Ideologically driven Committee on the Rights of the Child oversteps mandate

-->

The United Nations (UN) Committee on the Rights of the Child significantly overstepped its mandate in presenting its non-binding concluding remarks and recommendations in respect of its recent consideration of the Holy See report.

This was particularly evident in its recommendations.

The Committee for example attacked the Catholic Church's teachings on abortion, contraception and homosexuality, under the guise of a critique of the Church's handling of child sex abuse cases. The report, among similar things, recommends that the Catholic Church: identifies 

• "circumstances under which access to abortion services can be permitted" (section 55)

• "overcome[s] all the barriers and taboos surrounding adolescent sexuality that hinder their access to sexual and reproductive information, including on family planning and contraceptives" (section 57a)

• "ensure[s] that sexual and reproductive health education and prevention of HIV/AIDS is part of the mandatory curriculum of Catholic schools" (section 57c) 

This Committee has once again overstepped its mandate by making demands well beyond the scope of the actual wording of the Convention on the Rights of the Child. There is nothing in the Convention, which requires the Catholic Church or any other body to facilitate abortion, contraception or homosexuality.

The Committee also failed to recognise the significant progress achieved by the Holy See in the area of the protection of children or to take cognizance of the actual submissions made by the Holy See both in writing and during its January appearance before the Committee

The Holy See Permanent Representative to the UN in Geneva Archbishop Tomasi responding to questions in respect of the Committee conclusions said:

‘I would say that there is a difficultly apparent in understanding the position of the Holy See that cannot certainly give up certain teachings that are part of their deep convictions and also an expression of freedom of religion and these are the values that in the tradition of the Catholic Church sustain the common good of society and therefore cannot be renounced, for example the committee asked for acceptance of abortion and this is a contradiction with the principle of life that the convention itself should support recommending that children be protected before and after birth.

If a child is eliminated or killed we can no longer talk about rights for this person, so there is a need to calmly and in detail analyzing the recommendations proposed by the committee and provide an accurate response to the committee itself, so that there will be no misunderstanding on where we stand and the reason why we take certain positions and I would add that the practical remedies for preventing cases of abuse of children in forms of laws or decisions of Episcopal Conferences of directives for the formation of seminarians constitute a package of measures that is very difficult, I think, to find other institutions or even other states that have done so much specifically for the protection of children. So, my sense is that we have to continue to refine, to enact provisions that protect children in all their necessities so that they may grow and become productive adults in society and their dignity be constantly respected.

And at the same time we have to keep in mind that even though there are so many millions, forty million cases of abuse a year regarding children and unfortunately some cases affect also Church personnel. We have to keep in mind that, we have to continue to combat this tragedy knowing that even a case of abuse of a child is a case too much.’

John Smeaton executive director of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children SPUC commenting on the report  said;

'There is a great deal of hypocrisy in the committee's report. Under the cover of seeking to protect children against sexual abuse, the report promotes damage to children - the destruction of unborn children through abortion and the destruction of born children's innocence through the promotion of contraception and homosexuality.

The Holy See's representatives made clear to the committee last month, Catholic leaders are facing up to the shocking child abuse scandals within the Church. Pro-life and pro-family groups throughout the world must  - like SPUC - come to the UN to help the Holy See in its vital work of protecting, unborn children and the marriage-based family. This work is under constant attack by the Catholic Church's enemies, as manifested in the committee's report today.

Any pro-life/pro-family groups interested in lobbying at the UN are invited to contact me for help and advice regarding accreditation and related issues'

Supreme Court hearing Surrogacy Case on Motherhood

-->

The Irish Supreme Court is currently hearing the appeal by the Irish State in the surrogacy case in which Mr. Justice Abbott ruled in favour of genetic parents, and rejected the customary principle, mater semper certa est, a principle that means that the mother who gives birth, is the legally  

recognized mother. In coming to this judgement Mr. Justice Henry Abbott recognized the validity of the DNA test for paternity and maternity.

The Irish Times reports

A surrogate who gave birth to twins using genetic material of a couple must, as a matter of law, remain registered as the mother of those children on their birth certificates or there will be “massive” and “radical” consequences, the State has argued at the Supreme Court.

The State’s position is that a woman who gives birth to a child is the mother of that child; motherhood as a matter of fact and common sense involves pregnancy and it cannot in law be based on genetics, senior counsel Michael McDowell said.

It would be a matter of “grave public concern”, with consequences for citizenship, succession and the criminal law, if the Supreme Court does not overturn the High Court decision that the woman who donated the genetic material to the surrogate must be registered as the mother, he argued.

