Wednesday, March 7, 2012

EU side event at the UN Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) meeting in New York

Ireland’s Junior Minister Kathleen Lynch (who holds the following portfolios Minister of State, Department of Health and Department of Justice, Equality and Defence with responsibility for Disability, Equality, Mental Health and Older People), addressed a side meeting at the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) at the UN head office in New York yesterday Tuesday Feb 28th “ENGAGING YOUNG WOMEN AND MEN IN ADVANCING GENDER EQUALITY”. Ms Lynch was speaking on behalf of the Delegation of the European Union to the United Nations but he focus was on primary and post primary schools in Ireland.

Apart from dealing with issues of gender equality in education Ms Lynch drew the attention of the meeting to a number of publications dealing with gender issues, Gay and Lesbian issues. She also highlighted contraception and crisis pregnancy. 

One of the publications referred to by Ms Lynch is called  Lesbian, Gay and bisexual students in Post-Primary schools Guidance for Principals and School Leaders
This publication was produced jointly by the Department of Education and Science and GLEN the Gay+Lesbian Equality Network.

Other publications referred to by Ms Lynch were the curriculum for Social Personal and Health Education junior cycle, Secondary Schools and Guidelines for Primary Schools on Gender Equality and Information on the work of the health service executive Crisis Pregnancy programme on Contraception including their think contraception campaign

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

Irish people deserve to hear the full truth about abortion


The Irish Times on March 5th published an article by Dr Ruth Cullen " Irish people deserve to hear the full truth about abortion". The article can be read in full below or on the above link.
The teenage girl at the centre of that case found herself in a horrific situation, and the Irish people’s overriding feeling at the time was one of immense sympathy for her.
Tragically, however, the decision of the Supreme Court seemed to be that, in order to show care for the girl, article 40.3.3, introduced specifically to protect the unborn child, had to be interpreted to allow abortion.
Over the last 20 years, there has been quite an amount of legal and political commentary on the ruling.
However, the evidence, or rather the lack of evidence, upon which the ruling was grounded has received less scrutiny.
The court decided that Ireland’s pro-life amendment permitted legal abortion in circumstances where there was “a real and substantial risk to the life of the mother”.
It further ruled that these circumstances included the threat of suicide.
However, the court heard no medical evidence on the question of whether abortion protected women from suicide. And increasingly, we are seeing medical research demonstrating that far from protecting women from suicide, abortion increases the risk that women will suffer grave mental health problems.
For example, the widely publicised Finnish study, which appeared in the European Journal of Public Health, showed that there was a significantly increased risk of suicide among women who had abortions.
They were six times more likely to commit suicide compared with those who had their babies.
Research carried out recently by Dr David Fergusson in New Zealand and published in the British Journal of Psychiatry found that, compared to other women, there was a 30 per cent greater risk of mental health complications among women who had abortions.
This research undercuts the rationale at the very heart of the X case ruling, a rationale for which there had been little basis in the first place.
The Supreme Court also failed to hear evidence showing that Ireland is the safest place in the world for women to give birth.
Sadly, and alarmingly, politicians seeking to legalise abortion are inexcusably ignoring this fact even today. The TDs who introduced a private members’ Bill on abortion a fortnight ago have attempted to create the impression that pregnant women in Ireland are being denied medical treatment because of the lack of available abortion.
However, they are wilfully ignoring the evidence of UN statistics which show Ireland as a world leader in terms of maternal mortality.
What has been missing from this debate are the voices of women who regret their abortions.
Five years after the X case, Ireland was confronted with yet another traumatising abortion court case, the C case.
This involved a young girl who was pregnant as a result of rape. The High Court decided that it was in the best interests of the girl to permit the then Eastern Health Board, who had taken the girl into care, to take her to England for an abortion.
But in an interview in 2009 the woman at the centre of the case said that her abortion caused great pain and sorrow.
Her story and the stories of many other women who regret their abortions have been effectively silenced.
For too long they have been ignored and in some cases dismissed by those, such as the National Women’s Council, who claim to speak for all women.
The group recently appointed by the Government to examine Irish law on abortion, must take these stories into account, as well as the reality that Ireland is the safest country in the world in which to be pregnant.
It might also look at what happens in countries where abortion is made legal.
In the US, abortionist Dr Kermit Gosnell was recently charged with killing seven born babies and a 41-year-old woman on whom he had performed an abortion.
One of Gosnell’s victims, Robyn Reid, said that when she heard he had been charged with killing viable babies with scissors and giving a woman a lethal dose of painkillers, she felt sick.
“I didn’t know that he was such a monster doing this to everyone,” Reid said.
“I didn’t think it’d happened to somebody else. I thought it was just me.”
Stories like this and the recent revelations from Britain about abortionists performing sex-selective abortions reveal the full implications of what legal abortion entails.
Fine Gael gave clear commitments at the last election that “women in pregnancy will receive whatever treatments in pregnancy are necessary to safeguard their lives, and that the duty of care to preserve the life of the baby will also be upheld”.
Public opinion backs this stance.
When people have the distinction between necessary medical interventions during pregnancy and induced abortion made clear to them, in poll after poll, they reject abortion.
Twenty years after the X case, the Irish people deserve to hear the full story about abortion.

Monday, March 5, 2012

Reminder: Conference on the Catholic Family in the New Millennium


Where is the Catholic Family Going in New Millennium Ireland?

