Friday, March 30, 2012

Every Life is Beautiful

This Video clip "Every life is Beautiful" was made by Abbey Johnson as a promotion for the new pro-life movie October Baby about a girl named Hannah. The video is also a powerful statement about her own life and the dawning of an understanding about the beauty of life and the importance of protecting the unborn

Thursday, March 29, 2012

Unborn baby receives surgery in utero

Contact Gènéthique  reports that, Spanish doctors on 13 March 2012, announced that they had carried out an operation in utero on the lung of a foetus aged 26 weeks and weighing 800 grammes with a bronchial obstruction. The little girl was born eleven weeks later. Now aged 16 months, she is in good health.

Eduard Gratacos, head of the foetal medicine department of the Hospital Clinic of Barcelona, said that "this is the first time in the world that such an operation has been attempted and succeeded."

The bronchial atresia that he foetus was suffering from was life-threatening: developing abnormally, the lung "behaved like a tumour" liable to compress the heart and provoke cardiac arrest. Affecting one foetus out of 10,000, this genetic malformation leads in 90% of cases to the death of the foetus or the new-born child.

The operation took less than 30 minutes. The doctors carried out an endoscopy to reach the point of obstruction in the bronchial tubes which they perforated by laser before "reconnecting them" in the bronchial tree. It was an extremely delicate operation as the tissue involved is as "fine as cigarette paper". The diseased lung was thus reduced to the normal size. The child was born some time later and was treated without complication for a slight respiratory insufficiency.

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Swedish home education leader goes into political exile: ”The dangers for the family were too great.”

 An article by, reprinted below, chronicles the major difficulties experienced by home schooling families in Sweden which caused one family to go into political exile

”In the end, the safety of my family could no longer be guaranteed. The threats from Uppsala municipality were too many, too brutal, and every invitation to dialogue was turned down. The actions of the Uppsala local government could hardly be interpreted in any other way than as a hidden message of deportation”, says Jonas Himmelstrand, President of the Swedish Association for Home Education (ROHUS), regarding the silent move of his family from Sweden to the Aland Islands, Finland, in a form of political exile.
The Himmelstrands have had a conflict with Uppsala municipality about the right to home educate for three and a half years. The top Municipal Commissioner, Ms. Cecilia Forss of the Moderate Party, is politically responsible and claims to be well familiar with the case. From the start the lawyer for the municipality chose an extremely restrictive interpretation of the school law. After two years of struggle the Himmelstrands finally got a leave of appeal at the Kammarrätten, the Swedish mid-level court, where the verdict was still pending when the Himmelstrands left Sweden. Even with this leave of appeal, Uppsala municipality still directed a modern form of political persecution of the family which escalated in the months before the family left Sweden.
In November 2011 the principal of the school that was enrolling the Himmelstrand’s youngest home educated son reported the parents to the local social authorities. The report was filed the day after Jonas Himmelstrand debated home education on national radio with the chair of the Educational Committee of the Swedish Parliament, Margareta Pålsson of the Moderate Party. It is not known whether these events were connected or not. The reporting principal had never met Mr. Himmelstrand or his seven-year-old son. However, she did know that the Himmelstrand family were already homeschooling their 13 year old daughter and had now filed the application forms to home educate their son.  The principal reported the parents to the social authorities stating in three sentences that she was concerned that the child was not in school. When directly questioned she said it was ”routine” to submit such a report. No higher official has yet responded as to the legal nature of this ”routine” report which appears to be calculated hostility towards the family.
Jonas Himmelstrand met with the social authorities without his son. The social worker was somewhat surprised at the minimal information the principal had provided and the fact that no meeting had taken place before the report was submitted.  The social authorities decided not to do any further investigation of the family. In their report they concluded that this was a question for educational law and not a matter for the social authorities. The Himmelstrands were lucky. Not everyone called to the Swedish social authorities has been this lucky. Every Swedish home educator knows about Dominic Johansson who was taken into custody for home educating. Before leaving the social services office, Jonas Himmelstrand asked if the safety of the family could be guaranteed while home educating in Sweden. He was told that if he wanted to home educate safely he should to leave Sweden.
Just before Christmas the Children’s Board of the Uppsala municipality, led by Ms. Cecilia Forss, applied at court for a fine of $26,000 USD for home schooling one child, the Himmelstrand’s daughter, for the school year 2010-2011. According to ROHUS sources, this amount is nearly ten times higher than any homeschooling family has been assessed in recent years.  ”It is hard to interpret this excessive amount in any other way than as a punishment for being President for ROHUS and for my international criticism of Swedish family policies”, says Jonas Himmelstrand.
During 2011 Jonas Himmelstrand presented a critical view of Swedish family policies, based on his own research, in nine cities in eight countries on two continents, including the UN in New York. This was done in the role of family research expert at the Swedish family association Haro, and as the founder of the Mireja Institute, a Swedish secular pro-family think-tank. Jonas Himmelstrand is also the chairman of the board of the world’s first global home education conference, scheduled to take place in Central Europe in November 2012.
After being informed about the $26,000 USD fine, Jonas Himmelstrand wrote a sharply worded letter to Ms. Cecilia Forss and asked if she felt it was reasonable to devastate the financial stability of a family for the sake of a controversial political principle. Mr. Himmelstrand also wrote that he perceived the threat to the family of a sum which they could never pay to be a form of hidden deportation. Ms. Cecilia Forss chose not to answer the letter directly. However, two weeks later a letter arrived with another decision from the Children's Board, again led by Ms.  Cecilia Forss, asking the court for a new fine for the current school year of approximately $15,000 USD.
”It is not possible to live in a country where leading politicians are ready to financially ruin a family for the sake of ideology, and threaten families with the sometimes incompetent, but always powerful Swedish social authorities. Beyond that, they have refused every invitation to meet and discuss the situation. It is not healthy to live under such stress,” says Jonas Himmelstrand.
The Himmelstrand family quietly left Sweden in early February and are today living on the Aland Islands in Finland, where home education is allowed under Finnish law. ”It is an incredible relief, and only now are we starting to understand the degree of pressure we have lived under for many years”, says Jonas Himmelstrand. ”At the same time it is an almost surreal experience to be forced to leave Sweden for an issue which in most of the democratic world, and by the UN, is regarded as a human right.”
The Himmelstrands are not alone in leaving Sweden and living in exile due to their desire to home educate. During the last two years about a dozen families have left Sweden for the same reason. ”We have several Swedish home educating families as neighbors on the Aland Islands,” says Jonas Himmelstrand.
Even if half of the board members now live in exile in Denmark and on the Aland Islands in no way will this diminish the work of ROHUS. ”In fact, we will be more effective when we do not feel our families are under threat”, says Jonas Himmelstrand.
Home education is regarded by the UN as a valid form of education under the concept of ”the right of education”. Home education is permitted in most of the world’s democracies with the exception of Germany (under their school law of 1938) and now Sweden. The research on home education shows excellent student results both academically and socially. Removing the choice to home educate must therefore be seen as an infringement on a human right.  Those who are punished for home education must be seen as politically persecuted, and those who are forced to emigrate as going into political exile.

