Wednesday, June 30, 2010
McCrystal's book comes on the heels of Nancy Gibb's recent expose in Time magazine, "Love, Sex, Freedom and The Paradox of the Pill," which celebrates the "first medicine ever designed to be taken regularly by people who were not sick." This was followed by the surprisingly candid commentary on the Pill by movie star and celebrity sex symbol Raquel Welch, who sees the lasting legacy of the Pill as the breakdown of marriage and the family: "I myself have been married four times, and yet I still feel that it is the cornerstone of civilization, an essential institution that stabilizes society, provides a sanctuary for children and saves us from anarchy."
"Contraception is a most potent destroyer of marital harmony," said McCrystal, author of Who's at the Centre of Your Marriage: The Pill or Jesus Christ. "Most would be surprised to see me and Raquel Welch lining up on the same side of a debate, but she makes some very smart and accurate points in her column," observed McCrystal. "While her diagnosis is correct, my book goes a step further to offer the prescription that can help heal ailing couples: re-centering their marriage on Christ."
A trained pharmacist, McCrystal stopped dispensing the contraceptive pill in 1993 because of its abortion-causing nature. This decision resulted in the loss of his job and subsequent unemployment for three years. Undaunted, he has since spent thousands of hours researching, writing and speaking internationally on contraception and related issues. He is the chairman of Human Life International's Ireland office. One who "practices what he preaches," McCrystal resides in Northern Ireland with his wife, Therese, and is the father of 5 children.
On Friday, McCrystal will be joined in New York by Tony and Ann Crowe, a young Irish couple who bear witness to how contraception almost destroyed their marriage and how they were able to reverse the toxic situation.
Monday, June 28, 2010
we wish to draw the attention of Irish readers to a statement from the organisers of a peaceful protest against the Civil Partnership Bill outside Dail Eireann (the Irish Parliament) on Wednesday next.
Whether you can come for just half-an-hour, or for two-and-a-half hours, please do your best to take part in the peaceful protest at the gates of Dáil Éireann, Kildare Street, Dublin, on Wednesday next, 30 June, from 11 am to 2.30 pm.The protest is part of the ongoing effort to persuade the Irish politicians to abandon the ‘Civil Partnership Bill’. As I mentioned previously, the members of parliament (TDs) are being denied the opportunity of a free, or conscience-related, vote on the Bill. And who is denying them the possibility of voting according to their conscience? None other than the Minister for Justice, Mr. Dermot Ahern.
Of whom is he afraid? Is it his masters in Brussels who are threatening him with dire political and financial consequences if he fails to implement their orders that the homosexual and lesbian lifestyle be promoted and rewarded, to the detriment of marriage and the family?
‘What group above all others constitute a challenge to the traditional vision of the family? We do.’ [Out, 1986 – an Irish homosexual publication]
The Patron Saint of politicians is St. Thomas More, the English martyr who abided by his conscience rather than submitting to King Henry VIII in the matter of the king’s divorce. ‘I am the King’s good servant, but God’s first’, he is quoted as saying. It seems that there is no man or woman of the calibre of St. Thomas in the Irish Parliament today. Maybe there is - but, if so, let him or her speak out now against the proposals contained in the ‘Civil Partnership Bill’, which, if passed into legislation, will have dangerous and far-reaching consequences for marriage and the family and society in Ireland.
I promised to keep you up to date with arrangements for the Fourth All-Ireland Rally for Life. The Rally will take place on Saturday next, 3 July, at 2.00 pm, and those wishing to take part are asked to assemble at Custom House Square, in Belfast City Centre, at that time.
Buses are being arranged from many parts of Ireland North and South as follows:
Antrim ; ------------------Armagh ;
Ashbourne (Co. Meath) [01-8353643] --Ballymena ;
Buncrana ; -----------------Carnlough 07900883319];
Castlewellan ; ------------Cork ;
Craigavon ; ---------------Derry (Creggan) ;
Derry (Shantallow) ; ----Derry (Southway) ;
Downpatrick ; -----------Drogheda [01-8353643]
Dublin (City Centre) [01-8730463]; ----Dublin (Tallaght) ;
Duleek [01-8353643] ---------------------Dunloy ;
Enniskillen ; -------------Galway ;
Limerick ;------------------Louth ;
Lurgan ;-------------------Monaghan 
Newry [02830252414 & 04830838783];
Omagh ;-------------------Portadown ;
Rasharkin 02829541360];----------------Strabane [ 02871883453]
Tipperary [0861769743/ 0504235328]
Warrenpoint ;------------Waterford 
Westport ;------------------West Belfast ;
We hope you’ll be there!
Other information from:
we reported last week on the UN special session on maternal mortality at the Human Rights Council in Geneva, that the Holy See was excluded from making an oral intervention at the special session on that day.
Due to the fact that the Holy See along with other delegations was unable due to time constraints to make the intervention orally arrangements were made for these to be submitted to the secretariat and placed on the UN website
We now report on the intervention prepared by the Papal Nuncio to the UN in Geneva, Archbishop Silvano Tomasi for that session and which was subsequently submitted to the UN secretariat for inclusion on the website.
Archbishop Tomasi in his intervention focused on the issue of both maternal and child mortality.
