Media malpractice at the March for Life

The following YouTube video more than anything I have seen previously shows the sheer level of media malpractice in reporting on the annual Washington March for Life.

When the mainstream media all fail to report on the level of support for life and continue to push a pro-abortion agenda a number of questions are raised. For example the question must be asked is that failure simply ignorance, or even incompetence? worse still is it media bias? This video answers that question, the issue in hand not ignorance or incompetence not even bias but outright fraud.

Of course the experience in Washington is not isolated it represents the mainstream media approach to the pro-life events throughout the world, despite this fraud however the truth is self evident in the following video and it will continue to challenge  fraudulent media reporting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8knMYK-IX4U

Humanae Vitae

Pope Paul VI’s great Encyclical Humanae Vitae [1968] caused much controversy both when it was first published, and ever since that time, for the simple reason that it did not say what many people wanted it to say – that is, it confirmed Catholic teaching that the practise contraception is sinful.

Pope Paul was criticised by the world’s media as well as by many of his own bishops and by ordinary lay Catholics, for his faithful adherence to Catholic teaching on the sacredness of all human life. During his General Audience on the Wednesday following publication of the Encyclical, the Pope spoke of his ‘grave responsibility’ to teach the truth. On his decision to do so, he said:

‘The first conviction was that of a grave responsibility. It led Us into, and sustained Us in, the very heart of the problem during the four years devoted to the study of this Encyclical. We confide to you that this conviction caused Us much spiritual suffering. Never before have We felt so heavily as in this situation the burden of Our office. We studied, read, and discussed, as much as we could, and We also prayed very much about it … Imploring the light of the Holy Spirit, we placed Our conscience at the free and full disposal of the voice of Truth. We sought to interpret the divine law that flows from the very nature of human love, from the essential structure of married life, from the personal dignity of husband and wife, from their mission of service to life as well as from the sanctity of Christian marriage. We reflected on the firm principles of the traditional doctrine in force in the Church, and especially on the recent Council. We pondered on the consequences of one or other decision, and We had no doubt about Our duty to give Our decision in terms expressed in the Encyclical.’

The truth and meaning of human sexuality

In view of the recent attempt by the former UN special rapporteur on education to push an international agenda aimed at sexualising children from an early age I think it is appropriate to consider the alternative The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality – Guidelines for Education within the Family which was issued by the Pontifical Council for the Family in 1995. It is essential reading for all parents (not just Catholics) who are concerned about the totally inappropriate and dangerous so-called ‘sex education’ that is provided in schools today. These are some of the chapter headings in the document: ‘True Love and Chastity’, ‘Father and mother as educators’, ‘Paths of formation within the family’, ‘Learning stages’ (this chapter covers ‘Four principles regarding information about sexuality’ – the years of innocence, puberty, adolescence in one’s plan in life, towards adulthood), and ‘Practical Guidelines’.

The Introduction to The Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality suggests to us that:

‘Among the many difficulties parents encounter today, despite different social contexts, one certainly stands out: giving children an adequate preparation for adult life, particularly with regard to education in the true meaning of sexuality. There are many reasons for this difficulty and not all of them are new.
‘In the past, even when the family did not provide specific sexual education, the general culture was permeated by respect for fundamental values and hence served to protect and maintain them. In the greater part of society, both in developed and developing countries, the decline of traditional models has left children deprived of consistent and positive guidance, while parents find themselves unprepared to provide adequate answers. This new context is made worse by what we observe: an eclipse of the truth about man which, among other things, exerts pressure to reduce sex to something commonplace. …
‘Then the school, making itself available to carry out programmes of sex education, has often done this by taking the place of the family and, most of the time, with the aim of only providing information. Sometimes this really leads to the deformation of consciences. …’

On another occasion I hope to tell you about a related and valuable book entitled Tried but Untested – The aims and outcomes of sex education in schools. It was published in 1995, but its relevance to ‘sex education’ in schools today is even more disturbing than when it originally appeared.

Sexuality education for Children

On October 22 and 26th I blogged about the report on ‘Comprehensive sexuality education’, which was debated in the third committee of UN General Assembly in New York this week. My Blog of Oct 26th relates how strong opposition to the proposal to sexualise children from an early age sent the clear and unambiguous message to those countries and organisations pushing the agenda that there is no such right as an 'internationally recognized right to comprehensive sexuality education'!

Consequently, the UN Special Rapporteur’s attempt to advance sexual rights around the world by claiming that there is an international right to “comprehensive sexuality education” was thwarted. This was a victory for common sense but we all need to be vigilant because this agenda is already being pursued in many countries and attempts are being made to introduce it to children at an early age. The tendency is to do so gradually first between the ages of 10-12 and then claiming the need to lower the age to those at the beginning of their school years

In Ireland for example a booklet entitled ‘Busy Bodies’ was issued in 2007 by the Health Promotion Department of the Irish Health Service Executive (HSE) South, and funded by the then Crisis Pregnancy Agency (now called the Crisis Pregnancy Programme, and incorporated into the Department of Health). The booklet is addressed to children in 5th and 6th class of primary school (between 10 and 12/13 years of age). In a note to parents and teachers it is stated that:

‘This booklet is meant to complement the ‘Busy Bodies’ DVD, which your child will probably have seen at school. The booklet and the DVD are used in 5th and 6th class of primary school, as part of the Relationship and Sexuality Education (RSE) programme. This programme is an integral part of the Social, Personal and Health Education (SPHE) programme, which has been part of the school curriculum for a number of years. … Basic information about sexual reproduction is also given. …’

It is, and it is appallingly graphic. I wonder how many parents are aware of the existence of this booklet, and I wonder how parents know that the booklet, and the DVD, will have been given to and shown to their children while they are in school?

UN General Assembly Debate radical report on sexual rights

We reported last week on a radical report prepared by the previous Special Rapporteur on Education, Vernor Munoz on the right to “comprehensive sexuality education” which was aimed at sexualizing children from a very early age. The report was debated by the third committee of the UN General Assembly, on Monday October 25th, however due to the fact that the term of office of Mr Munoz had come to an end he was not present at the session it was therefore left to his successor Mr Kishore Singh the new special rapporteur for education to briefly present the report.

The report was severely criticised by many member states. The African Group, The Arab Group, The Organisation of Islamic Countries (OIC), Caricom (a group of Carribean member states), The Russian Federation and the Holy See were all very critical of it. The African Group and the OIC explicitly rejected the report and Caricom called for a new report to be issued in keeping with the mandate. The US while expressing support for the right to education agreed that there is no such international right as the right to comprehensive sexuality education.
Canada, Sweden, Norway Switzerland, Liechtenstein, Argentina and Portugal strongly supported the report and the EU made a carefully worded but supportive statement. No action was taken on the report

The Caricom statement noted

“with deep concern that the former Special Rapporteur has chosen to ignore the specific mandate given to him by Member States in accordance with Human Rights Council Resolution 8/4, and has chosen to selectively focus his entire deliberations on a so-called “human right to comprehensive sexual education” which he indicates has been a matter of interest and concern to him since the beginning of his mandate.