The Relevance of Familiaris Consortio – encyclical by
Pope John Paul II

Green Isle Hotel, Dublin  Sunday 11 March 2012

8.45 Registration
9:15am Introductory Comments  Familiaris Consortio
9:30am 10-00am     Dr Robert Walley,  Matercare. Global Maternal Health Issues
10.05am –10:30am – Kathy Sinnott, Former MEP: Threat of the Children’s Rights Referendum
10:30am 11am – Dr. Eanna Johnson Catholic Cathechesis
11.00-11:15am Coffee
11: 15  - 11:45 am Professor Ray Kinsella: The E.U., the Family and Economics.
11:50 – 12:30pm   Dr. Patrick Fagan: Marriage, Family and Religion.
12:30pm- 1pm  Speakers Panel Questions and Answers.

1pm- 2pm Lunch

2pm – 2:30pm Dr Phil Boyle: Fertility Care.
2:35pm – 3:05pm Mrs. Antonia Tully SPUC. UK: Sex education in schools?
3:10pm – 3:45pm Dr Tom Ward : Founder and Past President NACF: Parents Rights: The last hurdle.
3:45pm –  Speakers Panel : Questions and Answers
5.00 pm  - Mass Fr Michael Ross SDB

€25 admission. Concessions. Space limited

Contact Patrick Buckley   Tel. 0872578250

Co-sponsored by National Association of Catholic Families (NACF), European Life Network (ELN)   087 2578250, www.europeanlifenetwork.org   e-mail patrick.buckley48@yahoo.co.uk
 and Human Life International (Ireland) HLII www.humanlife.ie Tel 094 93 75993

NOTE: Lunch is NOT included in the conference admission fee but will be available in the hotel

Saturday, March 3, 2012

Death on Wheels: Dutch Mobile Euthanasia Teams

Shocking though it may seem, it has been reported that Dutch health authorities are pioneering ''Total Death'' a package that is available to everyone from the cradle to the grave. This eugenic programme starts with the newborn
, based on the  "Groningen Protocol" for ''euthanising'' infants, whose lives are deemed to be "not worthy of living",  to, at the other end of the scale, Mobile Euthanasia units who will vist your home and perform the task at any age subject of course to compliance with the law.

ABC News Australia report that Six specialised teams will criss-cross the Netherlands to carry out euthanasia at the home of patients whose own doctors refuse to do so, a pro-euthanasia group said.
"From Thursday, the Levenseindekliniek (Life-end clinic) will have mobile teams where people who think they comply with the criteria for euthanasia can register," Right-to-die NL (NVVE) spokeswoman Walburg de Jong said.
"If they comply, the teams will carry out the euthanasia at patients' homes should their normal doctors refuse to help them."
Ms De Jong says the group, called the Life-end clinic, has teams made up of a specially-trained doctor and nurse who will work part time, visiting patients all over the Netherlands.
The Netherlands became the first country in the world to legalise euthanasia in April 2002, and has strict criteria regulating how such mercy killings can be carried out.
Patients must be mentally alert when making the request to die.
Patients also have to face a future of "unbearable, interminable suffering" and both the patient and the doctor - who have to obtain a second opinion - before euthanasia is carried out, must agree there is no cure.
Each euthanasia case is then reported to one of five special commissions, each made up of a doctor, a jurist and an ethical expert charged with verifying that all criteria had been observed.
The mobile euthanasia plan, which received the thumbs-up from Dutch health minister Edith Schippers in the Dutch parliament, has been met with scepticism from one of the Netherlands' largest medical lobbies.
The Royal Dutch Society of Doctors says it doubts whether the "euthanasia doctors" will be able to form a close enough relationship with a patient to make a correct assessment.
Ms De Jong says around 3,100 mercy killings are carried out each year in the Netherlands and that the NVVE has already been phoned by 70 potential patients since the plan was announced in early February.
The NVVE says its teams are expected to receive around 1,000 assisted suicides requests per year.

Friday, March 2, 2012

Chilling study:After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?

A new so called research paper by an Italian philosopher Alberto Giubilini and an ethicist Dr. Francesca Minerva "After-birth abortion: why should the baby live?", has been published on line by the Journal of Medical Ethics.
The essence of the argument in the study is the claim that newborn babies--just like children in the womb--are not yet persons and therefore lack both rights and interests. They assert that "after-birth abortion" should be permissible if the parents believe it is in their best interest 
This new attack which can properly be described as a proposal to murder newborn babies must be firmly resisted and it highlights the need to establish both the right to life of  unborn and newborn babies, unequivocally in international law

The abstract makes the following claims: 
Abortion is largely accepted even for reasons that do not have anything to do with the fetus' health. By showing that (1) both fetuses and newborns do not have the same moral status as actual persons, (2) the fact that both are potential persons is morally irrelevant and (3) adoption is not always in the best interest of actual people, the authors argue that what we call ‘after-birth abortion’ (killing a newborn) should be permissible in all the cases where abortion is, including cases where the newborn is not disabled.
Essentially the study uses pro-abortion arguments to support infanticide.  This disturbing concept asserts that babies in the womb and newborn babies are only "potential persons" and that their lives  both can be terminated for the same reasons. 
 The chilling reasoning used in the study includes the following extracts:
"We claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk." 
"Actual people's well-being could be threatened by the new (even if healthy) child requiring energy, money and care which the family might happen to be in short supply of. Sometimes this situation can be prevented through an abortion, but in some other cases this is not possible. In these cases, since non-persons have no moral rights to life, there are no reasons for banning after-birth abortions."