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Potentially high levels of criminal activity in UK abortion clinics

The Daily Telegraph has continued its campaign in relation to abortion clinics with additional articles on March 22nd and 23rd see previous my BLOGS February 24th and March 15th

The Telegraph reported in an article on March 22nd that one in five abortion clinics in the UK is suspected of breaking the law and faces a police inquiry following an official investigation ordered by the Health Secretary.
The regulator  according to the report conducted a series of unannounced raids on every clinic offering abortions this week and found that a “shocking” number may be breaking the law.
The Daily Telegraph understands that more than 250 private and NHS clinics were visited and more than 50 were “not in compliance” with the law or regulations. Doctors were regularly falsifying consent forms and patients were not receiving acceptable levels of advice and counselling in many clinics, the Care Quality Commission (CQC) discovered.
Andrew Lansley, the Health Secretary, said he was “shocked” by the findings of the CQC’s audit and was preparing to report doctors and organisations to the police. Many clinics may be stripped of the licences that allow them to offer abortions.
Mr Lansley they report is understood to be preparing an urgent statement to Parliament on the scandal.

In a further article on March 23rd the Telegraph reports :
Most clinics were visited by the much-maligned Care Quality Commission (CQC) once every few years and a culture of “abortions on demand” appeared to have been introduced by some doctors.
However, this culture seems to have been brought to an end when Andrew Lansley, the Health Secretary, who was shocked by what he read in this newspaper, ordered the regulator into action. Enforcement officers from the watchdog visited every clinic in Britain and their findings are raising serious concern at the highest levels of government.
Today’s disclosures about the potentially high levels of criminal activity in abortion clinics came several months after this newspaper was tipped off that some doctors were illicitly offering sex-selective abortions. Paperwork was allegedly being forged.
Earlier this year, four pregnant women of different ethnic backgrounds, accompanied by undercover reporters, travelled around the country to appointments at abortion clinics.
At each organisation, the pregnant woman explained that she wanted an abortion because of the gender of the foetus. Some clinics refused to help her, saying it was illegal to arrange an abortion for this reason. Others were willing to help.

