Culture of Life Africa

I recently came across an excellent website called Culture of Life Africa which castigates the western world, European nations in particular for funding the culture of death in Africa.

I am reprinting below and linking to an excellent BLOG POST dealing with cultural imperialism of the worst kind but which is promoted and funded in the name of progress.

The article entitled ‘SAAF - a sleek, sly, deplorable meansof destruction’ by Obianuju Ekeocha reads as follows

As I searched online for resources and initiatives dedicated to development in Africa, it dawned on me that in this difficult and dry global economic climate, many humanitarian aid projects have been inevitably defunded and there are fewer and fewer poverty alleviation projects being launched . So imagine my shock and horror to discover that the one well that has not run dry in this economic drought is SAAF -the safe abortion action fund - a multi-donor funding stream which exists only for the sole purpose of bringing abortion to the poorest parts of the world. So, as good development projects are allowed to drop off the grid SAAF enjoys renewed commitments from donors that keep it going and growing every year.

The Safe Abortion Action Fund (SAAF) was established by a group of five like-minded (I guess we can also say abortion-minded) donors in 2006 as a mechanism to support in-country initiatives for increasing access to abortion services within a package of reproductive health care. This is how they described themselves on their website, so even from their self-presentation, their aim and agenda is very clear - to spread the culture of abortion wrapped in the pretty packaging of "reproductive health care" to every nation and every people on earth .

And they are advancing their morally objectionable mission by providing hundreds of thousands of dollars in grants to non-governmental organizations which demonstrate an ability to improve (and increase) access to abortion through stimulating policy change, advocacy (i.e. funding abortion lobbyists who specialize in pressurizing and persuading governments of poor countries) and service delivery (i.e. funding all forms of abortion services) .

In their own words SAAF works to de-stigmatize abortion and to legitimize the abortion debate – creating and supporting a ‘network of champions’ who are more empowered to work at local and national levels.

A network of champions to provide, de-stigmatize and legitimize the killing of the unborn?

What a viciously vile and violent work being carried out by SAAF's network of "champions"!

Hosted (and coordinated) by the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) - no surprise there. 

But what is surprising and disconcerting is that as millions of pregnant women are unable to get access to the most basic prenatal care that will save their lives, and millions of girls are unable to gain access to basic education that will truly empower them, wealthy and powerful donors get together, unite their forces ,  and pull their massive resources only to dedicate  astronomical amounts of money to de-stigmatizing , legitimizing and  increasing access to abortion across the developing world .

This gives one a real cause for pause and worry especially when you find out who the donors are ...

This abortion-promotion entity is being funded not by private donors but by governments of some very prominent European nations!!!  Yes, hiding behind the IPPF as host are the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden , Switzerland and Norway.

As you can see, these are all Wealthy, Educated, Industrialized, Rich , Democratic (W.E.I.R.D) nations who have set out to spread their own tragic disregard for the sanctity of human life by supporting and sustaining a thinly clad abortion-machine like SAAF.

An initiative which is openly and totally committed to spreading the scourge and affliction of abortion especially to nations that have chosen to uphold the inherent right to life of their unborn.

The same nations who are reducing their humanitarian aid projects in Africa due to the economic restraints are nevertheless able to provide unlimited funds (or so it seems) to provide "safe" abortion in Africa because they consider it of utmost importance.

An example of this can be seen on page 22 of the SAAF 2008 report that the UKAID (also known as DFID) increased their donation for Africa and as they put it in their report "considering the need in this part of the world , this extra specific funding is proving to be invaluable".

So where the African girl cannot get an education it is considered, by SAAF and all their donors, as invaluable for her to be able to get her abortion.

Tragic, but true.

This has been going on since 2006 and is still ongoing as their 2013 call for funding applications have just been closed barely 4 weeks ago and yet no objections have been raised to this grossly inappropriate use of power and government funds.

But this deserves a strong objection from the African people as well as the tax-paying citizens of the donor-nations , because in a world that has seen so much violence and war these so called "peace-mediating" nations are turning around to fund the radical, promotion of abortion in nations where abortion is seen as direct violence against the most vulnerable .

In supporting and funding SAAF, these nations exhibit their imperialistic disregard for the African worldview and way of life as they are going all out to extend, and impose their own views and values on life in the womb (which they see and treat as disposable) .

I suppose the questions to ask these "generous" nations as they all enthusiastically get in line to openly fund abortion in the largely pro-life developing world ,would be - where is the multi-donor funding mechanism put in place to help orphaned babies in Africa? Where is the multi-million dollar project to provide a healthy alternative for African girls in crisis pregnancy ?

Where are your generous humanitarian efforts that are compatible and consistent with  the African (pro-life, pro-woman, pro-motherhood) world view ?

Africa wants life for all African babies , Africa celebrates womanhood and motherhood and so we ask , no - we beg, that the good governments of the UK, Norway, Denmark ,Sweden, Switzerland and Netherlands would refrain from supporting and sustaining projects that are diametrically opposed to our values and instead channel their donation funds and efforts into promoting life and  health for all Africans (born and unborn) .

  

PLEASE DEFUND SAAF NOW BECAUSE IT IS NOT SAFE FOR US , IT NOT SAFE FOR OUR BABIES AND IT IS NOT SAFE FOR OUR FAMILIES !!!