"My delegation" according to Archbishop Tomasi's statement
wishes to express its urgent concerns about the shocking number of maternal deaths that continue to occur – estimated by reliable indicators at 350,000 a year – most especially among the poorest and most marginalized and disenfranchised populationsThe Archbishop's statement quoted the recently issued Lancet report figures thus directly challenging the now discredited figures presented in the High Commissioners report on maternal mortality.
The Holy See's approach to Maternal Mortality according to Archbishop Tomasi's intervention, is holistic, since it gives priority to the rights of mothers and child, both those already born and those awaiting birth in the womb of the mother.
Improvements to reduce Maternal Mortality according to the Archbishop
have been made possible due to higher per capita income, higher education rates for women and increasing availability of basic medical care, including "skilled birth attendants". A recent study on Maternal Mortality has suggested that maternal mortality in Africa could be significantly reduced if HIV-positive mothers were given access to antiretroviral medications. The availability of emergency obstetric care, including the provision of universal pre and post-natal care, and adequate transport to medical facilities (when necessary), skilled birth attendants, a clean blood supply and a clean water supply, appropriate antibiotics, and the introduction of a minimum age of 18 years for marriage, are all measures that could benefit both mothers and their children.
Link to Archbishop Tomasi's full statement
Friday, June 25, 2010
Seven judges at the European court ruled in a majority 4-3 decision ruled that two Austrian men denied permission to wed were not covered by the guarantee of the right to marry enshrined in Europe's human rights convention and that the Austrian government had not discriminated against them by not allowing same sex marriage.
The Court reiterated that the right to marry is granted only to “men and women”, as set forth in Article 12 of the Convention. The Court observed that among Council of Europe member States “there is not yet a majority of States providing for legal recognition of same-sex couples. The area in question must therefore still be regarded as one of evolving rights with no established consensus” (§105). Consequently, the Court recognized that “national authorities are best placed to assess and respond to the needs of society in this field” (§62), and “States must also enjoy a margin of appreciation in the timing of the introduction of legislative changes”. Because “marriage has deep-rooted social and cultural connotations which may differ largely from one society to another, the Court reiterates that it must not rush to substitute its own judgment in place of that of the national authorities, who are best placed to assess and respond to the needs of society” (§62) and “that States are still free, under Article 12 of the Convention as well as under Article 14 taken in conjunction with Article 8, to restrict access to marriage to different-sex couples.”(§108)
As the careful wording of the decision implies, the Court keeps very open a possible recognition in the near future of a “human right” to legal recognition of same-sex couples. The Court says that States are “still free” to restrict access to marriage to different-sex couples, because there is not “yet” a majority of States providing for legal recognition of same-sex couples, that this question must therefore “still” be regarded as one of “evolving rights” that the States enjoy a margin of appreciation limited to “the timing” of the legal recognition, and that the Court should therefore not “rush” to substitute its own judgment in place of that of the national authorities.
In other words, the Court prudently renounced, although only for the moment, to impose to National States the legal recognition of same-sex couples.
Gregor Puppinck, Director of the European Centre for Law and Justice (ELCJ) interprets this prudent renouncement in the light of the current “rebellion” of a dozen Member States in the Italian Crucifix case (Lautsi v. Italy) against a tendency of the Court to impose new “post-modern” Human Rights that contradict the underlying values of the Convention. “Either way, the ECLJ take this ruling as an extremely important victory of our long standing efforts. The states cannot be bound to accept new obligations that are not in the Convention and moreover that are contrary to the Convention.”
According to a new study published by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) the human foetus cannot feel pain before the age of 24 weeks and consequently they claim there is no reason to change the current abortion limit. Nerve connections in the brain according to the study are not sufficiently formed to allow pain perception until after the official 24-week limit for terminations, a UK Government-commissioned report found.
The study also said the foetus was in a state of "continuous sleep-like unconsciousness or sedation" even after 24 weeks. (see report)
This is in complete contradiction of a scientific study on foetal sentience carried out by Jeronima Teixeira, professor and consultant in Obstetrics and Gynaecology who presented her groundbreaking research into the capacity of the unborn baby to experience pain. Her research provides compelling evidence that the unborn baby is capable of feeling pain from 18 weeks and possibly as early as six weeks gestation.
Paul Tully general secretary of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) commenting on the new report, told the media:
"The RCOG supports the killing of 570 babies every day in Britain, at all stages of pregnancy, through the abortion policies it pursues and the lucrative activities of its members.see SPUC directors BLOG
"The RCOG knows better than most people how marvellous, sensitive, complex and beautiful these babies are at every stage of development from conception onwards. Life does not start halfway through a pregnancy, it starts at conception.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
SPUC director John Smeaton in his Blog reports on recently-published interview with Monsignor Jacques Suaudeau , the Scientific Director of the Pontifical Academy for Life, on the links between contraception and abortion.
John comments that
The Suaudeau interview is extremely important because it discusses the link between contraception in terms which are scrupulously rigorous, not making more of the evidence than the evidence would allow and not minimising the implications of what the evidence clearly suggests.
In answer to the question,
“So contraceptives prevent the conception of a child?”
Monsignor Suaudeau immediately responds with the observation that that is not all that contraceptives do. Other technical methods gathered under the rubric of “contraceptives” include what are more properly known as “interceptives”, techniques which prevent the embryo from implanting. Added to that are techniques known as “contragestives”, so-called because “they cause the elimination of a newly-implanted embryo”.
