1. Abortion  legislation being driven by frivolous motives.
2. The myth of a legal & "safe "  abortion in Mexico’s capital.
3. Mexico:  Legislators cave-in to U.N.’s abortion agenda.
4. U.N. manipulates human rights treaties.
5. New York- based  pro- abortion  organization  bullying Mexico  to  legalize  abortion .
6. U.S.  anti-life foundations send millions of dollars to legalize abortion in Mexico.
7. Previous  newsletters (in Spanish): http://www.vidahumana.org/english/news/prensa_index.html.

1. Abortion  legislation being driven by frivolous motives.

All deliberately induced abortion is a heinous crime against humanity. But the  legislation being debated these days in Mexico’s capital has reached new low in frivolity.

Marta Lamas, founder of the abortion group Grupo de Información en Reproducción Elegida (GIRE), explains how the already existing abortion law in Mexico City will be broadened by means of the actual law being proposed: "In the Federal District (FD) there exist actually three reasons why the interruption of a pregnancy is legal: rape, grave harm to a woman’s health and deformation of its product." The Federal District’s Legislative Assembly is discussing one more: an impediment to a woman’s life project ;  it cites psychological, socioeconomic and ethical  reasons [1].

Let’s briefly comment the first three causes of abortion in the F.D.

Abortion, far from being a "solution" to the horrendous crime that is rape, constitutes a second and worse rape of a poor and innocent woman who has already been victimized, and at the same time applies unjustly the death penalty to another innocent  human  being: the unborn child [2].

This "grave harm to a woman’s health" can easily turn into abortion for any reason, if the term "health" is interpreted in a very broad fashion. Also, we already know, that when a pregnant woman’s life is  in  imminent danger, physicians must intervene to save her and her unborn child . If the child dies in the process, but not as an end  in itself, it does not constitute a deliberately induced abortion, and therefore, is not a crime. There’s no need to create laws that allow abortion in these cases because , quite simply, there’s no direct abortion, which is what must fall under the law’s prohibition. Therefore, this wrongly termed "therapeutic abortion", which is supposed to "safeguard" the health or life of the mother, is a legal fiction, designed to cunningly broaden its contents until abortion on demand is  attained [3].

Finally, note how  MS  Lamas callously refers to the unborn as  a  "product", when speaking about eugenic abortion, that is to say, the abortion of an innocent child suffering from anomalies. Regarding this, suffice it to say that a society that murders its sick instead of helping them, simply has ceased to be civilized, and  has  become barbaric [4].

We are not saying that Mexican society as a whole falls under this category. We know that the great majority of the Mexican people, is fair and prolife. But there are certain elites in Mexico which are aping the backward and brutal mentality of their peers in so called "developed" countries, such as the U.S., Canada, Japan and the European Union, whose governments are bankrolling the culture of death around the world [4]. 

 However, the most disturbing aspect of this matter is that the abortion project in Mexico’s capital seeks to add another excuse for abortion, which is completely frivolous. Let’s read again the end of the already quoted statement by  MS  Lamas: The Federal District’s Legislative Assembly is discussing one more: an impediment to a woman’s life project ;  it cites psychological, socioeconomic and ethic reasons [1]. It’s nothing but a fancy way of saying : "We want abortion just because". To murder an innocent being because it’s seen as an impediment to my ethical lifestyle? Please!

But that’s not all.  MS Lamas calls the massacre of the unborn: "a matter of public health", "social justice" and "democracy". She says that abortion is part and parcel of a "modern & pluralistic democracy". With all due respect to Mrs. Lamas,  that is pure demagoguery. If a democracy has any claims to being real, it must begin by respecting the lives of those of its members that are the smallest, weakest and defenseless, among which are the unborn. Unless that’s the case, far from being a democracy, it actually is nothing but a hateful dictatorship against those who have a vote and a voice of their own if they are already born, and against the unborn who lack both. Abortion my fine lady, is the most anti-democratic, anti-woman thing going.

Following her article, riddled by many errors,  MS Lamas reaches the heights of error when she says: "a secular state bases its juridical criteria  o n science, not  o n religion. Science has determined that a 12 week embryo does not have the neurological structures to feel neither pain or pleasure. Therefore, when the process which would develop it into a human being is interrupted no suffering whatsoever is caused to it" [1].

Frankly, we don’t know just what "science’  MS Lamas is basing herself on to make such statements. In the first place, authentic science calls an unborn human being an "embryo" until the end of the eighth week of gestation and after that the term used is "fetus" [5].