Babies learn to recognize words while still in the womb.

According to a new study by Partanen et al babies learn to recognize words while still in the womb.

The study ‘Learning-induced neural plasticity of speech processing before birth’ was reported in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America PNAS and is the subject of an article (reprinted below) in ‘Science Now’.

Be careful what you say around a pregnant woman. As a fetus grows inside a mother's belly, it can hear sounds from the outside world—and can understand them well enough to retain memories of them after birth, according to new research.

It may seem implausible that fetuses can listen to speech within the womb, but the sound-processing parts of their brain become active in the last trimester of pregnancy, and sound carries fairly well through the mother's abdomen. "If you put your hand over your mouth and speak, that's very similar to the situation the fetus is in," says cognitive neuroscientist Eino Partanen of the University of Helsinki. "You can hear the rhythm of speech, rhythm of music, and so on."

A 1988 study suggested that newborns recognize the theme song from their mother's favorite soap opera. More recent studies have expanded on the idea of fetal learning, indicating that newborns already familiarized themselves with sounds of their parent’s native language; one showed that American newborns seem to perceive Swedish vowel sounds as unfamiliar, sucking on a high-tech pacifier to hear more of the new sounds. Swedish infants showed the same response to English vowels.

But those studies were based on babies' behaviors, which can be tricky to test. Partanen and his team decided instead to outfit babies with EEG sensors to look for neural traces of memories from the womb. "Once we learn a sound, if it's repeated to us often enough, we form a memory of it, which is activated when we hear the sound again," he explains. This memory speeds up recognition of sounds in the learner's native language and can be detected as a pattern of brain waves, even in a sleeping baby.

The team gave expectant women a recording to play several times a week during their last few months of pregnancy, which included a made-up word, "tatata," repeated many times and interspersed with music. Sometimes the middle syllable was varied, with a different pitch or vowel sound. By the time the babies were born, they had heard the made-up word, on average, more than 25,000 times. And when they were tested after birth, these infants' brains recognized the word and its variations, while infants in a control group did not, Partanen and colleagues report online today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Babies who had heard the recordings showed the neural signal for recognizing vowel and pitch changes in the pseudoword, and the signal was strongest for the infants whose mothers played the recording most often. They were also better than the control babies at detecting other differences in the syllables, such as vowel length. "This leads us to believe that the fetus can learn much more detailed information than we previously thought," Partanen says, and that the memory traces are detectable after birth.

"This is a well-respected group and the effects are really convincing," says Patricia Kuhl, a neuroscientist at the University of Washington in Seattle. Combined with previous work, she says, these results suggest "that language learning begins in the womb."

Developmental psychologist Christine Moon, of Pacific Lutheran University in Tacoma, Washington, agrees. "I think it is a very good paper with important results," she says, and it points the way to future studies that could break down the learning process in even more detail.

Just because babies can learn while in utero doesn't mean that playing music or language recordings will help the child. Partanen says there is no solid evidence that stimulation beyond normal sounds of everyday life offers any long-term benefits to healthy babies. Moon adds that playing sounds to a fetus with speakers close to the belly could even be risky because this could overstimulate the fetal ear and the rapidly developing brain. Too much noise can interfere with the auditory system and may disrupt the baby's sleep cycles.

Rather than playing recordings for healthy babies, Partanen sees potential treatments for children at risk for dyslexia or auditory processing disorders, if hearing certain sounds in pregnancy turns out to speed up language learning—"but that's a big if." His team's study looked only at babies less than a month old, and it's not clear whether the babies will retain the memories as they get older, or whether in utero learning has an effect on language learning or ability later in life.

Cardinal Arinze interview

This wonderful interview with Cardinal Arinze needs no explanation, it is clear, concise and though the topic could not be more serious it is delivered with humour.

I too have a dream

On this day when we remember the iconic speech of Martin Luther King I cannot keep silent because I too have a dream.

I share the dream that one day my nation and indeed all the nations of the earth will rise up and live out the true meaning of the statement: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal."

I have dream of an age in which truth will triumph over anti-life ideologies.

I dream of a world where natural justice is paramount, a world in which all men and women are truly equal and where every conceived child is welcomed as a unique and special gift from God.

I have a dream,

I dream of a world in which it is accepted that every human being born or unborn possesses an inalienable right to life from conception/fertilization, to natural death, antecedent to, and superior to, all positive law.

I have a dream

I dream that the right to life of every human being born or unborn will be respected, protected and legally safeguarded throughout his/her natural life cycle.

I have a dream,

I dream that every man woman and child will come to understand the precious gift of unborn life and will commit themselves to the defence of the life and dignity of every human being.

I have a dream,

I dream that one day the slaughter of innocents will cease and the terrible injustice of abortion will come to an end.

I have a dream

I dream that every national Government will come to understand the precious gift of every unborn life and that all population control programmes will be brought to an immediate end  

I have a dream

I dream that all international development aid will be donated without anti-life conditions and nations will be allowed to live in peace without let or hindrance.

Yes I too have a dream

Eight facts most people don’t know about the physical and psychological consequences of abortion for women

-->

Dr peter Saunders writing in his BLOG Christian Medical Comment says, ‘Contrary to popular opinion abortion hurts women.’