I would recommend readers to read the complete article which can be found on the following link
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
The Forum on End of Life in Ireland announced last year by Irish President Mary Mc Alesse has now issued a ‘Forum Report’ and a ‘Draft Action Plan’, see previous blog-posts. http://europeanlifenetwork.blogspot.com/2009/03/end-of-life-ireland.html http://europeanlifenetwork.blogspot.com/2009/06/more-public-meetings.html
The organisers of the Forum are anxious that the views of the general public on their ‘Draft Action Plan’ should be made known to them.
As the Forum puts it, this is your opportunity
‘to voice your opinion and prioritise the issues and themes which came out of the Forum on End of Life Report. The National Council of the End of Life in Ireland will review the submitted questionnaires to see what the public feel are the key issues that need to be addressed at the end-of-life. This is your chance to help shape the future of end-of-life care here in Ireland. So please take this opportunity and let your voice be heard. It … will impact those around us and those we love.’
Sounds worrying – but there you are! You can’t say you weren’t asked!
An ‘Action Plan Questionnaire’ is available on the website of the Forum (www.endoflife.ie) and you are invited to complete the questionnaire, either online or you can download a copy from the website. You are, however, asked to return your completed questionnaire by 2 July next – giving you just about ten days or so in which to study the Plan and submit your opinions on it. The original closing date for receipt of completed forms was extended, and it is now 2 July at the very latest.
Monday, June 21, 2010
Protection and support for marriage and family
(The) Bishops discussed the statement Why Marriage Matters which was published by the Bishops’ Conference in March in the context of the Civil Partnership Bill which has just completed its Committee Stage in Dáil Éireann. Why Marriage Matters is available in print format and has been distributed in parishes. It is also available to download from the Bishops’ website www.catholicbishops.ie.
Bishops appealed to Oireachtas members to consider Why Marriage Matters as they discuss this Bill and in particular to consider in conscience the following excerpt from it before voting on the Bill:
“Oireachtas Eireann is about to pass legislation that seeks to give same-sex relationships a standing which will be as similar as possible to marriage. The Civil Partnership Bill will not permit adoption by same-sex couples. In most other respects, including tax and social welfare purposes, same-sex civil partnerships will be regarded as being equal to marriage.
“This is not compatible with seeing the family based on marriage as the necessary basis of the social order and as indispensable to the welfare of the Nation and State. Nor does it ‘guard with special care the institution of Marriage, on which the Family is founded.’” (Art. 41.3.1, Bunreacht na hÉireann)
Bishops called on Oireachtas members to allow for greater recognition of the proper autonomy of Churches and the right to social and civil freedom in religious matters. This includes the right of individuals to the free exercise of conscience in accordance with the objective moral order and the teaching of the Gospel. The current Bill, by exposing Civil Registrars to a fine and/or imprisonment should they act in accordance with their conscience on the matter of same-sex unions, undermines this cherished principle of a free and diverse society and imposes unjust limits on the ‘freedom of conscience and free expression and practice of religion’ guaranteed to every citizen in Article 44.2.1 of Bunreacht Na hÉireann. Bishops therefore appeal to Government to introduce amendments to the Bill to accommodate freedom of religious conscience on this vital matter. Bishops also ask Government to support a free vote for all members of Dáil Éireann and the Seanad on this Bill as it passes through the Houses of the Oireachtas.
Unsurprisingly, they were immediately attacked in the media, and by various politicians. Senator Bacik, the well known pro-abortion advocate, said that the Catholic Bishops had ‘displayed an 'extraordinary arrogance' in intervening in the debate on the Civil Partnership Bill and by describing it as unconstitutional.’ ‘It is most unfortunate,’ she said, ‘in what should be a secular republic, we are still seeing them intervening on matters of this nature.’ see Irish Times article
Hello? – the bishops speaking out on a moral issue that is of such vital importance to the future of society and the common good?
Another Senator observed that ‘the Catholic Church had finally been flushed out on the Bill.’ Senator David Norris, the notoriously pro-homosexual activist, said that although the bishops were entitled to express their view, their ‘attempt once again nakedly to intervene in the political process was’, in his opinion, ‘completely deplorable.’
The Minister for Justice, Mr. Dermot Ahern, has consistently refused to allow a ‘free vote’ on the Bill in the parliament, and Mr. John Gormley, criticised the bishops, saying that he was ‘taken aback’ by the comments of one of the bishops to the effect that the Bill was unconstitutional, and that some of the provisions in the Bill, imposing sanctions of fines and imprisonment on those who might conscientiously object to carrying out certain provisions of the Bill, were also unconstitutional. Mr. Gormley is Leader of the Green Party (the party that with Fianna Fáil makes up the Coalition Government).
The usual suspects, such as the Equality Authority, the Irish Council for Civil Liberties, homosexual groups, etc., have also been vociferous in their criticism of the bishops. Although the Minister for Justice, and others, continue to deny that the Bill will affect marriage in any way, it is obvious from parliamentary debates and also from publicity (including bus and other site advertising) on the part of a group called ‘Marriagequality’ that the bill is for them just a stepping stone towards the status of marriage and the adoption of children for homosexual unions,their more than likely, ultimate goal.
