Isabella Brooke Knightly and Austin Gamez-Knightly
In Memory of my Loving Husband, William F. Knightly Jr. Murdered by ILLEGAL Palliative Care at a Nashua, NH Hospital
Friday, June 4, 2010
Defending a Lawsuit Against Motion to Dismiss Case: L Family v. Administration for Children, Youth and Families
Defending a Lawsuit Against Motion to Dismiss
Case: L Family v. Administration for Children, Youth and Families
Filed: 3-3-06
In March 2006, Home School Legal Defense Association filed a lawsuit in Arizona on behalf of a member family whose 4th and 14th Amendment rights had been violated by a social worker investigation that had no basis outside of an anonymous tip. Just a few weeks after our filing, the social workers filed a motion to dismiss, saying that their actions were completely within the law.
Mr. and Mrs. Laraby (name changed to protect family’s privacy) denied a social worker access to their home at the first contact, but over a month later, two social workers and several sheriff’s deputies arrived on their doorstep, insisting on entry into the home. The family immediately called HSLDA for help. The social workers refused to speak with HSLDA Staff Attorney Thomas Schmidt, but instead insisted that he talk with an assistant attorney general, who informed him that if the Larabys did not allow the social workers into their home, the children would be removed from their parents’ custody.
The social workers also told Mr. and Mrs. Laraby that if they were not allowed into the home to complete their investigation, they would handcuff the parents in front of their children and take their children away. In response to this terrible threat, the parents stood aside and allowed the social workers in. Within five minutes, the social workers determined that the anonymous tip was false and left.
HSLDA filed a lawsuit in federal court on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Laraby for violation of their 4th Amendment rights, interference with family privacy, and the sheriff’s failure to train deputies in constitutional procedures. We argued that the wrongful threat to take custody of Mr. and Mrs. Laraby’s children was coercion, a tactic often used by social workers to gain unlimited access to a family’s home despite the parents’ objections.
Shortly after HSLDA filed this lawsuit, the social workers responded with a motion to dismiss, stating that they had not violated the Laraby family’s rights in demanding entrance to their home and threatening arrest and removal of the children. Instead, the social workers argued that their actions were protected, claiming that social workers do not have to follow the 4th Amendment when conducting an investigation. They asked the court to dismiss the case before the Larabys were even able to present any evidence showing that their rights had been violated.
HSLDA responded to the motion, arguing that all social workers are bound by the 4th Amendment and citing HSLDA’s landmark case, Calabretta v. Floyd: “The principle that government officials cannot coerce entry into people’s houses without a search warrant or applicability of an established exception to the requirement of a search warrant is so well established that any reasonable officer would know it.”
At the same time, HSLDA responded to another motion to dismiss from the assistant attorney general who had spoken with Schmidt, which said that the Larabys had failed to state a claim at all. In our reply to this motion, HSLDA explained to the court that the assistant attorney general had indeed violated the rights of Mr. and Mrs. Laraby with her statement that the social workers would take custody of the children under Arizona law if they were not allowed into the house.
With the briefing on these motions now complete, we are awaiting a hearing date and a decision from the court as to whether we will be able to present the evidence that Mr. and Mrs. Laraby’s rights were violated.
http://www.hslda.org/courtreport/V23N2/V23N208.asp
Case: L Family v. Administration for Children, Youth and Families
Filed: 3-3-06
In March 2006, Home School Legal Defense Association filed a lawsuit in Arizona on behalf of a member family whose 4th and 14th Amendment rights had been violated by a social worker investigation that had no basis outside of an anonymous tip. Just a few weeks after our filing, the social workers filed a motion to dismiss, saying that their actions were completely within the law.
Mr. and Mrs. Laraby (name changed to protect family’s privacy) denied a social worker access to their home at the first contact, but over a month later, two social workers and several sheriff’s deputies arrived on their doorstep, insisting on entry into the home. The family immediately called HSLDA for help. The social workers refused to speak with HSLDA Staff Attorney Thomas Schmidt, but instead insisted that he talk with an assistant attorney general, who informed him that if the Larabys did not allow the social workers into their home, the children would be removed from their parents’ custody.
