggression is mutual, that about 38% of the people injured by domestic violence are men, and that self-defense accounts for less than one-fifth of domestic violence committed by women. PC feminists, however, refuse to accept the findings as true. Linda Kelly explains why. “Domestic violence is not viewed as just another tool used by men in the subordination of women. Rather, it is considered ‘one of the most brutal and explicit expressions of patriarchal domination.’ Such strong roots in patriarchy have produced an equally strong force against accepting female violence. Acknowledging female violence risks negating the very basis of the existing domestic violence definition.” As Kelly perceives, “[d]omestic violence represents the prized gemstone of ... [the] message that our legal, social, and cultural norms are fashioned in a manner which permit men to engage in a constant and pervasive effort to oppress women by any and every available means.”

If the PC feminist theory of domestic violence was only being taught to womens’ studies majors, that would be one thing, but it’s being taught to judges charged with the responsibility of granting temporary and permanent DV restraining orders, and, to some degree, with the responsibility of deciding custody and visitation issues. In a report entitled “Education for Injustice,” RADAR (Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting) identified a number of examples of this. Here are two: West Virginia's benchbook on domestic violence, the official judicial handbook, states, incorrectly, that “women are overwhelmingly the typical victims of domestic violence;” similarly, Alabama’s benchbook puts forth the false claim, “National crime statistics show that about 95% of spouse-abuse victims are women.” This “education” is funded by the federal government pursuant to the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA).

For years, many family court judges have held the view that fathers are ice cream, moms are the meal. Dads are nice, but nonessential. Kids can easily do without them, just like they really don’t need dessert. In 1985, the “Honorable” Richard Huttner, former chief judge of the King's County (Brooklyn) Family Court took this further, telling New York Magazine: “You have never seen a bigger pain in the ass than the father who wants to get involved: he can be repulsive. He wants to meet the kid after school at three o'clock, take the kid out to dinner during the week, have the kid on his own birthday, talk to the kid on the phone every evening, go to every open school night, take the kid away for a whole weekend so they can be alone together. This type of father is pathological.” VAWA was passed in 1994. Considering the “men are bad and women are victims” ideology that’s been promoted since then, one can only believe that the bias against fathers is even worse than it was in the 1980s. Fathers are not just useless pains in the asses, they’re evil.

Parental Rights Under Attack in Massachusetts

Parental-rights advocates in Massachusetts remain stunned by what happened in February when a federal judge in Boston shot down a lawsuit by some parents who objected to what Lexington schools were teaching their young children about sexuality.

U.S. District Court Chief Judge Mark Wolf told David Parker, and Rob and Robin Wirthlin that they had no legal right to challenge the schools--at all.

"It's so absurd, you can hardly even discuss it," said Brian Camenker, executive director of the Boston-based group MassResistance. "The judge said that the schools have a right and an obligation to teach about same-sex relationships, even in the elementary schools -- and that parents' rights end at the schoolhouse door."

The judge also indicated that if parents don't like what the schools teach, they are free to put their kids in a private school or to home school their kids.

"That's pretty offensive," Camenker said. "You can imagine a federal judge, during the civil-rights era when blacks wanted to vote or be seated in restaurants, saying, 'Your options are to either start your own restaurant or elect a city council that allows that.' "

Parker had objected to a book bag that his son brought home from kindergarten that included a book on "diversity" called 'Who's in a Family?" It portrays same-sex couples as just a different type of family.

The Wirthlins objected to a book their second grader was forced to read called "King & King," in which one prince kisses another prince.

Both families wanted to be alerted when homosexually-themed material was to be taught.
In his 38-page decision, Wolf said parents "have a fundamental right to raise their children . . . (But) the Constitution does not permit them to prescribe what those children will be taught."

The judge said diversity is "a hallmark of our nation" which trumps everything else.
"It is reasonable," he wrote, "for . . . educators to find that teaching young children to understand and respect differences in sexual orientation will contribute to an academic environment in which students who are gay, lesbian, or the children of same-sex parents will be comfortable and, therefore, better able to learn."

Glen Lavy, senior counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, isn't surprised at the decision. Courts increasingly view parents as nuisances whom public schools can ignore.

"I think what the Massachusetts judge said was consistent with what the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals said last year -- basically, that 'the right of parents to direct the education of children stops at the schoolhouse door,' " Lavy said.

In the 9th Circuit case, (Fields vs. Palmdale School District) the court told parents they couldn't challenge a California school district that had elementary students complete a questionnaire about their sexual thoughts and activity.

"The questions assumed that the kids were all having sexual experiences," Lavy said. "The 9th Circuit told the parents who sued the school -- 'It's basically none of your business. The school can do whatever it wants.' "

The overarching message is a dismal one for parents, Lavy added.

"If you put your child in public education, you have no ability to determine what that child is going to be taught, regarding morals or anything else," he said. "We got to this point by having a legal system where judges do not feel constrained by law, do not feel constrained by history; do not feel that what the Founding Fathers intended to create in our legal system has any bearing on what they do today."

Even if the parents in Lexington and California appeal, Lavy said, they're not likely to prevail.
"I don't know that we have support even in the U.S. Supreme Court for overturning that kind of decision," he added. "We need people to be involved politically, to elect politicians who are going to pass good laws, and who will appoint judges who do not believe that they are mini-monarchs."

Parents Outraged After Fifth-Graders Told to Read Gay-Marriage Column

Moms and Dads of some Derby Ridge Elementary School students in Columbia, Mo., were upset to learn their 10-year-olds were assigned to read an editorial in support of same-sex marriage, the News-Leader of Springfield reported.

Students were told to read the column then write their own editorial.

“The purpose was to become familiar with editorial writing,” said Jack Jensen, assistant superintendent of elementary education for Columbia Public Schools. “But it was not an appropriate topic to use at this age level.”

Jensen said administrators spoke to the teacher, but chose not to take further disciplinary action.

Parents Maintain Objections to Mandatory HPV Vaccinations

Poll finds moms and dads want the right to decide.

Just 44 percent of parents support a mandate to have their school-age daughters vaccinated for the sexually transmitted human papillomavirus (HPV), according to a poll from the University of Michigan.

Dr. Matthew Davis, a senior researcher at the C.S. Mott Children's Hospital at the University of Michigan, said the poll revealed similar worries in every state, even those not considering required vaccinations.

"Concerns that the vaccine may promote promiscuity are on the minds of parents who are against HPV vaccine in general."

So far this year, 24 states have considered HPV-vaccination legislation. Virginia has passed its bill. In Texas, an executive order by the governor mandating HPV vaccination was overridden by the Legislature.

Cathie Adams, president of the Texas Eagle Forum, said she sees a lesson in the numbers: "Parents say, 'We can and we will take on the responsibility that God has given us, which is to make decisions concerning our own children's health care.' "

Manhattan Prosecutors Declare War on Families

By David Heleniak

2006 saw a refreshing increase in the number of commentary pieces tackling the problems with state domestic violence (DV) restraining order systems. Most if not all of these articles focus on civil DV restraining orders. In the October 2006 issue of The Yale Law Journal, Harvard Law School professor Jeannie Suk exposes a disturbing development that had not been commented upon before. In her eye-opening article “Criminal Law Comes Home,” Suk examines a practice in Manhattan that has become routine in criminal cases involving DV, the imposition of de facto divorces in which the government “initiates and dictates the end of ... intimate relationship[s]” by subjecting “the practical and substantive continuation of the relationship[s] to criminal sanction” (10).

The path to de facto divorce begins when a man is arrested for domestic violence. “The arrest may have come at the behest of neighbors rather than the victim herself. Or the victim may have called the police to seek specific intervention in that moment” (59). Whatever led to the arrest, with it, the alleged victim’s marriage to the defendant is very likely over, whether she likes it or not.

