Holy See Nuncio to the UN in New York strongly critical of General Comments 14 and 15 of the Committee on the Rights of the Child

Archbishop Francis Chullikatt Apostolic Nuncio of the Holy See to the United Nations in New York, in a statement to the 3^rd Committee of the General Assembly has forcefully upheld the right to life of all children born and unborn.

Speaking to Item 65: Promotion and Protection of The Rights of Children Archbishop strongly criticized recent General Comments issued by the Committee on the Rights of the Child which attempted to misrepresent the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child by the promotion of a sexual rights agenda for children.

The following is Archbishop Chullikatt’s statement in full and it can also be accessed on this link.

Mr Chairman:                                                      

             This year’s Secretary General’s Report on the Status of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (A/68/257) helpfully draws attention to child mortality, which goes to the heart of what the Convention in article 6 enshrines as the child’s “right to life, survival and development”. Indeed, without life, all other rights are meaningless. It is a cause for encouragement that his Report concludes that the goal of ending all preventable child deaths is now within our reach.[1]

 Among the key factors for achieving this goal the Report identifies maternal health.[2] This is confirmed by the logic of the Convention itself, which affords the child the right to both pre-natal and post-natal healthcare (article 24(d)). This provision has meaning only if the unborn baby is first afforded the right to life and survival. This accords with my Delegation’s understanding of the Convention’s definition of the term “child”, which article 1 addresses with an explicit terminus ad quem of 18 years and a terminus a quo implicit in the preamble’s clear reference to the child’s rights “before and after birth”.

 It follows that each child must be accorded in the first place the right to be born. This is a right, moreover, which must be protected equally – without discrimination on any grounds, including those of sex or disability or policies dictated by eugenics. Thus, pre-natal diagnosis undertaken for the purpose of deciding whether or not the baby will be permitted to be born is inconsistent with the Convention, which my Delegation regards as the fundamental normative instrument on the rights of the child. The unborn baby is a member of our human family and does not belong to a “sub-category of human beings”.

 Mr. Chairman:

             My Delegation takes a holistic view of both health and education, identified by this year’s Secretary General’s Report as fundamental to the State’s obligations. As the Secretary General acknowledged in his previous year’s Report (A/67/225, paragraph 41): health “extends beyond the physical and mental well-being of an individual to the spiritual balance and well-being of the community as a whole”. This includes the duty to take concrete steps to support parents in their proper role of raising their children, so that, as the Declaration of the Rights of the Child asserts, each child may be given “opportunities and facilities, by law and by other means, to enable him [or her] to develop physically, mentally, morally, spiritually and socially in a healthy and normal manner and in conditions of freedom and dignity.”

Mr. Chairman:

             My Delegation concurs with the Report of the Special Rapporteur on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography (A/68/275), that prevention is a key aspect for the protection of children from sale and sexual exploitation.  In this regard, the Report devotes significant attention to the indispensable role of the family for the protection of children.  Indeed, “The family represents the first layer of a protective environment”.[3]  Parents, in the first instance, have the responsibility to secure the conditions of living, necessary for the child’s life, survival and development.[4]

            States have the duty to protect, support and strengthen the family for the best interests of the child.  This is all the more important – as the Report observes — given that poverty, unemployment, disease, disability and difficulty in accessing social services as a result of discrimination and exclusion may affect the ability of parents to care for their children; and that mental or behavioural disorders, conflicts, substance addiction and domestic violence may weaken the ability of families to provide a harmonious and safe environment and make children more likely to engage in risky behaviours.[5]

 Mr. Chairman:

             While protection of the rights of children begins with full respect for children themselves at all stages in their development, from conception onwards, parents, for their part, possess an indispensable role in their formation and education, and the family is the proper place for their development, as the Secretary General’s Report acknowledges.[6] Defence of the rights of the child requires, as its necessary corollary, defence of the family, for which the societal benefits are obvious: it is the family, not the State, that houses our children, feeds them, instructs them, and raises the next generation of society.

