February 9, 2012


Catholic TV network sues US over birth control mandate

The measure would require religious-based employers to provide insurance coverage for birth control that church teaching forbids. NBC's Kelly O'Donnell reports.
The Obama administration's rule requiring religious employers to cover birth control services is going to court after a Catholic TV network sued Thursday to block the mandate.
The order, which the Department of Health and Human Services finalized last month, eliminates a federal exemption that allows religion-affiliated institutions to opt out of the law requiring employers to cover contraceptive services in their health insurance packages. 
Churches themselves would remain exempt, but when it goes into effect Aug. 1, the rule will require church-affiliated universities, hospitals, clubs and the like to cover "all [federally] approved forms of contraception."
The Roman Catholic Church bans artificial methods of contraception, and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has fiercely opposed the new rule, which it said "forces religious employers and schools to sponsor and subsidize coverage that violates their beliefs" and "forces religious employees and students to purchase coverage that violates their beliefs."
Thursday, EWTN — a Catholic television network carried on thousands of cable systems in more than 100 countries — filed suit in U.S. District Court in Birmingham, Ala.
"We had no other option," said Michael Warsaw, president of EWTN, which stands for Eternal Word Television Network. 
"Under the HHS mandate, EWTN is being forced by the government to make a choice: Either we provide employees coverage for contraception, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs and violate our conscience or offer our employees and their families no health insurance coverage at all. Neither of those choices is acceptable," Warsaw said.
On at least one point, Warsaw is wrong, said Erin Shields, HHS's top spokeswoman.
While the rule covers "emergency contraceptives" like Plan B and Next Choice, it doesn't cover drugs that cause abortion, Shields told NBC station WYFF of Greenville, S.C.
The HHS rule is also being challenged in Congress, where Sens. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., and Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., have sponsored legislation that would restore the option for religious organizations to opt out of coverage.
"This is about whether the government of the United States should have the power to go in and tell a faith-based organization they have to pay for something that they teach their members shouldn't be doing. It`s that simple," Rubio said. 
Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Marco Rubio, R-Fla., detail their bill to let organizations opt out of the contraception rule.
But advocates say the measure is an advance for women's reproductive rights, pointing to a study by the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit group that studies sexual and reproductive issues, which reported last year that nearly all sexually active U.S. women had used birth control. That includes 98 percent of Catholic women, the study reported.
"I am dumbfounded that in the year 2012, we still are fighting about birth control," said Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y. "Our opponents will look for any excuse to impose their ideology on women's rights."
David Axelrod, a senior adviser to President Barack Obama, said the administration is willing to work with Catholic universities and hospitals to find a way for them to cover contraception without abridging "anyone's religious freedom," NBCLatino reported.
So far, the administration hasn't said how it plans to do that.

February 8, 2012


Gary Bauer

The Plague of Planned Parenthood

by Gary Bauer
03/21/2008
We all mourn the deaths in Iraq, now approaching 4,000th Americans, in the five-year-old fight for freedom and justice in that nation.  But sadly we seem oblivious to the fact that we lose approximately the same number of our fellow citizens everyday to abortion. The plague of abortion takes one American life about every 30 seconds.  But here’s a little good news on this Good Friday:  Soon Congress will have the chance to limit severely the ability of this plague’s principal purveyor, Planned Parenthood, to force you to pay for its deadly deeds.

Planned Parenthood spends millions annually to maintain its reputation as the foremost champion of “responsible” sexuality and child-bearing, with, among other things, ads featuring hip, healthy-looking young people and cute, cuddly babies.

But Planned Parenthood’s record refutes its well-honed reputation.  In recent years, its affiliates have ignored numerous cases of statutory rape and sexual abuse of minors.  Last fall, Planned Parenthood of Kansas and Mid-Missouri was handed a 107-count grand jury indictment, with allegations ranging from illegal late-term abortions, “making false information” and “unlawful failure to maintain records,” among other violations.  In California, meanwhile, several Planned Parenthood affiliates are under investigation for overcharging the state hundreds of millions (I repeat:  hundreds of millions) of dollars on birth control.

Perhaps worst of all, last summer, The Advocate, a magazine published by students at UCLA, conducted an investigation in which an actor posing as a donor called Planned Parenthood centers in seven states and asked if his donation could be used for the abortion of black babies, or as he said,  “to lower the number of black people.”  All seven Planned Parenthood centers agreed to process the donations, and none seemed concerned at the racist motivations behind the donations.