Monday, March 26, 2012

Adult Stem Cell Therapy Could Boost Kidney Transplant Success: Study

US News reports  on a new study, March 21th involving novel technique that uses a kidney transplant recipient's own stem cells and it suggests that this may someday replace or reduce the initial use of anti-rejection medications.
Six months after a kidney transplant, only around 8% of people given their own mesenchymal stem cells faced organ rejection compared with 22% of people on standard anti-rejection drugs.
"Mesenchymal stem cells are stem cells that can be differentiated into a variety of cells," explained author of the study Dr Camillo Ricordi, of the University of Miami Miller School of Medicine. "If you infuse mesenchymal stem cells at the time of the transplant, you could replace the use of powerful anti-rejection drugs, and maybe replace immunosuppressants altogether," he said.
One of the biggest remaining hurdles in organ transplantation remains the need for powerful anti-rejection and immune-suppressing medications after the transplant.
"Basically, the way we prevent kidney rejections is by putting you on very powerful anti-rejection drugs and immunosuppressive agents to prevent your cells from attacking the foreign organ," said Dr. Robert Provenzano, chair of the department of nephrology, hypertension and transplantation at St. John Providence Health System in Detroit. "But, the current standard has some problems, like an increased risk of infections and the possibility of creating a cancer."
The body's immune system sends out surveillance cells to protect the body against foreign invaders, such as a bacteria, virus or, in this case, a new organ, Provenzano said. The current method of preventing these cells from attacking the new organ is essentially to destroy the surveillance cells. But mesenchymal cells can naturally suppress those surveillance cells so they don't attack, he said.

To see if this suppression would be enough to prevent rejection, Ricordi and his colleagues, including researchers from Xiamen University in China, recruited 159 people with serious kidney disease who were on dialysis. They ranged in age from 18 to 61.
The study participants all had medically well-matched relatives willing to donate a kidney for transplant.
Each was randomly assigned to receive one of three treatments after transplant. One group got standard treatment with anti-rejection medication (induction therapy) and immune-suppressing medication known as calcineurin inhibitors (CNIs). Another group was infused with their own stem cells and the standard dose of CNIs, while the final group received stem cells plus a lower dose of CNIs (80 percent of the standard dose).
Survival rates for the patients and their new kidney were similar for all three groups at 13 to 30 months, the study found.
Results of the study appeared in the Journal of the American Medical Association. The technique could be used in the transplantation of islet cells (in the pancreas) for people with type 1 diabetes, and for other organ transplants, such as the liver.

Friday, March 23, 2012

Aborted human fetal tissue used in research

Minnesota Concerned Citizens for Life (MCCL) report  that brains from aborted unborn babies are being used in laboratory experiments — legally

The report says that use of fetal remains from abortion for research, continues in U.S. laboratories. The dehumanization of nascent human life, applied to human embryos in order to justify the exploitation of embryonic stem cells, also is being applied to the harvesting of brain tissue from more developed unborn babies with functioning brains.
The latest experiment, a clinical trial approved by the Food and Drug Administration, uses brain tissue from aborted unborn babies to treat macular degeneration. StemCells Inc. will inject fetal brain stem cells into the eyes of up to 16 patients to study the cells’ effect on vision. 

In its press release announcing the clinical trial, StemCells Inc. was careful to refer to the fetal brain material as “purified human neural stem cell product” or HuCNS-SC cells, rather than “fresh human fetal brain tissue,” a description which can be found elsewhere on its website.
“StemCells Inc. is not using embryonic stem cells. A five-day-old human being at the embryonic stage does not have a brain, but a fetus at 10 or 20 weeks of development with visible fingers, toes and ears has a functioning brain,” said MCCL Executive Director Scott Fischbach. “Developing human beings in the womb are treated simply as raw material for laboratory experimentation by StemCells Inc. and other companies seeking to monetize aborted unborn children.” 

The misleadingly-named Birth Defects Research Laboratory at the University of Washington in Seattle is known within the research community as a top government distributor of fetal tissue. The lab has been sponsored by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for over four decades, according to a report in WORLD Magazine. The Puget sound Business Journal stated that the lab "in 2009 filled more than 4,400 requests for fetal tissue and cell lines."

WORLD reports that the Seattle facility has retrieved the products of 22,000 pregnancies to date; the lab collects aborted fetuses from abortion centers across the country.

Experimental fetal stem cell treatments have yielded horrific results. Dr. David Prentice, an internationally recognized expert on stem cells and cloning, cites trials in which fetal stem cells have been used unsuccessfully to treat Parkinson’s disease. The New York Times called the outcome of a 2001 study “devastating” after “the patients writhed and jerked uncontrollably.” Another large clinical trial published in 2003 showed similar results. 

“The use of morally illicit material in the biomedical industry violates the ‘do no harm’ principle that has governed the practice of medicine for millennia,” Fischbach said. “Adult stem cells offer the ethical and efficacious alternative. Unborn babies deserve dignity, not dissection and destruction.”

It is not known whether the University of Minnesota (U of M) is experimenting with material from aborted fetuses, but it does use stem cells extracted from human embryos, which are killed in the process. Minnesota’s Human Conceptus Statute 145.422 prohibits the use of a living human conceptus for any type of research or experimentation.
The report continues:
“MCCL calls upon the U of M to pledge not to purchase or use fetal material in its research,” Fischbach added. “Such gruesome work violates human dignity and has no place in our state-funded institutions.”
MCCL is Minnesota’s oldest and largest pro-life organization with more than 70,000 member families and 240 chapters across the state.