According to CARICOM’s understanding, “a right to sexual education, a right to comprehensive sexual education, or a right to sexuality education”, does not exist in any internationally agreed human rights instrument, nor indeed under international law. We therefore wish to put on record our strong disapproval of this attempt by the Special Rapporteur to create a new right within the universally established right to education, far exceeding his mandate and the mandate of the Council itself in the process. It goes without saying, Mr. Chairman, that our countries recognize the critical importance of and the need for sexual education, scientifically based, and introduced at an appropriate age. However, we take umbrage at the license taken by the Special Rapporteur in indulging his personal interests at the expense of Member States.

We are also gravely concerned that the Special Rapporteur attempts to usurp or undermine the following universally accepted rights:-

1) the right of parents to determine the quality of education and to provide appropriate direction and guidance to the child in the exercise of his rights under the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) - including the right to education.
2) the right of Member States to educate their citizens in a manner consistent with their own cultures and within the particularities of their situation.
3) the right of everyone to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Respect for these rights is absolutely essential to guaranteeing the right to education for all people. Without this respect, our goal of universal access to education will not be achieved. The contravention of these human rights violates the dignity of the human person.”

The Caricom statement concluded by asking for a new report on the mandate given to the rapporteur by the Human Rights Council

“That the Special Rapporteur has deprived us of important information necessary for accelerating the achievement of internationally agreed upon goals relating to the right to education is unacceptable.
Caricom would appreciate if a new report is produced which abides by the mandate set by the Human Rights Council in its resolution 8/4. This report should fully respect the rights and obligations set out in international human rights instruments, and accepted by States Parties.”

The Holy See statement focused on the issue from the viewpoint of the prior rights of the family and the rights and responsibilities of parents to educate their children in accordance with their children’s best interests.

“A man and woman united in marriage, together with their children, form a family which is the natural and fundamental group unit of society (Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Art. 16,3). This institution is prior to any recognition by public authority, which has an obligation to recognize it. In the family the child is able to learn moral values, begin to honor God and make good use of freedom. Family life is an initiation into life in society.

International instruments have consistently affirmed the right and responsibility of parents in the education of their children. One only need recall the most universally ratified international legal instrument, namely, the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which states quite clearly that the decision regarding the education of the child rests with the parents of that child. As the CRC states, "Parents...have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of their child" (Art. 18,1). Other international instruments affirm this in similar terms. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, for example, both call for respect for the liberty of parents "to ensure the religious and moral education of their children in conformity with their own convictions" (ICCPR, Art. 184 and ICESCR, Art. 13,3).

As the CRC makes clear, the best interests of the child is the basic concern of the parents who have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of their child. Any attempt to create a division between the primary responsibility of parents and the best interests of the child--as the report of the former Special Rapporteur appears to do (e.g., par. 73)--does a disservice to the child, the parents, marriage and the family. What is needed instead is respect for the child by support of the family, which is the most healthy environment for the child in which to be raised, and not the State but parents who have primary responsibility for the education of their children.”

The vital role of marriage and the family in poverty reduction

The Heritage Foundation – a ‘think-tank’ in the United States – from time to time issues reports on various topics, from a traditional point of view. A recent such report considered the problem of poverty, and the effect of poverty on families. ‘Marriage remains America’s strongest anti-poverty weapon,’ the report states, ‘yet it continues to decline. As husbands disappear from the home, poverty and welfare dependence will increase, and children and parents will suffer as a result.’
Elsewhere, the report maintains that:

‘Child poverty is an ongoing national concern, but few are aware of the principal cause: the absence of married fathers in the home. According to the U.S. Census, the poverty rate for single parents with children in the United States in 2008 was 36.5 percent. The rate for married couples with children was 6.4 percent. Being raised in a married family reduced a child’s probability of living in poverty by about 80 percent.’

The report continues:

‘Since marital decline drives up child poverty and welfare dependence, and since the poor aspire to healthy marriage but lack the norms, understanding, and skills to achieve it, it is reasonable for government to take active steps to strengthen marriage. Just as government discourages youth from dropping out of school, it should clearly and forcefully articulate the value of marriage. It should provide information that will help people to form and maintain healthy marriages and delay childbearing until they are married and economically stable. In particular, clarifying the severe shortcomings of the “child first, marriage later” philosophy to potential parents in lower-income communities should be a priority.
‘Marriage is highly beneficial to children, adults, and society; it needs to be encouraged and strengthened. Under current government policies, however, marriage is either ignored or undermined. This needs to change.’

Amen to that! The remarks quoted above could very well be applied to so many other counties today, particularly throughout Europe.

Radical report on sexual rights to be debated in the United Nations General Assembly

A radical report on the right to “comprehensive sexuality education” aimed at sexualizing children from a very early age, will be discussed by the UN General Assembly (GA) in New York on Monday next October 25th. This report which was presented to the GA by Vernor Munoz as the final act of his term as UN special rapporteur on education appears to have been prepared by “the Latin American Committee for the Defence of Women’s Rights” Link to report

Mr. Munoz in submitting this report clearly exceeded his mandate by using his office and this report to promote the radical “sexual rights” agenda. The report is designed to try to establish a new international right to “comprehensive sexuality education” by claiming it already exists. He claims that all countries are already obligated by existing international agreements to provide explicit “sexual” education in their schools and argues that meeting these obligations requires governments to incorporate the elements of the radical sexual rights agenda in their school curricula.


Specifically, in the report Munoz states that he “considers that pleasure in an enjoyment of sexuality . . . should be one of the goals of comprehensive sexual education, abolishing guilt feelings about eroticism that restrict sexuality to the mere reproductive function.”
 With regard to HIV the report declares that “restricting sexual education to the issue of sexually transmitted diseases . . . may create an erroneous association between sexuality and disease, which is as harmful as associating it with sin.” The report further claims that this “right” can only be realized if children “receive comprehensive sexual education from the outset of our schooling.”

In other words, according to this report, children as young as five or possibly even preschoolers must be taught about their right to sexual pleasure.

With regard to religion, the report warns that in some cases “sexual education has been obstructed in the name of religious ideas” and then adds that “comprehensive education acts as a guarantor of a democratic and pluralistic environment.” The report also criticizes “barriers to sexual education, such as allowing parents to exempt their children from such education.”