Dr Saunders Continues

TheUnChoice.com is an evidence-based Elliot Institute campaign to raise awareness about unwanted abortions, post-abortion issues and maternal deaths and to provide help, hope and healing.

The US-based Elliot Institute  publishes research and educational materials and works as an advocate for women and men seeking post-abortion healing.

The following figures, referenced below from an Elliott Institute publication, are eight evidence-based facts about the consequences of abortion for women’ health.  I have, where possible linked the references to the original sources.

1. 31% of women having abortions report suffering physical health complications (1)

2. 10% of women having abortions suffer immediate, potentially life-threatening complications (2, 3, 4)

3. Women have a 65% higher risk of clinical depression following abortion vs. childbirth (5)

4. 65% of women suffer symptoms of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) after abortion (1)

5. Women's death rates from various causes after abortion are 3.5 times higher than after giving birth  (6, 7)

6. Many women describe their experience as ‘a nightmare’, which can hardly equated with ‘choice’. 60% of women surveyed after abortion responded that: ’Part of me died’ (1)

7. Suicide rates among women who have abortions are six times higher than those who give birth (7, 8)

8. Abortion increases a woman's risk of future miscarriages by 60% (9)

References

1. Source: Rue et. al., “Induced abortion and traumatic stress: A preliminary comparison of American and Russian women,” Medical Science Monitor 10(10): SR5-16, 2004.

2. Frank, et.al., "Induced Abortion Operations and Their Early Sequelae," Journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners 35(73):175-180, April 1985.

3. Grimes and Cates, "Abortion: Methods and Complications", in Human Reproduction, 2nd ed., 796-813.

4. M.A. Freedman, "Comparison of complication rates in first trimester abortions performed by physician assistants and physicians," Am. J. Public Health76(5):550-554, 1986).

5. JR Cougle et. al., “Depression Associated With Abortion and Childbirth: A Long-Term Analysis of the NLSY Cohort,” Medical Science Monitor 9(4):CR105-112, 2003.

6. M Gissler et. al., “Pregnancy Associated Deaths in Finland 1987-1994 -- definition problems and benefits of record linkage,” Acta Obsetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica 76:651-657, 1997.

7. M. Gissler, “Injury deaths, suicides and homicides associated with pregnancy, Finland 1987-2000,” European J. Public Health 15(5):459-63, 2005.

8. Gissler, Hemminki & Lonnqvist, "Suicides after pregnancy in Finland, 1987-94: register linkage study," British Journal of Medicine 313:1431-4, 1996.

9. N. Maconochie, P. Doyle, S. Prior, R. Simmons, “Risk factors for first trimester miscarriage—results from a UK-population-based case–control study,” BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Dec 2006.

Note: Studies 6, 7 and 8 looked at death rates for an average for up to one year after the end of the pregnancy. Another study found that looked at suicide rates for up to eight years found that, compared to women who gave birth, women who had abortions had a 62% higher risk of death from all causes and a 2.5 times higher suicide rate. Source: DC Reardon et. al., “Deaths Associated With Pregnancy Outcome: A Record Linkage Study of Low Income Women,” Southern Medical Journal 95(8):834-41, Aug. 2002.

Shock University of Limerick Study: Most medical students want abortion on demand, fewer would perform it

-->

Both the Journal and the Sunday Times report on a study carried out by the University of Limerick on the attitude of medical students to the availability and performance of abortion in Ireland.

 

According to the Journal over half of all medical students in Ireland believe abortion should be legally available upon request, but 29% would decline to carry it out. The Sunday Times on the other hand says, about the same study, 'New Survey Shows 1-In-3 Doctors Would Refuse To Carry Out Abortions'.

-->
The Journal report reads:

Seven per cent of the 169 respondents to the University of Limerick study believe abortion should not be legally available, 35 per cent said it should be allowed in limited circumstances only, while the majority, 55 per cent, think abortion should be legally available upon request.

Almost all those surveyed (95.2 per cent) believed that education on abortion should be offered within medical school curricula.

However, 29 per cent said they would decline to terminate pregnancies even if legally permitted,  59 per cent indicated that they might perform legal abortions once qualified, while 25 per cent would do so under limited circumstances only.

Over 72 per cent of the respondents were pro-choice, while those over 30 years of age were found to be less likely to hold this view.

The first report of its kind in Ireland by the University of Limerick was carried out to find what medical students’ attitudes are towards abortion in Ireland.

The Sunday Times article says:

New Survey Shows 1-In-3 Doctors Would Refuse To Carry Out Abortions

A new survey of graduate doctors suggests that almost one in three would refuse to carry out abortions even if legally permitted to do so.

Details of the poll found that of the 169 graduates medial students surveyed by the University of Limerick in 2012, nearly 19 per cent of graduates described themselves as moderately or strongly pro-life.

While, almost 29 per-cent said they would not perform an abortion even if there was a change in the law.

Over 95 per-cent of the Limerick students surveyed believed education on abortion should be offered within the medial curriculum -representing a similar finding to other international studies.

  

Researchers at UL, say this is the first survey of its type conducted in Ireland among medical professionals.