Each Wednesday, for the past number of weeks, a representative gathering of people from various parts of Ireland has maintained a three/three-and-a-half hour vigil outside the Dáil (parliament) buildings in Kildare Street in Dublin, calling on politicians to scrap the proposed Bill. A further vigil will take place next Wednesday, 23 June, from 11 am to 2.30 pm.
It is interesting, and frightening, to note that a form issued this year by the Revenue Commissioners in relation to tax returns already recognises the reality of the ‘Civil Partnership Bill’, in that one of the categories listed on the form is that of ‘civil partner’. How’s that for anticipating the legalisation of ‘civil partnerships’!
Friday, June 18, 2010
A new US Government Accountability Office report shows the Planned Parenthood abortion business reported spending over $650 million in federal funds over a seven year period. That averages to just under $100 million in federal funds each year and is something pro-life groups and lawmakers on Capitol Hill want to see ended according to a report by Lifenews.com.
The new 33-page report concerns how much federal money the Planned Parenthood Federation of America is receiving and from what sources -- with most of the funds coming from the Title X family planning program.
Combining the money received from the Health and Human Services department and USAID, the GAO report indicates Planned Parenthood received $657.1 million in federal funds.
The report also shows the pro-abortion group Population Council, which sponsored the dangerous abortion drug RU 486, received $284.3 million in federal funds as well for its international family planning efforts. And the Guttmacher Institute, a pro-abortion group that does research on abortion statistics, received $12.7 million.
Then there is the funding that comes from private foundations
The Chronicle of Plilantrophy Vol xxii, No 14 dated June 17 2010 has published some information on grants for “reproductive health and population”
according to this publication the William and Flora Hewlwtt Foundation have granted $4.3M for family planning and reproductive health care services in sub-Saharan Africa and other regions the sum being divided between three organisations
Wednesday, June 16, 2010
We urgently appeal to church leaders and pro-life groups worldwide to oppose an extreme, "ideologically driven" pro-abortion report produced jointly by the UN Secretary General and the High Commissioner on Human Rights , and "bounced through" the HRC this week blatantly ignoring any evidence which disputes its conclusions and deliberately avoiding debate. The clear intention of the powers-that be is to use this ideologically-driven report's findings to influence the Millennium Development Goals Review later this year at the UN in New York.
In a carefully stage-managed and one-sided debate in Geneva this week, both the Holy See and the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), the only pro-life NGO present at the Session, were excluded from making an intervention.
The preparation of the report and the subsequent debate were meticulously stage-managed this week in Geneva, to the exclusion of myself, on behalf of SPUC, and, more significantly, to the exclusion of the Holy See.
The debate was carefully handled by limiting the time available for it. This resulted in the Holy See being excluded from making an intervention and it eliminated the only pro-life NGO voice present at the session, the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children. Nevertheless two pro-abortion NGO’s, Amnesty International and the Centre for Reproductive Rights, representing a large group of pro abortion organizations such as International Planned Parenthood (IPPF) and IPAS, were given space to be heard.
In the end, the lone opposition to the anti-life agenda, the Egyptian delegate, was very criticical of the inaccurate statistics and the push for the creation of a 'right' to abortion.
Events in Geneva this week are the latest in international political manoeuvres in the attempt to declare a human right to abortion, something which has eluded the pro-abortion lobby since their defeat at the 1994 UN conference on population and development, in Cairo.
This week's pro-abortion report arose from a resolution approved in 2009, which called for the High Commissioner for Human Rights to prepare 'a thematic study on preventable maternal mortality and morbidity and human rights'. Following approval of the resolution the thematic study was then elevated to be a joint report of both the High Commissioner and the UN Secretary General. The subsequent report and Monday’s one-sided debate are a prelude to the review of the Millennium Development Goals due to take place in September in New York - when, I've no doubt, this report will be back on the agenda.
Prior to preparation of her report the High Commissioner invited submissions from interested parties. However, despite the fact that a number of pro-life organizations made detailed submissions setting out the real causes of maternal death (and how high levels of maternal mortality in developing countries can be reduced without recourse to abortion) the High Commissioner's report cites so called “unsafe abortion” as one of the major causes of maternal mortality. It was based on the World Health Organisation statistics, which have been shown to be wildly inaccurate; and, once prepared, the report was carefully handled to sidestep any possibility of the flawed statistics being exposed or criticized in a resolution, thus undermining the report's credibility.
If you want to carry out a search for a family member in the Census of Ireland you are required to supply the ‘forename’ of the person involved. The HSE (Health Service Executive) refers to ‘a member of a couple’, and ‘the other member of the couple’. A ‘couple’ is defined by the HSE as ‘(a) a married couple who are living together or (b) a heterosexual or same sex couple who are cohabiting as life partners for at least three years.’ This, to my mind, is a deliberate effort to downgrade marriage and the family, and it is also reflected in the terminology used in the proposed ‘Civil Partnership Bill’ that is proceeding through the Irish Oireachtas (parliament) at the moment.
Under that bill, rather than using the term ‘marital status’, the term ‘civil status’ is used throughout. Not only that, but the term ‘marital status’ is to be removed from all previous relevant (‘equality’, ‘equal status’, ‘finance’, ‘social welfare’, etc) legislation – to be replaced by the term ‘civil status’. This is considered to be non-discriminatory?