Thursday, March 22, 2012

Woman with no fatal disease sued Switzerland for refusing to provide her with suicide drugs

The European Court of Human Rights has agreed to allow Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) attorneys to intervene to defend life in a lawsuit filed against the Swiss government. A woman who does not suffer from any fatal disease sued Switzerland after Swiss authorities would not provide her with drugs to commit suicide. 

“The government has an obligation to protect life, not facilitate death,” said ADF Legal Counsel Paul Coleman. “Claims to personal autonomy do not override national laws which are designed to protect the weak and vulnerable. This position is supported by the European Court’s existing case law and is enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights.”

According to a submission ADF filed with the court Tuesday, “The clear jurisprudence of the Court is that there is no right to assisted suicide or euthanasia under the Convention, nor are there any positive obligations on the State in regard to these issues, save the positive duty on the States to protect life under Article 2.”

Although Switzerland is one of only four European countries to allow doctor-prescribed death in certain circumstances, individuals can obtain sodium pentobarbital, a drug that can be used to commit suicide, only after a medical examination and prescription by a doctor.

Alda Gross, a Swiss citizen, failed to find a doctor prepared to prescribe the lethal substance to her, so she appealed to the national courts in 2009. The Swiss courts held that the restrictive conditions placed on the drug are in place to prevent abuse and cannot be overridden in the absence of a medical prescription. The national courts also noted that Gross “does not suffer from a fatal disease, but has simply expressed her wish to die because of her advanced age and her growing fragility.”

“It is already disturbing that individuals in Switzerland can gain access to lethal substances through medical doctors who are supposed to help preserve life,” said Coleman. “If drugs designed to end life become available without a prescription, as Ms. Gross is arguing for in this case, it will put the lives of thousands of people at extraordinary risk.”

The Gross v. Switzerland case is the latest attempt to create a “right” to assisted suicide under the European Convention. Last year, in the very similar case Haas v. Switzerland, the European Court of Human Rights unanimously rejected the claim that the country had an obligation to assist individuals in committing suicide

Wednesday, March 21, 2012

Houston hospital starving and dehydrating patient against family's wishes

Texas Right to Life has reported on a horrific story which needs to be widely publicised.
In view of the serious nature of the issue we have reprinted the story in full below however the following is a direct link to the report

A hospital is now actively killing a patient whose family called me at the 11th hour yesterday, pleading to save their father's life.

Despite the family's desperation to protect their father’s life, and everything Texas Right to Life did for them, the hospital's death panel declared his life futile and moved with steps to kill him.

I could not protect him, and I want to tell you what happened.

His family calls him Willie.

A few weeks ago, he was making plans to travel with his family for a vacation in Europe, but he had chest pains and went to the hospital to check what's wrong. To his surprise, they discovered pneumonia and, shockingly, leukemia.

His doctors suggested surgery and chemo.  Willie didn't want to die.  Before sedation, his daughter told me that he looked lovingly into her eyes and said, "Fight for me, baby; I ain't done living."

His family -- armed with a medical power of attorney -- obeyed his wishes and told the doctors to continue his medical care and treatment.

But his doctors disagreed. They had other plans.

They formed a committee under Texas law, which is essentially the same death panel laws found in Obamacare, to decide whether Willie should continue living in their hospital.

This death panel of hospital staff and a few doctors met at the hospital in northwest Houston and decided that Willie's life was no longer worth living and told the family their decision. The panelists told Willie’s family that if they didn't agree with their decision, then to move him out of their hospital within ten days or they would pull the plug.

The family reached out to a social worker in the hospital to facilitate transfer to another facility - a facility that would care for Willie.  Willie's family would pay the transfer costs and other expenses for the healthcare the doctors were denying to him, on top of the ample insurance he had to cover his costs.

The social worker told them that she would try to find a location, and the family had no reason to believe otherwise.

But as the 10-day deadline approached, she told them that no facility would accept their father and there was nothing else that she could do.

When they heard her words, the family was silent. They couldn't even form words to express their unbelief and grief. Willie had insurance, after all, why would no one want to accept him?

Willie's family told me how they quickly realized the social worker had painted a picture of their father that no hospital wants: one who had no hope of meaningful recovery, one whose quality of life was gone, one with no dignity due to his illness and disability.

That's when they called Texas Right to Life.

My team and I spoke with many attorneys to take this case.  We even spoke with politicians to pull strings to save Willie's life. All of them were happy to help Willie, but neither the law nor time was on their side.

I even sent a message to a CEO of a hospital with a religious-sounding name to accept him.  No room at the inn.

Texas failed Willie. Our culture failed Willie.

With his family crying beside him at 5pm yesterday, the hospital stopped trying to heal Willie and then turned to try to kill him.

The family was helpless as they watched one by one, each treatment be stopped or withdrawn.

Although Willie breathed on his own through the night, he is being dehydrated and starved to death completely against the family's desire to keep him alive.

Because he hasn't been fed or given water, his heart rate is dangerously low. After he breathed steadily last night, the hospital discussed hospice with the family. Now however, the facility is letting Willie languish while he awaits his transfer to hospice.

