“The people of D.C. have a right to vote on the definition of marriage,” said Senior Legal Counsel Austin R. Nimocks of the Alliance Defense Fund, a group that helps defend religious liberty through legal action, whose attorneys are representing Jackson along with attorneys from Stand4MarriageDC.

He continued: “The D.C. Charter guarantees the people the right to vote, and the council cannot amend the charter for any reason, much less to deny citizens the right to vote. ADF will defend the right of the residents of our nation’s capitol to participate in a legitimate democratic process in the district.”

On September 1st, Stand4MarriageDC, headed by Jackson, had filed a petition that would allow DC citizens to vote on the following proposition: “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid and recognized in the District of Columbia.”  Last Tuesday, however, the two-person D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics (DCBOEE) ruled that the proposed ballot “authorizes or would authorize discrimination proscribed by the HRA [the Human Rights Act]  and is therefore not a proper subject for initiative.”

The same day that the ballot was shot down the D.C. City Council scheduled a December 1st vote on the “Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Equality Amendment Act of 2009,” which would legalize homosexual “marriages” within the District of Columbia.  The measure is expected to pass easily.

The DCBOEE’s rejection of the action is not unexpected.  On June 15th, they rejected a similar referendum initiative that would have permitted voters to decide whether same-sex “marriages” from outside the District of Columbia would be recognized.

“We always believed we’d have to take it to Superior Court,” Jackson said after receiving a copy of the DCBOEE’s ruling. “We believe the board has a wrong interpretation of the Human Rights Act.”

The DC Human Rights Act of 1997 prohibits discrimination for “sexual orientation, [and] gender identity or expression” in a variety of areas, but never mentions marriage.  One section of the D.C. Code requires that ballot initiatives not violate this provision.

The petition to the D.C. Superior Court against the DCBOEE’s ruling, therefore, seeks a declaration that “the Initiative does not violate the HRA, because this Court and the Court of Appeals have consistently held that the regulation of the marital relationship falls outside the intended scope of the HRA.”

Furthermore, the petition argues against even the principle that the DCBOEE could reject the initiative for violating the HRA.  According to the petition, the section of the DC Code requiring the law be in accord with the HRA was “imposed by the [D.C.] Council on the people’s right of initiative [and] is an impermissible requirement not authorized by the Charter Amendment Act.”

The D.C. Charter acts as a constitution for the city of Washington.

“The Home Rule Charter tells us that we should have the same rights as the DC Board of Elections and as the DC City Council,” Jackson contends.  “In other words, if they can vote on something, we can vote on something.  If they can initiate a law, we should be able to initiate a law, as what is done in Maine and California.”

Not all members of the D.C. government agree with him.  D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty, who supports same-sex marriage, said that he thought D.C. had a “fabulous council” to make decisions that D.C. citizens may not.

Wendy Wright, President of Concerned Women for America, criticized such an attitude: “The D.C. Council reeks of rank hypocrisy.  For years they have demanded that D.C. citizens should have the right to vote for congressional representation, which is in direct contradiction to the Constitution. Yet now they are denying D.C. citizens the right to vote on marriage, an institution so fundamental to America’s well-being that territories were not allowed to become states unless they kept marriage between one man and one woman.”

She continued: “D.C. officials are proving, once again, why they need congressional oversight.  They need to be reminded that citizens are not serfs.”

Malone spoke on Wednesday to the US Conference of Catholic Bishops at the Fall 2009 General Assembly after a presentation on four different video outreaches designed to teach people about the goodness and nature of natural marriage. The videos are part of a greater catechetical effort to explain why same-sex “marriage” is not a matter of civil rights, but harms the institution of marriage, the family, and religious liberty.

The Portland bishop thanked the USCCB for the just-approved document on marriage and defending the nature of true marriage. Malone said that the pastoral letter was “just what we need to be doing right now” in catechizing Catholics on marriage, saying that most have a shallow sense of what marriage actually is all about.