But let’s not talk semantics. It is a scientific fact, that at twelve weeks the unborn baby has developed already those body parts that enable him/her to feel pain, including all the nerves, spinal medulla and thalamus [6].

However, that is not all . Let’s suppose, for the sake of argument, that an unborn human being does not feel pain during that stage of his/her gestation. Does that, ipso facto make his/her abortion not a murder? Or would he/she stop being human because he/she does not feel pain? What kind of nonsense is that! Lamas talks of a "process which would turn it into a human being". No  MS  Lamas, that unborn boy or girl does not turn into a human being after twelve weeks of gestation, he/she already IS a human being from the moment of his/her conception. Religion doesn’t state that, religion whose voice you seek to silence in your "democratic "  and "pluralistic" society,  specialists in human embryology with an unanimous voice state that fact, they know, more than anyone in the world about the unborn human being. HLI has just published a book in which more than twenty of the most prestigious human embryology scientific sources are quoted, all of which affirm categorically that human life begins at conception and not at implantation or at twelve weeks of gestation as Lamas and a whole pack of abortionists pathetically try to have us believe [7].

Please, pray for Lamas, her unfortunate group GIRE and all those other people who labor under the heinous ideology of abortion. They also are victims of this abominable crime.  

 Footnotes:

[1]. Marta Lamas, " Voluntary maternity", El Universal, 28  March,  2007.

[2]. On the subject of rape, check out  VHI's Spanish language Homepage , http://www.vidahumana.org, or the following link: http://www.vidahumana.org/vidafam/aborto/violacion_indexhtml.

[3]. On the subject of danger to the mother’s life, check out  VHI's Homepage, or the following link:: http://www.vidahumana.org/temas/peligro-madre.html.

[4]. On this subject, check out  VHI's Homepage, link: http://www.vidahumana.org/vidafam/muerte/cultura_index.html.

[5]. Cf. Ronan O’Rahilly  and  Fabiola Müller, Human Embryology & Teratology (New York: Wiley-Liss, 1994), p. 55; Bruce M. Carlson, Human Embriology and Developmental Biology (St. Louis, MO: Mosby, 1994), p. 407.

[6]. Cf. Shettles y Rorvik, Rites of Life, p. 62. Daniel N. Robinson, PhD, testimony, hearing on fetal pain, US Congress, Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, may 21 1985; "Why Pain Hurts: Unlocking An Agonizing Mystery", Time, vol. 123, no. 24, 11  June, 1984, p. 61; Arthur C. Guyton, MD, Textbook on Medical Physiology, 6ta edition,  Philadelfia: WB Saunders, Co., 1981, p. 615.

[7]. Cf. Adolfo J. Castañeda, La defensa del niño por nacer ante la "cultura" de la muerte, (Front Royal, VA, EEUU: Human Life International, 2007), págs. 28-30.

2. The myth of a legal & "safe’ abortion in Mexico’s capital.

On April 12 2007, the debate will begin inside the Legislative Assembly of the Federal District (ALDF), on the project to legalize abortion on demand in Mexico’s capital city during the first 12 weeks of pregnancy. Those backing this  legislation seek to extend the liberalization of abortion throughout the country. This project is backed by the Institucional Revolutionary Party (PRI) and the Democratic Revolution Party (PRD), they hold a majority in the ALDF. A final voting date has been  programmed for this coming April 24 2007 [1,2].

Among their main pretexts for decriminalizing abortion, abortionists are using the bogus "argument" of a "safe" and legal abortion. This anti-life strategy consists in inflating enormously the numbers of deaths caused by illegal abortions, so that they can claim that it’s absolutely necessary to decriminalize abortion in order to make it "safe" for women (abortionists care nothing for the unborn boys and girls).

In its homepage  in Spanish , http://www.vidahumana.org, has abundant information to demolish this ridiculous and cruel "argument" [3]. One woman who dies from an abortion legal or not, is tragedy enough. But the manipulation of figures on the deaths of women thru illegal abortions, in order to enable the mass murder of children ,  is an absolute and complete lack of all respect for both victims of abortion: the mother and the baby, on top of it being the promotion of an heinous crime.

Specifically in the case of this homicidal project, Mexican abortionists have used, in the very project’s documents, the bogus figure of 1 , 600 dead women due to illegal abortions in the whole country during 2006. These shameful and bogus numbers were refuted by Jorge Serrano, President of the National Pro-Life Committee of Mexico, who shined a light on the tragedy which always results from abortion legal or not: 96 mothers died throughout the whole country during 2006 due to illegal abortions [1].