Friend, you need to know, as a Pro-Lifer, where our battleground is.  Yesterday we fought in a hospital, the very place we used to trust to save lives.

Please pray for Willie and for his family.

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

US Billionaires funding new push for abortion in Ireland

NACF newsletter March 15th reports: 
IRELAND'S experience in banning abortion is hugely important for the global pro-life community. That's because the country's record proves that it best serves mothers and babies when its laws protect unborn human life. Ireland is the example pro-life activists the world over can point to, because the Irish experience shows that abortion is never necessary.
The abortion industry is, of course, particularly discomfited by the fact that, according to the United Nations, Ireland, without recourse to abortion, is the safest place in the world for a mother to have a baby. And Irish medical experts have testified that their experience shows abortion is not needed to preserve the lives of mothers - whatever conditions arise during pregnancy.
Little wonder, then, that enormous global pressure is being brought to bear on Ireland right now. However, most people would be surprised to hear that the push to legalise abortion in Ireland is being funded by wealthy Americans: with funding coming from billionaires George Soros and Chuck Feeney, and from multinationals like Microsoft and Goldman Sachs through donations to legal centres supporting Planned Parenthood.
The most recent legal attack on Ireland's pro-life laws was a court case - the ABC case - taken to the European Court of Human Rights. The court case was sponsored by the Irish Family Planning Association, the Irish affiliate to International Planned Parenthood. The lead attorney in the case, Julie Kay, has worked for both Planned Parenthood and the Legal Momentum Fund - which works to make abortion legal.
The US based Legal Momentum Fund enjoys massive funding, with multinationals like JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, Pfizer and others helping them to raise almost €8 million in 2008 alone. Their Annual Report for that year describes Kay as a Senior Staff Attorney and reveals its involvement in planning the ABC case. Also supporting Kay with the ABC case was the US Centre for Reproductive Rights - a legal centre headquartered on Wall Street. Their 2010 Annual Report shows income for that year at $18 million with donations from the Ford Foundation, Google, Microsoft and others. The Centre boasts in the same report of their involvement in 'fighting' Ireland's pro-life laws.
It is difficult for local pro-life advocates to match such lavish funding, especially when additional resources for abortion campaigns also comes from wealthy individuals, such as Chuck Feeney, the American billionaire. Feeney made the headlines in Ireland recently when it was announced that he had given €1,500,000 to ensure a 'Yes' vote to a forthcoming referendum on children's rights. But the billionaire has given millions to organisations pushing for social change in Ireland for a decade or more. For example, according to the website of his foundation Atlantic Philantrophies, he has funded the Irish Council for Civil Liberties (ICCL) to the tune of some $7.7 million.
The ICCL has long been an advocate of legalising abortion in Ireland, but recently it caused major controversy when it claimed it had the support of major Catholic charities for a report it put together to submit to the United Nations which contained a strong call for abortion legislation.
The report, entitled 'Rights Now', cost a whopping $190,000 to produce and was funded entirely by Feeney's foundation. It said that 'By restricting abortion, the [Irish] State disproportionately interferes with women's rights to health, privacy, life, freedom from inhuman or degrading treatment and non-discrimination'. The ICCL claimed that major Catholic organisations such as the development aid charity Trócaire supported the contentious report, but in a major embarrassment for the Feeney-sponsored lobbyists, Trócaire and other charities withdrew support when the Life Institute raised a controversy regarding the call for abortion.
However, the ICCL report encouraged other countries to attack Ireland's ban on abortion at the subsequent UN hearing in Geneva. What's also interesting is that, without Feeney's support, the ICCL would hardly exist since it receives almost no support from the members of the public. For example, in 2009 the organisation only managed to raise €8,822 in donations from the Irish people, but received more than €2 million from Feeney's foundation the following year.
Feeney has also given more than $1,000,000 to the National Women's Council of Ireland, who last month launched a drive to lobby politicians in support of abortion legislation.
As if that wasn't enough, there are also other massively wealthy figures funding the push for abortion in Ireland. George Soros, the New York based investor billionaire, gave €100 million to the self-styled rights organisation, Human Rights Watch (HRW) , in 2010 - the same year that the outfit visited Ireland to attack that country's ban on abortion. HRW slammed the Irish government in a document provocatively titled 'A State of Isolation: Access to Abortion for Women in Ireland,' and demanded that 'immediate steps' be taken 'toward decriminalizing all abortion for women living in Ireland'. The document even suggested that the authorities do more to shift public opinion towards abortion.
The funding being lavished on abortion campaigners amounts to unwarranted and unwanted interference in Ireland's affairs in a bid to smash the pro-life ethos that protects both mothers and babies. Two decades of persistent public engagement and education has maintained Ireland's pro-life majority, and, in that time, abortion campaigners have failed to win the necessary public support to build momentum for abortion legislation. But they are now openly availing of the massive global funding being made available to efforts to overturn Ireland's pro-life laws. As in many other jurisdictions, since they cannot get the people to agree with abortion, they want to use the courts and the massive wealth and power of a tiny elite minority to foist abortion on the nation.