Michael McDowell SC spent much of the day batting rapid-fire questions from the judges, who interrupted him constantly and in the process revealed a consistent set of concerns about the State’s stance.  Photograph: Dara Mac Dónaill/The Irish TimesState’s message on surrogacy: ‘Leave it to the Oireachtas’

‘Complete doubt’

The High Court had no jurisdiction to reverse the meaning of motherhood and was “radically wrong” in finding motherhood was based on genetics. If the genetic parents succeed, it would “put in complete doubt” the position of many women who now think they are mothers after giving birth to children themselves using eggs donated by other women.

Laws being introduced by the Oireachtas will address the position of the couple but it is up to the State, not the courts, to legislate for the issues surrounding assisted reproduction and surrogacy, he said. Any change to the existing law must be effected by a positive law enacted by the Oireachtas with regard to the constitutional rights of all affected.

The High Court wrongly found the State unlawfully discriminated between the genetic parents by permitting the genetic father to be registered on the twins’ birth certificates as their father but refusing to permit the genetic mother be registered as their legal mother, he said.

Guarantee of equality

Maternity and paternity are different and the distinction is justified on grounds including the principle that maternity, unlike paternity, is always certain, counsel argued. Pregnancy had two elements, fertilisation and conception, and the fact the State recognised maternity as based on giving birth did not breach the constitutional guarantee of equality.

While scientific possibilities had changed, the law had not moved with them and any change should be left to the Oireachtas. As of now, the State’s position was that a child “cannot have two mothers at the same time”, counsel submitted.

Agreement

The fact the genetic parents and the surrogate had agreed the genetic parents should be registered as the legal parents of the twins on their birth certificates did not alter the situation, as such an agreement could not be allowed alter the public law status of a mother or determine how family law relationships should be decided, he said.

Mr McDowell was opening the State’s appeal to the Supreme Court against a High Court decision last May that the genetic parents were entitled to be registered as the twins’ parents on their certificates.

The twins were born to a surrogate, a sister of the genetic mother, some years ago.

The appeal addresses a range of complex issues relating to the rights of all involved when children are born as a result via surrogate. The Equality Authority and Irish Human Rights Commission will be making submissions in the appeal.

Legal rights

In exchanges yesterday, Mr Justice Donal O’Donnell told Mr McDowell the State seemed to be making the case that, as of now, the genetic mother has no rights or status in law.

Mr McDowell said it was constitutionally permissible for the genetic mother to be regarded as having no legal rights. If she was registered as the twins’ mother, the register of their births would turn out to be conditional and a mother’s status provisional.

Contraceptive pill poses risk of blood clots

-->

The Guardian reports Feb 2^nd on the risk of fatal blood clots associated with the contraceptive pill but then down play the story and minimize the risks. The question that arises immediately is are the risks being minimized for ideological reasons? Is access to the contraceptive pill considered to be more important than a woman’s life or health?

The article references a report that France’s drug safety agency has found a link between sometimes-deadly blood clots and third- and fourth-generation contraceptive pills. The National Agency for Drug and Health Product Safety (ANSM) in France estimates about 20 women die each year in France of blood clots connected to contraceptive use.

The Guardian article reads

Women in England using some of the most popular brands of contraceptive pill are to be warned that they carry a risk of fatal blood clots.

The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) told GPs the risks posed by combined hormonal contraceptives [CHC], which contain two different female hormones, an oestrogen and a progestogen, were small and the benefits outweighed them but that women should understand those risks.

The advice for GPs states: "The decision to use any CHC should be taken only after a discussion with the women to ensure she understands: the effect of any intrinsic risk factors on her risk of thrombosis [eg deep vein thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, heart attack and stroke]; the risk of thromboembolism with her CHC; that she must be alert for signs and symptoms of a thrombosis."

An alert was issued by the MHRA to GPs on 22 January after the European Medicines Agency (EMA) said in November that the product information for CHCs containing certain synthetic progestogen should be updated.

The EMA launched a review after France's drug safety agency estimated that about 20 women die each year in France of blood clots connected to contraceptive use.

The EMA concluded: "The benefits of CHCs in preventing unwanted pregnancies continue to outweigh their risks, and that the well-known risk of VTE [venous thromboembolism] with all CHCs is small."

The agency found that the risk of blood clots in the veins varies between CHCs, ranging from five to 12 cases per 10,000 women who use them for a year, compared with two cases each year per 10,000 women who are not using CHCs.

A checklist for prescribers provided by the MHRA says a CHC should not be prescribed to certain women, including those with a history of a thromboembolic event or with very high blood pressure, those who have had major surgery, or have a period of prolonged immobilisation coming up.