In Manhattan, “a leading jurisdiction … considered to be ‘in the forefront of efforts to combat domestic violence,’” domestic violence is defined by the D.A.’s Office as “‘any crime or violation committed by a defendant against … a member of his or her same family or household’” (42). A vast majority of these cases do not involve serious physical injury, and many of the cases charged do not allege any physical injury. But “[e]ven as the ‘violence’ of DV has been defined down,” to the point where harassment is considered violent, these cases “trigger application of a ‘mandatory domestic violence protocol’ different from other crimes” (44). As Suk explains, “[t]he uniform application of a mandatory protocol in every case represents the prosecutorial response to a paradigm story in which DV victims can turn into murder victims overnight. In the oral culture of a prosecutor’s office, a misdemeanor DV defendant has the potential to turn out to be an O.J. Simpson” (44). Indeed, “[r]ookie prosecutors are warned that their DV misdemeanors are the cases that could get their names in the newspaper for failure to prevent something serious” (44-45). In this culture of fear, “every case is treated as a potential prelude to murder” (44). This is despite the fact that “[p]rosecutors generally expect that DV victims will be unwilling to cooperate in prosecution” (46), a fact that speaks volumes about the level of the crimes being charged and the victims’ own take on the likelihood of serious crimes being committed in the future.

At arraignment, “the D.A.’s Office’s mandatory practice involves asking the criminal court to issue a temporary order of protection (TOP) as a condition of bail or pretrial release” (48). The TOPs typically prohibit all contact with the alleged victim and, naturally, with the defendant’s own home if the alleged victim lives there. “Ascertaining whether the victim wants the order is not part of the mandatory protocol. The prosecutor generally requests a full stay-away order even if the victim does not want it” (48). And, if children are involved, Suk’s copy of a D.A.’s Office’s manual instructs that since “‘[a]s a rule, criminal courts are not well-suited to determine issues of custody and visitation,’” prosecutors are “to prohibit DV defendants from contacting the children ‘except as permitted by a Family Court order’” (57, n. 241). Add to this the proviso: “‘However, in cases where there is danger of the defendant harming, intimidating, or improperly influencing the children, it is appropriate for the court to prohibit any contact…’” (57, n. 241). In other words, as Suk puts it, “the rule is no contact with the children unless the family court modifies the particular criminal court order (which itself occurs in the unlikely event that an A.D.A. anticipates no negative impact on the children)” (57, n. 241).

The de facto divorce is finalized at the plea bargain stage. “[T]he prosecutor offers the defendant a plea bargain consisting of little or no jail time (or time served) and a reduction of the charge, or even an adjournment in contemplation of dismissal, in exchange for the defendant’s acceptance of a final order of protection prohibiting his presence at home and contact with the victim.” Unlike the TOP, this order is of a substantial duration. Nevertheless, “[t]he offer is particularly attractive for a defendant who has remained in jail since arraignment pending disposition of his case; if he agrees he will be released” (55). And, for someone not in jail but at risk of losing his job because of the repeated court appearances he has had to make, an offer of a restraining order with no jail time is also attractive.

Of course, a final order of protection does not formally end a marriage. “Spouses can surely remain legally married even as they obey all the prohibitions of the order, but cannot live or act like they are married” (57). While no formal arrangements for custody, visitation, and support are put in place, “de facto divorce does entail de facto arrangements regarding custody, visitation, and support—that is, no custody, no visitation, and no support” (58). And, in this bizarre no-man’s land where criminal and family law converge, “the parties cannot contract around the result except by risking arrest and punishment of one of them” (58). All the while, the wishes of the victims, for whose benefit the system supposedly exists, are completely ignored.

The CYA impulse to avoid negative headlines at all costs, even the breakup of families and the destruction of father/child relationships, is craven and despicable. Social conservatives, libertarians, and traditional liberals must unite to end this practice and, at the very least, prevent it from spreading if it has not already.

---------------

David Heleniak is a civil litigation attorney in New Jersey and Senior Legal Analyst for the True Equality Network.

Canadian Court Says Lesbian Can be Third Parent

(Ottawa) -- The Ontario Court of Appeals has determined a same-sex partner is entitled to the same parental rights as a child's biological parents, the Globe and Mail reported.

The child, a 5 year-old boy, now has three parents: his mother and her partner – with whom he lives – and his father, who visits twice a week.

In its decision, the court also ruled that the Children's Law Reform Act -- drafted in the 1970s to protect the rights of children born out of wedlock -- no longer provides for the best interests of children.

C. Ann Nelson, an attorney and co-author of the act, praised the court for taking and active role in updating legislation.

"I don't think there's much question that those sections (that were challenged) that deal specifically with the declaration of parentage are outdated," she said. "I think it would be preferable for the Ontario government to take a look at this particular legislation -- and all of our family-law legislation -- and ensure that it is up to date and takes into account some of the changes in reproductive technology and some of our social values we have today."

Joseph Ben-Ami, executive director of the Institute for Canadian Values, said Nelson is wrong about the role of the court in legislation. He called the ruling "an act of naked judicial activism."

The decision has far-reaching implications, he said, and paves the way for other adults, including step-parents and grandparents, to seek parental rights.

Scholar Warns U.N. Delegates about Sex-Selection Abortions Against Baby Girls

A top scholar and former American diplomat this week warned delegates to the U.N. that prenatal sex-selection abortions are on the rise.

Dr. Nicholas Eberstadt of the American Enterprise Institute, said a global war is being conducted against baby girls, many of whom are aborted because the parents prefer a son.

According to Eberstadt, the natural birth rate for boys and girls is 105 to 100. meaning that five more males will come into the world than females.

With increased sex-selection abortion, the scholar said the gap has widened to 115 to 100.

Lesbian Custody Rights Upheld on a Technicality

A Virginia appellate court ruled Tuesday that the biological mother in a lesbian custody dispute must abide by the laws of Vermont, where she and her former partner entered into a civil union.

The ruling avoided the more important question: whether Virginia can be forced to recognize a same-sex union sanctioned in another state.

The Los Angeles Times reported the decision was still celebrated by gay and lesbian groups. Kate Kendell, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, called it a "big deal."

"The fact that the court would apply that rule of law objectively and fairly to a lesbian plaintiff is an enormously important victory," she said.

Mathew Staver, founder and chairman of Liberty Counsel, which represented the biological mother, called the case "the tip of the iceberg of what's to come if one state cannot define its own marriage policy and must be subservient to the same-sex marriage policy of a sister state."

Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said the case may have had a different outcome if the mother had moved first and then filed to dissolve the civil union.

"This decision was really not about the state of Virginia being forced to recognize a Vermont civil union," he said.

"This was a custody/visitation-rights case that was decided by a federal statute originally passed to handle disputes like this involving multiple state-court proceedings."

The Silence of the Wedding Bells

November 29, 2006
By Carey Roberts


Am I the only one who is worried about the collapse of the traditional American family right before our very eyes?

Census Bureau bureaucrats are not in the habit of making apocalyptic pronouncements, but last year Mark Mather reported that the “dramatic decline” in the married population is “one of the biggest demographic stories of the past several decades.” Now, married couples now account for a minority – 49.7% to be exact – of all U.S. households.

The cause of this extraordinary demographic shift is two-fold. First, Americans are getting married only half as often as we used to. Second since 1960, the share of divorced Americans rose from 2% to 10%.

African-American communities have been especially hard-hit. In 1960 four-fifths of all Black families had fathers and mothers at home. Three decades later, that number had plummeted to 38%.