In fact, during one call, the vice president of marketing for Planned Parenthood of Idaho responded “understandable, understandable” when the caller said, “The less black kids out there the better.”  The Advocate later published the transcript of the conversation, which so horrified UCLA students that many are calling for the university to cut all ties with the abortion business.  Though Planned Parenthood apologized for this blatant racism, calling it a “serious mistake,” this episode highlighted something Planned Parenthood would perhaps like to forget:  its racist origins.

Planned Parenthood’s founder, Margaret Sanger, is revered by many on the Left as “the mother of the birth control movement.”  But she was also a devout eugenicist who believed America needed to “cut down on the rapid multiplication of the unfit and undesirable at home.”  One of Planned Parenthood’s earliest initiatives, called the Negro Project, was designed to control the birth of minority babies, or “human weeds,” as Sanger called them.   She once wrote in a letter, “We don’t want the word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population…”

Today, Planned Parenthood has learned to distance itself from its racist founder with a carefulness that even Barack Obama can appreciate.  But the fact remains that blacks are disproportionately affected by Planned Parenthood’s “services.”

Four out of every five Planned Parenthood centers are located in minority neighborhoods, and about one-third of its abortions are performed on blacks, who constitute just 13 percent of the population.  Overall, nearly as many black babies are aborted as are born.
Planned Parenthood is the behemoth of the “reproductive rights” industry.  In 2006, it raked in record amounts of taxpayer-funded subsidies (over $305 million) and record high revenues ($900 million).  And while Planned Parenthood’s media campaigns typically focus on its other services -- contraceptives, STD testing, cancer screening and prevention etc.-- as Charlotte Allen has noted in the Weekly Standard, its abortion services “accounted for at least one-third, probably more, of Planned Parenthood’s $345.1 million in clinic income reported the last fiscal year.”  In 2005, Planned Parenthood performed more than 260,000 abortions in its 287 chemical and surgical abortion sites (out of 860 total centers) across the country.

Planned Parenthood’s revenue gains are curious given that its own research organization, the Alan Guttmacher Institute, recently released data showing a 25 percent decline in number of abortions since 1990, to the lowest point in 30 years.  Clearly, with the help of lavish government subsidies, Planned Parenthood is increasing its own market share.  Which explains why Planned Parenthood recently embarked upon the “One Million Strong” campaign, during which its political arm will spend $10 million to try to persuade one million people to vote for pro-abortion candidates in 2008.

But there’s hope for pro-lifers.  Congressman Mike Pence (R-Ind.) has proposed an amendment to the appropriations legislation that funds the Departments of Labor and Health and Human Services to bar federal funding for Planned Parenthood.  H.R. 4133 prohibits any organization that promotes or practices abortions from receiving federal funds.

I understand that the last time Pence offered this amendment it was met with stern opposition not just by House Democrats but also by some Republican colleagues who seem to have fallen for Planned Parenthood’s savvy marketing strategies. Congressman Pence plans to bring his amendment to the House floor for a vote this summer.   I hope the Pence Amendment gets a vote.  Our elected representatives need to be on record as either supporting or opposing giving hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to a racist, deceptive and corrupt organization that believes pregnancy is a disease for which abortion is the cure. 

February 7, 2012


Are there really more people alive now than have ever lived?

 Population Reference Bureau in Washington DC, and they estimate that about 107 billion people have been born since humanity first emerged