Malone said that he was grateful for his fellow Catholic bishops “prayer, encouragement, and financial support” and sharing the suffering that now comes with the territory of doing battle with same-sex “marriage” advocates.

“I am sorry to my brother bishops; because of your financial support you have been targeted for criticism,” he said.

Malone explained to the Assembly that Maine law requires that “any contribution to this kind of referendum fight over fifty dollars has to be reported to the state, and once it is, of course it is in the public domain.”

“People get it, and I know that some of you have got some pretty nasty criticism,” continued Malone. “We are in solidarity with that too, and I am very grateful to you for it.”

Maine’s public disclosure page indicates that eleven bishops sent in contributions in their own name, while forty-eight other bishops supported financially through their dioceses or diocesan offices by sending in sizable contributions to the “Yes on Question 1″ effort, the successful people’s veto of Maine’s same-sex “marriage” law.

Same-sex “marriage” advocates have used state public disclosure laws to find out who supported or contributed to pro-family efforts. Such efforts have lead to the publication of personal information - including names and addresses - of individuals whose names end up in the public domain by signing petitions or making financial contributions to pro-marriage initiatives for the purpose of intimidation, harassment, and even ostracism.

“The solidarity that I felt with all of you during this campaign was one of two great blessings,” he continued. “The other blessing for me was the grace that is ours by God’s graciousness through Holy Orders, the grace of Orders, the grace of [Episcopal] Office, which we all believe in.”

“I came to a new profound experience of that grace during this whole struggle, because I know that God gave me a kind of courage and perseverance and often even a serenity during this thing that I would not have had otherwise,” concluded Malone. “So there are blessings in the midst of struggles.”

Public-disclosure laws have proved a hazard to individuals and organizations that contribute or put their names to pro-family petitions. Mike Duke, CEO of Wal-Mart, and his wife Susan, were exposed by the homosexual group KnowThyNeighbor.org as signatories to a petition for a 2008 ballot initiative approved by Arkansas voters that restricted adoption and foster-parenting to married couples, excluding homosexual couples and other unmarried unions.

Petition-signers in California received threats of violence and intimidation from homosexual activists who used the state’s public disclosure database to identify backers of Proposition 8. One egregious example reported by the Los Angeles Times, involved the LAPD deploying in riot gear when the El Coyote restaurant in California came under siege by hundreds of pro-homosexual “marriage” protesters, because one website exposed the private $100 “Yes on 8″ contribution of the proprietor’s daughter.

The bishops applauded Malone after he concluded his gracious remarks.

The General Assembly then continued to hear input from several other bishops, including Bishop Galeone and Archbishop Wuerl, regarding the videos developed to catechize the young about the truth of marriage. Both bishops complemented the effectiveness of the videos’ catechetical message, with Archbishop Wuerl emphasizing that the word he gets from the Washington Archdiocese’s campus ministers is that the youth are badly informed about the true nature of marriage, and need catechizing first, before they can be receptive to political outreach.

The Stupak amendment, which was unexpectedly included in the final version of the House bill, restores the Hyde amendment ban on federal funds for elective abortion.

Fox News Channel correspondent Major Garrett asked Obama: “Will you sign legislation on health care that includes the Stupak language?”

OBAMA: You know, I think that there is a balance to be achieved that is consistent with the Hyde amendment — what existed before we reformed health care.

I believe in the basic idea that federal dollars shouldn’t pay for abortions. But I also think we shouldn’t restrict women’s choices, so, I think there’s some negotiations going on, not just on the Democratic side, but I think among people of good will on both sides, to see if we can arrive at something that meets that criteria and I’m confident we can do that.

GARRETT: Yes or no, does the Stupak language strike that balance?

OBAMA: Not yet.

White House Senior Advisor David Axelrod recently indicated to CNN that Obama would work to remove the Stupak language from the health care bill before it reaches the president’s desk.

Bishop Morin gave his report on CCHD to the US Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) Fall 2009 General Assembly in Baltimore.