The social workers also told Mr. and Mrs. Laraby that if they were not allowed into the home to complete their investigation, they would handcuff the parents in front of their children and take their children away. In response to this terrible threat, the parents stood aside and allowed the social workers in. Within five minutes, the social workers determined that the anonymous tip was false and left.
HSLDA filed a lawsuit in federal court on behalf of Mr. and Mrs. Laraby for violation of their 4th Amendment rights, interference with family privacy, and the sheriff’s failure to train deputies in constitutional procedures. We argued that the wrongful threat to take custody of Mr. and Mrs. Laraby’s children was coercion, a tactic often used by social workers to gain unlimited access to a family’s home despite the parents’ objections.
Shortly after HSLDA filed this lawsuit, the social workers responded with a motion to dismiss, stating that they had not violated the Laraby family’s rights in demanding entrance to their home and threatening arrest and removal of the children. Instead, the social workers argued that their actions were protected, claiming that social workers do not have to follow the 4th Amendment when conducting an investigation. They asked the court to dismiss the case before the Larabys were even able to present any evidence showing that their rights had been violated.
HSLDA responded to the motion, arguing that all social workers are bound by the 4th Amendment and citing HSLDA’s landmark case, Calabretta v. Floyd: “The principle that government officials cannot coerce entry into people’s houses without a search warrant or applicability of an established exception to the requirement of a search warrant is so well established that any reasonable officer would know it.”
At the same time, HSLDA responded to another motion to dismiss from the assistant attorney general who had spoken with Schmidt, which said that the Larabys had failed to state a claim at all. In our reply to this motion, HSLDA explained to the court that the assistant attorney general had indeed violated the rights of Mr. and Mrs. Laraby with her statement that the social workers would take custody of the children under Arizona law if they were not allowed into the house.
With the briefing on these motions now complete, we are awaiting a hearing date and a decision from the court as to whether we will be able to present the evidence that Mr. and Mrs. Laraby’s rights were violated.
http://www.hslda.org/courtreport/V23N2/V23N208.asp
Judge Slams Coercive Tactics Case: Loudermilk Family v. Administration for Children, Youth and Families
Judge Slams Coercive Tactics
Case: Loudermilk Family v. Administration for Children, Youth and Families
Filed: March 3, 2006
by Jim Mason
A federal court in Arizona has ruled that an unsupported threat to place children in custody, made to coerce cooperation with a social services investigation, violates the constitutional guarantee of family privacy and integrity.
As detailed in the March/April 2007 Court Report, social workers and sheriff’s deputies came to the home of Home School Legal Defense Association members John and Tiffany Loudermilk, demanding entry based on a six-week-old anonymous tip that the newly constructed home was unsafe for children. The Loudermilks declined consent, as was their right under the Fourth Amendment. After an escalating confrontation at the front door that lasted 40 minutes, the social workers, backed by no fewer than four deputies, threatened to take the Loudermilks’ children into custody and place them in foster care if the Loudermilks continued to deny them entry into their home. An assistant attorney general repeated this threat to HSLDA Attorney Thomas Schmidt, who was assisting the Loudermilks by phone during the confrontation.
Under this duress, Mr. and Mrs. Loudermilk allowed the social workers and sheriff’s deputies inside. Within five minutes, the social workers determined that the anonymous tip was false and left.
HSLDA filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of the Loudermilk family, alleging that the search violated the Fourth Amendment and that the unjustified threat to remove the children was a separate constitutional violation of the family’s Fourteenth Amendment right to privacy and family integrity. The social workers and assistant attorney general moved to dismiss the claims, arguing that neither the search nor the threat to remove the children violated the Loudermilks’ constitutional rights.
On September 27, 2007, the judge ruled in the Loudermilks’ favor, stating: “Defendants persisted in their threats to remove the children if Plaintiff Parents did not consent to the search, stating that [they] could arrest or handcuff the Parents in front of the children. Based on the allegations set forth in the Amended Complaint, viewed in Plaintiff’s favor, no reasonable official would have believed that his or her conduct was authorized by state or constitutional law.” With regard to the assistant attorney general, the court ruled that “Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that [the attorney] . . . by ‘threat’ exerted ‘coercive pressure’ on them to allow the search of their home so that their children would not be removed.”