Twins aborted in Ireland's National Maternity Hospital

The Irish Times reported today that doctors at Holles Street hospital carried out the country’s first abortion under the provisions of the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013. It is reported that the woman was 18 weeks pregnant with twin babies and that the woman was at risk of sepsis.

This is a sad outcome for the mother in question and a sad day for Ireland. It is an indication of how this anti-life legislation will be applied.
It also raises the question of how the Catholic Church will deal with the new situation in that Holles Street has always been viewed as the National Catholic Maternity Hospital and Dublin's Archbishop Dr Diarmuid Martin is chairman of the board of governors.

The report claims that senior obstetricians at Holles Street, including master Dr Rhona Mahony, were involved in the decision and the procedure was performed under section 7 of the act which deals with the risk of loss of life of a woman from a physical condition.

The question has to be asked how would this situation have been dealt with prior to the introduction of the legislation? Was every effort made to save both the mother and her twin babies? Could treatment have continued until after viability was reached bearing in mind that pre-viable delivery is always fatal for the babies? 

The claim that the abortion was carried out under the new legislation is also questionable in that the regulations under the act have not yet been finalized and the Statutory Instrument is not listed on the website of the Department of Health and Children as having been signed by Minister Reilly. The legislation has certainly been finalised, in that the Bill was passed but may not yet have come into effect.

The Clinical Director of the National Maternity Hospital Dr Peter Boylan in an interview on RTE radio this morning deflected the questions surrounding this report by expressing outrage that patient details have been made public (see report in the journal.ie.

Dr Boylan also disputed whether the abortion of the twins could be labelled the first in the country.

“We don’t have access to all obstetric units in the country and I doubt if  he[the journalist] does too,” he told Morning Ireland, before refusing to answer whether it was, in fact, the first termination to be carried out at the hospital under the new laws.

Dr Boylan continued by saying that ‘patient confidentiality is at the root of this whole thing. It is absolutely unacceptable for patient details to be splashed around the front page of the newspaper, it is not fair on patients to do this. And it is completely unethical if it is a doctor giving information to the public…To give exact clinical details of a patient to a member of the press is absolutely unethical behaviour by any medical personnel. And if it is a doctor, then this sort of transgression or bad behaviour could well end up before the Medical Council.”

“Patient confidentiality is absolutely critical in our dealing with women in sensitive and difficult situations,” he continued.

“This is not the sort of behaviour you expect from a serious professional. It is completely unprofessional to give details of a patient, which allows her to be identified.

Pro-life doctors banned from presenting at medical women’s conference in South Korea

Three pro life doctors from the US who were invited to speak at the Medical Women's International Association (MWIA) conference in Seoul, on August 1^st, on the complications of abortion, found on arrival that despite having had advance approval the international leadership cancelled the session because they did not want the pro-life message to be shared at the conference.

Here is the first-hand account of the incivility and bullying endured by  the three AAPLOG women doctors at the hands of MWIA officials in Seoul, Korea. 

The presentations, which were described by MWIA as “unscientific” and “political”, can be accessed at http://www.aaplog.org/news/banned-at-mwia/

The following account appears on the AAPLOG website was written by the 3 women doctors involved: 

Dear friends,

Three women physicians, Donna Harrison, Mary Davenport and Martha Shuping, were invited months ago to give lectures on complications of abortion for the MWIA, the Medical Women’s International Association. Donna Harrison’s presentation demonstrated that nations with laws protective of mothers and unborn babies have excellent maternal mortality statistics. Mary Davenport had a talk about abortion as a risk factor for preterm birth, a cause of some of the 15 million preterm births internationally each year. Preterm birth is the biggest cause of neonatal death. Martha Shuping had a presentation that included two case reports of women who suffered severe psychological harm from abortion, even though they had obvious risk factors that were not discussed in the informed consent process. These risk factors were actually quoted from an abortion provider textbook endorsed by the National Abortion Federation! This was valuable information for physicians to hear, especially those from developing nations who are under tremendous pressure to legalize abortion due to the false belief that legalized abortion is a panacea for maternal mortality.

However, our presentations were cancelled at the last minute. This was not a total shock to us, because many physicians and scientists have long been hampered in attempts to inform the scientific community and patient about risks of abortion. Very important information has been suppressed and even lied about. With the cancellation of our talks, our host Anna Choi, head of group of 680 Korean obgyn physicians who stopped doing abortions, had decided to set up a radio and newspaper interview for us during the time that we were supposed to present.

When we got to the “radio” interview that Anna had set up, it was actually a television interview, and the newspaper reporter was there also.

They put the three of us up front like a “panel” discussion, and the reporters started asking us questions about our presentation, allowing us an opportunity to talk about what we came to present. About 20 minutes into the interview, the Secretary General of MIWA, a Canadian woman, burst into the room (I kid you not. …and all of this is on camera), and came up to the table and said “What presentation is this? Donna Harrison said “it’s not a presentation”. So she snarled “Why are you being interviewed? At that point, the answers were left to Anna, our host. Anna said that this was a requested interview by the press.

The SecGen then said “Who gave you permission to interview these people?” And the reporters said “We are the press, we don’t need anyone’s permission. We have freedom of the press” And the Sec Gen snarled at Anna and said “Did you arrange this? Did you talk to the organizing committee?” And Anna said “I am on the organizing committee. I don’t need to talk to anyone.” And the Sec Gen stood in front of the camera, and refused to move, and said “The interview is over.” Then the reporters said “You can’t do this. We have the freedom of the press. You are interfering with the freedom of the press.” But the Sec Gen would not move and said “The interview is over.”