So in other words, religions and parents should not interfere with the government’s supposed obligation to sexualize children in order to guarantee this “democratic and pluralistic environment”

The report discusses what helps young people “have better sexual lives, as if improving the sexual lives of youth is a valid goal of governments, and it strangely states that the “goal of education for sexuality” (which is significantly different from traditional sex education) is “to develop a transforming role for men by going beyond the strictly genital and physical aspect,” whatever that means.

The report cites the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) International Guidelines on Sexuality Education that calls for respect for “diversity of sexual orientations and identities” and cites a UN Committee ruling that governments are “required to ensure that sexual education programmes did not reinforce stereotypes or perpetuate prejudices regarding sexual orientation.”

The report also endorses the radical “Yogyakarta Principles”, which is the foundation document of the sexual rights movement, claiming that these Principles “have to be taken into account in education” because of its “inclusion of the diversity perspective.”

The report concludes by calling upon the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to “investigate specific problems relating to barriers and challenges to effective enjoyment of the right to comprehensive sexual education” and for the UN Human Rights Council to question Member States during their periodic reviews before the committee about how they are ensuring the “enjoyment of the right to comprehensive sexual education.”

The Folly of interfering with nature

An extraordinary (or is it extraordinary?) story appeared on the front page of the Irish Times on 14 October last, which once again underlines the folly of trying to interfere with nature. A woman in Northern Ireland, who became pregnant and bore two children through IVF procedures, was denied legal damages for alleged negligence on the part of the organisation that was supposedly helping her to conceive.

The reason given for the case against the medical facility was the fact that the children were conceived following ‘donor insemination’ – but the ‘donor’ was a ‘Caucasian (Cape Coloured)’ person, resulting in the children having darker skin that that of their mother and her husband/partner. Also, it seems that the children were ‘markedly different from each other.’ The Court judge said of the case that: ‘The court is thus being asked to venture into the complexities of the creation of life, involving a unique physical and scientific process and to develop the law to deal with an instance where harvested eggs were fertilised with what has been termed inappropriate donor sperm.’

We have read, on a number of occasions, about mix-ups in IVF clinics, resulting in a ‘white’ baby being born to black parents, and a ‘black’ baby being born to white parents. Where do the rights of the child come in? Surely this is a situation – even if none other were needed – to demonstrate the denial and lack of human rights and dignity of human beings that is involved in the use of IVF techniques.

An article in the London Independent, also on 14 October, tells us that: ‘Those who can afford it pay up to £10,000 for IVF, but a gentler technique for the treatment of infertility, which does not have the baggage associated with IVF, priced at just £174, could soon be available to all. So why are experts dragging their heels?’ The ‘real cost behind the fertility industry’s pursuit of profit’ is discussed in the article. We know that it is the pursuit of profit that drives the fertility ‘business’ but, in the meantime, it is women – and men – who suffer from, often, false promises of success. And what of the countless numbers of human beings destroyed in the process? Are they all ‘disposable’ in the eyes of the ‘fertility experts’? Apart altogether from the inhumane treatment of innocent human beings resulting from the use of IVF techniques of whatever type, and the indignity suffered by the mother, and the father, in the process, we must always bear in mind the negation - by using IVF – of God’s plan for creation that supersedes all human activity.

CATHOLIC ORTHODOXY; ANTIDOTE AGAINST THE CULTURE OF DEATH: Speech by ARCHBISHOP RAYMOND BURKE

I reported that the 5th World prayer congress for life took place in Rome from October 5th - 10th and that there were so many wonderful aspects to the conference that it would take some time to report on everything that happened there.

Archbishop Raymond Burke Prefect of the Apostolic Signatura (the highest Vatican court) on Saturday Oct 9th gave one of the most powerful speeches I have heard in a long time. It would be impossible in one or two paragraphs to do justice to the presentation so I have simply highlighted one or two issues and have included a video link to it so that anyone who wishes to do so can see and hear the entire talk.

Archbishop Burke castigated Catholic politicians who are pro-abortion and told the meeting that such people are required to repent publicly. He also challenged all members of the Church to be faithful to the Magesterium and that includes Bishops as well as the faithfu. The Magesterium he said is

"the teaching of Christ as handed down through the successor of Peter and the bishops in union with him. “When the shepherds of the flock are obedient to the Magisterium, entrusted to their exercise, then surely the members of the flock grow in obedience and proceed with Christ along the way of salvation,” he said. “If the shepherd is not obedient the flock easily gives way to confusion and error.”

Archbishop Burke also spoke powerfully about the need to protect innocent human life and attacked to so called contraceptive mentality

" ... The attack on the innocent and defenseless life of the unborn has its origin in an erroneous view of human sexuality, which attempts to eliminate, by mechanical or chemical means, the essentially procreative nature of the conjugal act. The error maintains that the artificially altered conjugal act retains its integrity. The claim is that the act remains unitive or loving, even though the procreative nature of the act has been radically violated. In fact, it is not unitive, for one or both of the partners withholds an essential part of the gift of self, which is the essence of the conjugal union. The so-called "contraceptive mentality" is essentially antilife.Many forms of so-called contraception are, in fact, abortifacient, that is, they destroy, at its beginning, a life which has already been conceived ...

You can listen to the entire speech on this video link

New threat to human embryos in Ireland?

Beware of Greeks bearing gifts! … and beware of wolves in sheep’s clothing!
Two Irish funding agencies, the Health Research Board (HRB) and Science Foundation Ireland (SFI), have announced that they ‘will not fund research projects using human embryonic stem cells.’

Sounds great, but can such government-linked agencies be trusted? Can they be believed? Read on, and you will see that the answer to these questions is an emphatic NO.

The agencies say that ‘in the absence of any legislative framework governing the use of stem cells, they had been directed by the Government via the Department of Health not to fund research in the area.’ Their stance, the news report giving the announcement states, ‘has prompted fresh calls for a national debate on the ethical issues surrounding the use of embryonic stem cells.’

But, wait a minute – a national debate on the ethical issues surrounding the use of embryonic stem cells took place in 2001, when the general public was asked to give its opinion on the matter. Over 1600 submissions were sent in to the Government-appointed Commission on Assisted Human Reproduction, and the vast majority of these submissions were pro-life – that is, the submissions showed that the people of Ireland do not want to have experimentation carried out in Ireland (or anywhere else, for that matter) on human embryos. In 2002 a referendum of the people was held, the aim of which was an attempt to limit protection of the human embryo to the child in the womb, thus leaving the unimplanted embryo open to destruction. That referendum was defeated. Then, in 2003, a further ‘national debate’ took place, this time in the form of a public conference. The list of conference speakers was heavily loaded with individuals who were totally in favour of IVF, including the notorious Lady Warnock as a key speaker. Again, the pro-life message from the floor dominated the proceedings, to the huge disappointment of the organisers. Despite all of these failures to circumvent the Constitutional protection given to unborn life, the CAHR then proceeded to produce a report (2005) that confirmed in its ‘findings’ the anti-life views of the Commission.