The judge’s ruling allows the case to proceed to trial, and makes it clear that threatening to remove children to gain a parent’s cooperation is unconstitutional. HSLDA hopes that the ruling will change this common tactic used by investigative caseworkers across the country.
http://www.hslda.org/CourtReport/V24N1/V24N111.asp
Case: Loudermilk Family v. Administration for Children, Youth and Families
Filed: March 3, 2006
by Jim Mason
A federal court in Arizona has ruled that an unsupported threat to place children in custody, made to coerce cooperation with a social services investigation, violates the constitutional guarantee of family privacy and integrity.
As detailed in the March/April 2007 Court Report, social workers and sheriff’s deputies came to the home of Home School Legal Defense Association members John and Tiffany Loudermilk, demanding entry based on a six-week-old anonymous tip that the newly constructed home was unsafe for children. The Loudermilks declined consent, as was their right under the Fourth Amendment. After an escalating confrontation at the front door that lasted 40 minutes, the social workers, backed by no fewer than four deputies, threatened to take the Loudermilks’ children into custody and place them in foster care if the Loudermilks continued to deny them entry into their home. An assistant attorney general repeated this threat to HSLDA Attorney Thomas Schmidt, who was assisting the Loudermilks by phone during the confrontation.
Under this duress, Mr. and Mrs. Loudermilk allowed the social workers and sheriff’s deputies inside. Within five minutes, the social workers determined that the anonymous tip was false and left.
HSLDA filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of the Loudermilk family, alleging that the search violated the Fourth Amendment and that the unjustified threat to remove the children was a separate constitutional violation of the family’s Fourteenth Amendment right to privacy and family integrity. The social workers and assistant attorney general moved to dismiss the claims, arguing that neither the search nor the threat to remove the children violated the Loudermilks’ constitutional rights.
On September 27, 2007, the judge ruled in the Loudermilks’ favor, stating: “Defendants persisted in their threats to remove the children if Plaintiff Parents did not consent to the search, stating that [they] could arrest or handcuff the Parents in front of the children. Based on the allegations set forth in the Amended Complaint, viewed in Plaintiff’s favor, no reasonable official would have believed that his or her conduct was authorized by state or constitutional law.” With regard to the assistant attorney general, the court ruled that “Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged that [the attorney] . . . by ‘threat’ exerted ‘coercive pressure’ on them to allow the search of their home so that their children would not be removed.”
The judge’s ruling allows the case to proceed to trial, and makes it clear that threatening to remove children to gain a parent’s cooperation is unconstitutional. HSLDA hopes that the ruling will change this common tactic used by investigative caseworkers across the country.
http://www.hslda.org/CourtReport/V24N1/V24N111.asp
Judge Upholds Family’s Right to Day in Court
Arizona
April 1, 2010
Judge Upholds Family’s Right to Day in Court
In a federal lawsuit filed March 3, 2006, and reported earlier in the Home School Court Report, HSLDA sued two child protective service workers who showed up at the Loudermilk family’s door, accompanied by numerous sheriff’s deputies, two months after an anonymous tipster had reported the family.
After winning the first round almost three years ago, when the judge ruled in the family’s favor in refusing to dismiss the case, we have been fighting the state’s attempt to have the investigators declared immune from litigation. The state argued that the family had voluntarily allowed the investigators into the home—an assertion that ignores the fact the social worker had said the Loudermilk children would be removed for 72 hours if the parents did not permit entry!
On March 31, 2010, the judge denied the state’s motion for summary judgment, stating that “The disputed questions of fact on these [consent] issues … preclude summary judgment.” He ruled that a jury must determine whether the Loudermilks were coerced by the CPS investigators and sheriff’s deputies.
“We are grateful that the judge is taking this matter seriously and making sure that a family’s right to be together is protected,” said Darren Jones, staff attorney with HSLDA. “The Loudermilks are doing a service to all families by their willingness to stand up against unjustified state intervention, not just at the initial contact, but for the four years this case has been going on.”
http://www.hslda.org/hs/state/az/201004010.asp
April 1, 2010
Judge Upholds Family’s Right to Day in Court
In a federal lawsuit filed March 3, 2006, and reported earlier in the Home School Court Report, HSLDA sued two child protective service workers who showed up at the Loudermilk family’s door, accompanied by numerous sheriff’s deputies, two months after an anonymous tipster had reported the family.