"The bishops of the committee, as those responsible for the Catholic Campaign for Human Development, continue to pledge ongoing support of efforts to ensure that all CCHD funds are used faithfully, effectively and in accord with Catholic social and moral teaching," said Morin.

CCHD is the subject of an independent and ongoing investigation by several Catholic groups that have exposed it for having contracted projects with some groups that are involved with or who have signed onto efforts, activities, or mission statements that conflict with the Catholic Church’s defense of the sanctity of life, marriage, and the family. CCHD has already defunded two of those groups, but further investigations are continuing to reveal numerous other problematic groups.

A Reform CCHD Now (RCN) coalition has formed that includes Human Life International, Bellarmine Veritas Ministry, Catholic Radio International, Americans Life League, and fifteen other groups. It has demanded concrete reforms of CCHD’s vetting process for groups seeking funds before Catholics are called upon to donate on November 22.

Regarding the criticism of CCHD, Bishop Morin told his fellow bishops that the charitable arm had experienced both fair and foul allegations about CCHD funding.

"Some [critics of CCHD] are motivated by a concern for the poor and respect for the Church, and some are seeking answers to legitimate questions about what and how and why CCHD does what it does, and how it can be made better," Morin said.

However, Morin proceeded to lash out at certain unnamed critics who he said harbor ulterior motives against the bishops and the Church.

"There are a few who have their own ideological or political agendas, they repeat or spread outrageous claims that the bishops are funding groups that are pro-abortion, groups that are not in support of the family, or other untruths," Morin insisted. "For these groups, this seems to be just another way to attack the Church and its shepherds."

Morin said that these groups, "constantly insist that the bishops are not as faithful to their responsibility to their caring for the life of the unborn."

Bishop Morin reiterated that CCHD is "absolutely pro-life from conception to natural death," and that social justice ministry to the poor was a form of pro-life advocacy.

He also denied the allegation that CCHD gives to any group "that is specifically involved in any activity contrary to church teaching," and emphasized that CCHD has a "zero tolerance" for grantees who violate the conditions of their contract, which requires respect and promotion of the Church’s core values.

Morin told the bishops that he believed that three "very particular isolated instances" were being used to paint CCHD and its 250 other grantees "with the same brush."

However, in recent days members of the Reform the CCHD Now movement have presented evidence for inappropriate activities on the part of a wide number of CCHD grantees, significantly widening the brush beyond the three cases of problematic funding alluded to by Morin.

On Monday, the day before Morin’s speech, the American Life League, an RCN member, revealed that they had discovered six more CCHD grantees engaged in activities contrary to Catholic teaching, such as promoting birth-control through sex-education, as well as Marxism, homosexuality, and greater access to condoms. In total these groups are allocated $220,000 for the year.

Michael Hichborn, ALL’s lead-researcher on CCHD, charged that given the ease with which they found the information on these groups, the bishops’ charitable organization could only be one of two things, either "incompetent or complicit."

"We’re finding more and more evidence every day with far less information than the CCHD receives through its granting process," stated Hichborn.

Hichborn and Rob Gasper, founder of BVM, both appeared Friday on EWTN’s "The World Over" program with Raymond Arroyo and argued their case for the needed reforms, explaining the evidence they had compiled, and revealing some new discoveries.

In his speech on Tuesday, Bishop Morin promised his fellow bishops that reform and "renewal" of its mission is in the works for CCHD, saying that even one case was one too many.

"We are using new tools to help ensure that groups keep their commitments, to avoid actions which conflict with Catholic Church teaching, and to not engage in any partisan political activity," Morin concluded.

Discussion on Morin’s report by the bishops, however, was tabled until Wednesday. Since the bishops did not discuss the CCHD report before the public session ended at 11 A.M., any discussion on the report will occur in their private session, which is closed off to reporters.

The initiative petition, filed October 21 with the Secretary of State’s office, would amend the Nevada Constitution to read: "In the great state of Nevada, the term ‘person’ applies to every human being.  Article I Section 8 of the Nevada constitution states, ‘No person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.’"