We don’t need another ‘national debate’ as to whether or not the human embryo is entitled to care and protection from the moment of conception. We know that all human life starts at conception/fertilisation, and that therefore the human embryo must have legal protection from the moment of its existence, i.e., from conception/fertilisation.

The announcement of a ‘funding ban’ on embryonic stem cell research is, therefore, a delusion presented in an attempt to bring forward legislation that would allow for experimentation and research on human embryos. The stated beliefs of the ordinary people as to the sanctity of all human life, at all its stages, are to be discarded by the vested interests of the IVF/AHR industry and their supporters.

World Youth Day 2011

In a message to young people in preparation for the holding of the twenty-sixth World Youth Day in Madrid in 2011, Pope Benedict XVI spoke around the theme – ‘Planted and built up in Jesus Christ, firm in the faith’. He referred to the fact that: ‘Now, at a time when Europe greatly needs to rediscover its Christian roots … I encourage you to strengthen your faith in God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.’ Pope Benedict speaks to the young people as a father, but at no time does he speak ‘down’ to them – always as equals. Here is some of what he said:

‘You are the future of society and of the Church! As the Apostle Paul wrote to the Christians of Colossae, it is vital to have roots, a solid foundation! This is particularly true today. Many people have no stable points of reference on which to build their lives, and so they end up deeply insecure. There is a growing mentality of relativism, which holds that everything is equally valid, that truth and absolute points of reference do not exist. But this way of thinking does not lead to true freedom, but rather to instability, confusion and blind conformity to the fads of the moment. As young people, you are entitled to receive from previous generations solid points of reference to help you to make choices and on which to build your lives; like a young plant which needs solid support until it can sink deep roots and become a sturdy tree capable of bearing fruit. …
‘Our own cultural context, dear young people, is not unlike that of the ancient Colossians. Indeed, there is a strong current of secularist thought that aims to make God marginal in the lives of people and society by proposing and attempting to create a “paradise” without him. Yet experience tells us that a world without God becomes a “hell”: filled with selfishness, broken families, hatred between individuals and nations, and a great deficit of love, joy and hope. On the other hand, wherever individuals and nations accept God’s presence, worship him in truth and listen to his voice, then the civilization of love is being built, a civilization in which the dignity of all is respected and communion increases, with all its benefits. Yet some Christians allow themselves to be seduced by secularism or attracted by religious currents that draw them away from faith in Jesus Christ. There are others who, while not yielding to these enticements, have simply allowed their faith to grow cold, with inevitable negative effects on their moral lives. …’

Dignitas Personae Explained

Fr John Fleming, SPUC's bioethical consultant and a corresponding member of the Pontifical Academy for Life, has published a new book entitled: "Dignitas Personae Explained: The Church's teaching on reproductive and related technologies".

The publishers explanatory text for Fr Fleming's book follows:

"Infertility and the suffering associated with it has always been a tragic part of the human experience. This is especially true today. Various medical remedies have been developed to deal with human infertility, with artificial reproductive technologies being widely used. There are many treatments for infertility which are approved by the Catholic Church. But the use of in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and related technologies have been condemned as contrary to the natural moral law. This book provides both an account of Church teaching and why the Church teaches what she does in a way that is accessible to the interested layperson.

'Dr John Fleming reflects on, and amplifies, this new teaching document of the Church to make it all the more accessible to those who ought to benefit from it: not only those in the pew but also those in the laboratory who are not even religious.' Dr John Hass, from the Foreword.

Dr John Fleming is an internationally renowned expert in bioethics with a past career in the mainstream media. He is Adjunct Professor of Bioethics at Southern Cross Bioethics Institute (Adelaide, South Australia), and a Corresponding Member of the Pontifical Academy for Life (Vatican). Dr Fleming was a foundation member of UNESCO’s International Bioethics Committee which worked on producing international law in relation to human rights and the human genome."

The book is available via Connor Court Publishing and priced at Aus$18.95. Do please buy a copy and recommend it widely.

The Authentic advancement of women entails respect for their inherent dignity: Holy See statement to the UN

The Holy See in a statement to the UN General Assembly in New York stressed that the authentic advancement of women entails respect for their inherent dignity and affirmed the intrinsic dignity and worth of each and every person--from the very beginning of conception to natural death

The intervention was made by Cathy Murphy, adviser of the Holy See Mission on behalf of Archbishop Francis Chullikatt the new Permanent Observer of the Holy See to the UN who in a wide ranging statement, noted the establishment of UN Women and dealt with other issues such as violence against women, trafficking in women and children and issues surrounding pregnancy and motherhood.

The statement noted the recent Report of the Secretary-General on “Supporting efforts to end obstetric fistula” (A/65/268) which

“calls to mind the attention that countries must continue to devote to the fundamental health of women especially pregnant mothers and those with newborn children. In this regard it is important that basic healthcare be provided to all women and that mothers be provided with essential prenatal care, skilled attendants at all deliveries and specialist care for life threatening complications for both mother and the child yet to be born. “

The statement also called for a human centered approach to caring for others and was critical of aid programmes in third world countries which do not respect the human person

Predicating aid to developing countries on the basis of acceptance of family planning methods not respectful of the human person does nothing to advance the health and wellbeing of women of today and of tomorrow. What is needed instead is a human-centered approach to caring for others, an approach that is fully respectful of the intrinsic dignity and worth of each and every person--from the very beginning of conception to natural death--an approach which sees the individual person not as a burden but as a contribution to the human family.

The statement concluded by expressing the fact that

The authentic advancement of women entails respect for their inherent dignity, including their ethnic and religious identity. The Holy See for its part has consistently affirmed that for this to happen States must take into account that every life is valuable and has worth and that women must be supported. The wellbeing of the future of the human community depends to a great extent upon the ability of governments and civil society to truly respect women, their dignity and worth.

The full statement can be viewed on this link

VIVA LA VIDA Conference

The VIVA LA VIDA conference, organised by Youth Defence, will take place this year from Friday, 5 November, until Sunday, 7 November, at Griffith College in south Dublin.

The conference will be addressed by speakers who are well known in the pro-life world, such as Jill Stanek, Sr. Roseann Reddy (she has worked with the Cardinal Winning Pro-Life Initiative since it was established in 1997 in Scotland), Byran Kemper, Irene van der Wende, Andy Pollard, Eric Scheidler (son of the veteran pro-lifer Joe Scheidler), and many others.