Monday, March 19, 2012

March for Life 2012

As we approach March 25th the day of the Annunciation we enter into one of the march for life seasons
Two such events have come to our attention so far
Firstly the third March for life to be held in Brussels will take place on Sunday next March 25th commencing at 13.30 at the Mont des Arts and finishing at 16.00 at Place Poelaert close to the Palais de Justice.

Meanwhile Romania according to reports will hold events in 20 cities see following report

Various pro-life organizations and Christian groups are organizing on Saturday, March the 24th, “March for Life” initiatives.  This event, for the first time, will have a national spread, as it will take place simultaneously in 20 Romanian cities.

The goal of the „March for Life” is to re-state the right to life of the unborn children starting with conception, the respect towards life in all its stages and manifestations and the need to support the family as a basic unit of every society.

The decrease in the birth rate, identified as main cause of the demographic crisis, will continue to deepen the unbalance between the social and economical environment – unless stopped, which can be achieved mainly through restriction / ban of abortions.

According to the report a Manifesto addressed to society and the political class will be made public during the March. This manifesto will request the implementation of a new attitude and new legislation, favoring life and family, especially as Romania has the highest abortion rate among all the EU countries and suffers a visible degradation of the importance of family in social life.

According to data obtained from the last national census, Romania has lost, in absolute figures, 4 million people, and the population is ageing. It is estimated that at least 8 million children (and this is only official data) were victims of abortions from 1990 to day.

The real losses are hard to estimate, according to specialists, and they already affect all aspects of life, starting with labour market, pension budget, public health insurance or the creative power of our people. In the future, Romania will depend on immigration for a labour force, in order to continue to exist.

The "March for Life” follows the international tradition of large world cities, such as Washington, Paris, Berlin, Bruxelles or Budapest.

For further information regarding: the complete list of the participating Romanian cities, the route and program of the March, and for the contact details of the local organizers, please access or send an email to contact[@]marsulpentruviata[.]ro.

Friday, March 16, 2012

Ireland rejects UN pressure to legalize abortion

The final report of Ireland’s Universal Periodic Review (UPR), was presented to the Human Rights Council in Geneva on Thursday by Ambassador Gerard Corr who told the meting that Ireland had fully accepted 91 of 127 recommendations made by other member states, partly-accepted 17, and not accepted 19.

A number of pro-abortion advocates were furious that the recommendations from, Spain, Denmark, the UK, the Netherlands, Norway and Slovenia, that Ireland should legalize abortion, were rejected. Pro-life groups on the other hand praised the Irish Government for their continued support of the right to life in accordance with Ireland’s Constitution.

Ambassador Corr also told the meeting which was the official UN follow-up relating to Ireland’s UPR review, which took place in October 2011 that Ireland’s  Minister for Justice, Alan Shatter, had set up an expert group on the issue of abortion.  He said the group was expected to present its findings in July of this year.

Patrick Buckley speaking on behalf of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children told the meeting.

The right to life of all members of the human family is recognised in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in subsequent Human Rights Covenants and Treaties it is also specifically protected in the Irish Constitution. It is a scientific fact that a new human life begins at conception / fertilisation

The will of the Irish people expressed though a number of Referenda is that the right to life of unborn babies the most vulnerable members of the human family be protected from the very beginning. The inalienable right to life of any section of the human family is not and should not be subject to the will or interests of others.

It is significant that no Treaty or Convention recognises a right to abortion yet many countries during the UPR process took it on themselves to instruct Ireland to introduce abortion. We very much appreciate the fact that Irish Delegation has firmly rejected those calls as set out in the report of the working group conclusions document A/HRC/ 19/9 paragraphs 108-4 to 108-9.

Ireland has an excellent record in the protection of the lives of both mothers and their babies and enjoys one of the lowest levels of maternal mortality in the world.
Lifesaving medical interventions, considered necessary to protect the lives of pregnant women have always been available in Ireland. Every opportunity is given to a mother and her baby to survive. Medical expertise recognises that it is never necessary to terminate the life of a child in order to save a mother’s life. While some children may not survive such interventions, their deaths are an undesired consequence of the treatment of the mother’s condition rather than the intended result of the doctor’s actions. It is important that such interventions are not confused with abortion procedures, which are specifically aimed at ending the life of an unborn child.

Contrary to the claims of abortion advocates, the ruling of the European Court of Human Rights in the Case of A, B & C v Ireland does not require Ireland to either to introduce abortion or liberalise its abortion laws. What they sought is clarity.
The Court ruled that access to abortion is not a human right; and that Ireland’s constitutional protection for children prior to birth does not violate women’s rights.