In other words ,  abortionists have wildly exaggerated the number of deaths from illegal abortions  by a factor of more than 15 times the actual number! What’s more, as we shall see, even the 96 deaths can be considered actually inflated as they may include those resulting from accidental abortions.

Already in 2000, abortionists had claimed that in Mexico around 8.500 women died, due to the inflated figure of 850.000 illegal abortions. But the figures of the National Institute of Statistics, Geographics and Informatics (INEGI) in Mexico, rejected such falsehoods. According to INEGI, the total number of maternal deaths that year was  l,454, of which 116 were attributed to abortion. If as was stated in the article appearing in the newspaper El Excelsior, where the abortionists ridiculous figures were published, 50% of those abortions were intentional (illegally) and the other 50% were accidental . Then the total number of maternal deaths due to illegal abortions per year in Mexico was actually 58. The exaggeration factor in the Excelsior article was of about 147 times! [4]

It’s absolutely shameful that pro-abortion Mexican legislators are bending their knees before the foreign anti-life forces. This same strategy of a mythic legal and "safe" abortion was used by American abortionists, to legalize that crime in the U.S. more than 30  y ears ago [3]. In a complete and bizarre capitulation, which we’ll take up in another article, the left-wing abortionists at the PRD are allowing into their country the anti-life meddling of U.S.  pro-abortionists. 

What we would like to draw attention to is the fact  that in such a "developed" country as the U.S. where abortion regrettably has been legal since 1973, every year dozens of women die from legal abortions and you also have horror stories in the legal abortuaries of that same country. We have published abundant information on this subject [3]. Additionally HLI, has stored in its archives more than 75 articles about horror stories  about  the legal abortuaries in such "developed" countries as  the U.S., Canada and the U.K. These  stories range from deaths and grave injuries,  to  violations of health codes ,  to babies that have survived and have been starved to death. In a book just published by  Human Life International in Spanish, " La defensa del niño por nacer ante la 'cultura' de la muerte", there’s detailed information  in pages 112-117.

We don’t want to overwhelm any readers new to all this with a list of tragedies. It should suffice  to mention the most recent case. One of the most notorious abortion centers in the country, located in New Jersey, was shut  down  due to grave health violations. "The abortion victim who caused the investigation to be opened was identified as Rasheedah Dinkins, a young woman 20 years old, who spent a month in a comma after a legal and supposedly ‘safe’ abortion. Doctors had to remove her uterus in order to save her life. She suffered a cardiac arrest due to an extreme loss of blood as well as the collapse of one of her lungs" [5].

In  spite of a conspiracy of silence on this subject (after all there’s an awful lot of money to be made) [6], it’s calculated that at least  100 women die each year in the U.S. due to  "safe " and legal abortions [7].

On the other hand, when a country outlaws abortion , besides saving lives, the health and life of women improves considerably. Poland is one such case, it debunks completely the myth of " safe" and legal abortions. In 1990, when abortion was still legal in Poland, between 160,000 and 180,000 unborn died each year due to this crime. In 1993, a law outlawing abortion was approved, which had been legal in that country for 44 years under the Soviet regime. Both the U.N. and the media protested and said that such a law would increase illegal abortions, along with risks for mothers. They couldn’t have been more wrong . By 1999, the number of abortions decreased to 250. The number of women hospitalized for accidental abortion decreased from 59,454 to 44,185. The total number of complications in pregnancies and deliveries decreased from 178 to 144 for each 10,000 women. From 1995 to   1999, no woman died due to abortion. Premature babies are born often to women who have had abortions previously and die more frequently. In the last 10 years the number of newborn deaths has decreased from 19 to 9.6 [8].

The entire world, and Mexico in particular, should take note!

Footnotes:

[1]. Cf. "Arzobispo rechaza intento de despenalizar aborto y eutanasia en México", 27  November 2007, ACI Digital, http://www.aciprensa.com; "Abortos en el DF aumentarían a 150 mil anuales si se aprueba ley, advierten pro-vidas", 29  March 2007, ACI Digital, http://www.aciprensa.com.

[2]. Cf. "Obispos de Monterrey expresan rechazo al aborto en México", 3  April 2007, ACI Digital, http://www.aciprensa.com.
[3].  See: http://www.vidahumana.org/vidafam/aborto/muertes_index.html.