What about the discrimination towards marriage and the family, and the equating of marriage and the family with any and all sorts of other living arrangements?
Tuesday, June 15, 2010
Paul von Oldenberg of the Fédération Pro Europa Christiana (FPEC), reports
Behind the scenes the Parliament of Luxemburg plans to greatly liberalise abortion. The introduction of a so-called “social indicator” is nothing more than Abortion on Demand it leaves the unborn child totally unprotected. The politicians say they only wish to reduce the number of abortions. To prohibit abortion absolutely is the only way to stop the shedding of the blood of innocent children. Not only is a Social Indicator going to be introduced, but obligatory counseling as well! This obligatory counseling will not stop the killing of the unborn child. It is nothing but a camouflage.He asks that there should be a widespread action to protest against this planned liberalisation of abortion and calls for immediate action to oppose the proposed indicators with the Ultimate goal being: the total prohibition of abortion!
Members of the Luxemburg Parliament according to von Oldenberg can either defend the unborn child or be its murderers. He invites participation in an initiative to speak up for the defenceless unborn child by signing up to the protest on the following website http://www.sosvita.org/?page_id=247&lang=en
The Luxembourg Members of Parliament in 2008 already supported the expansion of the culture of death when they forcibly introduced euthanasia against the will of Grand Duke Henry. They will continue this expansion unless they are stopped.
Monday, June 14, 2010
In a world that is becoming more and more hostile to the unborn it is good to remind ourselves of words of encouragement. In an address to members of Italy’s pro-life movement just about two years ago, Pope Benedict XVI said:
‘Looking at the past three decades and considering the current situation, it is impossible not to recognize that in practice defending human life today has become more difficult because a mindset has developed, entrusted to the opinion of the individual, which has gradually debased its value. One result of this has been the decrease in respect for the human person, a value at the root of all civil coexistence, over and above the faith professed.’
The Catholic Church he said,
‘encourages the promotion of every initiative in support of women and families in order to create the favourable conditions in which to welcome life, and the protection of the family institution founded on the marriage between a man and a woman. Not only has permitting recourse to the termination of pregnancy not solved the problems that afflict many women and a fair number of families, but it has also made another wound in our society, unfortunately, already burdened by deep suffering. … [W]e cannot conceal from ourselves that various problems continue to gnaw at today’s society, preventing space from being given to the desire of so many young people to marry and to form a family, because of the unfavourable situation in which they live. … It is necessary to help the family with every legislative means to facilitate its formation and its task of education in the difficult social context of today.’
The Pope also praised the group for their
‘initiative with the Commission for Petitions of the European Parliament, in which you assert the fundamental values of the right to life from conception, of the family founded on the marriage of a man and a woman, of the right of every human being conceived to be born and brought up in a family by his parents, …’
He ended his address by urging the members of the group to persevere in their commitment of love and the defence of human life, and ‘in order that the smile of life may triumph on the lips of all children and their mothers, do not be afraid.’
Friday, June 11, 2010
The Human Rights Council has turned it attention to final consideration of the Universal periodic Reviews (UPR) in respect of countries, which were reviewed over the last few months and the reviews of five countries were finalised on Wednesday 9th June, Nicaragua, Italy, Kazakstan, Slovenia and Bolivia.
By far the most contentious review was that of Nicaragua which was under pressure from 11 countries to repeal its pro-life legislation. According to a report of earlier proceedings the following countries made recommendations to Nicaragua repeal its pro-life laws, Netherlands, Norway, Czech Republic, Mexico, UK, Belgium, France, Finland, Sweden, Germany, and Slovenia. Based on the fact that ten of these are European countries it was easy to see where the greatest pressure was coming from.
The actual content of the recommendations varied to some extent however typical recommendations were along the following lines;
“Revise legislation regarding the sexual and reproductive rights of women, including the abolition of the total ban on abortion, and ensure their access to services necessary for their enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of health.”(Finland)
Other recommendations were that "therapeutic" abortion should be allowed
“Follow through on recommendations of different treaty bodies regarding the possibility of considering exceptions to the general prohibition of abortion, especially in cases of therapeutic abortion and pregnancies resulting from rape and incest”(Mexico);
The Nicaraguan Delegate Carlos Robelo strongly rejected these recommendations telling the council that that Nicaragua would not change back its abortion laws to allow "therapeutic" abortion, The current laws he said represented the will of the people.
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Due to the fact that the woman Melissa Redmond, from Donabate, north Dublin was not convinced by this diagnosis she sought a second opinion the day before procedure was planned and in so doing saved her baby’s life.
Mother-of-three Melissa, who has suffered miscarriages before, went to Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital for a scan while eight weeks into her pregnancy on July 22 last year, but following a quick scan, she was told the pregnancy would not progress and was administered with the abortive drug Cytotec to take on the morning of the D&C operation to remove the foetus, scheduled for two days later.
"I was heartbroken," she said. But after getting morning sickness again at her friend's home the next day, Melissa decided to get a second opinion from a local GP. Despite thinking she was just giving herself "false hope", she insisted she felt the same as she did when pregnant with her other two children, Cian and Tara.