As a result of the decline of marriage, illegitimacy is on the upswing. Just last week the National Center for Health Statistics announced that almost four in 10 babies were born out-of-wedlock in 2005.

All this is very bad news for kids, since children raised only by mothers are more likely to be poor, suffer from a host of behavioral and academic problems, and get in trouble with the law.
For sure, the great majority of young women say they plan to get married and have kids some day.

So why has Cosmo replaced Bride magazine in the supermarket check-out lines?

Some experts cite the “greater economic independence of women,” as if a single mom scraping by on a welfare check is what female liberation is all about. Others argue that Americans are simply delaying the age of marriage, suggesting that women who are nervously watching their biological clocks just need to be a little more patient.

But there’s one fact that’s hard to dispute: our country faces an acute shortage of marriage-minded men.

Two years ago Barbara Whitehead and David Popenoe of Rutgers University did a national survey of single heterosexual men, ages 25-34. To everyone’s shock, they found 22% of the men declared no interest in finding their One and Only.

[http://marriage.rutgers.edu/Publications/SOOU/TEXTSOOU2004.htm]

That means two million American women will likely never see the inside of a wedding chapel.

Now, hooking-up is replacing that quaint courtship ritual that used to be known as “dating.” When Norval Glenn and Elizabeth Marquardt surveyed college senior women, they found that one-third of the women had been asked on fewer than two dates.

And this past August the New York Times ran a piece on “Facing Middle Age with No Degree, and No Wife,” which revealed the reluctance to wed runs especially deep in less educated men.
There is overwhelming research that shows marriage benefits both men and women in terms of their financial and emotional well-being. Plus, married folks live longer. So what do we need to do to entice men back into the courtship ritual?

The Nasty Nellies have been giving marriage a bum rap for years, so sadly there are no quick fixes. But this is what we need to do.

First, we need to dispose of the boogeyman of the patriarchal ogre lording over his beleaguered wife. If that image was ever true, it certainly doesn’t apply to any couple that I know of. In fact, the reverse now seems to be more commonplace: the harried, henpecked husband who’s hectored to keep his feet off the furniture during the ball game.

Second, we need to consider the effects of the 1992 Supreme Court’s Planned Parenthood v. Casey decision that banned fathers from participating in decisions to keep the unborn baby, thus leaving them biologically disenfranchised.

Third, we’ve got to do more to help boys excel academically. Trash the Title IX quotas, provide special help for boys who are lagging, and tell teachers to stop expecting boys to act like girls.

Fourth, we need to do a major overhaul of our nation’s domestic violence laws, which allow any woman to plunder her husband’s assets and steal his children by merely claiming “abuse.”

And fifth, reform of our divorce laws is long overdue, so fathers are encouraged to remain involved in their children’s lives as parents, not every-other-weekend visitors.

Sadly in low-income Black communities, marriage is essentially a dead institution. And there are groups in our country that now want to extend their agenda of family destruction to society at large.

The family is the very building block of a civilized and prosperous society. What will it take to bring back the exuberant peal of June wedding bells?

U.S. Supreme Court Turns Away School-Voucher Case

Parents sought to use vouchers for religious-school tuition.


The U.S. Supreme Court's refusal Monday to hear a school voucher case out of Maine leaves a confusing patchwork of laws around the country.

Eight families from rural communities without high schools sought to use vouchers to send their kids to religious schools, but a state court ruled that an impermissible mixing of church and state.

All the children involved in the suit have since graduated.

Their attorney, Dick Komer of the Institute for Justice, called the high court's refusal the "end of the road."

"This was their final shot," he told Family News in Focus. "As long as parents are making free and independent choices, they should be entitled to select whatever school they prefer."


Legal experts warn against reading too much into a denial from the high court. But Bruce Hausknecht, judicial analyst for Focus on the Family Action, said the decision leaves the country split on vouchers and religious schools.

"Every state statute is different," he said, "so every result comes out a little bit differently."
Five states offer school vouchers – Wisconsin, Arizona and Ohio allow them to be used for religious schools, Maine and Vermont do not. The provision in Arizona is being challenged.

Sean Parnell, vice president for external affairs at the Heartland Institute, said if there's an upside to the confusion, it's that states allowing religious schools to participate will have the opportunity to prove it can work.

"At this early stage in the school-voucher movement," he said, "we're going to see the states act as 'laboratories of democracy.' "

Feminist Takeover of the U.N. is an Issue of National Security

by David R. Usher


A November 11th Washington Times article “[1] Abused wives in India pin hope on anti-violence law” resulted in a number of letters to the editor of the Times, claiming that the article is biased. The Times article blithely repeated an eye-popping claim that “A 2005 U.N. Population Fund report found that 70 percent of married women in India were victims of beatings or rape”, without even questioning it.

On November 17th, the Times published [2] three identical letters to the editor, but prefaced them with this highly unusual editorial set-up:

[Editor’s note: All of the letters below use the same phrasing to try to make a case that women aren’t the only victims of domestic abuse. But the writers detract from the issue. First of all, the article was not biased against men; it set out to report on the new laws in India and it did precisely that. Moreover, writers’ arguments would likely be taken more seriously if they were to dispense with the deceit. We asked each of the writers if they had personally written the letter and each said yes. Obviously, that is not the case. Domestic abuse, whether at the hands of a man or a woman, is a serious offense. Relegating such an issue to chain letters and false claims hurts victims of both genders. We stand by our news story.]

Anyone who has been in politics knows that “form” emails on issues of import are frequently originated by organizations who know the ropes, and lots of little guys send them everywhere. And, what Lilliputian would not like to see his or her name in the Washington Times?


The Problem of Feminism in Media, Government, and Politics

Now we get to the heart of the subject raised in the letters the Washington Times glossed over. The “form” letter was originated by [3] RADAR, a highly credible organization comprised of scientists, lawyers, and scholars in an alert titled [4] Fake Statistics Used to Claim that Wife-Beating is Men’s “Birthright”.

In its alert, RADAR did the research the Times failed to do. RADAR discovered that the U.N Population Fund’s claim that “70 percent of married women in India were victims of beatings or rape” is founded on surveys by women’s advocates that are neither consistent nor scientific. Let me demonstrate the feminist rumor mill in action right before your very eyes.

The study “Profiling Domestic Violence: A Multicountry Study”, by Kishor and Johnson, is heavily cited as the basis for positions adopted within the [5] UNPF report. To my knowledge, the Kishor study has not been subjected to peer review. Nonetheless, the convenient parts were extracted for the purposes of the UNPF report.

Here is the first tip-off that the Kishor “study” is a misrepresentation of science: Real studies are publicly published for peer review, and not used for anything until review is complete and scientists substantively agree the report is solid.

The second tip-off: The Kishor and Johnson study is not a study. It is a collection of “surveys”, as evidenced by statements in the UNFP reports. There are major differences between studies and surveys. If the authors had intended to be scinetifically honest, the paper would have been titled “Profiling Domestic Violence: A Multicountry Survey”.

The third tip-off: The Kishor study was published by [6] Macro International, Inc. ORC Macro is an opinion research corporation, not a scientific research organization.

The Fourth tip-off: world feminists base their claim that “70 percent of married women in India were victims of beatings or rape” on the following illustration from the UNPF report:



















What is wrong with this chart?

The title of the graphic reads “Women Who Believe Wife Beating is Justified for at Least One Reason”. But vertical axis of the graphic reads “Percent of ever-married [sic] women ages 15-49 who have ever experienced domestic violence”. There is no way to determine what, if anything, this chart is supposed to show. “Rape” is not even mentioned (as claimed in the UNPF report). A 7th grade student would get an “F” for turning in a classroom assignment like this.