Thursday, March 15, 2012

UK Doctor suspended following sex selection abortion sting

We reported last month on the issue of UK doctors turning a blind eye to sex selection abortion

The Daily Mail report March 12th that one of the doctors has already been suspended by the Medical Council and that it is likely that the council will also suspend the others and take away their licence to practice. The folowing is an extract from the Daily Mail article
A doctor who altered paperwork to conceal the fact he was agreeing to an abortion because of the baby's gender has been suspended by the General Medical Council.
 Dr Raj Mohan was filmed at the Calthorpe Clinic in Edgbaston, Birmingham agreeing to a mother's request to abort her baby because she didn't want a girl.
In the video, filmed as part of an undercover investigation, the woman asked him: 'Can we put down a different reason?'
Dr Mohan tells her that to record that she didn't want a girl was 'not a good reason anytime' for an abortion, before saying: 'I'll put down too young for pregnancy, yeah?'
The GMC's Interim Orders Panel has now suspended Dr Mohan from practising pending a full investigation of his actions, recorded by undercover reporters for The Daily Telegraph.
Medics Dr Prabha Sivaraman and Miss Claudine Domoney have also been told by the panel that they 'must not authorise any termination of pregnancy or carry out any termination of pregnancy work, either by consultation or surgery', the Telegraph reports today.
It is now likely that all will face GMC Fitness to Practise panels which could strip of their right to work as a doctor after the newspaper filmed them agreeing to abort foetuses because they were the 'wrong' gender.
According to the 1967 Abortion Act, doctors are allowed to carry out terminations if they think there is a risk to the mother's physical or mental health.
However, to abort a foetus solely on the basis of gender is illegal and offenders risk a possible prison sentence. 

The way the abortion industry flourishes is by dehumanising the unborn baby and all the major newspapers fall into the trap (many willingly) as in this extract from the Daily Mail article in general and the last sentence in particular. This is done by referring to the the "termination of a pregnancy" or "abortion of a foetus" rather than the termination of the life of a baby or aborting a baby. This is the so called acceptable language that is designed to focus on anything but the humanity of the unborn baby and it needs to be tackled continuously. 

Wednesday, March 14, 2012

Report on Dublin Family Conference

  Where is the Catholic Family Going in New Millennium Ireland?
We report today on the conference in support of life and family issues which was held in Dublin last Sunday and which was a great success. The conference was centered on  the Apostolic Exhortation of Pope John Paul ii  "Familiaris Consortio" which sets out a charter of rights for the family. In view of the importance of the presentations made during the conference we will report more fully on some of these over the next few weeks.

 The presentations included a wonderful explanation of the work of MaterCare in Africa by Dr Robert Walley its executive director. Dr Walley described his horror at the plight of women in the 3rd world and his development of a “Marshall Plan” for mothers to help reduce maternal mortality and morbidity and his difficulty in getting development aid from first world countries unless he included abortion and contraception services.

Dr Walley told the meeting he has developed a charter of rights for mothers which include the following
Article 1 
                           Every mother must be allowed and enabled to welcome the gift of her child.  Every child must be valued as a gift and must not be reduced to being considered as the object of someone else’s alleged right
Article 2
         Every mother has a right to respect for her dignity, religious, moral, social, and cultural values, and the right to be free from every form of unjust discrimination or coercion, during pregnancy, childbirth and afterwards.
Article 3
     Every mother and every child has the right to the treatment and care needed to try to ensure the survival of each of them during pregnancy and childbirth; nothing must ever be done deliberately and directly which causes or which is intended to cause the death or either of them, nor must anything morally upright be deliberately omitted in order to provoke the death of either; essential obstetrical care must always be provided during pregnancy, in childbirth and afterwards.

Former MEP Kathy Sinnott addressed the conference on the issue of the upcoming children’s rights referendum.
Ms Sinnott told the meeting that the Irish Government signed and ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child without a referendum despite the fact that it conflicts with the Irish Constitution. The basic conflict revolves around the issue the most appropriate way of implementing children's rights and through whom, the parents or the State. The current Irish constitution favours parents however there is much pressure from the UN and EU to be the arbiter of children's rights. Where this has occurred in other countries  such as Sweden children are regularly taken into care for spurious reasons and can be given contraception and medical interventions such as abortion without parental knowledge or consent

Dr Eanna Johnson spoke about the current position regarding Catholic Catechises and the fact that a whole generation has gone by without adequate formation in faith and morals despite major expenditure on programmes such as “Alive O” which have proved to be not just inadequate but harmful to children's faith in contrast with the old penny Catechism and apologetics courses which was available to previous generations.

Patrick Fagan PhD spoke about his work and explained that by using official US  statistical information in his research he has produced incontrovertible evidence that the most appropriate environment for children is the natural family based on marriage. The statistically validated research  shows that outcomes of intact family units exceed all others in so many ways, including areas such as higher educational achievement and family income. The research shows that the intact family which has a strong faith and attend church regularly are the happiest and most fulfilled.

Antonia Tully described some of the milder sex education programmes that are used in Catholic Schools in England and Wales and told the meeting that she would not show some of the more explicit programmes that are available in other  schools because they are actually pornographic. Antonia then went on to describe the new “This is my Body” programme which is a school taught programme with the involvement of parents. There was huge interest in this programme as it is clearly a very sensitive and appropriate way of instructing children in the area.

