“In the Population Research Institute’s Weekly Briefing today [4 November 2005], Joseph D’Agostino says that pro-life concerns about cases in which Bush’s Supreme Court nominee Judge Samuel Alito did not rule in a pro-life direction rest ‘on a fundamental misunderstanding of judges’ proper role.’
“D’Agostino concedes that we do not know how Alito will actually rule on Roe v Wade. However, D’Agostino says, the nominee ‘has had a strong, career-long reputation for strict interpretation of the Constitution and law, and that conservative legal experts agree that he has abided by that philosophy in his 15 years as a federal appeals court judge.’… ‘Alito knows that Supreme Court justices are called upon to reverse precedents from time to time, and everything about his background and philosophy indicates that he will do so.’
“The article goes on to analyze the three contentious Alito rulings that went against life and shows that the nominee was simply being consistent in applying the law as it stood rather than wrongly taking on the rule of a legislators, changing or creating law to suit his personal beliefs or ideology.
“Had Alito taken a pro-life activist route,’ says D’Agostino, ‘Such action would challenge our ordered, hierarchical legal system and undermine the argument that pro-family, pro-life Americans have been making for decades: That judges should not impose their moral beliefs as the Supreme Court did in Roe v. Wade, but leave such decisions to the other two branches of government.’
“D’Agostino concludes. ‘Given what we know, Alito appears a fine choice for the Supreme Court. Pro-lifers should thank President Bush for his nomination.”
Steve Jalsevac, “PRI Says Concerns About Alito’s Rulings Against Pro-Life Based on Misunderstanding of Judges’ Role,” LifeSiteNews.com, 4 November 2005, http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/nov/05110409.html
“There are an estimated 40 million girls demographically missing in China as a result of its one-child policy. The Population Research Institute reports that the sex ratio of 117 boys to 100 girls is so out of balance that the Chinese government has initiated emergency programs to teach parents about the value of girls.”
“Population Politics: Why Ellen Sauerbrey has become a liberal target,” “Opinion Journal,” The Wall Street Journal, 7 November 2005, http://www.opinionjouarnal.com/editorial/featurehtml?id=110007515
“Dear Editor,
“The global fall in fertility has been…so fast that it continues to surprise. I was told by the head of Mexico’s National Population Council two years ago that Mexico’s fertility rate had already hit replacement levels, with women averaging 2.2 children.
“But this wasn’t enough for this U.C. Berkeley-trained population control enthusiast, who told us she plans to reduce the fertility rate even further .… to 1.85 or so, condemning Mexico to depopulation.
“It’s past time to end such programs, many of which are funded through the U.S. Office of Population, altogether.
— “Steven W. Mosher, President, Population Research Institute”
“Letter to the Editor; “The Wall Street Journal, 16 November 2005
“Another Washington Post headline on the festival read ‘From China With Love.’ I was reminded of the never-ending U.S. infatuation with China.
“Clear-eyed China expert Steven Mosher described in his book China Misperceived how U.S. attitudes toward China swing like a pendulum, back and forth between love and skepticism.
“China began as a friend fighting with Americans during World War II, but became an enemy during the early days of the Cold War.
“After President Richard Nixon opened Chilia’s door, the Chinese communists were seen as the ‘good’ .… China’s popularity rose to new heights with the establishment of diplomatic tics, but fell back to rock bottom after the Tiananmen massacre.
“Former U.S. President Bill Clinton helped China by facilitating its re-entry into the international community. President George W Bush, however, views China with admonition.
“Now, panda-huggers may try to swing the pendulum back the other way.”
Liu Kin-ming, “Great leaps forward and backward,” Hong Kong Standard, 4 October 2005, http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_print.asp?art_id=2700&.sid=4840978
“The abstinence message is phenomenally successful in Uganda… The contention is that young people are waiting too long to get married and have children, and the resulting population rate will not be able to sustain a successful economy. Nonsense, says Steve Mosher of the Population Research Institute.
“‘Ugandan women are still having five, six, seven children. The birthrate is high. The death rate from AIDS is dropping because of abstinence, but it’s not creating a population shortage in that country.’
“The real problem can be seen in Uganda’s neighbors that have not embraced the abstinence message. “‘You’ve got countries like South Africa, Botswana, Namibia, Zambia, where the AIDS rate is so high that population growth has stopped.”’
Steve Jordahl, “Ugandan Abstinence Too Successful,” Family News in Focus, 2 August 2005, http://www.family.org/cforum/fnif/newsa0037411.cfm