We exited to the hall, and a Belgian and German woman were waiting. They started to make fun of the Korean translator, and to snap pictures in her face. And she said “You can’t do this. This is my country. I will call the police.” And they actually grabbed at her, and then one of the Korean reporters put a huge camera in the Belgian woman’s face and started taking photos of her. A fist fight almost ensured between the women, but another of the Koreans stepped in and kept any contact from happening.. And all of this was on camera. And then our Korean hosts ushered us down the hall, and down the elevator, along with the reporters and camera crew, and we resumed the interview in the commons area downstairs by the trash cans and the bathroom. We were able to complete the entire interview, and instead of our audience being a few women doctors from the conference, we now have an audience of probably a few thousand.

It was an incredible display of arrogance on the part of the Canadian, US and European physicians at the MWIA., who initiated preventing us from speaking It will be interesting to see what press picks this up. I just wish it would go viral, it’s such a glaring example of exactly what we were saying about suppression of information.

Gardasil Victim Speaks Out

We published a BLOGPOST two weeks ago dealing with some of the problems associated with the Human Pappiloma Virus (HPV) vaccine, Gardasil. That story related to a report in the British Medical Journal about a 16-year-old girl who became infertile following vaccination with Gardasil.

Today we are linking to a video of another young woman who has also suffered greatly following vaccination with Gardasil.

-->

We have blogged on this issue on many occasions since August 2008 and appealed to the then health Minister Mary Harney to refrain from making this vaccine available in Ireland.

My letter to the then Minister set out the problems associated with this vaccine and continued with the following warning.

"I would also suggest Minister that unless this decision is reversed as a matter of urgency it has the potential to become another major national scandal and could open the Irish exchequer to future claims of a substantial nature, given that the information in regard to these adverse reactions is already in the public domain. "

Despite my requests and the requests of many others the vaccine has been made available and is now in use in this country. It seems that both the Government and the Health Services Executive  (HSE) are more attuned to, and willing to impose, an international agenda rather than being open to reason.

3.8 million human embryos created to produce 122,000 live births – success rate of 3.2%

Dr Peter Saunders has posted a very interesting article in his BLOG Christian Medical Comment on the recent Daily Telegraph report on the shocking wastage of human embryos resulting from IVF.  We have pointed out the intrinsic evil of this practice on many occasions over the years see for example the following links from 2008 -2010 – 2011

Dr Saunders article reads as follows:

The Daily Telegraph this weekend reports on a new expert study which has raised fears that some clinics may be offering techniques that put the embryo at risk for their own profit.

The review, carried out by Dr Justin McCracken, the former head of the Health Protection Agency, highlighted a new technique, known as Pre-Implantation Genetic Screening (PGS), as one which is possibly being offered inappropriately for commercial reasons.

For a fee, which can run into thousands of pounds, clinics can check embryos created by a successful IVF cycle for certain genetic abnormalities and only implant those that appear normal.

The process is becoming especially popular for older couples seeking IVF, because embryos created from their sperm and eggs have a higher chance of abnormalities. As it involves the removal of a cell from an embryo (see picture) it carries some risk for the embryo being tested.

Dr McCracken said the jury was still out on whether PGS improves the chances of having a baby and warned there is a risk of harm to the foetus. He said it was vital that the regulator checks that clinics are not simply recommending it to boost profits.

 ‘I understand that there is no clinical consensus regarding its efficacy, but there is a real risk to the embryo in carrying it out.’ (emphasis mine)

This is a somewhat curious statement. Dr McCracken seems (appropriately) concerned about the risk of damage to a few hundred embryos each year undergoing PGS.

But he is curiously silent (or perhaps unaware) that over three million embryos have perished or been deliberately destroyed since 1990 as a result of procedures made legal by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act.

Liberal Democrat Peer Lord Alton recently asked in parliament how many embryos have been created in each year since the commencement of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, and how many of these have resulted in live births.

Figures given in reply by the Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Health Earl Howe showed that 3,806,699 embryos have been created since 1990. Between 1992 and 2006 a total of 122,043 live births occurred according to figures from the HFEA given alongside his reply (see also here).

122,043 live births from 3,806,699 embryos represent a success rate of 3.21% (1 in 30). Or, to put it another way, 3,684,656 embryos never made it to birth. CMF has highlighted this ratio of 1 in 30 before.

These figures make McCracken’s concern about PGS embryos alone look like what Jesus called ‘straining a gnat whilst swallowing a camel’ (Matthew 23:23-24).

In a letter to the Telegraph, as yet unpublished, disability rights advocate Ann Farmer has highlighted the fact that, in addition to the vast wastage of embryos, some women have also died from complications of infertility treatments such as OHSS. She comments:

‘The whole point of the infertility industry is to manufacture babies out of embryos… A car factory that managed to accumulate 3,684,656 surplus models between 1990 and 2012 and in addition killed some of its customers would surely have gone out of business long ago.’