After winning the first round almost three years ago, when the judge ruled in the family’s favor in refusing to dismiss the case, we have been fighting the state’s attempt to have the investigators declared immune from litigation. The state argued that the family had voluntarily allowed the investigators into the home—an assertion that ignores the fact the social worker had said the Loudermilk children would be removed for 72 hours if the parents did not permit entry!
On March 31, 2010, the judge denied the state’s motion for summary judgment, stating that “The disputed questions of fact on these [consent] issues … preclude summary judgment.” He ruled that a jury must determine whether the Loudermilks were coerced by the CPS investigators and sheriff’s deputies.
“We are grateful that the judge is taking this matter seriously and making sure that a family’s right to be together is protected,” said Darren Jones, staff attorney with HSLDA. “The Loudermilks are doing a service to all families by their willingness to stand up against unjustified state intervention, not just at the initial contact, but for the four years this case has been going on.”
http://www.hslda.org/hs/state/az/201004010.asp
Intl Planned Parenthood Report: 140M Income, More United Nations Money
Intl Planned Parenthood Report: 140M Income, More United Nations Money
by Samantha Singson
June 3, 2010
LifeNews.com Note: Samantha Singson writes for the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute. This article originally appeared in the pro-life group's Friday Fax publication and is used with permission.
New York, NY (LifeNews.com/CFAM) -- The abortion giant, the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), has just released its latest financial statement. The report boasts of increased spending on youth programs and a significant increase in funding from the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), with an overall 20% boost in income as compared to 2008.
In 2009, IPPF raked in a staggering $140 million, the bulk of which came from government grants. Sweden, the United Kingdom and Japan top the organization's list of government donors, accounting for 40% of grant money received.
Grants from foundations and multilateral organizations also grew from the previous year. UNFPA, while it is not one of the organization's largest donors, nearly doubled its contribution to IPPF last year from $783,000 to $1.36 million. The World Health Organization, apparently a new IPPF donor, contributed $15,000 in 2009.
IPPF spent a significant portion of its income on an increased focused on youth, to the tune of $9.9 million dollars more than the previous year. According to the report, a central theme of IPPF’s mission is the "provision of high quality and accessible youth friendly sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services."
As part of their strategic framework, the IPPF report lists the five priority areas of focus as “Adolescents/Young People, HIV/AIDS, Abortion, Access, and Advocacy.” The term adolescent commonly refers to a child between ages 10 and 14. As part of their vision, IPPF is working to “develop a guide for young people to implement the IPPF Declaration of Sexual Rights,” and boasts that “IPPF youth programs now more strongly promote sexual rights in all their strategies, activities and services for and by young people.”
IPPF will also launch a new global initiative entitled "Girls Decide; stand up for sex and pregnancy." Aimed at young women, this initiative will focus on "preventing unintended teenage pregnancy, and providing safe abortion and safe motherhood services."
IPPF reported increased activity across the board. According to the latest figures, while spending on "abortion activity" was down almost $5 million last year, IPPF and its member associations reported providing 1.1 million "abortion-related services," almost five times greater than in 2005. IPPF also doubled the number of "contraceptive services" in the same time period.
The organization will next take aim at the UN in September at the high level review on the Millennium Development Goals where it will continue to push the controversial target on "universal access to reproductive health by 2015" and promoting young people’s, "and especially girls’ and young women’s, sexual and reproductive health rights; and increasing recognition and action around sexual rights."
As reported previously by the Friday Fax, IPPF has been partnering with youth organizations like the World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts and the Young Women’s Christian Association to help to promote family planning and “adolescent reproductive health.”
IPPF recently hosted the 4th Africa Conference on Sexual Health and Rights, whose plenary speakers included several high-level UN agency officials.
http://www.lifenews.com/int1566.html
by Samantha Singson
June 3, 2010
LifeNews.com Note: Samantha Singson writes for the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute. This article originally appeared in the pro-life group's Friday Fax publication and is used with permission.