Full details of the conference, together with a booking form, etc., can be found at www.youthdefence.ie/projects/conferences/conference-2010.

This is an event not to be missed!

Pro-Life Award for Monsignor Philip Reilly founder of the 'Helpers of God's Precious Infants

Human Life International’s prestigious Cardinal von Galen award, which is given to Catholic Prelates and leaders who have been a voice of conscience in society, was awarded during the 5th World Prayer Congress for Life on Saturday last October 9th to Monsignor Reilly, founder of the Helpers of God’s Precious Infants. The award was presented to Monsignor Reilly by Archbishop Raymond Burke Prefect of the Holy See Apostolic Signatura.

In addition a second special award was presented on the same occasion to Dietmar Fischer director of the Human Life International office in Austria

The work of the Helpers of God’s Precious Infants is world renowned throughout the entire pro-life movement and has been responsible for saving the lives of thousands of babies.

According to its website the Mission statement of the Helpers sets out three ways of helping God's Precious Infants:

The first by being one who prays a “Prayer,” the second being a “Sidewalk Counselor” and thirdly by being a “Spiritual Counselor”

The ‘Prayers’ come to the abortion mill to pray for an hour or more, on any morning that babies are going to be killed. They carry on a most important spiritual battle, as they stand outside the mill. They pray in a spirit of reparation: for their own sins; the sin of abortion; and particularly for the deaths that will occur while they stand outside on that day. They pray for women going into the abortion mill: for the abortionist and his staff; for the neighboring community; for their legislators; for the religious leaders of the nation; and for all who, through indifference, do nothing to try to stop abortion.

The Prayers provide spiritual and moral support for the Sidewalk Counselors. They are essential. Before a mother is able to physically abort her child, a 'spiritual abortion' must take place within her heart. By the time she arrives at the abortion mill, she will have already rejected her child. This 'spiritual abortion' must be overcome by spiritual means, before the mother can change her mind about the physical abortion. By their sacrifice and prayer, the Prayers obtain the grace of God that is needed to reverse the "spiritual abortion", while at the same time the Sidewalk Counselors are working to prevent the physical abortion of the child.

The Prayers are also there to give a personal love to God's infants who will die that day. Just as John-the-Baptist was able to leap for joy in Elizabeth's womb because he was aware of presence of the love of Jesus and Mary (remember that it was at the sound of Mary's voice that he leapt in his mother's womb), so too will the babies joyfully leap in their mothers' wombs when they hear the voices of the Prayers. They will know they are loved.

Sidewalk Counselor - Helpers of God's Precious Infants Sidewalk Counselor

The Sidewalk Counselors are the ones who approach the woman going in to have the abortion and ask her to reconsider her decision. It is surprising that the woman often has not been given much factual information about what happens in an abortion. The Sidewalk Counselors educate her about the baby's biological development in her womb, and help her to understand the exact manner in which the abortion will kill her child. They will also warn her of the physical harm the abortion may cause to her own body. The woman will be provided with literature telling of all the help available: financial, medical, and spiritual.

The Sidewalk Counselors will also talk to the father of the baby. If the woman decides to go up to see the abortionist anyway, she will be reminded that the Helpers of God's Precious Infants will pray for her and be outside waiting, if she, like others before her, changes her mind while she is upstairs and comes back out again.

Spiritual Helper - Helpers of God's Precious Infants Spiritual Helper

There are some people who want to be present at the abortion mill but are physically unable to come. These Spiritual Helpers are present with the Helpers of God's Precious Infants in spirit. They contribute prayers and sacrifices made during the week, and offer it up for the work of The Helpers.

Some of the Spiritual Helpers are small children who are still in school. They make small sacrifices, such as giving up one night of television. They pray the Prayer Card of the Precious Infants for the work of those who go out to the places where the babies are being killed.

Other Spiritual Helpers are "shut-ins" or terminally ill patients in hospitals, who offer their sufferings and the pains of their condition to God for the purposes and intentions of the Helpers. There are also religious communities, called to a life of contemplation and prayer, providing powerful spiritual backup.

Pro- abortion attack on the right to conscientious objection in the Council of Europe was a ‘bridge too far’

We reported last Thursday on the victory in the Council of Europe in respect of the protection of the right to conscientious objection. We now report more fully on the issues as set out by the European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ)

On October 7th, The McCafferty Report on “WOMEN’S ACCESS TO LAWFUL MEDICAL CARE: THE PROBLEM OF UNREGULATED USE OF CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTION” was submitted for debate and vote by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe.

In a historic reversal, the resolution proposal was entirely replaced by a new text which affirms, defends and promotes the right to conscientious objection of medical staff. Even the title of the resolution has been changed into “The right to conscientious objection in lawful medical care”.

According to a statement by ECLJ Director Grégor Puppinck

“The Council of Europe reaffirms the fundamental value of human conscience, and of liberty in the face of attempts at ideological manipulation of science and of medicine,”
“The McCafferty’s Report was an aberration and we are delighted that a large majority of deputies are poised to defend the values on which the Council is founded: respect of liberty, of conscience and of life. Independence of science and of medicine is also an essential value at the heart of democracies. ”

Here are the principal points of the new resolution that's been adopted: The resolution
- affirms, defends and promotes the right to conscientious objection of medical staff.
- It applies not only to doctors but to all the staff engaged directly or indirectly in an act or a procedure of abortion, euthanasia, etc.
- It also applies to institutions, hospitals and clinics, both private and public. (The McCafferty Report encouraged denominational hospitals to provide abortion)
- It also protects medical professionals from discrimination and pressure.

One of the adopted amendments which reflects the tone of the new text is the following:

“No one hospital, institution or person may be subject to pressures, or be held liable or suffer discrimination of any kind for refusing to perform, allow or assist an abortion, miscarriage or induced euthanasia, or for refusing to perform any intervention to cause the death of foetus or an embryo, whatever the reasons.”

(Amendment 83)

Furthermore, the Assembly recognises that in the vast majority of European Member States, the regulation of conscientious objection does not pose any problems and, when necessary, the Assembly “invites Member States (…) to develop regulations (…) that guarantee the right to conscientious objection related to the proceedings in question.”

By adopting these amendments the Assembly is neither more nor less in line with the law in most democracies. (See the full text as adopted here and below)

According to thr ECLJ report the recommendations of the McCafferty Report hugely infringed the fundamental rights of medical professionals, notably their freedom of conscience. Even for those who consider abortion as legitimate, the small facilitation of the access to “reproductive health services” that this Report seeks apparently to provide cannot justify hurting, damaging and undermining the very core principle of “freedom of conscience”.

