Thursday, January 14, 2016

Abortion, legal or illegal, apart from killing babies, cannot be considered safe for women

The killing of unborn babies has been sanitized by the abortion industry and its supporters by telling us that it is a legitimate 'Choice' and that if it not legalized women will die, They claim that legalizing abortion makes it safe but nothing could be further from the truth.

Legalized abortion is widely touted by them as being beneficial to women, but a wealth of medical and psychological evidence suggests otherwise.

Women face numerous risks with abortion, legal or illegal, and those risks are substantially greater in the developing world, yet some in the international community for ideological reasons have focused their resources primarily on legalizing abortion at the expense of women’s lives and health.

The claim is, that making abortion legal makes it safe, but medical research shows this to be false, the evidence is overwhelming, abortion is dangerous for women. It is by its very nature a violent and damaging procedure. Documented complications include hemorrhage, infection, cervical damage, uterine perforation, pelvic disease and retained fetal or placental tissue.

Large record-based studies from Finland[1], Denmark[2] and the United States[3] found that maternal mortality rates were significantly higher after abortion compared to childbirth. Long-term risks of abortion, including subsequent preterm birth, infertility, cancer, miscarriage, ectopic pregnancy and placenta previa, can substantially impede future reproductive success.

Abortion is also associated with increased risk of negative psycho-social consequences. For example, a 2011 meta-analysis published in the British Journal of Psychiatry[4] found an 81 percent increased risk of mental health problems. Anxiety, depression, alcohol and drug use and suicidal behaviors have been found to increase following abortion, along with damage to key relationships.

In the developing world, these dangers increase where basic maternal health care is unavailable. The incidence of maternal mortality is mainly determined by the quality of maternal health care. Legalization does not improve outcomes, but only increases the number of women subjected to the risks of abortion.

Abortion needlessly puts women at serious risk, both physically and psychologically and rather than legalize or promote it, governments should protect the equal dignity and basic rights of all human beings, including women and their unborn children.

Friday, January 8, 2016

Commentary on the non-applicability of the recent Northern Ireland judgement on abortion to the Republic of Ireland

Liam Gibson, the Northern Ireland representative for the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, has prepared a commentary on the recent Horner judgement with respect to the Republic of Ireland.
This is a very timely commentary as it is likely that the judgement will be cited by pro-abortion organisations and politicians in the lead up to the coming general election.

Why the Horner judgement cannot be used to change the law in the Republic of Ireland.
The salient points of Liam's commentary are included below.

1. The ruling by Mr Justice Horner that abortion laws in Northern Ireland are incompatible with the European Convention was not based on his interpretation of the Convention. Instead he claimed that the Northern Ireland law, unlike the law in the Republic, does not recognise the right to life of the unborn child. (This claim is untrue but was based entirely on UK law. Not only can his judgement not apply to the Republic, he actually set out to use the law in the South to undermine the law in the Six Counties.)

2. He acknowledged that the Strasbourg Court of Human Rights did not find the Republic’s law, which prohibits abortion on grounds of fatal anomaly and rape, to be incompatible with the Convention. (In A B & C v Ireland the court said that C had been prevented from obtaining an abortion that would have been lawful because her life was threatened and therefore her rights were violated.)

3. Horner cited various English cases, including Paton v UK and Re MB, to claim that unlike the Republic, under English law the foetus had no right to life. He then claimed that the situation in Northern Ireland was the same as England by pretending that the absence of the Abortion Act in Northern Ireland made no difference.

4. He explicitly pointed to the differences between the law in the Republic and the North:
  • The Eighth Amendment recognised the right to life before birth with the purpose of  preventing the legalisation of abortion;
  • The Eighth Amendment was adopted by popular vote; 
  • As Strasbourg said in Open Door v Ireland, it was based on the profound moral views of the Irish people on the nature of life; 
  • No one knows what the people of the North think about the subject. (He was either ignorant of or disregarded the public consultation which took place less than12 months earlier which overwhelmingly rejected a change in the law.)
5. The Convention requires restrictions on the Article 8 right to privacy to be, among other things, proportionate to their aim. He argued that since the foetus has no right to life, punishing abortion with life imprisonment was disproportionate and therefore violated the Convention when it prohibited abortion in the circumstances he approved of, that is, fatal abnormality and rape. (He should have recognised that the severity of the sentence reflected the high regard in which the foetus is held. The 1861 Act and the 1945 Act require life imprisonment precisely because abortion deprives the unborn child of his life.)