The final tip-off (and the clincher): The UNPF [7] Fact Sheet contains the following graphic extracted from the same Kishor and Johnson “study”. There is a problem here: the authors claim here that only 19% of Indian women are subjected to domestic violence, disagreeing tremendously with the meaninless 70% figure claimed in the chart above:

















No more discussion is needed about the UNPF report. Kishor and Johnson are throwing ping pong balls at the wall, hoping that one of them will stick. This is yet another classic example of the [8] feminist rumor mill in action.

The one thing we can believe about the UNPF report is that it is simply incredible. It is indeed terrifying that the U.N is about to embark on the feminist plan for world conquest based on nothing more than wildly inconsistent informal surveys done by women’s advocates (if they were even done at all).

To make sure there are no misunderstandings on the facts of international domestic violence, RADAR cited a reputable international study on the matter by the reputable Dr. Murray Straus, titled [9] “Dominance and Symmetry in Partner Violence by Male and Female University Students in 32 Nations”. His study proves that international domestic violence is essentially evenly distributed, and calls for substantially different approaches to domestic violence intervention than what is being forced on the world today by power-crazed feminists.

Feminism is an Issue of National Security

Those who do not wish to see India become yet another terrorist state need to focus immediately on stopping what feminists are doing in the United Nations. Indians I am in communication with see their new domestic violence law as a “cultural invasion by western feminists”. They know it is phony, and intended to destroy marriage and Indian society by empowering foreign radicals to take over the country and dictate from a pink pedestal of feminist dictatorship. Indians are both terrified and furious. They know this invasion is predominantly coming from America.

We must realize that feminists are terrorists too. You cannot see their guns or bombs. Feminists use the invisible weapons of sexism, fear, misinformation, hate, and allegory to achieve the same level of control of entire societies. This has been accomplished in most western societies. Feminists now wish to take control of the United Nations.

Feminism is exactly what Muslim radicals oppose. Mark my words: if India becomes radicalized against America, we will not be able to say that we did not ask for it. Let us do the right thing and shut down the export of radical feminism now, while we still have a chance.
Let the American people not get caught again between these two very radical and dangerous factions. Before we can expect to see declines in Muslim radicalism, we must first reign in American feminist terrorists who have made us the most deeply hated country in the Muslim world. A lively national debate about this should commence immediately. Our future national security depends decisively on it.

We must realize that feminism is a political problem. Virtually every feminist “study” ever done has been thoroughly debunked, but not until after great damage was done in politics and law. For many years, the feminist game has been to lay out false science faster than politicians and scientists can figure out they have been had. Politicians must stop playing sucker to this classic feminist trick. The only way to handle this problem is for politicians and policy makers to ignore feminists and send them packing faster than they can walk in the door.
This is an international fiasco which, if unchecked, will drag American into untold wars against a growing number of countries who hate our guts.

I fully realize that my identification of feminism as being a terrorist movement, and how it is a major driver of anti-American Muslim radicalism, is way ahead of conventional wisdom. Folks, whether you like it or not, the evidence points to this conclusion. Reigning in radical feminism is just as much a national security issue as is stopping would-be bombers from entering our borders. This does not include the tremendous benefits to the American economy and the taxpayers that will result from reform of federal policies presently destroying marriage while doing nothing to help it.

My message to President Bush: We did not allow Russian Prime Minister Molotov dictate the shape of the United Nations when it was founded (you can listen to an [10] mp3 of my grandfather, [11] Dr. Roland G. Usher reporting about Molotov from San Francisco during the founding of the U.N.) .

We cannot allow American Marxist-socialists to do it now and end up with much of the world in full revolt. We could not bear the cost of securing every square inch of America, and the rest of the world too. It is therefore, in our national interest, to have Ambassador Bolton block the acceptance of the U.N. Secretary-General’s report on Domestic Violence.

Where feminist take-over of the U.N. is clearly an issue of national security, you might wish to send a copy of this article to the Washington Times. The email address for the International editor is djones@washingtontimes.com. You might want to copy Mr. Francis Coombs, Managing Editor, at [12] fcoombs@washingtontimes.com.

——————————————————–----------------------------------------------------------
[Note to readers: This article was modified on Sunday, Nov. 19th, to include new information relevant to the story, and to correct errors in the first version published on Saturday, Nov. 18.]

Domestic Violence Rumor Mill Runs the United Nations

By David R. Usher

If United States Ambassador John Bolton fails to act, world feminists will seize vast powers to destroy families internationally while committing tremendous human rights violations against men, women, and children in every country of the world.

The Secretary-General’s study on domestic violence against women [DAW], developed under the corrupt leadership of Kofi Annan, is a much greater threat to America than the rejected Kyoto Protocol ever was. It calls for the establishment of a new feminist world order, possessing unilateral powers to mindlessly destroy marriage and steal family and business assets by teaching women how to holler “abuse”.

Everyone agrees that domestic violence is a problem. Feminists dishonestly pretend it is entirely problem of unruly men, buttressed by unreliable myopic surveys of women. The purpose of this feminist approach is to achieve the primary goal of radical feminism: to destroy marriage, seize children and family wealth, and establish the liberated single-mother family.

Unfounded allegations of abuse are the political and legal vector already used in many western countries to achieve this end.

The senseless destruction of marriage, homes, families, and the lives of children in western cultures has deeply violated the human rights of everyone. It has transformed many good cities into third-world urban disasters suffering from rampant illegitimacy, prostitution, crime, child sexual predation, and poverty. Radicals at the United Nations wish to force their new world order on the rest of the world.

The truth is this: women are as likely, or even more likely than men to engage in, and initiate, domestic violence. According to a 32-nation by Murray Straus, female-only partner aggression is twice as prevalent as male-only partner abuse.

Many credible individuals now recognize this fact. They acknowledge the truth, and in many cases advocating strongly against the looming radical takeover of the United Nations. You can count on leaders and knowledgeable professionals (not driven by entitlements or political power) such as President Bush, Phyllis Schlafly, Dr. Gerald Koocher (President of the APA), Dr. Murray Straus, Dr. Don Dutton, Wendy McElroy, Dr. Felicity Goodyear-Smith, and Lee Newman [SAFE International] to speak the truth.

Even a child could see through the rumor-mill-fed machinations of feminists. Here are a few examples:

The 113-page United Nations Report admits it is based on a “lack [of] systematic and reliable data on violence against women”. There is no evidence in the report that any information was collected about women’s violence against men.

Without any supportive factual foundation, the U.N. Report claims that “Violence against women persists in every country in the world as a pervasive violation of human rights and a major impediment to achieving gender equality”.

The U.N. Commission on Human Rights framework for model legislation on domestic violence is a carte-blanche vehicle empowering feminists to violate science and human rights in every country of the world. It defines domestic violence solely as “gender-specific violence directed against women“, and admonishes states to “adopt the broadest possible definitions of acts of domestic violence”.

It states, “There shall be no restrictions on women bringing suits against spouses or live-in partners”. The victim must be advised “of her rights as outlined below”. The responding officer must “arrange for the removal of the offender from the home and, if that is not possible and if the victim is in continuing danger, arrest the offender”. It permits immediate seizure of assets, and criminal conviction on the sole basis uncorroborated testimony by the alleged victim.

WHO’s director Lee Jong-Wook made a stunning, scientifically-juxtaposed claim about global domestic violence: “Women are more at risk from violence involving people they know at home than from strangers in the street.”

The World Bank estimates that “sexual and domestic violence accounts for 19 per cent of the disease burden among women aged 15-44 in industrialised countries”. Do banks scientifically study domestic violence?

A UNPF report alleges that two-thirds of married women in India were victims of domestic violence, and then contradicts itself by claiming that 70 per cent of married women in India between the age of 15 and 49 are victims of beating, rape or coerced sex. This report also asserts that the rate of domestic violence is much higher in Egypt with 94 per cent and Zambia with 91 per cent.