According to Grégor Puppinck, Director of the ECLJ,

“The McCafferty Report was defeated because its primary objective was not only practical but also profoundly symbolic. Effectively, it would have a bearing on the moral qualification of abortion, euthanasia and of the exercise of the conscience: the ‘right to abortion or euthanasia’ would become the rule and conscientious objection would become the exception. To reduce the fundamental right of moral objection to a mere exception amounts to a reversal in the moral relationship between abortion or euthanasia and conscientious objection. Conscientious objection would become in some way immoral because it is contrary to the ‘right to abortion.’ The McCafferty Report was an attempt of submission of medicine and of the conscience to ideology. The freedom is a condition of the exercise of medicine and of the conscience; that was affirmed with force during the Nuremburg trials; it is important to remember this and defend this fundamental liberty.”

The Right to Life of the Unborn Child

In a recent issue of the Irish Medical Times, Dr.Ruairí Hanley, a regular contributor to that journal wrote an article on the most critical issue of our times, the right to life of the unborn child.
Dr Hanley wrote as follows:

‘… In six years of writing, there is only one issue that I have never addressed for fear of the hysterical retribution that will follow. This topic appears to inspire irrationality in the most educated of minds and base hostility in others. … I have decided this week to discuss the most contentious subject in the world of Irish medicine – the one that inspires referendums, street protests and occasional riots. God help me, but I’m going to write about abortion.
‘Let us begin with the facts. It is beyond dispute that several thousand Irish women travel to the UK every year to have a termination of pregnancy. It also appears that the overwhelming majority of these are not performed for medical illnesses. In effect, for personal, financial or social reasons these women do not want to have a child.
‘Their legal right to travel and avail of this service in another state is beyond dispute. However, to carry out such procedures in Ireland is a criminal act as the unborn is protected by the Constitution.
‘The “pro-choice” movement believes that this country should provide a similar service to that in the UK, and that this is a basic right of women. The “pro-life” organisations, meanwhile, believe that the unborn child is a living person with a right to existence, and that termination of that life should remain a crime. …
‘Unfortunately, in Ireland this fundamental issue cannot be debated honestly. Thus we have a situation where the discussion appears to centre around rare medical conditions that might put a pregnant woman’s life in danger. These unlikely clinical scenarios are highlighted by the pro-choice movement as alleged examples of where Ireland’s lack of abortion services puts women’s lives at risk.
‘I admit this type of discussion makes me angry due to its fundamental intellectual dishonesty. Maternity related deaths in Ireland are among the lowest in the developed world, so to somehow suggest that the existence of abortion clinics would lower this figure further is not supported by any scientific or medical evidence. …
‘I believe that to suggest such interventions [e.g., in the case of an ectopic pregnancy] are in any way comparable to social abortion is to engage in extremely manipulative behaviour. The pro-choice movement is well aware of this, which begs the question why they spend so much time talking about the incredibly rare, medically necessary abortion rather than arguing the case in favour of the right to choose?
‘It has occurred to me that such tactics are being used for a very cynical reason. Pro-choice activists may have concluded that they cannot win a fair democratic debate in a conservative country such as Ireland. So they might have decided to confuse the issue, in the hope that their ultimate aim will be introduced by stealth. I believe this to be disingenuous in the extreme. …’

An interesting approach, as Dr. Hanley – from what he says at another point in the article – does not appear to be what we might call ‘totally pro-life’. He admits that ‘in a country where contraception is universally available, even after potential conception’, he instinctively finds it difficult ‘to accept the need for facilities to terminate healthy established pregnancies.’ However, he believes that ‘there is something breathtakingly appalling about bringing an unwanted child into the world.’ He suggests what he calls ‘a simple solution’ – ‘another referendum calling for the introduction of abortion facilities in Ireland broadly similar to those in the UK. Let both sides explain why they are either in favour or against this proposal and advance their arguments accordingly.’
A dangerous precedent to set, I would suggest?

Report from pro-life prayer congress in Rome

The 5th World prayer congress for life has been taking place in Rome since Tuesday last, October 5th and will continue until October 10th. There have so far been so many wonderful aspects to this conference that it will take some time to report on everything that has happened and there is still more to come.

Today Friday October 8th, we attended a Mass of reparation at St. Peter’s Basilica in which the sins against life in the area of abortion, of every country in the world were raised up to the Lord and His mercy and forgiveness were sought for everyone involved. The proceedings commenced with the entire group praying the Rosary and then processing to the tomb of Pope John Paul 11 and returning past St Peters tomb back to the main Altar in the Basilica where the Mass of atonement was celebrated.

Yesterday Thursday among the talks given was one by John Smeaton of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) and I report as follows

The following are simply extracts from the speech an the following is a link to John Smeaton’s BLOG. The full version of the speech can be found on SPUC's website in English plus translations in German Italian and Spanish

Human rights: truth and illusion in Europe

Rights which are incompatible with natural law are not only invalid, but their promotion demands the subjugation of some human beings in order to advance the interests of others. Almost on a weekly basis we see such alleged rights invoked to justify public policies, which threaten the most vulnerable in society or used to silence those who speak out in defence of Christian values and natural law. Nowhere is this more clearly seen than with the attempts to separate the right to life from the principles of natural law.

Despite attempts to distort them, international agreements like the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights recognise the right to life of all members of the human family “without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.” This also includes the distinction of personhood and non-personhood held by some, including thus far, European courts, to apply to the unborn child.

We must call upon governments and human rights institutions to return to the original meaning of these documents which were drafted in response to the atrocities revealed by the Nuremburg Tribunals. To do this, we must become more familiar with the international agreements which were intended to protect all human beings at every stage of life. We must resist injustice and continue to speak out for those who cannot defend themselves.

Tragically, abortion is legal in the vast majority of the Council of Europe member states. For many years in Britain, our government has been pursuing a policy of providing access to abortion and birth control drugs and devices for children under the age of sixteen without parental knowledge or consent. Similar policies are being pursued by the Spanish government. Tragically, over 60 years on from the Universal Declaration and the Second World War, it seems that the lessons have not been learned, not in Britain by the British government, not in Spain, by the Spanish government, and the same pressures are developing in Ireland and, without doubt, in other countries in Europe.

Europe is under intense attack and the pro-life and pro-family movement and Catholic Church leaders must be in the front line of resistance. This is World War Three and it's primarily a war on the unborn and on parents as the primary educators of their children. There is in fact a worldwide attack on unborn children, on marriage and the family, and on parents as the primary educators of their children. It's being led by the International Planned Parenthood Federation, the world's largest abortion-promoting agency, which has its headquarters in London. This attack is also promoted by the pro-abortion lobby in the European institutions, including the European Commission which is the world's largest multilateral donor to International Planned Parenthood Federation.