 When it comes to the upbringing and education of children, therefore, the provisions of the Convention cannot disregard the specific rights and responsibilities of parents. The Convention perfectly reflects the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which in its preamble privileges parents’ “prior right”   (article 26.3) in the education of their children – which is to say, a right prior to that of the State or other actors – especially in the important arena of religious liberty which includes human sexuality, marriage and the statute of the family.

With specific regard to “physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development” (article 27, CRC), the Convention (article 18.1) similarly privileges parents with the “primary responsibility” for their children’s upbringing. These rights and responsibilities of parents in international law are the bulwark of their fundamental right to freedom of religion (art. 14, CRC) in regard to which parents are entirely entitled to choose schools “other than those established by the public authorities, [inclusive of home schooling], which conform to such minimum educational standards as may be laid down or approved by the State and to ensure the religious and moral education of their child [] in conformity with their own convictions” (art.13.3, ICESCR).

 Mr. Chairman:

             In light of the recent output of the Committee on the Rights of the Child, my Delegation would like to address some elements of General Comments 14 and 15. These Comments, my Delegation must point out respectfully, represent only the opinions of the Committee; they do not constitute agreed language and lack all force of judicial precedence. Whatever is contained within them that is not consistent with the normative text of the Convention and other international instruments constitutes a disservice to the best interests of children. Expressions such as “sexual orientation” or “gender identity” (General Comment No. 14 [2013], par. 55, and No. 15 [2013], par. 8)), on which no international juridical consensus exists, are used spuriously and very unfortunately in these Comments. The recommendations, for example, States submit children to education and direction on sexual health, contraception and so-called “safe” abortion (par. 31) without the consent of their parents, caregiver or guardian; abortion be promoted by States as a family planning method (par. 54, 56, 70), and so-called “sexual and reproductive health information or services” be provided by States, irrespective of providers’ conscientious objections (par. 69). Such recommendations are particularly reprehensible. No abortion is ever “safe” because it kills the life of the child and harms the mother.

 The Holy See strongly urges the Committee to revise its General Comments in conformity with its guiding international instruments: beginning with the Convention itself, which affirms the right to life of the child, “before as well as after birth” (Preamble, par. 9), the right of conscience [7], and full respect for the rights, responsibilities and duties of parents regarding their children[8]; and including also the explicit affirmation by the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD) that abortion should never be promoted as a family planning method (par. 7.24).

Mr. Chairman:

 My delegation calls upon the international community to uphold the clear principles of one of the most ratified Convention’s in international law, so that they will do their part in promoting openness to the gift and richness of life which the child represents, and thus foster the common good of all persons, the attainment of which remains “the sole reason for the existence of civil authorities”[9]. 

 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

                                             

[1] ad para. 68 a.

[2] ad para. 57.

[3] ad para. 36

[4] cf. articles 6 and 27 of CRC

[5] ad para. 37

[6] ad para. 61.

[7] CRC, Article 14; cf. also UDHR, Article 18 and ICCPR, Article 18

[8] CRC, Articles, 3, 5, 7, 9, 14, 18, 27, and 29, c; cf. also UDHR, Article 26,3 and ICCPR Article 18,3

[9] John XXIIII, Encyclical Pacem in terris, 54

Northern Ireland’s pro-life position under grave attack

The Belfast Telegraph reports that revised guidelines on abortion are to be brought before the Northern Ireland Executive within weeks. 

The move comes after Health Minister Edwin Poots met two pregnant women whose babies suffered such severe abnormalities that they could not survive after birth.

Both women were refused terminations because current legislation in Northern Ireland only permits abortion in very restricted circumstances that do not include lethal foetal abnormality.

A Department of Health spokesman said: "Consultation on draft guidelines published earlier this year has closed. A number of submissions to the consultation have highlighted the issue of lethal foetal abnormality and incompatibility with life.

"Full consideration is currently been given to the all consultation submissions and the minister intends to bring a final version to the Executive for its consideration at an early stage, ideally within a number of weeks."