In 1948 the World Medical Association adopted the Declaration of Geneva which included the affirmation, ‘I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception, even against threat’.

Today’s doctors, it seems, take a contrary view.

If you agree with today’s doctors that early human life can be treated as a disposable commodity then the figures that Lord Alton has uncovered (not much short of the current population of New Zealand!) will probably not bother you much at all.

But if, like me, you believe that they are special creations made in God’s image, which should be granted respect, wonder, empathy and protection you will no doubt be very concerned indeed.

Assisted Decision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013

The first stage of a new Bill known as the ‘AssistedDecision-Making (Capacity) Bill 2013’ (Number 83 of 2013), was presented to the Dail (Irish Parliament), on July 17^th, by Alan Shatter the Minister for Justice and Equality.

This bill permits a third party to make life and death decisions in respect of the life of another who has become mentally incapacitated.

Certain provisions of the bill are a cause for concern such as those set out in sections 4, 25, 41, and 70.

Section 4 (2), (a), (b), and (c):

           

(2) Notwithstanding any other provision in this Act, the High Court, and not the court, shall have jurisdiction relating to every matter in connection with—

(a) non-therapeutic sterilisation,

(b) withdrawal of artificial life-sustaining treatment, or

(c) the donation of an organ,

where the matter concerns a relevant person who lacks capacity.

Section 25 (a) (vi), (vii):

(a) may, without prejudice to the generality of section 23(2)(b), authorise a decision-making representative for the relevant person to make decisions on behalf of the relevant person in respect of any one or more than one of the following matters:

(vi) whether or not the relevant person may travel outside the State;

(vii) granting or refusing consent to the carrying out or continuation of a treatment of the relevant person by a healthcare professional;

  

Section 41 (2) (b):                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          

(2) A personal welfare decision—

(b) extends to giving or refusing treatment by a person providing healthcare for the donor other than refusing life-sustaining treatment.

Section 70 (1), (a), (b):

(1) In this Part— 10 “adult” means a person who—

(a) as a result of an impairment or insufficiency of his or her personal faculties, cannot protect his or her interests, and

(b) has reached 18 years of age;

These issues are a cause for concern for patients in Irish hospitals bearing in mind that following the 1993 Bland judgement in the UK deliberate killing by dehydration became more prevalent. The Bland judgement actually opened the door to euthanasia permitting doctors to dehydrate and starve to death certain mentally incapacitated patients. What the UK Mental Capacity Act does, through its provisions such as, advance decisions, lasting powers of attorney together with the re-definition of "best interests" and "medical treatment", is to extend the principles of the Bland decision to all mentally incapacitated patients.

Reform of the law on decision-making capacity, according to an Explanatory Memorandum published with the newly proposed Irish legislation, is one of the actions required to enable the State to ratify the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and the Bill gives effect in the State to the Hague Convention on the International Protection of Adults. The Bill also provides for the establishment of a new statutory office, the Office of the Public Guardian, which will supervise decision-making assistants, co-decision- makers, decision-making representatives and persons holding enduring powers of attorney.

The Explanatory Memorandum for the new Irish legislation explains that the background and purpose of the Bill is to reform the law and to provide a modern statutory framework that supports decision-making by adults and enables them to retain the greatest amount of autonomy possible in situations where they lack or may shortly lack capacity.

The Bill changes the existing law on capacity, shifting from the current all or nothing status approach to a flexible functional one, whereby capacity is assessed on an issue- and time-specific basis. The Bill replaces the Wards of Court system with a modern statutory framework to assist persons in exercising their decision-making capacity.

The Memorandum says the Bill provides a statutory framework enabling formal agreements to be made by persons who consider that their capacity is in question, or may shortly be in question, to appoint a trusted person to act as their decision-making assistant to assist them in making decisions or as a co-decision-maker who will make decisions jointly with them.

The Memorandum continues by saying that the Bill also provides for the making of applications to court in respect of persons whose capacity may be in question to seek a declaration as to whether those persons lack capacity and for the making of consequent orders approving co-decision-making agreements or appointing decision-making representatives.

The Memorandum also explains that Bill provides for protection from liability for informal decision-makers in relation to personal welfare and healthcare decisions made on behalf of a person with impaired capacity where such decisions are necessary and where no formal decision-making arrangements are in place. It modernises the law relating to enduring powers of attorney.

We shall continue to monitor the progress of this Bill as it goes through the various stages in the Dail

ABC link explodes in Asia; cover-up continues in the West

National Right to Life (NRL) have published a new and very interesting article by Dr Joel Brind on the link between abortion and breast cancer with a special focus on the recent Bangladesh study published in the Journal of Dhaka Medical College.  

Dr Brind writes:

Some epidemic diseases are caused by bacteria, the smallest of living things. Some are caused by viruses: rogue bits of DNA or RNA; non-living, but nonetheless infectious bits of destructive information. We are all familiar now, of course, with computer viruses that act in the same way.

Breast cancer, on the other hand, is one of those “epidemic” diseases believed not to be infectious. But infectious bits of destructive information are viruses indeed, and they don’t need computers to be carriers. The bad information can be in any language.

Suppose one were to introduce cigarettes to a population that had never smoked, along with the instruction: “Smoking cigarettes is not harmful to your health.” That sentence, embodying false and destructive information, would—just like a molecular virus—surely cause an epidemic of lung cancer in due time, would it not?