Nevada Life, Nevada Eagle Forum, Nevada Families and the Independent American Party, issued a joint statement opposing the Personhood initiative petition, saying the proposed constitution amendment "is so vague and general that it may not even apply to abortion at all."

"This amendment will harm the pro-life movement by giving pro-abortion courts more power to decide all matters relating to abortion such as parental notification, informed consent and taxpayer funding of abortion," the pro-life groups’ statement said. "These matters should be decided by the elected representatives of the people - state legislatures and Congress, not the unelected courts."

Considering the courts to be the "greatest threat to the unalienable right to life of the unborn," the pro-life groups believe the Personhood Initiative "will end up giving unlimited power to the courts to perpetuate and expand the disastrous effects of Roe v Wade and will interfere further with any legislative efforts to stop abortion."

Richard Ziser told the Las Vegas Sun that he believes the wording of the initiative petition is clear. The amendment will be voted on by the people and not imposed by the courts, hence the pro-life groups’ apprehension of giving "pro-abortion courts more power" is "another opinion and everybody has their own," he said.

Keith Mason, cofounder of Personhood USA, observed that "Personhood Nevada is embarking in a battle against the greatest evil of our day, the dehumanization of defenseless people," while fellow cofounder Cal Zastrow charged that the opposing pro-life groups, while working toward the same goal, believed in "curbing instances of abortion" through outreach and education, instead of outlawing abortion.

"Praise the Lord for the vision and courage of Personhood Nevada to really end the murdering of children! When asked what legal language they propose to protect all preborn children in Nevada, other groups have refused to come up with any, but Personhood Nevada does have legal language and a realistic plan." Zastrow said.

Gualberto Garcia Jones J.D., legal analyst for Personhood USA, said in a press release "there is nothing vague in stating that ‘all human beings shall be considered persons’, just like there is nothing vague in stating that all persons have the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

Referring to the lawsuit filed against the sponsors of the Nevada Personhood Amendment initiative by Planned Parenthood (PP) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Garcia Jones pointed out that "Abortion proponents have sued to stop personhood amendments in Colorado, Missouri, and Nevada because they realize that personhood amendments have the power to unravel the web of legal fictions that impose abortion upon America."

Rhoades, like his retiring predecessor Bishop John D’Arcy, was among the 80 active U.S. bishops who condemned the decision by Notre Dame to honor the pro-abortion President Obama with the commencement speech and an honorary law degree this past May 17.

In a March statement on Rhoades’ behalf, issued by the Harrisburg Diocese Office of Respect Life, the diocese had affirmed that the bishop wrote to Notre Dame to express his disapproval of the invitation.

“It is disheartening and distressing when an institution that is regarded as Catholic, such as Notre Dame, fails to follow the guidelines set forth by the Bishops of the Catholic Church, especially in these vital moral matters,” read the statement.  “It is Bishop Rhoades’ hope and prayer that all the institutions that bear the name ‘Catholic’ will affirm the Church’s teachings, expose the culture of death and build up the Culture of Life.”

Bishop D’Arcy, 77, hailed the arrival of the “exemplary” Rhoades as a “gift” for the diocese in a statement this weekend.

During his 24 years as bishop at Fort Wayne-South Bend, D’Arcy won a reputation as a strong voice for orthodoxy at Notre Dame.  Before the Obama scandal, D’Arcy strongly condemned the University’s decision to host the lewd “Vagina Monologues” play, which Notre Dame hosted for several years before cancelling it this year.  He also called on Notre Dame to cease its Queer Film Fest, which the school began hosting yearly in 2004.

In a column for America magazine in August, D’Arcy gave an account for his strong pastoral presence at Notre Dame, saying that it was his responsibility as bishop to encourage Catholic institutions to “give public witness to the fullness of the Catholic faith.”

“The diocesan bishop must ask whether a Catholic institution compromises its obligation to give public witness by placing prestige over truth,” he said.  “The bishop must be concerned that Catholic institutions do not succumb to the secular culture, making decisions that appear to many, including ordinary Catholics, as a surrender to a culture opposed to the truth about life and love.”