UNICEF makes a wild assertion based on a “study” done in conjunction with Body Shop International (a mail-order firm specializing in toiletries) “at least one in three women globally has been beaten, coerced into sex, or abused in some other way-most often by someone she knows, including by her husband or another male family member. Globally, one woman in four has been abused during pregnancy.” If one-quarter of pregnant women are beaten, that leaves only 8% being beaten when they are not pregnant. The report spends much time discussing children living in situations of domestic violence, but fails to determine whether domestic abuse by the mother or father is the cause of child problems.

Where do these dangerous claims come from?

Non-Governmental Womens organizations around the world generate volumes of narcissistic surveys about violence. These are fed to feminists in the United Nations, whose re-sytheses are recited round-robin by NGO’s, creating vast illusions for predatory political use.

Here are a few examples how the revolving feminist rumor mill works:

Women’s activists in Russia claim that 50,000 Russian women are beaten every hour.
If this is true, every one of the 66,758,805 women in Russia would be beaten every 13 days.

The Texas Council on Family violence makes unfathomable claims based on nothing more than informal surveys of women: “Over 24,000 women from 15 sites in 10 countries were interviewed for the World Health Organization’s study which showed that over 75 per cent of them were physically or sexually abused since the age of 15 and reported a partner as the culprit.”

Based solely on self-generated “surveys” of women, feminist activists in India claim that 70% of women are abused, despite the fact that no credible scientific studies have ever been undertaken to support the claim.

The Feminist Majority cites World Health Organization (WHO) surveys of women, saying that “More than 25 percent of women said they had experienced moderate to severe domestic violence in the last year.

At six of the 15 sites, over 50 percent of women had experienced a moderate to severe level of domestic violence. The study found that rural Ethiopia had the highest rate of domestic violence, with 71 percent of women experiencing violence in the home.

United Nations should be involved in ending domestic violence. The approach must be realistic and scientifically appropriate on a country-by-country basis. Clearly, the ideological feminist approach will harm many women, men, and families, and be dangerous to the world. The United States must not submit to foreign controls that lump it in the same category as Sudan.

We have nothing to fear but fear itself. Ambassador Bolton should testify against acceptance of the Secretary General’s Report, and state why it is unacceptable. President Bush should send a message that the United States will not support the United Nations at the present level of $5.3 billion annually, should it pursue a course of action that will clearly violate human rights in most egalitarian countries of the world.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

David R. Usher is Senior Policy Analyst for the True Equality Network, and President of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children, Missouri Coalition.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

How HHS Bullies North Dakota Citizens

by Stephen Baskerville and Mitchell S. Sanderson
(This article originally appeared in the Aug 17, 2006 edition of Human Events)


Those who work in what was once nobly known as the civil service -- and what has degenerated into the "bureaucracy" -- are required by law and ethics to be politically neutral.

Presidents and members of Congress, cabinet and sub-cabinet secretaries can voice opinions. Even judges are permitted (and often abuse) a privilege of obiter dicta. But career officials are supposed to implement the policies of the people and their elected officials, not publicly advocate what those policies should be.

To allow lobbying by federal officials, who after all have coercive authority over citizens, turns the civil service from the people’s servants into a taxpayer-funded advocacy organization that can suppress citizens’ opinions or activities it considers incorrect or threatening. "If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation," wrote Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson, "it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox politics, nationalism, religion, or any other matters of opinion, or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein."

So it is disturbing to learn that Thomas Sullivan, regional administrator for the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), sent a letter last month to North Dakota state Sen. Tom Fisher urging the defeat of a proposed ballot initiative. North Dakota citizens are now collecting signatures for a popular measure providing for shared parenting for children of divorce. This would alleviate the problem of fatherless children and ease the impact of family breakup on both children and society. But these citizens must now contend with the opposition of not only the state’s powerful divorce lobby, but also a $47 billion agency of the $500 billion U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

A ballot initiative allows citizens to act when legislatures do not. To pressure a legislator to thwart their action -- marshaling the full weight of the multi-billion dollar federal bureaucracy -- is a serious obstruction of democracy and violation of federalism. (To his credit, Sen. Fisher has given no sign of responding to this pressure.) Sullivan insists categorically (and erroneously) that North Dakota will lose "all" money for welfare and child support enforcement if the people’s will prevails. He explicitly urges Sen. Fisher to take "whatever steps are necessary to ensure that initiated measures are not enacted."

Advisory interpretations of regulations in response to legislative requests are one thing. But Sullivan’s letter reads more like a threat. Since he is interpreting the likely impact of a future measure under federal regulations -- a speculative matter that is subject to final interpretation through administrative processes or courts -- one would expect qualified language: words like "could" or "may." Instead Sullivan issues what amounts to an ultimatum to North Dakota: Voting the initiative into law "will result in immediate suspension of all Federal payments for the State’s child support enforcement program."

This is almost certainly not true. Leaving aside the fact that an advisory opinion is normally issued by the agency’s legal counsel, not an administrator, what is missing (and troubling) in Sullivan’s threat is the routine give-and-take when civil servants implement legislative actions. Sullivan ignores the possibility that regulations might be interpreted in ways that avoid triggering suspension of funds, let alone the option of a waiver. Many states have been out of compliance with child support regulations for different reasons for years; by some critical measures, all states are arguably out of compliance today. Yet these states have not lost any of their funding, let alone "all" of it and "immediately."

Those who argue that federal funds are used for "extortion" could hardly find a clearer illustration. Kansas officials used precisely this language to describe related HHS regulations. "Under the guise of cracking down on so-called deadbeat dads, the Congress has required the states to carry out a massive and intrusive federal regulatory scheme by which personal data on all state citizens" is collected, the attorney general’s office charged in a federal suit. Echoing terms frequently used by fathers to describe coerced child support, one Kansas legislator called the federal directives "extortion," and colleagues in neighboring Nebraska described them as "a form of blackmail."

HHS, and specifically ACF, already embarrassed the Bush administration last year by paying journalists. Though conservatives were unfairly excoriated for transgressions that liberals have practiced for years, the point is that HHS is a constant temptation to corruption because it serves as an engine for placing large numbers of people on the federal payroll.

The head of ACF, Assistant Secretary Wade Horn, is justly famous for publicizing the terrible costs of fatherless children. The North Dakota initiative offers the first concrete hope of actually alleviating this crisis, with no cost to taxpayers (and savings for federal taxpayers). But his agency is now telling states that their fiscal solvency depends on broken families: no broken families, no federal money.

We have allowed both federal and state governments such a stake in family breakdown that the financing of state budgets has converted government into a family destruction machine.

Predictably, federal bureaucrats are now using taxpayers’ money to strong-arm citizens from democratic decisions that, by relieving a serious social problem, threaten to render the bureaucrats redundant. What is unusual in this federal official’s intervention into North Dakota politics is not that he did it but that he felt no need to disguise it.

California School District to Fingerprint Students?

The Associated Press reported today on a plan by a California school district to fingerprint elementary school students when they buy lunch.

Hope Elementary School District has notified parents that, beginning this month, students at Monte Vista, Vieja Valley and Hope elementary schools will press an index finger to a scanner before they are able to buy cafeteria food. The scan will identify the student's name and student ID, teacher's name and how much the student owes, since some receive government assistance for food.

"It raises sanitary issues, privacy issues — it is kind of Orwellian," said Tina Dabby, a parent of two at Monte Vista Elementary. "It just sounds kind of creepy."