6. Mr Justice Horner did not claim that the Convention recognises a human right to abortion so the Republic does not have to change its law. He acknowledged that Art 40.3.3 prevents the legalisation in the Republic of abortion on the grounds he dealt with and that this is entirely compatible with human rights. The Horner judgement only confirms the importance of the Eighth Amendment and pro-lifers must fight to keep it in the Constitution.

The full text of the commentary can be provided. Please contact Patrick Buckley on the following e-mail address.

Wednesday, January 6, 2016

Bishop Kevin Doran says Christians must make protection of unborn children an election issue

Bishop Kevin Doran of the Diocese of Elphin, in his homily delivered on World Peace Day, January 1st., made reference throughout the homily to Ireland's upcoming general election and it was particularly heartening to read the part of his statement that refers to protection of unborn babies.

We are in complete agreement with Bishop Kevin when he says that committed Christians must make this an election issue and that candidates must be questioned politely but firmly, not just on their future intentions but on their past record.
The extract from Bishop Kevin's homily is set out below and the full text of his statement can be found on this link
There has been a lot of political posturing about repealing the eighth amendment, which is the only remaining protection unborn children have in our legal system. That protection has already been significantly eroded in recent years. I believe that committed Christians must make this an election issue and that candidates must be questioned politely but firmly, not just on their future intentions but on their past record. These are, after all, your children and your grand-children.

Tuesday, January 5, 2016

Renua general election manifesto

Whilst the date of the upcoming general election has not yet been set, Renua, the new political party is first out of the traps in announcing its manifesto. See RTE report

Pro-lifers had great hopes of this party as it was set up by Lucinda Creighton who stood by her convictions and voted against the pro-abortion, Protection of Life in Pregnancy, legislation at the high personal cost of ejection from the Fine Gael parliamentary party and loss of her ministerial post prior to setting up the new party

There was considerable dismay in pro-life and pro-family circles however at Ms. Creighton’s statement in February 2015 prior to the same sex marriage referendum that she was a supporter of the marriage equality referendum and she intended to vote in favour of it.

Ms Creighton in presenting the Renua manifesto at a press conference claimed no party would have a clear-cut majority after the election and the question voters had to ask was "who would be their watchdog in government?".  

The new manifesto concentrates on tax reform and other political issues but  the meeting was told By Ms. Creighton that that the party would not be taking a view on the question of liberalising abortion legislation and that there were other social issues facing the electorate.

Clearly there are different opinions in the new party on the pro-life issue.
On a show of hands 14 of the eighteen party members indicated they opposed removal of the 8th amendment (the pro-life amendment) from the constitution.

The good news is that 14 out of the 18  Renua party members standing for election appear to be pro-life.

Monday, January 4, 2016

War on Ireland's unborn 2016

We have just entered 2016 but there are already two pro-abortion stories in the news. All such reports must currently be viewed as part of the propaganda spewed out by political parties and others in the lead up to the upcoming general election. One of the saddest things is that these people can so callously play with human life as though it is of no consequence. They have bought into the lie that there is such a right, as the right to choose,  the right to choose to kill another human being.

First we were told on the very first day of the new year that two leading liberal Fine Gael ministers have committed to addressing abortion in 2016 — with or without the Labour Party in government.  The two, Justice Minister Frances Fitzgerald and Transport Minister Paschal Donohoe are both reported to have said Fine Gael did not need Labour in order to progress the issue.
This was clearly an attempt to tell the electorate that they are just as liberal on this crucial issue as the Labour party and by so doing to remove any possible advantage that Labour may gain from being perceived as the only pro-abortion party.

Then on day 4 of the new year we have been told that the new Master of the Rotunda Professor Fergal Malone has called for change in Ireland’s laws on abortion.

 We can predict that this is only the beginning and that in the lead up to the election we will have the pro-abortion industry, the media, pro-abortion organisations and politicians all howling for change in Ireland’s Constitution.

Pro-life organisations and politicians will have an uphill battle to retain the remaining level of protection of unborn human life.
Clearly one cannot vote for pro-abortion politicians and it is therefore vital that a complete list of pro-life politicians be made available prior to polling.

It is also imperative that people ask general election candidates where they stand on this issue. This issue is too important to fudge.