[4]. Cf. Amalia Escobar, "Regulan abortos a sonorenses", El Excelsior, 28  June 2000, p. 24-B.  Source cited by María Eva Serrano, Comité Provida, A.C., Hermosillo, Sonora, México."México: Falsas cifras sobre número de abortos", Noticias mundiales , Vida Humana Internacional, http://www.vidahumana.org/english/news/mexico-mentiras_dec00.html. María Eva Serrano  provided the source we have quoted.

[5]. "Clausuran una de las clínicas abortistas más grandes de EEUU por problemas de higiene", 23  March 2007, ACI Digital, http://www.aciprensa.com.

[6]. Cf. To obtain more information on the multimillion  dollar  abortion busines in the U.S. ,  check  the  VHI homepage  in the following links:

http://www.vidahumana.org/english/news/23JUNIO03.html, http://www.vidahumana.org/english/news/15MARZO04.html,

http://www.vidahumana.org/english/news/10JUNIO05.html,

http://www.vidahumana.org/english/news/7SEPTIEMBRE05.html  and  

http://www.vidahumana.org/english/news/20JUN2006.html.

[7]. Cf. Brian Clowes, PhD, The Facts of Life, 2nd edition, Front Royal, VA, EEUU: Human Life International, 2001, p. 22.

[8]. "Poland -- No Underground Abortions," Life Issues Institute, Inc., International Right to Life Federation, Inc., Vol. 11, No. 3,  May/ June 2000, http://www.lifeissues.org/international/v11no3.html. Information sent by María Eva Serrano, Comité Provida, A.C., Hermosillo, Sonora, México. Noticias Globales. Año III. Número 265, 86/00. Gacetilla nº 379; Buenos Aires, 2  December 2000. http://pagina.de/noticiasglobales; http://wwwpuertovida.com/noticiasglobales. Noticias Globales 86/00, Buenos Aires, 2  December 2000. Editor: Pbro. Dr. Juan Claudio Sanahuja. E-mail: jcs@arnet.com.ar. Tel/Fax: (54-11)-4813-5320; (54-11)-4811-1678.

3. Mexico: Legislators cave-in to U.N.’s abortion agenda.

In the next few days, Mexico’s capital city runs the risk of legalizing abortion on demand and without the right to plead conscientious objection. To make matters worse, the U.N. has poked its pro-abortion snout in the affairs of the Mexican nation. The prestigious news agency ACI PRENSA published in its bulletin ACI Digital, that the U.N. "has become involved in the debate over abortion legislation in the country" , offering to  "inform" Mexican society so that it might fight  against  "illegal abortion"  [1].

Experience has taught us that this "inform" business  in the "fight" against illegal abortion ,  is nothing more than the promotion of abortion, under the false pretext that it be "safe" for women (the U.N. cares nothing for the unborn boys and girls).

In the 2000 edition of its official bulletin, the World Health Organization (WHO), which belongs to the U.N., said very clearly: "The legalization of abortion is an essential prerequisite to make it safe…To make abortion safe, it’s necessary that restrictive laws be abolished, amended or replaced" [2].

However, it is of great importance to point out that in none of its official documents does the U.N. state that abortion must be legalized . Therefore, the opinion put forth in the WHO official bulletin,  is a clear and present danger, due to the fact that WHO enjoys a false international "prestige" . It remains no more than an unfair statement lacking any coercive power which would compel any nation of the world. In fact, this disgusting and shameless statement from WHO is in direct contradiction with the text in  its final document from the International Conference on Population and Development, held in Cairo in 1994, by another pro-abortion organization, the U.N.’s Fund  for Population  Activities (UNFPA) [3].

The Action Program text from Cairo (CIPD), number 8.25, states from the start: "In no case must abortion be promoted as a method of family planning" [3].