The current process allows for information to be written on paper and transferred to computer so reports can be compiled and sent to state and federal government agencies, which reimburse school districts for the subsidized lunches served. School officials claim that the idea is meant to speed up cafeteria lines.

"It's so archaic to transfer something from a sheet of paper to a computer day-by-day," Hope schools Superintendent Gerrie Fausett told a local newspaper.

A similar procedure is already in use in the Santa Barbara School Districts, where students punch a six-digit number into a keypad that calls up their name, photograph and other details, including whether they have food allergies.

Connecticut Supreme Court Rules Unanimously on Parental Rights Proceedings

Parental rights advocates in Connecticut may have more to celebrate today, after the state Supreme Court ruled that parents involved in proceedings to terminate parental rights have a right to challenge the quality of work done by lawyers representing their children.

In a precedent-setting and unanimous ruling, the court recognized the high-stakes nature of termination proceedings for both parents and children. "The rights of the [parents] are inextricably intertwined with those of their children," Justice Joette Katz wrote.

"Inadequate representation of the children ... could harm the [parents] because those roles help shape the court's view of the best interests of the children, which serves as a basis upon which termination of parental rights is determined."

The justices stopped short of deciding whether a child's right to representation in termination proceedings, which is now dictated by state law, rises to the level of a constitutional guarantee.

They said the record of the case, after a three-day hearing, did not support the parents' contention that the lawyer representing their children, who favored termination of their relationship, did not adequately protect or convey the wishes of the children.

"We conclude that the record of this case does not support the existence of a conflict of interest, as claimed," Katz wrote.

The court's ruling upholds the trial court's termination of the parents' relationship with their three daughters.

To protect the identities of the minors, no last names are used in the ruling. The Department of Children and Families, in its petition to terminate parental rights, alleged the children were neglected and abused, and that their parents had failed to benefit from efforts by social workers to reunite them.

The parents maintained that a second lawyer or guardian should have been appointed to represent their children's purported statements that they wanted to remain with their parents.

The court noted, in its ruling released Monday, that the only statement that appeared in conflict with the children's lawyer's advocacy of termination was a comment made to a psychologist by one daughter nearly four years ago, when she was 61/2, that she wanted to "go home with mommy and daddy."

At the time "Christine M." was living in a foster home she didn't like and had no memories, according to the psychologist, of any abuse or violence she had experienced.A subsequent foster mother, with whom Christina and her sisters were living at the time of the hearing in December of 2003, testified Christina told her she wanted to live with them forever.

"The record is insufficient to support a determination that the trial court knew or reasonably should have known that a particular conflict existed between what Christina wanted at the time of the trial and what the attorney had advocated," Katz wrote.

Sarah Eagan, staff attorney for the child abuse project at the Center for Children's Advocacy, said the decision "is very significant." The center filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the case on behalf of eight child welfare and protective agencies.

"I think it's a very positive thing to be taken from the case for lawyers, that the court is acknowledging a termination proceeding is one of the most profound things that can occur, and that the rights of parents and their children must be zealously guarded by both the parties, and their lawyers," Eagan said.

Katz wrote, "Both the [parents] and the children have a mutual interest in the preservation of family integrity, and the termination of parental status is irretrievably destructive of that most fundamental family relationship."

Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who represented DCF on appeal, said the ruling should not be read to invite wholesale challenges by parents whose parental rights have been terminated.

"As we read it, the decision assures that parents must have a solid reason to challenge the effectiveness of the child's counsel," Blumenthal said.

Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics at UNICEF

by Carey Roberts


At first I assumed UNICEF director Ann Veneman had been terribly misquoted.

This was the statement the media attributed to her: "We know that women do about 66% of the work in the world, they produce 50% of the food, but earn 5% of the income and own 1% of the property." But then I checked, and that's what she had said. It was right on the UNICEF website.

The implication of Veneman's comment was clear: Around the world, men are lazy dolts who lord over down-trodden women.

But I was a skeptical. So I called the UNICEF press office and asked for the source of those damning statistics. Press aide Kate Donovan cheerfully reassured me that Veneman is "very picky about her facts" and promised she'd get back to me. She never did.

Google to the rescue. Many mouse-clicks later I arrived at another UN web page devoted to the Millenium Development Goals.

Ah ha! -- right there on the page 2 was the elusive quote, along with its source: Womankind Worldwide.

So then I contacted Womankind Worldwide, asking for the exact name of the source document. And here's the long-awaited response from a Julia Czastka: "I can tell you that the facts given in this quote are from the UN."

Let's see. Group A relies on Group B, Group B bounces us over to Group C, and Group C sends us back to Group A. In my neck of the woods, that's called recycling the trash. Ms. Veneman, may we consider your statement a candidate for the Phony Statistics Hall of Fame?

While I was perusing the UNICEF website, I couldn't help but notice some other questionable claims.

A March 8 press release quoted Veneman as saying, "Violence against women is the extreme form of inequality." So how does she reconcile that statement with the UN's World Report Violence and Health, which showed 14% of men die from violence-related causes, compared to only 7% of women? Or the recent survey showing women are twice as likely as men to initiate partner abuse?

And a 2005 News Note claims, "Violence in the family affects mainly girls ..." Wrong again, UNICEF.

According to a compilation of 172 studies by Lytton and Romney, it's boys who are consistently subjected to more physical punishment than girls. (This News Note also maligns the traditional family, recklessly claiming that "values promoted by the family . use violence as their main tool.")

Remember the Yiddish proverb, "A half-truth is a whole lie"? If that is true, then UNICEF, which now views the world through the lens of patriarchal oppression, is immersed in a complete and utter lie.

The UNICEF home page informs us, "Women's political power is growing," as if that's somehow going help kids get their tetanus shots and clean drinking water. Its website recounts the woes of girls: educational attainment, female circumcision, abuse, and discrimination. It even has a newsletter called Girls Too!

But nowhere does UNICEF admit to the inequities facing boys: higher rates of suicide, undernourishment, and low healthcare utilization. Not a word about the 12-year-old lads forced into armed combat, or kids sent off to become camel jockeys in the Persian Gulf.

Remember, we're talking about BOYS -- those impish lads who are made of snips and snails and puppy dog tails. It's those tykes who trek through the woods in search of a handful of wilted daisies to proudly present to their moms.

Over the last three years I have chronicled the steady descent of UNICEF into the slough of gender advocacy. These reports have documented how UNICEF has systematically:
Ignored the needs of boys, Given short shrift to children's survival needs in favor of "women's issues", and Fallen under the sway of a radical socialist ideology.

UNICEF has become the target of blistering critiques. In 2004 the Catholic Family and Human Rights Group charged, "Radical feminism has come to define the current UNICEF." Two years ago the prestigious Lancet journal accused UNICEF of "shamefully" failing to develop an effective child survival strategy.

But the gals at UNICEF have turned a deaf ear on their critics.

Last week the Heritage Foundation released an analysis titled "The Status of United Nations Reform." Its sobering conclusion reads: "There has been quite a bit of smoke on reform, but very little fire . Without tying reform to financial incentives, the sound and fury of the current U.N. reform effort, as with past efforts, will prove grossly insufficient."

Ambassador Bolton, we need to make UNICEF the first example of our towering resolve and moral disgust.


_______________________________________________________________
Carey Roberts has been published frequently in the Washington Times, Townhall.com, LewRockwell.com, ifeminists.net, Intellectual Conservative, and elsewhere. He is a staff reporter for the New Media Alliance.
_______________________________________________________________

Study Says Divorce Increases Chronic Stress, Later Illness in Women

AMES, Iowa -- There's a popular belief among spouses in bad marriages that divorce might relieve their stress and lead to a happier life. But divorce actually increased chronic stress and produced greater physical illness over a 10-year span, according to a study of 416 rural Iowa women by researchers from Iowa State University's Institute for Social and Behavioral Research.