There's a popular claim that the seven billion people alive today outnumber all other humans who have ever lived. It's meant as a stark reminder of humanity's population explosion over the last 200 years...but is it true, or total crap?
This idea has gained a bit of new currency with the recent UN announcement that humanity has crossed the seven billion mark just thirteen years after we reach six billion and 25 years after we reached five billion. Considering humanity only crossed the billion person threshold around 1800 and the two billion mark in 1923, it doesn't seem totally impossible that all the people alive today might really outnumber their deceased counterparts going back to the very beginnings of humanity.
Not totally impossible...but also not correct, either. BBC News spoke to the Population Reference Bureau in Washington DC, and they estimate that about 107 billion people have been born since humanity first emerged, which they set 50,000 years ago. (That sounds like an underestimate, considering the current scientific consensus favors a date more around 200,000 years ago, but the tiny population means that even an extra 150,000 years would only tack on another few million or so.)
The key to this relatively high figure is the amount of births per thousand people per year, which today is about 23. Throughout much of history, lots of people died before reaching reproductive age, which meant many more children had to be born to keep the population growing. The Population Reference Bureau says the figure in the Middle Ages was probably at least 80 births per thousand, and it might have been significantly higher than that.
The BBC also points out that these figures actually vindicate the most famous population estimate in science fiction history - that of Arthur C. Clarke in the beginning of the novel version of 2001: A Space Odyssey, where he observes, "Behind every man now alive stand 30 ghosts, for that is the ratio by which the dead outnumber the living." While the 2012 version of that statement would have to refer to 70 ghosts, Clarke was absolutely correct when he wrote it back in 1968, when the population was 3.5 billion - and the ratio of dead to living was about 29 to 1.
All this probably means that the living will never outnumber the dead, unless humanity's population explodes by several orders of magnitude beyond what we've already experienced. For what it's worth, one path to this might involve this estimate from the UN Population Division, which notes that, should 1995 fertility rates hold constant, the world population in 2150 would be 256 billion - not that that was meant as a serious estimate.
Our one planet almost certainly couldn't actually hold 107 billion people all at once, so the only real way to prove this old chestnut true would probably be to take to the stars and colonizing other worlds...and then start breeding like rabbits, because what the hell else are you going to do once you've colonized an alien planet?

“The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that more than 2 trillion barrels of untouched crude is still locked in the ground, enough to last more than 70 years at current rates of consumption.” Quote from the Bloomberg article