It says the suitability of a CHC should be discussed with a woman if they have certain risk factors including age, obesity and smoking and that if exposed to more than one of those risk factors it "may mean a CHC should not be used". The MHRA advises that CHCs containing ethinylestradiol, a synthetic form of oestrogen, in combination with certain kinds of synthetic progestogen – namely levonorgestrel, norgestimate, or norethisterone – are considered to have the lowest risk of VTE.

A user card and patient information sheet are also provided, detailing the risk. The former says: "The overall risk of a blood clot is small but clots can be serious and may in very rare cases even be fatal." Women are warned to seek immediate medical attention if they experience symptoms including severe pain or swelling in either leg, sudden unexplained breathlessness, weakness or numbness of the face, arm or leg.

Dr Sarah Branch, deputy director of the MHRA's vigilance and risk management of medicines division, said: "Women should continue to take their contraceptive pill. These are very safe, highly effective medicines for preventing unintended pregnancy and the benefits associated with their use far outweigh the risk of blood clots in veins or arteries."

Disgraceful demonstration by radical feminists in Stockholm’s Catholic Cathedral

-->

In their latest sacrilegious public demonstration in support of abortion, the extreme neo-fascist feminist organization Femen interrupted evening Mass on January 30 in Stockholm’s Catholic Cathedral.

 Holy Mass was interrupted by three bare breasted women with messages painted on their breasts reading, ‘my body my choice’, ‘FEMEN’, ‘abortion is sacred’ and ‘never again’. They also held up a banner with the text, ‘Catholic Church out of my body’.

The action was obviously planned in advance and they had photographers on hand to record the incident and their disgraceful behaviour.
POST SCRIPT
Since posting this Blog post the group has struck once more this time in Madrid.
Topless Femen activists attacked the Archbishop of Madrid, Cardinal Antonio Rouco Varela, this past Sunday night as he got out of his car and tried to enter a Madrid parish to celebrate Mass. The activists blamed the cardinal for the Spanish government’s bill seeking to restrict abortion.
The feminists threw bloodstained underwear at the cardinal while pushing their bare breasts onto him and shouting “Abortion is sacred” and other vulgarities.

Controversial Lunacek report to come before European Parliament on Feb 4th

We reported in December about the Lunacek report which was adopted by the European Parliament Committee on Civil Liberties, Justice and Home Affairs. This report will come before a plenary session of the European Parliament next week (February 4th).

According to a report issued by European Dignity Watch the rapporteur Mrs. Lunacek is getting nervous. From the beginning, she’s imagined that her “Report on the EU Roadmap against homophobia and discrimination ongrounds of sexual orientation and gender identity” would pass plenary this upcoming 4th of February without debate — and without major resistance from the public. After all, the committee on Civil Liberties (LIBE) had voted in favour of the text with a solid majority last December. But with more and more citizens all over Europe taking an interest in the Report’s actual contents, massive opposition is growing. So far, more than 100,000 emails from concerned citizens have reached MEPs and the protests are only getting louder.

This is the second time in a scant few months that large popular protest from across Europe arises against an ‘own-initiative’ report on areas where citizens do not want to be told by politicians how to live, what to think and how to educate their children. Just like Mrs. Estrela, the rapporteur of this report, Ulrike Lunacek, tries to pass it quickly and without debate (and thus avoid any exposure to the public until after the vote). Last December, Mrs. Estrela learned her lesson. In the end, she was firmly reminded that as an MEP she is elected to represent European citizens — not the shadowy lobby groups that pushed for her report — whose views differ considerably from her own pro-abortion agenda. With this defeat fresh in her mind and with massive email protest against her own report, Mrs. Lunacek is now getting nervous.

Mrs. Lunacek now answered her critics saying that her sole noble intention is to advance equality.

A look beyond the equality rhetoric shows very quickly: The contrary is true. This report is not about equality, but about special rights, protections and privileges for LGBT people. Citizens all over Europe are sending a clear message now: Equalty yes, but for all citizens, not just for some!

The EU Fundamental Rights Agenda applies to all citizens independently of their individual choices on how they live their sexuality. But the Lunacek Report uses the LGBT cause to divide the world in two: those who should enjoy special rights and special protection on the one hand (that is, LGBT persons), and all others who don’t seem to deserve the same rights and the same protection on the other hand. Of course, no rights or protection is denied to anyone in this report, but one doesn’t need a university degree to see that this is the logical consequence of Lunacek’s political agenda.

This is not equality but quite the contrary: It is the belief that fundamental rights should be more rigorously applied to one social group than others.

The full European Dignity Watch report can be found on this link.

Please call on your MEPs to vote against the Lunacek report.