The new guidance cannot change the law but could provide clarity for medical professionals faced with the prospect of prosecution.

However, pro life campaigners have vowed to challenge any changes through the courts.

"We are prepared to take a case to the High Court if the guidelines do not uphold the rights of the unborn child," said Bernie Smyth from Precious Life.

"There should be no procedures carried out in Northern Ireland that will harm an unborn child. We will not be silenced."

The issue of fatal foetal abnormality is not a reason for a legal abortion in Northern Ireland. It gained prominence after the two women went public last week.

Sarah Ewart said she was forced to travel to London for a termination after her baby was diagnosed with the anencephaly, a severe brain anomaly which meant the skull had not developed properly.

Another woman, known only as Laura, who is 22 weeks pregnant with twins suffering from the same fatal condition, has also been told she will have to fly to England for an abortion.

Northern Ireland is not covered by the 1967 Abortion Act. Every year more than 1,000 women travel from the region to clinics in England, Scotland and Wales where access to an abortion is allowed up to 24 weeks into pregnancy on grounds that include abnormalities which could lead to a child being seriously disabled.

Liam Gibson of SPUC Northern Ireland said in a news release;

"Abortion is not a compassionate response to the diagnosis of fatal disability. Babies with fatal disabilities are no less human than other children and share the same right to life as all other human beings. The law in Northern Ireland respects that right, while the British Abortion Act has led to the situation where it is lawful to kill a disabled child up to birth."

Controversial UN Development Agenda

-->

The United Nations has, over the last few of years, been working to establish the basis of the next phase of its development agenda as many of its earlier programmes are coming to an end. The International Conference on Population and Development (otherwise known as ICPD or Cairo) which commenced in 1994 will end in December 2014, the Women’s Conference (known as Beijing) and the Millennium Development Goals end a year later in December 2015.

A series of meetings and conferences have been held in different parts of the world to try to establish the different regional priorities. Needless to say this process is targeted by ideologues who are determined to ensure that the final outcome documents contain  their deadly anti-life and family agenda.

One such process known as the ICPD Beyond 2014 Review, is according to a UN website ‘an opportunity to influence the future of global population and development policy at national, regional and global levels, providing a once in a generation chance to define what needs to be done to deliver a more equal, more sustainable world for the 7 billion people - and more - who share it.’

The process is geared to identify progress and achievements towards the goals set out in the Cairo International Conference on Population and Development.

One significant attempt to include this agenda was rejected last year in the Rio + 20 Conference.

Another attempt was made during the most recent UNECA African regional conference, which took place in Addis Ababa from Sept 30^th to October 4^th, the purpose of which was to conclude a draft development agenda for the African region. A major controversy erupted as a result of attempts by sexual rights activists to include issues such as abortion and sexual orientation in the text. This resulted in 17 of the African Nations in attendance issuing strong reservations to the text which has been called the Addis Ababa Declaration but which has not yet been published in its final form.

In a press release, the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA) noted that 17 countries expressed reservations on three of the commitments in the final document and one the Delegate from Chad told the meeting “It must be put on record that Chad is not party to this declaration,” which he described as being “a subtle way of introducing something which may catch some countries unawares.”. The Zambia Daily Mail reported that “the majority delegates shot down a clause that would seek to promote gay and lesbian rights,” adding that this was “a clear reflection of the position of most African countries on homosexuality.”

 The African conference was the last in a series of 4 regional conferences and discussions now move back to UN headquarters in New York

The Left reveals an ugly face at pro-life rally

An Australian Newspaper the Herald Sun reported on October 13^th, on the appalling behaviour of pro-abortionists who set out to deliberately confront a pro-life rally in Melbourne last Saturday.

CHANTING socialists and feminists on Saturday stormed up to Parliament House to confront 3000 anti-abortion activists gathered there.

Now, remember what socialists claim: they are kinder and more moral. More sharing and caring.

Remember what feminists claim: they want women treated equally. Want mutual respect.

But here is what I saw.

