Sunday, July 5, 2015

Terminator and Life


 

The Anti-Life, Anti-Human politics of “Terminator Genisys”

By Dave Andrusko
terminator_genisysreI had missed the news that Sonny Bunch, the executive editor of the Washington Free Beacon, a former film critic for the Washington Times and assistant editor of books and arts for the Weekly Standard, is now guest blogging for the Washington Post.

Since Bunch writes about culture and politics and reviews movies for the Beacon, it’s no surprise that his guest blog today would be a review of the new “Terminator” movie.
As a good film reviewer should, Bunch talks about “Terminator Genisys” (which comes out today) in the context of the “Terminator franchise,” which includes some outstanding films, others decidedly less so.

That’s nice, but what in the world, you ask, does any of this have to do with us? Glad you asked.
Bunch begins with a far more articulate explication of something I had thought about more than once but never wrote about: “Allow me to suggest that the first two ‘Terminator’ films are, arguably, classic pro-life tracts.”

Bunch immediately adds
Not buying it? I don’t blame you! But let’s just consider the possibility for a moment.
He artfully develops his thesis, reminding us of insights we didn’t know we knew. (Here is the one long quote from Bunch’s review)
After all, how is the T-800’s (Arnold Schwarzenegger) mission to go back in time and kill Sarah Connor (Linda Hamilton) described? “A sort of retroactive abortion.” “The Terminator” culminates with an impoverished single mother being impregnated following a one-night stand with a man who perishes shortly after. Despite the obvious advantages to terminating the pregnancy, she chooses to keep the baby because, well, her boy JC is the savior of the human race.
The attachment to human life is more pronounced in the second film. John Connor (Edward Furlong) spends much of his time educating the Terminator (Schwarzenegger) about the importance of not ending human life. Indeed, by the close of the picture he’s not even wounding them any longer! Quite an improvement. Philosophically, Skynet’s apocalyptic fervor is presented by JC as karmic payback for man’s propensity to do violence to each other. More strikingly, though, is Sarah’s speech to the would-be creator of Skynet, Miles Dyson (Joe Morton), about the wonder of human creation.
“F—ing men like you built the hydrogen bomb. Men like you thought it up. You think you’re so creative,” Sarah declaims. “You don’t know what it’s like to really create something, to create a life, to feel it growing inside you. All you know how to create is death and destruction!”

Bunch’s shrewd insights into Terminator One and Terminator Two are only magnified when he contrasts the anti-natal, anti-life, anti-human, (all my characterizations of his observations) character of Terminator Genisys.

Since I really do want you to read the review, let me conclude with two brief thoughts.
First, judging by reviews and plot summaries I’ve read in [eager] anticipation of Terminator Genisys, the film is impossibly complicated, incoherent to the point of absurdity, whose narrative is so back and forth in time it would require script notes and a Teaching Assistant to even begin to understand what’s going on.

Second, life in all its preciousness, in all its uniqueness, in all its beauty is implicitly celebrated in the first two films. As Bunch describes the message, “Life is precious and must be protected and nurtured so that it can flower and the world can benefit from it.”
The very opposite is true of Terminator Genisys. Love? Sacrifice? The special mother/son bond? That’s so 1980s-ish. And, reading Bunch, it’s clear that this inversion is anything but subtle.
Does that say something about the peculiar challenges we face today, or what?
Editor’s note. If you want to peruse stories all day long, either go directly to nationalrighttolifenews.org and/or follow me on Twitter at twitter.com/daveha.

Source: NRLC News

ObamaCare


 

Supreme Court Decision Means that Obamacare Exchanges can Continue to Restrict Access to Life-Saving Treatment

By Jennifer Popik, JD, Robert Powell Center for Medical Ethics
Editor’s note. This appeared in the latest digital edition of National Right to Life News. You can read this story and all the other posts at www.nrlc.org/uploads/NRLNews/NRLNewsJune2015final.pdf
Supreme_court_east_facade4reIn the much anticipated Obamacare case, King v. Burwell, handed down June 25, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision ruled that subsidies will continue to go to recipients, not only exchanges set up by state governments, but also in the states where the Federal government and set up a state exchange. When dozens of states either tried or gave up on establishing these expensive exchanges, the Federal government came in and set one up in that state.

The unpopular Obama Health Care Law, now over five years old, originally envisioned that the exchanges would operate as online marketplaces where people could find different levels of insurance and where qualifying residents could use advanceable tax credits to pay for some or all of plan premiums.

However, as these exchanges have started operating state by state, it is becoming commonplace that policies available in both the state and federal exchanges severely restrict the doctors and health care facilities in its plan networks. Evidence continues to emerge as to the extent of these limits. [1] Plan holders across the country have been finding out that under his or her new exchange plan, access to top hospitals, doctors, and drugs are all more restricted.

While many are quick to blame insurance companies, the real culprit is the Obamacare provision under which exchange bureaucrats must exclude insurers who offer policies deemed to allow “excessive or unjustified” health care spending by policyholders.

Under the Federal health law, state insurance commissioners are to recommend to its state exchanges the exclusion of “particular health insurance issuers … based on a pattern or practice of excessive or unjustified premium increases.” The exchanges not only exclude policies in an exchange when government authorities do not agree with premium levels, but the exchanges must even exclude insurers whose plans outside the exchange offer consumers the ability to reduce the danger of treatment denial by paying what those government authorities consider an “excessive or unjustified” amount.