The second scan showed almost immediately there was a heartbeat and when the sound was switched on the heartbeat "filled the room", said Melissa. When they went back to the hospital, another scan, on a different machine to the initial botched examination, confirmed that her unborn baby was alive and Melissa gave birth to her new baby boy, also called Michael, on March 6 this year.
The report has led to a flood of calls to the hospital – and forced the Health Service Executive (HSE) to open a helpline for worried mothers. There were also calls for an independent inquiry to be set up into the incident.
The HSE say they have taken a number of measures at to ensure there is no repeat of the "near miss incident"
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
I promised to keep you up to date with arrangements for the Fourth All-Ireland Rally for Life – so, here goes:
The latest information is that the Rally will take place on Saturday, 3 July next, at 2.00 pm, and those taking part are asked to assemble at Custom House Square, in Belfast City Centre, at that time.
‘This summer, the most important date on the pro-life calendar is Saturday, July 3rd. That’s when we will join with thousands of others to celebrate life and be a voice for our unborn children.
‘Ireland – north and south – is one of the last remaining places in the world where abortion is still illegal and where unborn children are still cherished, loved and protected. But our unborn children are coming under threat from powerful pro-abortion campaigners in the UK, Ireland, Europe and the United Nations who want to change our pro-life laws and legalise abortion. That’s why it’s so important we show our united opposition to abortion. Let’s do that together, at the ALL-IRELAND RALLY FOR LIFE.
‘What you can do:-
Encourage your family/friends/Church/Prayer Group to attend the Rally for Life;
Distribute Rally for Life leaflets in your community;
Organise a Bus from your area to the Rally for Life.’
[from one of the Rally websites]
Information Evenings in relation to the Rally for Life have already taken place in Omagh, Derry, Newry and Belfast. If you would like to have an Information Evening in your area you are invited to contact the organisers (details below).
Bernadette Smyth, of Precious Life, has said:
‘The Rally for Life will give the people of Ireland an unique opportunity to send out a clear message that we want our unborn children and their mothers protected from abortion.’
Details of buses that have already been organised from various parts of Ireland will shortly be announced but, in the meantime, please contact the following numbers for further information or to request supplies of Rally for Life leaflets for distribution.
Northern Ireland: 028 9027 8484 Republic of Ireland: 01 8730463
Pope Benedict XVI’s general prayer intention for June is:
‘That every national and trans national institution may strive to guarantee respect for human life from conception to natural death.’
RALLY FOR LIFE
Custom House Square, Belfast, Saturday, 3 July 2010, 2 pm
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
However, there exists another group of children who have been killed with the authority of the HSE and/or health boards. These are the unborn babies whose mothers were either sent or brought by the HSE to the UK and elsewhere, for the past number of years, for the purpose of aborting their babies – for the convenience of the Irish authorities.
How many such babies might today be alive were it not for the actions of the HSE?
Monday, June 7, 2010
The study, entitled My Daddy’s name is Donor: A New Study of Young Adults Conceived Through Sperm Donation, is published under the auspices of the Commission on Parenthood’s Future in New York. The study, co-investigated by Elizabeth Marquardt, Norval D. Glenn and Karen Clark, ‘reveals stunning findings about the lives of adult offspring of sperm donation, one of the most common reproductive technologies and one that has been practiced widely in the U.S. and around the world for decades.’ Elizabeth Marquardt is one of those scheduled to speak at the ‘Fertility, Infertility and Gender’ conference that will take place at Maynooth, Ireland, from 16 to 18 June (see my blog for
15 February 2010). Commenting on the study, she said:
‘Many people think that because these young people resulted from wanted pregnancies, how they were conceived doesn’t matter to them.’But, she says,
‘[T]his study reveals that when they are adults, sperm donor offspring struggle with serious losses from being purposefully denied knowledge of, or a relationship with, their sperm donor biological fathers.’
Some of the points made by participants in the study include that ‘Nearly half say they have feared being attracted to or having sexual relations with someone to whom they are unknowingly related’, ‘Two-thirds affirm the right of donor offspring to know the truth about their origins’, and ‘About half of donor offspring have concerns about or serious objections to donor conception itself, even when parents tell their children the truth’. These children are human beings – they are not commodities.
I wonder if the Irish Government will take note of the important findings of this study. One of the proposals put forward for discussion by the Irish Commission on Assisted Human Reproduction in 2001 concerns the issue of ‘donors’.
Makes you think, doesn’t it?
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Annexe 3 of Mr. Grover’s report consists of a report on his visit to Poland and in the main consists of a radical and comprehensive attack on Poland’s pro-life position on access to abortion, conscientious objection, contraception and sex education.
Mr Grover complained in his report that Poland remains one of the few European countries that significantly restrict women’s access to abortion. According to the report [...] where there are restrictive laws women often resort to illegal and unsafe abortions or travel to other countries to terminate a pregnancy. The report compared the current position in Poland with that which existed prior to the 1993 Act on Family Planning. Only Malta and Ireland according to the report set out similar significant restrictions.
Typically of pro-abortion officials, Mr Grover sought, to advance his attack on Polish legislation by suggesting that expert, specialized, bodies of international opinion were worried about the consequences of Poland's restrictive abortion law - when these bodies are, in reality, the most powerful pro-abortion campaigning groups in the world.