Rhoades’ installation as bishop is scheduled for January 13 at Fort Wayne’s Cathedral of the Immaculate Conception.  D’Arcy will remain apostolic administrator of the diocese until then.

“They’re not going to take it out. If they do, health care will not move forward,” Michigan Democratic Rep. Bart Stupak told Fox News this week. “We won fair and square.”

White House Senior Advisor David Axelrod had told CNN on Sunday that President Obama was working with Congress to “adjust” the bill’s abortion language.  Both Obama and Axelrod have indicated agreement with the claim by leading pro-abortion lobbyists that the Stupak language amounts to an encroachment on women’s abortion insurance coverage.

Stupak blasted Axelrod, saying the White House advisor “doesn’t really know what he’s talking about” and that if the will of the majority were not respected, Pelosi stood to lose between ten to fifteen more votes when the bill comes before the House for final passage.

“You’re not going to summarily start dismissing amendments which the majority of the House of Representatives wanted because some person, David Axelrod or someone, doesn’t like it,” continued the Michigan Democrat.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had unexpectedly allowed a floor vote on the Stupak amendment in a strategic move earlier this month, subsequently winning the support of several moderate and pro-life Democrat votes. Rep. Stupak and his cadre of pro-life Democrats were essential to the 220-215 vote that passed the bill, only after the Pitts-Stupak amendment was approved 240-194.

The amendment restores long-standing federal policy against the use of government-appropriated funds for abortions, except in cases of rape, incest, or when the life of the mother is deemed at stake, mirroring the Hyde amendment.

Specifically, Pitts-Stupak prohibits the public insurance option from paying for abortions except in the above-mentioned cases, and this ban applies also to private insurance companies, which participate in the health insurance exchange and receive federal dollars.

Capitol Hill lawmakers disagree on how the Stupak amendment or other “compromise” attempts at pro-life language could impact the future of the bill, both in the Senate and when the House considers a final version.

Pro-abortion Rep. Dianna DeGette (D-Colo.), who leads a group of Democrats dedicated to killing a pro-life health bill, disagreed that Stupak would have enough votes to take down the measure if a later version lacked his amendment.

“I think he won’t have the votes when people explain to those members what exactly the Stupak amendment does,” DeGette said on a Tuesday appearance on ABC News’s “Top Line” webcast.

Rep. DeGette and Rep. Louise M. Slaughter (D-N.Y.), co-chairwomen of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus, on Monday released a letter signed by over 40 Representatives, asserting they would vote against the final version of health-care reform if Pitts-Stupak were retained.

In the Senate, Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) suggested in a Monday night appearance on MSNBC that there would not be enough pro-life votes in the Senate to force the inclusion of similar strong pro-life language in that chamber’s bill.

However the loss of three votes in the House - let alone ten - would be the kiss of death for the final version of health-care reform that must be approved by both chambers of Congress - making it appear for the moment that Pelosi’s short-term strategic decision to permit a vote on the Pitts-Stupak amendment in the first place may have ultimately secured the bill’s final demise.

In a submission to the Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee of Australia’s Senate, Amnesty’s Australian affiliate contends that laws limiting the right to marry to opposite-sex couples amounts to "arbitrary discrimination" in contravention of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

The group further interprets a provision of the ICCPR guaranteeing adults the right to enter into "consensual marriage" as applying to same-sex couplings. Critics contend this distorts the meaning of the word "marriage" without regard to context and the apparent intent of the drafters. The ICCPR provision cited, Article 23, states that "The right of men and women of marriageable age to marry and to found a family shall be recognized," and that "No marriage shall be entered into without the free and full consent of the intending spouses."