New York, NY (LifeNews.com/CFAM) -- The abortion giant, the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), has just released its latest financial statement. The report boasts of increased spending on youth programs and a significant increase in funding from the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), with an overall 20% boost in income as compared to 2008.
In 2009, IPPF raked in a staggering $140 million, the bulk of which came from government grants. Sweden, the United Kingdom and Japan top the organization's list of government donors, accounting for 40% of grant money received.
Grants from foundations and multilateral organizations also grew from the previous year. UNFPA, while it is not one of the organization's largest donors, nearly doubled its contribution to IPPF last year from $783,000 to $1.36 million. The World Health Organization, apparently a new IPPF donor, contributed $15,000 in 2009.
IPPF spent a significant portion of its income on an increased focused on youth, to the tune of $9.9 million dollars more than the previous year. According to the report, a central theme of IPPF’s mission is the "provision of high quality and accessible youth friendly sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services."
As part of their strategic framework, the IPPF report lists the five priority areas of focus as “Adolescents/Young People, HIV/AIDS, Abortion, Access, and Advocacy.” The term adolescent commonly refers to a child between ages 10 and 14. As part of their vision, IPPF is working to “develop a guide for young people to implement the IPPF Declaration of Sexual Rights,” and boasts that “IPPF youth programs now more strongly promote sexual rights in all their strategies, activities and services for and by young people.”
IPPF will also launch a new global initiative entitled "Girls Decide; stand up for sex and pregnancy." Aimed at young women, this initiative will focus on "preventing unintended teenage pregnancy, and providing safe abortion and safe motherhood services."
IPPF reported increased activity across the board. According to the latest figures, while spending on "abortion activity" was down almost $5 million last year, IPPF and its member associations reported providing 1.1 million "abortion-related services," almost five times greater than in 2005. IPPF also doubled the number of "contraceptive services" in the same time period.
The organization will next take aim at the UN in September at the high level review on the Millennium Development Goals where it will continue to push the controversial target on "universal access to reproductive health by 2015" and promoting young people’s, "and especially girls’ and young women’s, sexual and reproductive health rights; and increasing recognition and action around sexual rights."
As reported previously by the Friday Fax, IPPF has been partnering with youth organizations like the World Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts and the Young Women’s Christian Association to help to promote family planning and “adolescent reproductive health.”
IPPF recently hosted the 4th Africa Conference on Sexual Health and Rights, whose plenary speakers included several high-level UN agency officials.
http://www.lifenews.com/int1566.html
CNN Hides Poll Showing Strong Opposition to Pro-Abortion Health Care Law
CNN Hides Poll Showing Strong Opposition to Pro-Abortion Health Care Law
by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
June 3, 2010
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- CNN is coming under fire for holding back the results of a poll it conducted weeks ago showing strong opposition to the pro-abortion health care law President Barack Obama signed. Not only does the poll show opposition, but had CNN polled likely voters opposition would have been higher.
The survey of over 1,000 adults nationally was conducted two weeks ago, but CNN withheld the health care results until Wednesday.
It released the results of other questions a week ago and appeared to hold the information so it could be released with questions showing more positive polling numbers for Obama, whose approval ratings are at the bottom of the barrel.
According to CNN's poll just 43 percent of Americans are in favor of the health care scheme Obama signed that includes massive abortion funding and rationing concerns. A much higher 56 percent of Americans oppose it, yielding a -13 percent rating.
Ed Morrissey, a conservative writer at HotAir, said a big "question is why CNN chose to hold off the release of this question for almost two weeks."
"A week ago, the news network released data on the immigration law from the same survey. The older the data, the less relevant it is," he explained. "CNN appears to have wanted to pair it with results that showed support for the Obama administration — in this case, on financial regulation reform."
Morrissey notices CNN doesn't mention the health care results until the eighth paragraph of its release of the polling data.
"CNN still hasn't released the entire survey, showing the sampling demographics and especially the partisan split in the sample. After almost two weeks, one has to wonder why," he writes.