Fred Lorenz, K.A.S. Wickrama, Rand Conger and Glen Elder produced the latest paper on their research titled "The Short-Term and Decade-Long Effects of Divorce on Women's Midlife Health," which was published last summer in the Journal of Health and Social Behavior, a professional journal.

"What we found was that the act of getting a divorce produced no immediate effects on health, but it did have effects on mental health," said Lorenz. "Ten years later, those effects on mental health led to effects in physical health."

The researchers have been studying romantic relationships and marriage in middle-aged adults through Iowa Youth and Family Project and Midlife Transition Projects -- an ISU study of more than 500 young adults from an eight-county area northwest of Ames that began in 1989. The team just received a $2.5 million, five-year grant from the National Institutes of Health to continue the study of romantic relationships and marriage in young adults, and the link of relationship development to changes in physical and emotional health.

The methodology

In this study, they used data from rural Iowa women who were interviewed repeatedly in the early 1990s when they were mothers of adolescent children. Of the 416 women, 102 were recently divorced mothers. The women were interviewed again in 2001.

The researchers found that in the years immediately after their divorce (1991-94), divorced women reported seven percent higher levels of psychological distress than married women, but no differences in physical illness. The increased distress among the recently divorced women was found after controlling for other sources of stress, including income, which was only about half ($20,300) the amount reported by married women ($41,400). An important factor linking divorce to later psychological distress was the experience of stressful life events, according to Lorenz.

A decade later (2001), the divorced women reported 37 percent more illness when compared to their married counterparts -- even after the researchers controlled for age, remarriage, education, income and prior health. Lorenz believes that other conditions associated with divorce -- perhaps social isolation and relatively poor job opportunities -- are important in explaining why divorced women report more illnesses a decade after their divorce.

"According to the data, it looks like they (divorced women) are trapped in this vicious circle of financial problems and other stressful life events -- such as having their safety net destroyed in the form of housing, insurance, transportation, social support, sharing in the kids, etc.," said Wickrama. "There are more than 100 events documented in the event history calendar, including such things as demotions, layoffs, accidents, critical illness, and parental problems."

Types of illness

The researchers documented 46 illnesses for the women in this study to choose from -- ranging from the common cold and sore throats, to heart conditions, diabetes and cancer. The severity of these illnesses appears to be linked to the quality of the marriage before the divorce.

"Among married couples, we predicted couples with good quality marriages did not experience early onset of hypertension, while those with bad marriages were more likely to have experienced onset of early hypertension," said Wickrama. "In 1997, we wrote one article that related marriage qualities and physical illness. We showed change in marriage quality links to change in physical illness for both men and women."

Forty of the divorced women in the sample either remarried or cohabitated with a partner. Remarriage was found to have a positive influence on family income, eventually improving health outcomes.

"We found that divorced individuals who remarried indirectly decreased the risk of health problems because they saw beneficial influences on their financial difficulties," Wickrama said. "Consistently divorced people continued to experience higher level of economic and health problems."

The researchers wrote in a related paper that women's self-reports of earlier deviant behavior -- which included adolescent delinquency -- rivaled divorce as a predictor of stressful events and depressive symptoms, suggesting that deviant behavior earlier in life may be influencing both the likelihood of future divorce and future physical and emotional health problems. They are planning future research that prospectively links childhood experiences to adult physical and mental health.

"Comprehensive panel studies that examine multiple health outcomes over time are still few in number, and more are needed if the health consequences of divorce are to be more completely understood," they wrote.

Parents Raise Concern About "Realistic" Safety Drills that Fail to Inform Children

WYOMING, Mich. -- A school safety drill that included police officers in riot gear with weapons has caused concern among some parents who say it was too realistic and frightened some students.

Police in the western Michigan community of Wyoming entered two classrooms at Lee Middle and High School on Thursday and announced there was a threat to the school, the Grand Rapids Press reported.

Students were unaware police were conducting the drill and were taken from the classroom into the halls, patted down by officers and asked what they had in their pockets, the newspaper said.

"Some of these kids were so scared, they just about wet their pants," said Marge Bradshaw, a parent with four children in Godfrey-Lee Schools. "I think it's pure wrong that the students and parents were not informed of this."

Officers wore protective gear, including vests and helmets, and carried rifles that were unloaded and marked with colored tape to indicate they were not live weapons, the newspaper said.

Diana Silva, a parent of an eighth-grade student, said the drill went too far.

"My child was with his face to the wall in the hallway of the high school," Silva said. "I certainly don't want anything like this happening to my child."

Principal David Britten said students weren't told ahead of time to make the drill as realistic as possible. Teachers were informed moments before it took place, he said.

"I think this is the best way to do it," Britten said. "We're not looking to scare anyone, but we want a sense of urgency."

But Wyoming Police Chief James Carmody said his officers were not aware students and parents were not told. He said his department will mandate that parents be notified ahead of time in the future.

"The purpose was to show how we will evacuate the classroom, not to assault the classroom," Carmody said.

Expert Promotes Efforts to Teach Children to Combat School Shooters?

A controversial program encouraging students to confront and counterattack a violent intruder in their school is earning the praise from a Professor at Kansas State University.

Charles Smith, professor of family studies and human service at Kansas State's College of Human Ecology, wrote "Raising Courageous Kids: Eight Steps to Practical Heroism." When he heard about a school district in Texas that is training its students to fight back against an attacker, Smith thought the idea was right-on.

"Finally somebody is really looking at this and saying, 'Don't be a lamb,'" he said. "It's telling kids to keep their heads up and to defend themselves with a sense of honor and self-respect."

Smith said fighting back and fighting for your life is a message that's been delivered to adults as a self-defense tactic for years, and that it's about time children start hearing the same thing.

When he conducts bullying-response programs in schools, one of Smith's messages to children is "don't feed the bully," don't give bullies what they want. Bullies want to intimidate and cause fear in their targets. That's why Smith said a program like the one in Texas is good in that it encourages children to overcome their fear.

Of course, what this issue doesn't explore is the increased chance of a child being shot or stabbed if the attacker poses a serious harm, or has the intent to kill regardless of the outcome.

"I don't think we do a very good job of teaching kids about and learning to respond to their own fear," Smith said. "One of the greatest things this program is doing is to encourage public discussion about issues of fear, courage and risk management in kids. I think this is going to bring a sea change in how we look at these kinds of circumstances."

Smith asserts that he has seen firsthand the power that even half a dozen preschoolers can have. When Smith was a preschool teacher, he once engaged his preschool group in a game of tug-of-war. He was surprised by the children's combined strength, as they dragged him around the playground despite his strongest efforts to resist.

Great comparison.

"Although in theory, a group of older grade-schoolers may have enough physical power to combat an attacker, it doesn't mean they can keep their composure in a school shooting situation in the way a middle school or high school student might. They don't have the capacity to control fear, avoid panic and act in any decisive way," Smith said.

Smith said respecting differences in age and maturity level is something schools will have to keep in mind as they consider implementing this kind of program.

"And, adults still have to assume the primary responsibility to do all they can to protect children at all grade levels," he said.

If children are taught how to confront an attacker at school, their parents may worry about whether their children make the right choice.

"It's a matter of how you want your children to live their lives," he said. "Do you want them to manage and overcome fear, to have self-respect and a personal strength that courage can give them? The alternative is to leave them powerless and vulnerable."

Then again, we could just leave it up to the parents to decide what's best for their kids in such a scenario.

New Jersey Rejects Abstinence Funding

The State of New Jersey will not accept federal abstinence dollars--since doing so requires teachers to say that sex within marriage is best, the Kaiser Network reported this week.