Dr Tom Ward discussed the inalienable right of parents as the primary educators and protectors of their children against the background of two worldwide paradigms or blueprints for the family the Civilization of Love and Life on the one hand based on God and the family and the Culture of Death on the other hand based on the agenda of atheistic, wealthy, aggressive, Western elites.

Dr Ward told the conference that Many families in Spain, Poland, Hungary, Russia and the United States are rebelling against the state imposition of this failed atheistic paradigm and that they wish to replace it with a new Civilization of Love and Life, based on marriage between a man and a woman and their parental love and protection for their children. “We must urgently make common cause with them” he said

Tuesday, March 13, 2012

Obama Admin Finalizes Rules: $1 Abortions in ObamaCare

According to a report in LifeNews.Com a $1 addition for abortion will be added to every health insurance plan. The cost of abortion is to be borne by the public through health insurance whether one likes it or not.
LifeNews says, It’s official. The concern pro-life organizations had about the ObamaCare legislation funding abortions has been confirmed, as the Obama administration has issued the final rules on abortion funding governing the controversial health care law.
Nestled within the “individual mandate” in the Obamacare act — that portion of the Act requiring every American to purchase government — approved insurance or pay a penalty — is an “abortion premium mandate.” This mandate requires all persons enrolled in insurance plans that include elective abortion coverage to pay a separate premium from their own pockets to fund abortion.  As a result, many pro-life Americans will have to decide between a plan that violates their consciences by funding abortion, or a plan that may not meet their health needs.
The Department of Health and Human Services, according to the report, has issued a final rule regarding establishment of the state health care exchanges required under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
As a knowledgeable pro-life source on Capitol Hill informed LifeNews, as authorized by Obamacare, “the final rule provides for taxpayer funding of insurance coverage that includes elective abortion” and the change to longstanding law prohibiting virtually all direct taxpayer funding of abortions (the Hyde Amendment) is accomplished through an accounting arrangement described in the Affordable Care Act and reiterated in the final rule issued today.
“To comply with the accounting requirement, plans will collect a $1 abortion surcharge from each premium payer,” the pro-life source informed LifeNews. “The enrollee will make two payments, $1 per month for abortion and another payment for the rest of the services covered. As described in the rule, the surcharge can only be disclosed to the enrollee at the time of enrollment.  Furthermore, insurance plans may only advertise the total cost of the premiums without disclosing that enrollees will be charged a $1 per month fee to pay directly subsidize abortions.”
The pro-life advocate told LifeNews that the final HHS rule mentions, but does not address concerns about abortion coverage in “multi-state” plans administered by the Federal Government’s Office of Personal Management (OPM).
“There is nothing in the Affordable Care Act to prevent some OPM (government administered) plans from covering elective abortion, and questions remain about whether OPM multi-state plans will include elective abortion,” the pro-life source said. “If such plans do include abortion, there are concerns that the abortion coverage will even be offered in states that have prohibited abortion coverage in their state exchanges.”
The final rule indicates “Specific standards for multi-state plans will be described in future rulemaking published by OPM…”
Set to go into effect in 2014, the unconstitutional provisions found in Section 1303 of the Obamacare Act compel enrollees in certain health plans to pay a separate abortion premium from their own pocket, without the ability to decline abortion coverage based on religious or moral objection.
That provision was the subject of a legal document Bioethics Defense Fund’s Dorinda C. Bordlee, lead counsel for the group, submitted to the Supreme Court in February.
“This violates the Free Exercise Clause because religious exemptions are made for groups such as the Amish who morally object to purchasing any insurance, but no exemptions are made for Americans who have religious or moral objections to abortion,” Bordlee said.
“President Obama’s healthcare overhaul includes an ‘abortion premium mandate’ that blatantly violates the conscience rights and First Amendment religious rights of millions of Americans,” AUL president Charmaine Yoest said. “Nowhere in the Constitution does it require Americans to violate their beliefs and pay for abortions.”
ADF Senior Counsel Steven Aden says Americans should not be compelled to pay for other people’s elective abortions.
“No one should be forced to violate their conscience by paying for abortions, but that’s precisely what ObamaCare does,” he explained. “ObamaCare requires that employees enrolled in certain health plans pay a separate insurance premium specifically to pay for other people’s elective abortions and offers no opt-out for religious or moral reasons. Such a mandate cannot survive constitutional scrutiny.”
BDF president and general counsel Nikolas Nikas said the individual mandate not only forces individuals into private purchases, it also effectively mandates personal payments for surgical abortion coverage, without exemption for individual’s religious or moral objections.
He told LifeNews in an email, “Like a Russian nesting doll, the individual mandate has nestled within it a hidden, but equally unconstitutional scheme that effectively imposes an ‘abortion premium mandate’ that violates the free exercise rights of millions of Americans who have religious objections to abortion.”