"Mr Grover in his report noted that in 2007 the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) voiced concern in relation to Poland’s obligations under article 12 of the Convention (on women’s equal right to access health-care services) and specifically called for 'concrete measures to enhance women’s access to health care, in particular to sexual and reproductive health services, including: research on the scope, causes and consequences of illegal abortion and its impact on women’s health and life; measures to ensure women’s access to legal abortion services and against limitation of such access by the use of the conscientious objection clause'.
"Mr Grover then asserted that in 2009, the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in its Concluding Observations, called upon Poland to “take all effective measures to ensure that women enjoy their right ... by enforcing the legislation on abortion and implementing a mechanism of timely and systematic referral in cases of conscientious objection”
In reality, The CEDAW convention and the committee which implements it are the vehicles for one of the most radical pro-abortion campaigns ever whilst, only last month, Northern Irish pro-life leaders had occasion to criticise the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights for calling for Britain's liberal abortion law to be extended to Northern Ireland.
Mr Grover did not fail to extend his attack to the Catholic Church in Poland, following the growing trend in international politics not to allow freedom of conscience for those who oppose abortion. He is concerned that non-State actors, such as priests, interfere with access to legal and safe abortions and sets out instances in which he claims this occurred.
The ugly face of the culture of death was seen yesterday at the Human Rights Council in Geneva in the following section of Mr Grover's chilling report. Freedom of religion, conscience and thought is to be swept aside in favour of the alleged right to kill unborn children. Here is one small sample:
"Health-care providers’ conscientious objection to involvement in certain health-related procedures is grounded in the right to freedom of religion, conscience and thought. However, the exercise of conscientious objection should not entail interference with sexual and reproductive health rights, which are fundamental. However, the Special Rapporteur notes with concern that these conditions for invoking conscientious objection are not being met in Poland. Numerous reports indicate that some doctors, hospital directors, anaesthesiologists and auxiliary medical personnel such as midwives and nurses invoke the conscientious objection clause in refusing to perform abortions, and do not comply with their legal obligations under the Act of 5 December 1996 on the profession of physician and dentist, to refer women to other providers who will perform the termination of pregnancy."
As Liam Gibson, SPUC's Northern Ireland development officer, pointed out last week when the UN turned its pro-abortion fire on Northern Ireland:
"The Universal Declaration of Human Rights upholds the inherent dignity and equal rights of all members of the human family, including children before birth. It is disturbing, therefore, to see how far the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has departed from the UN's founding principles.
"Abortion not only denies the fundamental human rights of children but it is deeply damaging to women. It is clear that the committee has no real concern for either women or children and knows nothing about Northern Ireland. If it did, then it would know that there is no evidence of so-called backstreet abortion in Northern Ireland and that in fact we have the best maternal mortality record in the UK.
"UN committees must be told to stop promoting abortion. It is time for pro-life politicians everywhere to call on the UN to return to its founding principles and protect the human rights of all members of the human family from the first moments of life until its natural end."
Poland however did no accept Mr Grovers criticism and stoutly defended its laws:
"The Polish delegate Mr. Branislav Lysák told the meeting that in the last 20 years infant mortality had dropped by 71% and maternal mortality in Poland was down by 82% in the same period. These figures according to Mr. Lysák contradict the assumption that liberalization of abortion improves maternal mortality.
"Abortion access according to Mr Lysák was available on social and economic grounds in Poland between 1956 and 1993 and Polish experience proves that there is no simple correlation between liberalization of abortion and improvement of maternal health except that the relationship could be inversely proportionate. Improvement of maternal health he said depends on overallmedical conditions.
"Mr Lysák told the meeting that there is no universal right to abortion and regulation of that issue is the exclusive competence of States as set out in various international documents such as the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD)"
Mr Lysák also said it was unacceptable that a report of this nature produced by the rapporteur so late it was not possible to respond properly in the short period available and he informed the meeting that Poland would submit a detailed response to each point raised by Mr. Grover to be an annexe to the report
All power to Poland's elbow as it strugges to prevent universal human rights being trampled on in the very place designated by world powers to uphold them.
Friday, June 4, 2010
Irish Media Review in a news release dated June 4th reports, a demonstration was held outside Dáil Éireann (The Irish House of Parliament) on Wednesday, 2nd June 2010 to express opposition to the Civil Partnerships Bill, which is currently under discussion there.
The news release reports that,a series of demonstrations by a similar group took place on several of the previous Wednesdays, including the Wednesday (and also the Thursday) previous to that noted above. An Anglican group which, had similar objections to the bill also held demonstrations on several of these days.
A Dáil All-Party Committee meeting was held on Thursday, 27 May, and was attended as observers by two persons who had objected to the Bill. The discussion was in advance of the Report, and final stage, of the Bill. It is unknown when then this stage will be, but it is expected that the Bill will be signed into law before the Summer recess.
The report goes on to say,
The Dáil Committee spent much time on the definition of the word "Commitment" in the Bill. In particular, as to whether this should be defined so as to include sexual relations, the position of siblings, the period of such commitment, the consequences of "affairs", etc. It was contended that the cases before the Courts, with the object of establishing the exact meaning of the word "commitment", would be never-ending.
There was no mention of the effects on children.