Peak Oil Scare Fades as Shale, Deepwater Wells Gush Crude

China Pipeline Explosion
Containers filled with oil cleaned up from an oil spill site are seen at the Nantuo Fishing Harbor in Dalian in northeast China's Liaoning province on Sunday, July 25, 2010. China continues oil spill cleanup operations after two pipelines exploded on July 16 and spewed crude oil into the sea at Dalian's Xingang Harbor. Photograph by A. Lang/Color China Photo/AP Images
When Daniel Lacalle, in his early 20s, took a job with Spanish oil company Repsol YPF SA in 1991, friends chided him for entering a field with no future. "They all said, 'Why do you want to do that? Don't you know only 20 years of oil is left in the whole world?'" he recalls.
Two decades and four energy crises later, the U.S. Geological Surveyestimates that more than 2 trillion barrels of untouched crude is still locked in the ground, enough to last more than 70 years at current rates of consumption. Technological advances enable companies to image, drill and shatter subterranean rocks with precision never dreamed of in decades past. Trillions of barrels of petroleum previously thought unreachable or nonexistent have been identified, mapped and in many cases bought and sold during the past half decade, from the boggy wastes of northern Alberta, to the arid mountain valleys of Patagonia, to Africa's Rift Valley.
"Betting against human ingenuity has been a mistake," says Lacalle, who today helps oversee $1.3 billion as a portfolio manager at Ecofin Ltd. in London. "The resource base is absolutely enormous, so much so that we will not run out of oil in my lifetime, your lifetime, our children's lifetimes or our grandchildren's lifetimes."
Worries about energy supplies have abated, several years after the 9/11 attacks and Iraq warmade them central to daily chatter about the U.S. economy and homeland security. In that environment, the late Texas investment banker Matt Simmons was able to jolt traders, policy makers and media with a prediction that global oil production was on the cusp of a death spiral. Goldman Sachs warned that crude price were headed for a $200-a-barrel "superspike." Concerns about Peak Oil dominated environmental conferences, academic debates about natural resources, and energy-policy discussions for much of the 2000s. They still persist despite dramatic transformation within the industry.
What changed? Engineers at Brazil's state-controlled oil company, Petrobras, figured out how to bore holes in mountains of salt beneath the ocean floor that concealed vast reservoirs of crude. In the Gulf of Mexico, prospectors such as Chevron and Shell were doing similar things hundreds of miles offshore, farther out and in deeper water than anyone envisioned just a few years earlier. Ultra-deepwater drilling vessels that cost $750 million and can remain at sea for months at a time enabled explorers to burrow 5 miles into the Earth's crust to strike their pay zones.
Small-time explorers such as Kosmos Energy Ltd. reckoned that since the South American and African landmasses had once been conjoined, Africa's Atlantic coast probably held oil depositssimilar to those off Brazil. About that same time, a Texas oil man named George Mitchell was perfecting a 40-year-old technique known as hydraulic fracturing that would trigger a renaissance in U.S. oil and natural-gas production.
The Peak Oil hypothesis got its start in 1956 when M. King Hubbert, then a Shell Oil geologist, suggested that all oil fields were subject to peaks followed by inevitable, irreversible and predictable declines. U.S. oil production did peak in 1970. Hubbert’s prediction turned out to be correct, though not entirely for the right reasons, and he gained widespread renown, particularly among environmentalists, whom he gave a data point about nature’s limits just when they were looking for one.
Hubbert’s ideas gained currency as oil prices tripled from 2000 to 2007 and producers struggled to keep pace with rising demand in China and India. The geologist’s work leapt from history to current events through media and books, including "Hubbert’s Peak" in 2002 by Kenneth Deffeyes, a Princeton University geologist who worked with Hubbert. The word “peak” became commonly applied to many strategic natural resources in media and on the Internet, often without rigorous consideration of whether it was technically applicable.
Another of Hubbert's most ardent apostles, the banker Simmons, expanded on the theme in his 2005 book, "Twilight in the Desert: The Coming Saudi Oil Shock & the World Economy." The crux of Simmons's particular variant of the Peak Oil argument was that Saudi Arabia, the world's biggest exporter of crude and home to the largest pool of reserves, was less than transparent about its capacity to grow or even sustain production. It was only a matter of a few short years, Simmons argued, before the Saudi juggernaut would falter, tipping the world oil market into an apocalyptic frenzy of panic buying, shriveling supplies and skyrocketing prices.
Simmons's ideas really began to resonate in 2007 as crude prices marched steadily higher, touching a record $147.27 a barrel in July 2008, and investors, analysts, policy makers and consumers struggled to understand why, says David Arseneau, senior economist with the Federal Reserve Board of Governors in Washington. "We were experiencing price spikes, and people had a hard time dealing with it," Arseneau says. "That's where the Peak Oil scare came from -- it was trotted out as an explanation."
Simmons' fellow-travelers included Colin Campbell, founder of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil & Gas, and Jeffrey Rubin, who during his tenure as chief economist at CIBC World Markets Inc. had been warning clients of an imminent peak in world crude output since October 2000. In February 2007, the U.S. Government Accountability Office, the research arm of Congress, issued an 82-page report urging the Energy Secretary to "prioritize federal agency efforts to reduce uncertainty about the likely timing of a peak and to advise Congress on how best to mitigate consequences." The International Energy Agency, the Paris-based adviser to 28 oil-importing nations, warned in November 2008 of an "oil-supply crunch" by 2015.

Critics Weigh In

The theory was castigated as "misleading" and based on incomplete data in a November 2006 study by Cambridge Energy Research Associates, a consulting firm founded by Daniel Yergin, author of "The Prize," the Pulitzer Prize-winning history of the oil industry. The study forecast a 50 percent increase in global crude output by 2030, to 130 million barrels a day. Six years later, production has risen nearly 5 percent, just shy of 90 million barrels a day, according to IEA figures. CERA now is a unit of IHS Inc.
Oil prices dipped last week, but diplomatic tensions over Iran’s nuclear program have pushed them 7 percent higher than a year ago. Even with crude down 50 percent from the record high set in the summer of 2008, producers have plenty of financial incentive to continue searching for reserves in such places as the Bakken shale beneath North Dakota and the deepwater Gulf of Mexico. Harvesting such fields costs $50 to $60 per barrel, says Guy Caruso, the former head of the Energy Department's statistical arm and now a senior associate at the Center for Strategic International Studies.
As Peak Oil debates recede, petroleum will remain an object of both passion and logical debate for reasons that have less to do with production histories and reserve estimates than with geopolitics and geophysics: How does the U.S. rely less on unfriendly oil-producing nations? How much oil can we save as more cars run on both gas and electricity? How can we reconcile fossil fuel combustion with the risks of climate change?