The state's health and education department sent a letter to the federal Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) that declines about $800,000 in abstinence-education funds -- the first time the state has declined such funds since 1997.

Fred Jacobs, the state health commissioner, said the requirements for schools to teach abstinence until marriage are too limiting.

"Monogamy is not a bad idea," he said, "but having the government of New Jersey dictate these things for families is not something we wish to do."

State government, he said, shouldn't create a standard for sexual activity.

But Linda Klepacki, analyst for sexual health at Focus on the Family Action, said remaining sexually abstinent is the best health choice for any person before marriage.

"And state government has always had a place in determining the best preventative health care for students," she said. "This has been the standard since health education began in public schools. Abstinence not only prevents sexually transmitted infections, it also allows individuals to reach their highest goals."

Massachusetts Appeals Court Says Parental Kidnapping Ok?

A few months ago, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court refused to allow James Mason’s sons to be moved out of state against his will.

Last week, the Massachusetts Appeals Court reversed a Family Court decision and sent Mark Evans’ seven-year-old boy packing to Connecticut . The decision can be read here.

Not surprisingly, parental rights advocates in the northeast find the case to be disturbing on several fronts.

Advocates note that early on, the mother broke the law by moving with the child to Connecticut before obtaining court permission to do so. Later, Family Court Judge E. Chouteau Merrill ordered her to move back.

Judge Merrill found that, “The move is not in [the child’s] best interest.” Judge Merrill also found that “The most generous characterization of the Wife’s reason for moving to Connecticut is because ‘she wants to’. . .” Judge Merrill also found that the wife’s claims that she could not afford to stay in Massachusetts, was able to find employment only in Connecticut, and that she had no support system in Massachusetts all lacked credibility.

Most fathers who have contemplated appealing bad family court decisions have learned that it is almost hopeless to get the Massachusetts Appeals Court to overturn a family court decision.

“Don’t bother,” say the lawyers, “The Appeals Court will never overturn this.” A pattern seems to be emerging that it does so mainly when the aggrieved party is a mother. See, for instance, Rosenthal v. Maney, another case in which the family court had denied a moveaway by a mother only to be overturned by the Appeals Court . It is getting harder and harder to believe that gender bias is absent. <>

Similar patterns are seen elsewhere.

In Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald, the Washington , D.C. courts found that the Child Support Guidelines were excessive and unconstitutional – when the plaintiff was a non-custodial mother.

In Georgia , a moveaway was reversed by a higher court – when the plaintiff was a non-custodial mother.

In Pennsylvania , the State Supreme Court suddenly discovered that non-custodial parents have substantial expenses for parenting time – when the plaintiff was a non-custodial mother.

Of course, there are many cases in which higher courts have supported the appeals of fathers or rejected the appeals of mothers. But these tend to be cases in which the lower court decisions were flat-out, no-brainer mistakes.

Parental rights advocates hope that their suspicion of gender bias in the Appeals Court is wrong. But it is striking that it reversed Judge Merrill in this case, abandoning its long-established standard that it would do so only when the findings of the lower court were “clearly erroneous.”

Just to add insult to injury, the Appeals Court cited, among other reasons, for the move “the companionship of family, and readily available child-care assistance from family.”

In other words, the court recognized that the mother needed the “companionship of family,” but denied her boy the companionship of his family – namely his father. Likewise, in mentioning the availability of child-care assistance from family, the court seemed to think that an uncle or grandmother is preferable to the child’s own father.

Parental Rights: Are They in Jeopardy?

By Michael Farris

The new term of the Supreme Court opens with a less-than-scintillating lineup of cases for the first two weeks of oral argument. Should immigration authorities use state or federal standards for drug abuse convictions? Does the holder of a patent have to wait until a complete breach of contract has occurred before filing suit? What is the correct statute of limitations for filing claims for leases when a federal agency is the lessor?

The case with the most human interest comes from the notorious Ninth Circuit. It seems that the court from our left-most coast decided to overturn a state murder conviction because three family members of the victim wore buttons to the courtroom that had a photo of the victim. One can only wish that the Supreme Court would issue its first three-word opinion in response: "You idiots! Reversed."

Perhaps it is appropriate to use this period of relative lull at the beginning of the term to focus on something far more important than particular cases and individual decisions. American citizens need to pay a great deal more attention to the development of Supreme Court theories and doctrines than is often the case.

A recent article in the American Journal of International Law tells this story:

In the keynote address to the 2003 annual meeting of the American Society of International Law, Justice Stephen Breyer declared that "comparative analysis emphatically is relevant to the task of interpreting constitutions and enforcing human rights." Justice Breyer concluded that nothing could be "more exciting for an academic, practitioner, or judge than the global legal enterprise that is now upon us." In a room filled with international lawyers and academics, he received a home court standing ovation.

Breyer's use of the term "comparative analysis" means that the Supreme Court should use international law sources to help interpret American law, including the U.S. Constitution. The late Chief Justice Rehnquist said it even more directly: "Now that constitutional law is solidly grounded in so many countries, it is time that the United States courts begin looking to the decisions of other constitutional courts to aid in their own deliberative process."

There is no doubt that the Court has already begun this process. In the 2003 decision of Lawrence v. Texas, the Court used international political and legal developments to invent a constitutional right to commit homosexual sodomy.

Since this right was "found" in the 14th Amendment, one has to wonder if the Supreme Court was tacitly embracing a theory that post-Civil War lawmakers engaged in time travel so that they could be guided by the political opinions of modern western Europeans as they penned the words to the Amendment. Correct constitutional analysis asks the question: "What did these words mean to the people who wrote and ratified this provision of the Constitution?" Modern European thought is utterly irrelevant to such an approach.

Similarly, international law was used to interpret the Eighth Amendment in the 2005 decision of the Supreme Court declaring that it was unconstitutional to impose the death penalty on a juvenile murderer. The U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child – a treaty that has never been ratified by the United States – was employed to protect the rights of a 17 year-old thrill murderer who threw an elderly woman off a bridge.

A decision last month by the European Court of Human Rights shows us what is in store if our Supreme Court continues on this path of using international sources to interpret our constitutional protections of human rights.

Germany banned homeschooling. Christian homeschooling families who faced criminal prosecutions, jail sentences and removal of their children by social services agencies raised religious freedom and parental rights claims in defense of their right to homeschool their children. Declaring that "pluralism in education" is "essential for the preservation of the 'democratic society,'" the European high court declared that "in view of the power of the modern State, it is above all through State teaching that this aim must be realized."

Even though the decision was addressing a home education case, no one should miss its bigger meaning. The state has the power to demand attendance at government schools so that children may receive indoctrination in today's theories of pluralism.

Will this European decision be followed in the United States? The Supreme Court has declared parental rights to be a fundamental right, but it's an open question whether the Supreme Court will follow its own precedents or the decisions of modern Europe. In both the death penalty case and the homosexual sodomy case, the Court used international law to overturn its own precedents.

And it must be remembered that parents' rights are protected because the Supreme Court found such rights to be implied in the text of the 14th Amendment. Because parental rights are not listed in the specific text of the Constitution, Justice Scalia – who is no fan of international law – voted against judicial protection of parental rights.

If parental rights are going to survive as a viable legal theory for the rest of this century, it is going to be necessary to place a specific provision into the text of the Constitution. We must give conservatives like Scalia a text to rely on in order to stop the internationalists from using European law to erode our liberty to educate our children outside the orb of state efforts to indoctrinate them in pluralism.

__________________________________________________________________

Michael Farris is the chancellor of Patrick Henry College where he teaches constitutional law. He is also the chairman and general counsel of Home School Legal Defense Association.
__________________________________________________________________