This attack on the unborn and on families is also supported by leading international pro-abortion figures such as Tony Blair, the former British Prime Minister, who is clearly exploiting his entry into the Catholic Church in order to undermine Catholic teaching on the sanctity of human life, on marriage and on human sexuality, together with his wife Cherie Blair, who is also a Catholic; and by US President Barack Obama's administration. In Britain, this attack on unborn children, marriage and the family is also being supported by the Catholic bishops’ conference of England and Wales.

Sadly, the situation is made even worse by church leaders who appear to have imbibed the spirit of the age. Sadly, more and more Catholic parents are telling us at the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children about terrible experiences in Catholic schools, both at secondary and primary school level.

Disunity continues to grow in the Church throughout Europe because its leaders persist in failing to teach the doctrine and prophetic message of Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI's encyclical on the transmission of human life. The use of contraceptive drugs and devices by so many Catholics, which may, according to the manufacturers, cause an early abortion, is draining the pro-life movement of the support of the community most likely to support the battle against abortion. Couples who may be turning a blind eye to the practice of abortifacient birth control in the intimacy of their married lives may well find it difficult to support our unequivocal campaigns against abortion, IVF, human embryo research and euthanasia.

John also pointed out that

The acceptance and implementation of the prophetic teaching of Humanae Vitae will only be possible if there is a radical change in the nomination policy of Bishops throughout Europe. The nominations of bishops who do not have a sustained and genuine track record of fidelity to the teachings of the Magisterium on the transmission of human life (Humanae Vitae) must stop. Such nominations must stop because the cost in babies' lives is simply too great.

European Victory for the Right to Conscientious objection

We have pleasure in reporting that an attack on the right of conscientious objection to abortion by medical personnel was roundly defeated this evening in the Council of Europe.



The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) voted on a report, the original text of which recommended a crack-down on medical personnel who refuse to be complicit in the provision of abortion and other unethical procedures.



Senator Ronan Mullen from Ireland and Luca Volonte of Italy, led the counter attack in the assembly by proposing amendments which totally reversed the effects of the report, from a pro-abortion attack on conscientious objection to a defence of conscientious objection.
The pro-life amendments were duly accepted and Christine McCafferty, the report's British author together with her fellow pro-abortion assembly-members were therefore forced to vote against their own report.



Anthony Ozimic, communications manager of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), commented: "This evening witnessed an incredible victory for the right of staff in medical institutions to refuse to be complicit in the killing of unborn children and other unethical practices.

"SPUC is immensely grateful to the large number of our supporters who lobbied the assembly in recent months, as well as to Senator Mullen, Mr Volonte and the assembly-members who supported them", concluded Mr Ozimic.


We at European Life Network echo Anthony Ozimic's comments and add that this was a real example of all european pro-life groups co-operating successfully to defeat the anti life agenda

In the debate Senator Mullen pointed out that:
the United Nations' Convention on the Rights of the Child recognises the rights of unborn child;
there is no human right to abortion, whereas conscientious objection is a basic principle of human rights;

Euro-socialists want to shut down hospitals opposed to abortion and euthanasia. It's time to stop them

The debate on conscientious objection in the Council of Europe is currently underway and we expect a vote on the issue later today Wed. October 7th the Feast of the Holy Rosary. See my previous BLOG article on this issue

The following is an article published in the Daily Telegraph by Cristina Odone

Euro-socialists want to shut down hospitals opposed to abortion and euthanasia. It's time to stop them

Socialists at the Council of Europe (yes, the same entity that brought you the European Convention on Human Rights) have been very busy lately. A Ms Carina Hagg of the Swedish Socialist Group and Ms Christine McCafferty of the UK Socialist Group are scheming to name and shame conscientious objectors in the medical profession who refuse to carry out abortions, hand out birth control devices or engage in euthanasia. McCafferty even suggests that European governments should set up a register of those who will not cut their conscience to suit the fashion of secular socialists. Daily Telegraph article by Cristina Odone
Conscience, once regarded as a positive asset, is seen by today’s Euro-socialists as a bigot’s charter to block abortion, birth control and euthanasia. Conscientious objection may be a universal human right under international law, but the right to medical intervention – even when it is to end life rather than sustain it – trumps faith every time.
This is dogma, and it is deadly. Conscientious objectors are not fanatics who want to force their religious views down others’ throats: their principled stands often protect the vulnerable, from the octagenarian to the unborn child.
Do you want to live in a world where a doctor cannot refuse to administer the lethal drug to the elderly patient whose gimlet-eyed heirs want out of the way? Where a doctor cannot refuse to terminate the healthy young married woman’s pregnancy, although she makes it clear the baby comes at an inconvenient moment in her career? Yet this is the new world, amoral and irresponsible, that Ms McCafferty seeks to impose on us. (Watch her in action here)
The “regulatory” framework she wants to push through would extend beyond individuals, to hospitals and clinics. This, in effect, would shut down any European medical institution with religious affiliations. The resulting scenario, in which all hospitals and all medics are uniform in their readiness to carry out anything demanded of them, may be a humanist utopia. For the rest of us, though, it spells the loss of some outstanding hospitals and clinics, and outstanding health professionals.
Don’t let the Council’s socialists bury freedom of conscience. Write to William Hague and protest about this soulless scheme. We need more medics with scruples, not fewer.

Playing "Catch Up" with HPV Vaccine

As a follow-up on previous blogs concerning the vaccination programme against HPV (Human Papilloma Virus) for young girls, it seems that the Irish Department of Health [sic] is happy that the Aviva healthcare organisation is now making the dangerous vaccine available to 150,000 further, older, schoolgirls. The philanthropic Aviva organisation will, however, make a charge of €249/299 for the jabs of the vaccine.

It would be interesting to know who exactly is benefiting from the promotion of the HPV vaccine, known as Gardasil. Is it the pharmaceutical companies that are benefiting, and getting the money? And, does the Government – and now, also, the healthcare insurance companies such as Aviva – get a private ‘back-hander’ from the pharmaceutical giants to promote their lethal products?
In the meantime, the young girls of Ireland are being used as human guinea-pigs to test out this untried and unproven vaccine. There are too many reports of adverse and sometimes fatal consequences resulting from application of the vaccine, to allow it to be used. The majority of parents are, however, totally unaware of what is involved, and the Government is deliberately keeping the truth from them. It is time for parents to question the legitimacy of this whole vaccination programme – the future lives, physical and moral, of their daughters could be at stake.

Major Abortion Conference at the Slieve Donard Resort & Spa, Newcastle, Co. Down. 7th/8th October 2010.