Children are greatly affected by this degradation of marriage by the State. (Largely as a result of a similar degradation in the case of the unspoken effect of Divorce on children, 1 in 3 children are now born in Ireland without the commitment of a parent to their welfare).
The silencing of the Catholic Church will be to the further detriment of children. Assurance was given by Minister Ahern on the effects on the Church. (In Britain, however, the Church has been obliged to close their adoption agencies).[…]
The Bishops Conference of the Irish Catholic Church has issued a Statement entitled "Why Marriage Matters". Amongst the points they make, is that they are greatly concerned about the Bill, and that they regard the protection of marriage to be a matter of justice. This Statement should be, but is not, available at all churches. Concerned parents should ensure that the Bishop’s statement is properly circulated.
Same-sex unions are being promoted under the guise of regulating opposite sex partnership. Hence the title "Civil Partnership". The Bill seems to be price of support of Green Party. Divorce was the price of support of the Labour Party.
Other defects not clear to the public are:
1. Health, eg, in connection with Aids/HIV, blood donations, etc.
2. Ambiguous attitude to abortion.
3. The effect on the Church.
4. Freedom of speech.
5. The contradictory position of the media in promoting homosexual acts, and, at the same time, opposing paedophilia.
6. An enormous financial crisis is engulfing the country, involving taxes and other dis-benefits which must be borne, in part, by children living today.
7. Many thousands of couples are having huge difficulty in meeting mortgage payments.
8. The Euro is under strain and devaluation appears to be around the corner, affecting everyone.
Yet the political parties find time, and money, to discuss the alleged grievances of a minute proportion of the population. This is truly fiddling while Rome burns.
The passing of this legislation is a very serious issue and one that will inevitably have far reaching consequences. It should be put to the people of Ireland in referendum.
Unfortunately the government have no plans to hold a referendum on the shaky ground that neither, the word "marriage" nor the word "children" are mentioned in the bill, although it is understood that in recent days at least one TD (member of parliament) has called for a referendum.
Despite the commitments made to Ireland in the lead up to the second referendum on the Lisbon Treaty that the RIGHT TO LIFE, FAMILY AND EDUCATION would not be under any threat from Europe, EU Commissioner Spidla has sent a letter of "reasoned opinion" to several EU countries, ie, those that have or are passing legislation similar ¬¬to this Bill. The intention is to bring those countries before the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg to ensure full equivalence to marriage
Thursday, June 3, 2010
It seems that ‘… the trend is due to women postponing childbearing until they feel settled in their careers, men being more reluctant to settle down, and broader societal shifts such as many young people enjoying “a prolonged adolescence” into their 30s.’
This trend, however, according to Professor Philip Steer, a hospital consultant and emeritus professor in obstetrics and gynaecology at Imperial College London, is ‘a cause for significant concern.’
‘Radical changes in workplaces and in society are needed by the government and employers’, continues Professor Steer, ‘to enable many more women to have children in their 20s without feeling that their chances of advancement have been hampered.’
Maybe, just maybe, the authorities are starting to wake up and to realise that the radical feminist agenda is leading society by a short road to chaos, and that for the good and for the future of society in general the traditional family must be supported and preserved.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
1. To manipulate women into having fewer children than they want.
2. To convince women and adolescent girls into believing that their fertility threatens the sustainability of the world’s resources.
3. To promote the sterility of homosexual relationships as ‘ecologically responsible’.
These three objectives, the report continues, fit in with the three major objectives of the feminist ‘rights agenda’:
1. To ensure that access to abortion is a basic human right.
2. To ‘liberate’ adolescent sexuality from parental supervision by ‘educating’ adolescents in their ‘new’ human rights to abortion without parental notification.
3. To assign the same rights and privileges to homosexual relationships as to traditional marriages and the founding of the family.
Does all of this sound familiar? Too familiar, to my mind.
Why, oh why, is the Irish Government insisting on proceeding with the atrocious ‘Civil Partnership Bill’ on which they are ‘debating’ at the present time?
Under the proposed legislation homosexual and lesbian couples who will be accorded virtually the same rights and privileges as those accorded at present to married people. These ‘rights’ will not – for the time being – include the adoption of children, nor can they refer to their partnerships as ‘marriage’. The term ‘marital status’ will be removed from all previous legislation, and it will be replaced with the term ‘civil status’. And the governmental/legislative promoters of the ‘Civil Partnership Bill 2009’ continue to insist that it will not ‘downgrade’ marriage? They are even now bringing in all sorts of red herrings to mask the true nature of the Bill.
Apart from its disastrous consequences for marriage and the family, the Bill also contains some draconian measures to ensure that nobody can, in conscience, object or refuse to facilitate a homosexual partnership, on pain of huge fines and/or imprisonment.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
I wonder if he had the integrity to mention to his Chinese hosts while he was there that one of the most horrendous of human rights abuses – the so-called ‘One Child Policy’ (aided and abetted by the UNFPA, and other such allied agencies), and including forced abortion, forced sterilisation, and coercive birth-control programmes – must be ended.
How can the representative of a supposedly humane state ignore, or worse still, refuse to acknowledge, the fact that he is negotiating for ‘trade links’ with a government whose policy it is to oversee the killing of millions of its own people?
Will Minister Martin ask any questions on this matter, or will he simply ignore the issue, I wonder?