Meanwhile, Morrissey also complains that CNN chose to survey adults in general -- instead of registered or likely voters, which would have provided better results about the feel of the American electorate heading into the November elections.
"A poll of adults is the least predictive sample for elections. Polling likely voters gives politicians a much more predictive look at voting behavior than registered voters, and a general adult population sample is relatively worthless when other pollsters provide the more predictive sampling techniques," the conservative writer said.
As such, Morrissey says Obama and his pro-abortion allies should be worried because the 56-43 percent disapproval of pro-abortion health care is likely worse when it comes to voters who will show up in November.
"In fact, general-population polls tend to skew too far toward liberal policies and politicians — so this isn't good news at all for Obama and his health-care plan supporters," he concluded.
http://www.lifenews.com/nat6393.html
by Steven Ertelt
LifeNews.com Editor
June 3, 2010
Washington, DC (LifeNews.com) -- CNN is coming under fire for holding back the results of a poll it conducted weeks ago showing strong opposition to the pro-abortion health care law President Barack Obama signed. Not only does the poll show opposition, but had CNN polled likely voters opposition would have been higher.
The survey of over 1,000 adults nationally was conducted two weeks ago, but CNN withheld the health care results until Wednesday.
It released the results of other questions a week ago and appeared to hold the information so it could be released with questions showing more positive polling numbers for Obama, whose approval ratings are at the bottom of the barrel.
According to CNN's poll just 43 percent of Americans are in favor of the health care scheme Obama signed that includes massive abortion funding and rationing concerns. A much higher 56 percent of Americans oppose it, yielding a -13 percent rating.
Ed Morrissey, a conservative writer at HotAir, said a big "question is why CNN chose to hold off the release of this question for almost two weeks."
"A week ago, the news network released data on the immigration law from the same survey. The older the data, the less relevant it is," he explained. "CNN appears to have wanted to pair it with results that showed support for the Obama administration — in this case, on financial regulation reform."
Morrissey notices CNN doesn't mention the health care results until the eighth paragraph of its release of the polling data.
"CNN still hasn't released the entire survey, showing the sampling demographics and especially the partisan split in the sample. After almost two weeks, one has to wonder why," he writes.
Meanwhile, Morrissey also complains that CNN chose to survey adults in general -- instead of registered or likely voters, which would have provided better results about the feel of the American electorate heading into the November elections.
"A poll of adults is the least predictive sample for elections. Polling likely voters gives politicians a much more predictive look at voting behavior than registered voters, and a general adult population sample is relatively worthless when other pollsters provide the more predictive sampling techniques," the conservative writer said.
As such, Morrissey says Obama and his pro-abortion allies should be worried because the 56-43 percent disapproval of pro-abortion health care is likely worse when it comes to voters who will show up in November.
"In fact, general-population polls tend to skew too far toward liberal policies and politicians — so this isn't good news at all for Obama and his health-care plan supporters," he concluded.
http://www.lifenews.com/nat6393.html
UN Asks Researchers to Hide Maternal Mortality Numbers Discounting Abortion
UN Asks Researchers to Hide Maternal Mortality Numbers Discounting Abortion
by Susan Yoshihara
June 3, 2010
LifeNews.com Note: Susan Yoshihara, Ph.D. writes for the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute. This article originally appeared in the pro-life group's Friday Fax publication and is used with permission.
New York, NY (LifeNews.com/CFAM) -- At a meeting on maternal and child health research in Washington last week, United Nations (UN) staff and abortion advocates told scientists they should “harmonize” their findings or discuss them “in a locked room” so that the press could not report maternal death numbers that conflicted with the ones they use to lobby policy makers and major international donors.
Ann Starrs, co-founder and president of the abortion advocacy organization Family Care International (FCI), told a roomful of scientists to “lock all the academics in a black box and have them come out with a consensus set of numbers” or “at least hide that there is disagreement” and “infighting.” FCI is the founder of Women Deliver, which is hosting a massive UN-backed reproductive rights fundraising conference in Washington next week.
The comments were made at a symposium hosted by the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) and the British medical journal, The Lancet.
The journal recently published an IHME study, which refuted the UN-sanctioned but highly controversial figure of 500,000 annual maternal deaths, finding the number to have declined to 342,900 including 60,000 deaths from HIV/AIDS.