I saw those Socialist Alliance protesters and feminists for hours shout down, blockade, hit, abuse and destroy the property of citizens, priests included, trying to peacefully express a different point of view - that killing babies in the womb is wrong.

I saw socialists and feminists yanking signs from the hands of women older than themselves and destroying their balloons, as if those women had no right to speak and no right to their own property.

I saw some socialists and feminists push police and shove and hit anti-abortionists. One politician was hit with an egg; another was allegedly kicked.

I saw a socialist wearing a "F... Tony Abbott" T-shirt.

I saw one feminist screaming hysterically in the face of someone trying to speak to her.

Some anti-abortionists possibly retaliated, but the police knew who was causing the trouble, and their lines faced the socialists and feminists, to protect the anti-abortionists behind them.

In this demonstration I saw socialists and feminists betray almost every principle they profess to hold.

I saw them treat women with contempt and fellow citizens with force. I saw them deny others their right to free movement and speech. I saw them counter reason with abuse.

The Left has been long presented by schools, universities and media outlets, especially the ABC, as people who are "progressive" and "compassionate".

The Left I saw on Saturday is instead the natural home of the totalitarian and the bully. And that's without considering that today's socialists and feminists also endorse the killing of healthy unborn infants just weeks before birth.

None of this is new, of course. Most of the worst modern tyrannies, from the French Revolution to the Cambodian genocide, were led by the Left. The greatest attacks on our free speech have come from Labor, a party of so-called idealists.

But as British philosopher Bertrand Russell famously noted: "Much that passes as idealism is disguised hatred or disguised love of power."

We saw that in Melbourne on Saturday. They call themselves progressives. They are instead barbarians, so sure of their goodness they feel licensed to do evil.

HIQA investigation report, on the death of Savita Halappanavar, slams hospital failure to provide 'even the most basic elements of patient care'

Galway University hospital failed to give Savita Halappanavar “even the most basic elements of patient care” according to a new and damning investigation conducted by the Health Information and Quality Authority (HIQA). The investigation identified thirteen “missed opportunities” where

appropriate intervention “may potentially have resulted in a different outcome for her”.

Mrs Halappanavar, who was 17 weeks pregnant, died of sepsis at University Hospital Galway on October 28 last year following a miscarriage.

The HIQA report says that following the rupture of her membranes Mrs Halappanavar should have received four-hourly observations, including checks on her temperature, heart rate, breathing and blood pressure. This did not happen, however, and hospital staff failed to act in a timely way to respond to her deterioration. By the time she was admitted to the critical care unit it was too late.

Among the key findings of the report are:

- The hospital did not follow its own guidelines on early warning alerts for a patient who could be deteriorating.

- It also ignored its guidelines on sepsis and pre-term pre-labour rupture of the membranes.

- Vital information about her condition was not shared by doctors looking after her.

- She was placed in a ward that was unsuitable for someone at risk of clinical deterioration which had not enough staff qualified to treat patients there.

The 257-page report from HIQA is the third report into Mrs Halappanavar’s death, and follows a coroner’s inquest and an inquiry by the HSE. It says the clinical governance arrangements within the hospital failed to recognise that vital hospital policies were not in use and points out that the Galway hospital developed a local Modified Obstetric Early Warning Score chart in 2009 but this was not in use on the ward three years later, in October 2012. It says there was no formal clinical escalation protocol and no emergency response team in place at the hospital and while sepsis guidelines were in place, clinical governance arrangements were “not robust enough” to ensure they were adhered to.

Commenting on the implications of the report consultant obstetrician DR Peter Boylan has described the HIQA report into the standards of maternity care as “an appalling indictment of State failure”.

It is abundantly clear from this new HIQA report and from the earlier reports that the real issue in this tragic case was never really about abortion but the basic deficiencies in patient care and the catalogue of failures in monitoring and recognising the grave risk to Mrs Halappanavar’s life caused by her sepsis infection.

Nevertheless this did not stop a ruthless and virulently pro-abortion media from using this tragic case to further its own agenda