Unfortunately, the U.N. has such a power to influence, that the majority of legislators in Mexico city have cravenly bowed down before the abortionist meddling of this international entity.  Legislator Maricela Contreras Julián, when presenting this abortion project stated the following falsehood: "We consider it indispensable to harmonize federal legislation with international treaties on this matter" [4]. A civil  pro-abortion organization, going by the euphemistic name of Mexican Commission for the Defense and Promotion of Human Rights (CMDPDH), also fell into the same error, when its "analysis" was quoted by the Mexican newspaper  " La Jornada". In the aforementioned article the following nonsense was declared: "Mexico is signatory to at least five international treaties which oblige it morally and juridically to guarantee the full exercise of sexual rights and reproductive of women, among them, access to safe abortion" [5]. The treaties which supposedly "obligate" Mexico to legalize the massacre of the unborn are the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination  Against Women (CEDAW); the Interamerican Convention for the Prevention, Sanction and Eradication of Violence against Women (Belém do Pará); the International Conference on Population and Development and the  Peking Conference on Women[5]. We reiterate: this is a plain scam, none of these treaties say absolutely  anything about  an obligation to legalize abortion by any  country.

How, then, do these functionaries, organizations and media dare to peddle such nonsense? Another article from VHI explains how the committees responsible for "interpreting" these U.N. documents, manipulate them instead so that those texts may "state" that there exists a "human right" to commit the abominable crime of abortion.

The Mexican  legislators cave-in to the meddling of the U.N.’s abortion agenda is nothing short of disgraceful. The parallels between the authoritarianism  of  legislator Contreras, quoted above, and the statements from the WHO 2000 bulletin, from which we have already quoted . both sources state that there can be no delays in the practice of abortions.  The WHO bulletin states that "the earlier in the pregnancy abortion is practiced, the safer it will be for a woman’s health and the fewer complications there will be for the provider" [6].  Legislator Contreras said something similar when she stated that "pregnancy interruption should be within the first 12 weeks of gestation, which is considered the biomedical period of lesser risk for women [and that] women could have prompt and efficient access, without risk to their life and health to legal interruption of their pregnancy" [4].

The parallels between what WHO said and what  legislator Contreras stated ,  highlights the shameless cave-in to the U.N. by pro-abortion Mexican legislators . This manifests itself as well in the antidemocratic violation by both groups of the fundamental human right to plead conscientious objection. Basically, the WHO  newsletter used the argument quoted above to carry abortion forward, to "justify" the abolishment of laws that protect the right of conscientious objection: "Therefore, for public health reasons, regulations which tend to delay the procedure must be avoided, among such regulations… ‘conscientious objection’ clauses which favor providers who decide not to participate" [6].  Legislator Contreras echoes this supremely unjust opinion, proposing an equally draconian violation of the rights of conscientious objection, when stating the following: "It is necessary to establish conscientious objection for those health professionals who wish to claim it, as an expression of an individuals feeling which does not exclude in any way the institutional responsibility. Therefore health centers have the obligation to guarantee that  they  will have personnel on a permanent basis that does not object, and in the case of a client encountering an objector ,  the client must be referred to another doctor, in a timely manner" [4]. In other words, if in a health center the personnel do not wish to practice abortion, that center must find another health professional that will perform it. The U.N. and now its Mexican acolytes not only want that the unborn be murdered under the mantle of protection of these iniquitous "laws" , but they also demand that the practice of this crime be obligatory.

Do the Mexican people agree with the servile bowing down of a great part of the legislators in their capital city before the abortionist meddling of the U.N.?

Footnotes:

[1]. "ONU interviene en campaña abortista en México", 9  april 2007, ACI Digital, http://www.aciprensa.com.

[2]. M. Berer, "Making Abortions Safe: A Matter of Good Public Health Policy and Practice," Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 2000, 78 (5), p. 582, http://www.who.int/docstore/bulletin/tableofcontents/2000/vol.78no.5.html.  The enphasis is ours.

[3].  In order to become informed of UNFPA's pro-abortion activities, visit in VHI 's Spanish website , http://www.vidahumana.org,  the following link: http://www.vidahumana.org/vidafam/onu/organismos_index.html.  The text in Spanish of the final Cairo document is at: http://www.unfpa.org/spanish/icpd_poa.htm.  The enphasis is ours.

[5]. Ángeles Cruz Martínez, "Tratados mundiales obligan a México a garantizar acceso al aborto seguro", La Jornada, 1  April 2007, http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2007/04/01/index.php?section=capital&article=030n1cap, information obtained 9  April 2007.

[6]. Berer, p. 583.

4. U.N. manipulates human rights treaties.

Douglas Sylva and Susan Yoshihara, of the Catholic Institute for Family and Human Rights (C-FAM), have published an article in the National Catholic Center for Bioethics, located in Philadelphia, USA, in which they denounce the frequent manipulations of texts from international treaties, by abortion activists from the U.N.’s system of supervision of human rights (DDHH) ;  with the intent of promoting abortion on demand around the world as if it constituted a "human right".