Abortion advocates and some UN staff have been using the higher figure for two decades to promote a version of maternal and child health policy that includes abortion.
Tessa Wardlow, Chief of Statistics and Monitoring at UNICEF, shared Starrs’ concerns, saying that there is a “system in place for harmonizing estimates for child mortality and I would invite the IHME to participate in that process and contribute to the methodological dialogue.”
Dr. Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, pushed back saying researchers should not come to a “consensus” or “harmonize” but rather have a “scientific summary view of what the totality of available evidence should be.” He argued that this should not be centered at the UN, but housed “independently within the scientific community.” Horton responded to Starr’s objection by saying, “Unless we subject numbers to that peer-review process, I think we are accepting second-class data, and that applies wherever the numbers come from.”
When he published the IHME study, Horton told the press that he withstood significant pressure from activists not to release it until after major global funding conferences concluded this year, such as the G8 summit, UN General Assembly, and next week’s Women Deliver conference.
Highlighting the tension in the room between the researchers’ desire for openness and activists call for secrecy, Horton said, “For God’s sake, your country, the United States, was founded on the press! One of the best documents in the history of humankind is the Federalist Papers; if it wasn't for the press, we wouldn't have a United States! So learn to love the press.”
The confrontation between the maternal health advocates and researchers may be behind the decision by Women Deliver conference organizers to re-write their schedule to include Dr. Horton in the agenda for next week’s conference.
http://www.lifenews.com/int1565.html
by Susan Yoshihara
June 3, 2010
LifeNews.com Note: Susan Yoshihara, Ph.D. writes for the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute. This article originally appeared in the pro-life group's Friday Fax publication and is used with permission.
New York, NY (LifeNews.com/CFAM) -- At a meeting on maternal and child health research in Washington last week, United Nations (UN) staff and abortion advocates told scientists they should “harmonize” their findings or discuss them “in a locked room” so that the press could not report maternal death numbers that conflicted with the ones they use to lobby policy makers and major international donors.
Ann Starrs, co-founder and president of the abortion advocacy organization Family Care International (FCI), told a roomful of scientists to “lock all the academics in a black box and have them come out with a consensus set of numbers” or “at least hide that there is disagreement” and “infighting.” FCI is the founder of Women Deliver, which is hosting a massive UN-backed reproductive rights fundraising conference in Washington next week.
The comments were made at a symposium hosted by the University of Washington’s Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) and the British medical journal, The Lancet.
The journal recently published an IHME study, which refuted the UN-sanctioned but highly controversial figure of 500,000 annual maternal deaths, finding the number to have declined to 342,900 including 60,000 deaths from HIV/AIDS.
Abortion advocates and some UN staff have been using the higher figure for two decades to promote a version of maternal and child health policy that includes abortion.
Tessa Wardlow, Chief of Statistics and Monitoring at UNICEF, shared Starrs’ concerns, saying that there is a “system in place for harmonizing estimates for child mortality and I would invite the IHME to participate in that process and contribute to the methodological dialogue.”
Dr. Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, pushed back saying researchers should not come to a “consensus” or “harmonize” but rather have a “scientific summary view of what the totality of available evidence should be.” He argued that this should not be centered at the UN, but housed “independently within the scientific community.” Horton responded to Starr’s objection by saying, “Unless we subject numbers to that peer-review process, I think we are accepting second-class data, and that applies wherever the numbers come from.”
When he published the IHME study, Horton told the press that he withstood significant pressure from activists not to release it until after major global funding conferences concluded this year, such as the G8 summit, UN General Assembly, and next week’s Women Deliver conference.
Highlighting the tension in the room between the researchers’ desire for openness and activists call for secrecy, Horton said, “For God’s sake, your country, the United States, was founded on the press! One of the best documents in the history of humankind is the Federalist Papers; if it wasn't for the press, we wouldn't have a United States! So learn to love the press.”
The confrontation between the maternal health advocates and researchers may be behind the decision by Women Deliver conference organizers to re-write their schedule to include Dr. Horton in the agenda for next week’s conference.
http://www.lifenews.com/int1565.html
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)