Underscoring what critics say is the problem of United Nations (UN) treaty monitoring bodies exceeding their mandates and seeking to reinterpret treaties to include novel concepts not agreed upon by those who negotiated or ratified the treaties, Amnesty asserts that "For more than a decade, non-discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation has been an internationally recognized principle which has been endorsed by UN treaty bodies and numerous inter-governmental human rights bodies." Specifically, Amnesty cites interpretations of the ICCPR and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights by their respective treaty monitoring bodies as forming a soft-law jurisprudence in favor of a new non-discrimination category.

The creation of such a non-discrimination category is hotly-contested among UN member states, however. To date, efforts to enshrine "sexual-orientation and gender identity" as a category on par with ones such as race and religion in a legally binding document have been repeatedly rejected.

Amnesty points to a French-initiated statement signed by roughly 65 member states, including Australia, last December asserting the existence of a non-discrimination category based on sexual orientation and gender identity in support of Amnesty’s call to allow same-sex couples to enter into "a legally binding union of couples, otherwise known as marriage." The Amnesty submission contends that preventing "same-sex couples from entering into a legally binding union on the basis of sexual orientation" contravenes "the statement Australia supported in the UN General Assembly last year."

A contemporaneous counterstatement , however, signed by nearly 60 nations, principally from the Islamic world, Africa and Oceania, along with independent statements made by Russia, Belarus and the Holy See, pointed out that no non-discrimination category based on sexual orientation and gender identity exists in international law. Amnesty’s submission makes no reference to the counterstatement.

Critics of the French-led statement pointed out at the time that, though non-binding and supported by only a minority of member states, advocates would hail it as a soft-law norm signaling of a movement by states toward a rights-based acceptance of homosexual conduct – in this particular case, using it to place same-sex unions on par with marriage.

The argument began with passage of a Lithuanian “Law on the Protection of Minors against the Detrimental Effect of Public Information” which prohibits promotion of “homosexual, bisexual, polygamous relations” among children under the age of 18. While the Lithuanian president subsequently vetoed the measure, the Siemas overturned his veto and the law is slated to go in effect next March.

As a consequence, in September the European Parliament (EP) voted 349-218 to condemn the new law and ask the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights to review it. The Parliament also considered what is called an “article 7” action against Lithuania, which could have resulted in Lithuania’s suspension from the European Union. Jean Lambert, a British MEP said at the time, “This law contravenes the EU Treaties, the EU Charter and the European Convention on Human Rights, and should be urgently repealed on those grounds.”

Besides the education of children and parental rights, the issue of national sovereignty is central to the debate. The Lithuanians insist they are free to enact such laws and that the European Institutions have no “competence” in them. Many Europeans have long feared what they see as inevitable EU interference in life and family matters.

The Lisbon Treaty, which among other changes would make the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights binding upon members, was defeated by Ireland two years ago at least partially over such questions of sovereignty. Irish voters eventually approved the Lisbon Treaty but only after written guarantees of sovereignty were written into the treaty.

The just-passed Lithuanian response seeks to have the European Court of Justice determine the “lawfulness” of the European Parliament resolution and to determine further that the resolution is void.  The Siemas contends that if the European resolution is not formally voided it would “become a dangerous precedent.” The Lithuanian resolution also expressed "regret" and "deep concern" that the European Parliament attempted to “doubt the lawfulness of the law passed by the great majority of the democratically elected parliament of a member state, although this issue should not fall under the jurisdiction of the EP.”

Lithuanian Labor Party member Mecislovas Zasciurinskas asked the Lithuanian Tribune, “What do you think, is this a one time only attempt to interfere with the affairs of a sovereign state…or is this beginning of an absolute dictate? Some years back we called this ‘Moscow’s Grip,’ the tendency to meddle in everybody’s business…”

Conservative Ceslovas Stankevicius said, “This is in the competence of the Siemas, and the EP has no place getting missed up in this, because Lithuania violated no law.”

The resolution of the European Parliament is non-binding and has no force in law. However, such resolutions are used by activists to build a public relations case against the targeted country. While the Agency for Fundamental Rights is not obliged to act on the EP resolution, it could use the EP resolution as the impetus to begin an investigation.