Despite the fact that abortion is illegal in Ireland – north and south The Family Planning Association (FPA) and The Irish Family Planning Association (IFPA) have organised a joint conference on Abortion to take place at the Slieve Donard Resort & Spa, Newcastle, Co. Down. 7th/ 8th October 2010.

The holding of this conference in Northern Ireland appears to be a response to the fact that the Health Board recommendations on abortion had to be withdrawn following a judicial review sought by the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children

European Life Network is appealing to readers to contact the hotel and object firmly but politely to the holding of this conference.

Pope Benedict XVI to lead world, "vigil for nascent life," on November 27th

To encourage a commitment and witness within the Church to love and life, a prayer initiative to be led by Pope Benedict XVI is being promoted by a pair of cardinals. All bishops of the world are being asked to invite the faithful to pray for the unborn during the prayerful season before Christmas according to a Catholic News Agency (CNA) report

On Nov. 27, to mark the start of Advent, Pope Benedict will preside over first vespers in St. Peter's Basilica as is customary. According to a note from Vatican spokesman, Fr. Federico Lombardi, however, this will take place within a broader scope than usual.
Vespers will be included in Sunday's "vigil for nascent life," in light of the beginning of Advent and the proximity of the Lord's Nativity.

Benedict XVI will not be the only one leading the vigil, as the initiative is being promoted through bishops' conferences throughout the world. A letter from Cardinal Antonio Cañizares Llovera of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments and Cardinal Ennio Antonelli of the Pontifical Council for the Family has been sent to the bishops of the world to invite a similar celebration and prayer initiative on a local level throughout the Catholic Church.

Fr. Lombardi said through Vatican Radio that the events will take place "in spiritual union with the Holy Father, to promote the commitment and the ecclesial witness for a culture of life and love."

Politics and the American Person

Monsignor Ignacio Barreiro-Carambula is acting as Interim President of Human Life International until a successor to the recently retired Fr. Thomas Euteneuer is appointed.

In his recent ‘Spirit and Life’ newsletter Monsignor Barreiro-Carambula, reflecting on the subject of ‘Politics and the American Person’, has this to say:

‘After having lived in the U.S. and then in Rome for many years, I must say that American politics intrigue me a great deal. I follow the debates and races closely, because I realize that the decisions of American voters affect not only Americans, indeed, they affect the entire world.
‘For example, almost two years ago a majority of American voters elected a man because he breezily promised “Hope” and “Change”, and too few thought to ask such basic questions as: Hope in whom? Or Change to what, precisely, and from what?
A religious fervor seemed to overtake masses of people for whom actual religion has obviously become an afterthought, and they suspended all critical thought in order to float away on a sea of make believe hope and liberal change. …
‘But the most troubling thing one notices when paying close attention to the president’s actions is his utter disregard for the human person. It appears that every initiative he is enthusiastic about is designed to diminish the person, and increase his dependency on government to live his life for him.
‘That is, for those persons who are actually allowed to live their lives. We already know the staggering toll taken by legalized abortion, and we know that the current president has without qualification supported every expansion of the murderous procedure he has ever had the opportunity to support. Not that he would agree that killing these tiny human beings is murder. Like many, he thinks that some human beings are persons worthy of life, and some human beings are not persons, and thus may be destroyed for any reason whatsoever.
‘The historical, philosophical and moral problems are ones that the president, and most other proponents of abortion refuse to confront, at least openly. If we agree that all persons should be protected and allowed to live until their natural death, then to make abortion and euthanasia legal, we have to find ways to deny the personhood of those who are not wanted.
‘The second problem is philosophical. What exactly determines why this human being should live, and this other one should not? …
‘The undeniable fact is that those who defend the destruction of innocent human life in the form of abortion and euthanasia cannot confront the moral issues, nor can they confront the history that proves beyond a doubt the similarity between their reasoning and that of the most heinous murderers of history.
‘Either every human being is a person, regardless of his or her ability to demonstrate a particular trait or demonstrate their utility and convenience, or we can destroy any one at any time for any reason. One only needs time to come up with this reason and a story that will convince others to cooperate in or endorse the destruction.
‘But if, as we believe, every human being is a person with the right to live the life he already enjoys, up until the point of natural death, then we owe it to the weakest of our brothers and sisters to defend them, including, and perhaps especially, in law. Guaranteeing the personhood of every human being in law is crucial if we are to get beyond the back and forth of activist judges or politicians who must worry about their own position as much as they must the life of an elderly woman, or a disabled child.

Gardasil Vaccine update

On numerous occasions recently I have referred to the Gardasil vaccination programme that the Irish Minister for Health, Mary Harney, is imposing on young schoolgirls,see most recent ones August 30 2010 and September 15 2010, I also sent Helth Minister Mary Harney an open letter on the issue as far back as July 2008

Despite many protests, and despite many approaches to the Minister, as well as to other Government officials and the Irish Medicines Board, it seems that the programme is being steadily progressed, even to the detriment of other vaccination programmes, such as those for Rubella, Mumps, etc., for younger children and infants, in that staff is being seconded from that area in order to carry out the Gardasil jabs. Now that the new school term has started, parents and guardians are being asked to complete and sign a ‘consent form’ to allow their daughters to be given the vaccine. (For some girls, this will be their second ‘jab’, as a number of schools were already visited by the Gardasil troops prior to the summer holidays.)
Amongst other questions to be answered on the form are the ‘girl’s name at birth’, and the ‘mother’s maiden name’. Other questions ask whether ‘she’ has had ‘a previous severe reaction to Gardasil’, whether ‘she’ is ‘allergic to any of the vaccine constituents (aluminium hydroxyphosphate sulphate, L-histidine, Polysorbate 80, yeast)’.
If ‘she’ were my daughter I think I would be very wary of that list of constituents, even apart from all the other dangers of the vaccine.
Parents/guardians are also asked whether or not they wish to have their daughter’s HPV vaccination records linked with ‘her’ other HSE (Health Service Executive) immunisation records, and ‘her future cervical cancer screening records with the National Cancer Screening Service’. It should be remembered that the schoolgirls undergoing the vaccination can be as young as 12-13 years of age.
Another question to which the HSE requires an answer is, if not at school or college, whether the girl is being home schooled or is outside the school system.
The HSE does say that all of the information provided will be protected under the Data Protection Acts, 1988 and 2003 – but the information will already be in the government system!

The form also allows for a parent/guardian to decline to give consent for the vaccination, and points out that ‘those over 16 years of age are legally entitled to consent for themselves’.

Finally, and interestingly, the form is called the ‘Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Vaccination Consent Form’. We know that HPV is a sexually transmitted disease.
We also know that the minimum legal age for sexual activity is seventeen years.

The following link gives access to You Tube video presentations on the issue which are a must view for parents