Here’s another example: “Abortion does not increase your breast cancer risk.” This particular strain of the “safe abortion virus” can be traced back to at least 1982 in Oxford, England, and it has now spread worldwide.

The awful news is it is now poised to claim the lives of millions of women in the world’s most populous nations. Let me explain why.

The ABC link essentially has two prongs. First, it is universally accepted that having a child decreases a woman’s risk of breast cancer, because the maturation of the cells in the breast into milk-producing cells renders them less susceptible to becoming cancerous

Second, pregnancy hugely increases the number of breast cells vulnerable to cancer. A live birth provides enough time for these “progenitor cells” to differentiate into more mature, more cancer-resistant cells.

Therefore, abortion leaves a woman’s breasts with more places for cancer to start than were there before the pregnancy began.

This latest study has the dubious distinction of showing by far the strongest ABC link ever observed: Women in Bengladesh who had an abortion were found to have a 20-fold increased risk of developing breast cancer!

Why such a high relative risk? That’s because almost all women in Bengla Desh get married and start having children before they are 21, and breast-feed all their children as well. Consequently, breast cancer has been almost unheard of in Bengla Desh, until recently. [1]

Even a very conservative estimate results in some deeply troubling numbers for the world’s most populous nations. If abortion doubles a woman’s breast cancer from say, 2% to 4% lifetime risk that would add 2% lifetime risk. There are over a billion women in India and China alone. Two percent of a billion is 20 million! With a mortality rate of 50% (It’s a lot higher in Asia than in the US), that makes 10 million women dying of breast cancer because they chose abortion!

Numbers like that are daunting enough to get the attention of top researchers at Harvard, who, 5 years ago in the flagship journal of the National Cancer Institute (NCI) acknowledged: “China is on the cusp of a breast cancer epidemic”. Of course they do not mention abortion. Instead they lament, “some risk factors associated with economic development are largely unavoidable” and call “for urgent incorporation of this disease in future healthcare infrastructure planning.” That mainly means mammograms and treatment facilities, not stopping the “virus” (denying the link between having an induced abortion and an increased risk of breast cancer) that spreads the “safe abortion” myth.

That the “virus” continues to be spread is evidenced by a ABC denial study from Denmark just published this past April. Christina Braüner and colleagues, published their finding:”Our study did not show evidence of an association between induced abortion and breast cancer risk.”

This is not surprising because the way the study was constructed it was incapable of showing whether that is true or not. Specifically, they took a highly selected group of Danish women who were healthy until at least age 50 and only looked at their medical history for about 12 years after they joined the study.

Hence, even an average woman in the Danish population who’d had an abortion, would had to have survived cancer-free for almost 3 decades before even being eligible for the study! On top of that exclusion of most of the vulnerable population, they further restricted the study to only women who had at least one child, thus eliminating the women most at risk (since not having children is a strong risk factor for breast cancer).

One wonders when the world will finally wake to the unfolding breast cancer pandemic beginning to unfold before our eyes. The power of denial “viruses” continues to amaze.

______________

[1] Relative risk measures in the other Asian studies have been a bit more like those more commonly observed, e.g., 3.4-fold in Sri Lanka, 2.4 and 2.1 in two Chinese studies, 1.9 in an Indian study, 1.6 in an Iranian study and 1.3 in a Turkish study. (A relative risk greater than 1 indicates increased risk, e.g., 1.3 means 30% greater risk, 3.4 means 240% increased risk, etc..

The variation is great from county to country because the measure is relative, i.e., it depends on how common the disease is if abortion were not a factor. So in the Western world, the average is about 1.3 (a 30% increased risk), whereas it is more like 2 in Asia, where lifetime breast cancer risk is typically less than 2% if abortion were not a factor.

Joel Brind, Ph.D., is a professor of Biology and Endocrinology at Baruch College of the City University of New York. He is a co-founder and Board Member of the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute, having conducted ABC-link research since 1992, and a long-time contributor to NRL News.

Victory! Court Issues Permanent Injunction Against Derzis’ Illegal Birmingham Alabama Abortion Business

Operation Rescue reported on August 8th that Judge Joseph L. Boohaker issued a permanent injunction today barring abortionist Bruce Norman from operating an abortion clinic at the location of the former New Woman All Women abortion facility in Birmingham, Alabama. Judge Hoohaker also enjoined clinic owner Diane Derzis from referring abortion patients to the Birmingham office. The injunction should close the illegal abortion business permanently.

The decision was the result of a law suit filed by the Alabama Department of Public Health alleging that Derzis and Norman were operating an illegal abortion clinic without proper licensing on the site of an abortion clinic that had been closed due to the hospitalization of 3 abortion patients in one day and the subsequent discovery of 76-pages of health code deficiencies that presented a danger to the public.

Today’s ruling represents a victory for pro-life groups, including Life Legal Defense, which filed an amicus curiae brief on behalf of CEC for Life and Operation Rescue in support of the ADPH suit. The groups worked together to expose abortion abuses at the clinic and filed complaints that resulted in the original closure of New Woman All Women last year.