According to the report by the Institute for Family Policies abortion rates in Britain have leaped by a third among unmarried teenage girls and abortion is helping to age the population of Europe. Without a massive shift to family-friendly policies, the pattern of increased abortion and increasingly aging population will inevitably lead to the collapse of social welfare benefits, and, ultimately, to the bankruptcy of Europe’s cradle-to-grave socialist welfare state.

Presented to the European Parliament on Wednesday, the report said that the situation of the family in Europe is “a desolate panorama.”

“Europe is plunged in an unprecedented demographic winter and has become an elderly continent, with a large birth deficit, fewer marriages and more of them broken, homes emptying.”

“The aging population, critical birth-rate, escalating abortions, the collapse of marriage, the explosion in family breakups and the emptying of homes are the main problems of Europeans,” the 2009 Report on the Evolution of the Family in Europe said.

The study found that the annual number of abortions in the EU equals the entire combined population of its ten smallest member states, with the three top aborting countries being Britain, France and Romania. In Europe there is one abortion every 25 seconds, for a total of more than 1,200,000 abortions a year. 19 percent of all European pregnancies end in abortion and 28 million children have been killed by abortion since 1990, making abortion the main cause of death in Europe.

The population over 65 years in all European states already exceeds the population under 14 years. The EU under 14 population has fallen from 89 million in 1993 to 78.4 million in 2008. Over-65s have risen from 68.3 million in 1993 to 84.9 million in 2008 - an increase of 16.5 million elderly people. The average age of EU citizens is 40.3 years, with Italy and Germany having the highest populations of elderly people.

The dropping European birth rate, the report says, with its concomitant increasing health and pension costs, will lead to increases in public expenditure to care for the aging population and the eventual collapse of public revenues, leading finally to the bankruptcy of the welfare state. The average birth rate of EU countries is now 1.38 per woman, well below the replacement rate of 2.1 births per woman, even in relatively fertile countries like France.

Without a significant shift in family policies in all EU countries, the report predicts the result will be “catastrophic.” Starting in 2010, the population of Europe overall will begin to fall from 499 million to 472 million by 2050 and every third inhabitant will be over 65.

According to the study, Britain is the “abortion capital of Europe” with rates that last year pulled ahead of France. Its abortion rate is fifth in the world, behind Russia, the U.S., India and Japan. Among these countries, Britain can least afford such a high rate, with a population less than half that of Russia and Japan, a fifth that of the US, and 1/19 that of India. The median age of women in Britain is also rising, at 41.3 years, making recovery even more difficult.

The population of the 27 EU nations reached 500 million last year with most increases in population (78 per cent) attributable to immigration, not births. The natural increase of Europe’s population is 12 times lower than the US. Spain has immigration 9 times greater than its internal birth increase and Italy’s native population fell (-0.14 million) and had 23 times more immigrants than births (+3.28 million). Poland, Romania and Bulgaria are losing citizens by emigration and Lithuania, Latvia, Romania and Bulgaria have falling populations due to low immigration rates.

Only France, Holland, Finland and Slovakia have internal rates of population increase higher than their immigration figures.

Other indicators show the number of marriages, especially first marriages, is down and divorce rates are up. There are 1 in 4 fewer marriages than in 1980 and the marriage rate has fallen in 9 out 10 countries. One out of every 3 children (36.5 per cent) is born outside marriage. In some countries the fall in marriage rate has been around 50 per cent since 1983 and there are over one million divorces a year, the equivalent to one marital breakdown every 30 seconds.

More people (55 million) are living alone than ever before. One in four households in Europe has a single dweller and two out of three households have no children. Of the households with children, 50 per cent have only one child.

The report recommends the creation of a European Union ministry of the family, laws to increase flexibility of working hours to accommodate families, increases in tax benefits for families and an emphasis on family welfare programs over welfare for individuals.

It calls for governments to recognize the rights of families, including the right of parents to reconcile work and family life; to have the number of children they want; to choose the type of education their children receive and the right of children to live in a stable home.