Titled "Rights by Stealth", this article unmasks the existence of a complex network of scholars, NGO’s and U.N. helpers, which work in unison to perpetuate a pattern of false interpretations of existing DDHH, and thereby create a new "right" to abortion.

Sylva and Yoshihara affirm that instead of directly influencing voters, these abortionists seek to perfect their working knowledge of the little known inner workings of the U.N.’s DDHH complex system. According to the authors, the departure point for abortionists is their "argument" that "reproductive and sexual rights" (= abortion) constitute necessary elements of a whole gamut of the DDHH, which have already been acknowledged by the international community.

The investigation which Sylva y Yoshihara undertook and which culminated in their important article, started with a meeting which took place in Glen Cove, New York, in 1996. Those gathered there were members of the UNFPA, the office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights of the U.N. and a previously chosen group of NGO’s.

The participants met to develop a strategy to "determine how they could find the right to abortion on demand in internationally accepted  pro-life norms".

The article by these pro-life authors is based on primary sources from that meeting as well as other documents . It shows how the abortionists '  strategy depends on secrecy, in undermining national sovereignty and never admitting in public the fact that international laws do not include a "right" to abortion.

According to Sylva and Yohsihara, those organizations in charge of supervising international treaties are at the center of this strategy. Those promoting this pro-abortion agenda attempt to convince the other members of the supervisory system of the U.N.’s DDHH, that "international treaties, as they have been negotiated, are not fixed, but changing and living documents". In that fashion, abortionists within the U.N.’s system can attempt to reinterpret the DDHH in such a way that they include a "right’ to abortion. The authors also explain that those carrying out those reinterpretations are not the governmental representatives, but the members of the organizations or committees in charge of international treaties, who are not answerable to either government or the people.

Sylva and Yoshihara state that this strategy has been deployed in alarming proportions. To demonstrate this, the authors cite numerous cases in which the experts from these committees have reprimanded different sovereign nations for limiting access to abortion, despite the fact that none of the international treaties of the DDHH mention abortion as a human "right". Sylva and Yoshihara also affirm that Latin America is one of the main targets of this abortionist strategy. Barely a month ago, for example, the U.N’s Human Rights Committee, charged with supervising the compliance with the International Alliance of Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), questioned Chile about its laws prohibiting abortion.

According to the authors, the actual situation is untenable, since it undermines the very system of the DDHH which abortionist need in order to promote their agenda. In the same way that the anti-life feminist "human rights" movement, these abortionists have realized that their strategy is elitist. Despite the fact they count on lavish financing by private foundations and anti-life NGO’s, they have very little support at the grassroots level and they have failed miserably in their attempt to "help" low income women.

Sylva and Yoshihara conclude their excellent article by recommending policies to help restore a legitimacy of the treaty system of the DDHH and express their "hope of achieving authentic progress for the sake of those women who need it most".

Source: Austin Ruse, "New Article Details Manipulation of Treaty Bodies by UN Radicals", Friday Fax, Vol. 10, No. 6, 5  April 2007, http://www.c-fam.org.

************************************************ 

5. New York-based pro-abortion organization bullying Mexico to legalize abortion.

 6. U.S.  anti-life foundations send millions of dollars to legalize abortion in Mexico.

HLI undertook an investigation during which it uncovered that, since at least 1997, certain anti-life foundations from the U.S. have been sending funds to various Mexican organizations, to promote the euphemistically called "reproductive rights" or "reproductive health". The anti-life movement interprets those terms as the  " right to a safe and legal abortion " . Catholics for  a Free Choice's Mexico affiliate (Catolicas por el Derecho a Decidir - CDD) and GIRE, two of the main organizations which are promoting the legalization of abortion in Mexico, received hundreds of thousand of dollars. For example, to take just one American foundation, the John D. and Catherine Mac Arthur Foundation, granted more than half a million dollars to CDD and $270 , 000 to GIRE in a period of three years. In the next electronic  newsletter, VHI will publish a more  comprehensive report on these donations.

7. Prior electronic  newsletters in Spanish: http://www.vidahumana.org/english/news/prensa_index.html. 

Vida Humana Internacional, 45 S.W. 7l Avenue, Miami, FL 33144, USA. Tel: (305) 260-0525. Fax: (305) 260-0595. E-mail: vhi@vidahumana.org .  Bilingual website: http://www.vidahumana.org.