Kathleen Sebelius apparently doesn’t think so- at least, not when the procedure is a late-term abortion.  “Women’s rights” indeed!  This is our new Secretary of Health and Human Services.  FML.

Contrary to the claims of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), China’s coercive one-child policy is alive and well in the counties in which their organization operates.

On March 7th-11th of this year, the Population Research Institute (PRI) launched an on-the-ground investigation in 3 UNFPA “model counties.”  These are counties where the UNFPA makes the claim that their efforts have “removed birth targets and quotas and introduced a quality-of-care approach.”

PRI’s investigative team found that the one-child policy was not relaxed in the counties it investigated and, in some ways, the coercive measures undertaken by the government are now worse than ever.

According to PRI’s Colin Mason, who headed up the investigation, “when the actual conditions on the ground are observed, the UNFPA’s claim that it ‘played a catalytic role in introducing a voluntary reproductive health approach in China’ is patently absurd.  The policy is just as coercive in these areas as anywhere else.”

“Crippling fines, intense pressure to be sterilized, the flagrant display of quota information, and even the seizure of ‘illegal children’ by the government are commonplace,” Mason continued.  “The UNFPA insists that its presence has led to the removal of these measures.  It has not.”

“We at PRI ask the President to take a more critical approach in considering funding for the UNFPA,” said Steven Mosher, PRI’s president.  “United States law clearly dictates that tax dollars cannot fund forced abortion or coercive measures overseas.  The President has shown no consideration for these laws, nor has he expressed any concern over the UNFPA’s clear and consistent involvement in human rights abuses.

We stand ready to provide evidence to the Obama Administration regarding UNFPA’s involvement in China’s coercive policy.”

Option #1: You spend the full work day searching and applying for jobs for which you qualify, and are paid the minimum wage until you land one.

Option #2: The government will pay for you to go to college, but they pick your major based on what skills are in demand (i.e. teaching, computer science).  A job will be open for you upon graduation.

Option #3: Military service or Peace Corps.

So, here it is, the big pronouncement: I’m going to UVA law! I just submitted my housing application

In spite of that, it wasn’t enough to sway me from UVA.  I can’t articulate an exact reason why.  UVA just has so many opportunities, and I feel that the loan debt will be worth it.  I haven’t made the final decision yet.  Tomorrow I’m going to check out George Washington, and after that I’ll take a few days just to let it marinate.

Update: Duke Law has contacted me with the news that I’m on the waitlist.  I’m just going to pass on that.  There’s no sense changing my plans mid-summer when I can go somewhere just as good on regular admission.

That’s not necessarily a bad thing.  At this point, UVA is still my top choice.  I do worry that maybe the fact that I saw UVA first has influenced me too much.  Dad relates that when he and Mom were looking for a house many years ago, they kept comparing everything the realtor showed them to that old fixer-upper they’d seen first- which they ended up buying.  UVA is far from being a fixer-upper, of course.  Nothing’s in stone, though.  Tomorrow I’m going to visit William and Mary, which is also high on my list, and they’re the only school to offer me a scholarship.  I’ll keep you posted.

As for why I decided not to go: I’m fine with small towns, but Lexington is tiny.  There is seriously nothing to do.  (The tour guides put a positive spin on it.  “There are no distractions.” “We just got our third bar, so we can sort of bar-hop now.”)   Also, there are few journals, and no child advocacy activities at all.  Not even an extracurricular student group.  I couldn’t help but compare it to UVA, which has an active student org and a clinic devoted to children.  Most important, I just didn’t have that gut feeling of “Oh, I can totally see myself here.”

Everyone was so friendly.  I was really happy to see that the stereotypical cut-throat environment was completely absent.  They play as hard as they work.  Softball is very popular, with each section having its own team.  Student organizations are very active, and I’m especially excited that I can become a court-appointed special advocate (CASA) through the child advocacy club.

Academically, it’s undoubtedly the best school I’ve gotten into.  More than 15 clinics are offered, including a Supreme Court litigation clinic in which students file petitions for certiorari (three of which have actually been granted) and an innocence project.   I met the head of the family resource clinic, who shared how students restored food stamp coverage to a mentally ill client.  In another session, I asked a con law professor if there was a particular judicial philosophy popular among the faculty (read: please warn me about the liberal sissies and right-wing nutjobs).  He said that there’s a variety of opinions, but that the professors will push you in so many directions that you’ll think they don’t have a judicial philosophy at all.  Good answer.

They had a lot to say about clerkships, and the private recruiting is also strong.  Tuition is steep, but I can take out a student loan.  They offer some loan forgiveness if I go into public service work.

Dad and I going to look at housing tomorrow.  Next stop: Washington and Lee.  I’ll keep you posted!