“We are excited with the ruling and pleased with the fact that Derzis and Norman were finally caught red-handed operating outside the law. This will be the second time in less than a year that we have worked along-side local pro-life activists to close this dangerous abortion operation,” said Troy Newman, President of Operation Rescue. “We are thankful that women will now be protected by the permanent injunction on Derzis and Norman. We hope this will be the end of their schemes to evade the laws.”

Judge Boohaker noted in his 22-page ruling that he considered that Norman’s testimony about the number of abortions done at the Birmingham office was contradictory and was actually more than the 30 abortions per month limit for unlicensed facilities. The judge also took issue with Derzis’ abortion business referring abortion clients to Norman at the Birmingham office, noting that the referrals held the office out to be an abortion clinic.

This decision comes one day after Norman was involved in an abortion emergency at Derzis’ Jackson Women’s Health Organization, Mississippi’s last remaining abortion clinic.

“Norman essentially shipped his injured patient off to the ER where someone else was forced to clean up his mess,” said Newman. “We pray that the judge that is blocking Mississippi’s hospital privilege requirement will follow Alabama’s lead and protect the public from Derzis and Norman’s shoddy and dangerous abortion practices.”

Doctor’s right to object to abortions is “not absolute” – Department of Health

The Journal reported Friday August 9^th that according to a statement by the Department of Health the rights of medical personnel to object to carrying out abortions must not interfere with the wellbeing of a patient.

The Journal article continues:

This week a member of the board of the Mater Hospital, Fr Kevin Doran, said that the hospital “can’t carry out abortions because it goes against our ethos”.  He was echoed by fellow board member, and a nurse tutor at the hospital, Sr Eugene Nolan.

Sr Nolan said that the situation facing the hospital was “very, very grave”. The Mater is listed as one of 25 appropriate institutions named in the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act where abortions may be carried out in order to save the lives of pregnant women.

‘No provision for institutional objection’

Yesterday, there was a suggestion that the Mater may be able to refuse to carry out a termination due a late removal of a line in the act that stated no institution could refuse to carry out a termination.

That, however was denied by a Department of Health spokesperson who spoke to TheJournal.ie today.

“The Act does not provide for conscientious objection by institutions.

“Section 17 of the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013 clarifies that professional health personnel (medical and nursing personnel) with a conscientious objection will not be obliged to carry out or assist in carrying out lawful terminations of pregnancy, unless the risk to the life of the pregnant woman is immediate, i.e. in an emergency situation.

However, an individual’s right to conscientious objection is not absolute and must be balanced against the patient’s competing rights, particularly the right to life in the case of a medical emergency.

“In such cases where a doctor or other health professional has a conscientious objection to undertaking a required medical procedure, he or she will have a duty to ensure that another colleague takes over the care of the patient as per current medical ethics,” said the spokesperson.

“These provisions make it clear that this right is limited to persons involved in the delivery of the treatment only.”

Church message ‘increasingly counter-cultural’, says Coadjutor Archbishop of Armagh

The Irish Times reported 12 August that Coadjutor Archbishop Eamon Martin of Armagh has asked “why shouldn’t a Catholic politician, or lawyer, or teacher, or person of any profession for that matter, be able to confidently and unapologetically express their sincerely held faith-based arguments in the public square without fear of ridicule or being branded a bigot or against freedom?”He said, “Surely the mark of a truly pluralist society is one which will allow people of all faiths and none to express and act upon their conscientiously held views, particularly on a matter as critical as the upholding of all human life.”
Archbishop Martin, who will succeed Cardinal Seán Brady as Catholic Primate of All Ireland, was delivering the annual St Oliver Plunkett address in west Belfast last night as part of Féile an Phobail celebrations there.

Abortion legislation
He said “the recent debate surrounding the introduction of abortion legislation in the South has illustrated how much our message is becoming increasingly counter-cultural”.
He noted that “strong arguments indeed” were presented by the church but that “some were on the attack immediately pointing to the child abuse scandals and the church’s abysmal record of protecting the lives of children in the past, as if that means we should not attempt to speak up for the protection of the most innocent human life in the present”.
Others had pointed out “that the bishops being a group of aging celibate men have no right to interfere with a woman’s right to choose what she wants to do with her body”. And there were the arguments, “made by several senior politicians that, whilst bishops are entitled to their views, they as politicians have to legislate for all the people, for the public good”.

‘Faith outside the door ’
This “implied that somehow access to abortion is for the public good, but even more significantly, that politicians themselves, even if they be practising Catholics, must leave their faith outside the door when they are entering the legislative chamber”.
He felt “it would hugely impoverish our faith if we were to compartmentalise it or exclude it completely from our conversations and actions in the public square. But I believe that it would also impoverish society if the fundamental convictions of faith were not permitted to influence public debate.”
Where the North was concerned, he said, “We are only ‘tiptoeing’ towards a shared and reconciled future . . . We all have a responsibility to help avoid a relapse into violence, especially in the most deprived areas across our communities where residents feel they have won little from the peace.”
More generally, “We know that many people feel they can no longer trust our message because they have been hurt and betrayed by their experience of church in the past.”
He said “I do not think that the dark cloud of abuse shall lift easily, but perhaps that is how it should be – given that many of those whose trust was so cruelly betrayed shall carry their hurt to their graves . . . The least we can do is never to forget.”