This means that insurers who hope to be able to gain customers within the exchanges have a strong disincentive to offer any adequately funded plans that do not drastically limit access to care. So even if you contact insurers directly, outside the exchange, you are likely to find it hard or impossible to find an adequate individual plan. (See documentation at www.nrlc.org/medethics/healthcarerationing.)

When the government limits what can be charged for health insurance, it restricts what people are allowed to pay for medical treatment. While everyone would prefer to pay less–or nothing–for health care (or anything else), government price controls prevent access to lifesaving medical treatment that costs more to supply than the prices set by the government.

While Obamacare continues to remain law until a pro-repeal President can be elected, it is important to continue to educate friends and neighbors about the dangers the law poses in restricting what Americans can spend to save their own lives and the lives of their families. You can follow up-to-date reports here: powellcenterformedicalethics.blogspot.com

For more on taxpayer subsidies helping to pay for plans that cover elective abortion, go to www.nationalrighttolifenews.org/news/2015/06/supreme-court-decision-underscores-need-for-no-taxpayer-funding-for-abortion-act/#.VY2yxtJViko

[1] More on this evidence can be found at www.nationalrighttolifenews.org/news/2014/03/new-analysis-shows-obamacare-exchange-plans-restricting-access-to-life-saving-prescriptions/#.VYw6PxtViko, www.nationalrighttolifenews.org/news/2014/07/limited-access-to-top-health-care-providers-in-california-obamacare-exchanges/#.VYw6URtViko, www.nationalrighttolifenews.org/news/2013/12/more-obamacare-rationing-evidence-exchange-plans-limit-access-not-only-to-top-hospitals-and-doctors-but-also-to-drugs/

Source: NRLC News

Russia and Abortion


 

Russia: Church and State Sign Agreement to Prevent Abortion

Editor’s note. This analysis comes from the Parliamentary Network for Critical Issues (PNCI).
Patriarch Kirill, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church
Patriarch Kirill, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church
The Ministry of Health in Russia has signed an agreement with the Russian Orthodox Church that includes prevention of abortion and provision of palliative care . The agreement signed by Health Minister Veronika Skvortsova and Patriarch Kirill, the head of the Russian Orthodox Churchwas published on the website of the Synodal Department for ROC [Russian Orthodox Church] Church Charity and Social Service.
Article 9 of the 21 article agreement establishes cooperation “on the protection of maternal and child health, including reproductive health, promotion of family values and prevention of abortion.”

The agreement includes joint actions with medical institutions for the
“creation of crisis pregnancy centers at hospitals with the participation of psychologists and participation of representatives of religious organizations of the Russian Orthodox Church in advising women who are planning to terminate the pregnancy, in medical institutions”
and for the provision of space for
“posting information of religious organizations of the Russian Orthodox Church on the stands in medical institutions.”
Additionally, the two parties will also undertake
“joint efforts to provide assistance and support to pregnant women whose prenatal diagnosis indicate to the malformation of the fetus, as well as mothers who give birth to a child with developmental disabilities.”

Under Article 5, the Orthodox Church will cooperate with the Health Ministry in the preparation of health professionals by providing formative instruction on the spiritual foundations of medical activities and by facilitating the interaction of medical organizations with organizations of the Russian Orthodox Church.

Legislation Proposed to Restrict Access to Abortion
The Russian State Duma is considering legislation on abortion that includes limiting funding for abortion to only those that are considered medically necessary. The bill is designed to help reduce the number of Russian children destroyed through the violence of abortion.
According to the UN’s Department of Economic and Social Affairs, for every 1,000 births, there are 34 abortions in Russia where the fertility rate is below replacement at 1.53.
The legislation would ban private abortion clinics and over-the-counter sale of abortion inducing medication would only be available through a doctor’s prescription. Women considering abortion would be given ultrasounds. One of the sponsors of the legislation, Yelina Mizulina, states that “up to 80 percent of them [abortion minded women] refuse to have the abortion when they see their child on the screen.”
Patriarch Kirill, the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, is seeking a total ban on abortion. In a speech to the Duma earlier this year, the first ever by a religious leader, he referred to abortion as “evil” and “infanticide.” In regards to the present bill, he believes that “taxpayers must not pay for this.”
In response to the proposed legislation, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe tabled [introduced] Written Declaration 594 entitled “Women’s right to access appropriate reproductive health services in the Russian Federation” which states:

We the undersigned members of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly are strongly concerned about the three draft laws submitted to the State Duma of the Russian Federation aiming to severely restrict access of women to abortion. They aim:

to require women to visualise and listen to the heartbeats of the foetus before being given permission to access a legal abortion;
exclude coverage of abortion from the Obligatory Medical Insurance;
to prohibit the sale of safe medication that terminate pregnancies.

The World Health Organization (WHO) has clearly stated that “ultrasound scanning is not routinely required for abortion”. It only serves to emotionally manipulate women. Excluding insurance coverage for a service that only women need is discriminatory and will affect poor, rural women and women in vulnerable situations. The State medical system must additionally ensure the availability of various methods of abortion suitable at different stages of pregnancy. These proposed measures will lead to backstreet abortions and increase maternal mortality and morbidity rates and are an affront to women’s rights.

All individuals are entitled to the highest attainable standard of health, which the State must ensure. We call on parliamentarians in Russia to turn down the above draft laws.
PNCI notes that the Members of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly in their rush to object to the pro-life provisions with worn-out pro-abortion arguments are forgetting that the International Conference on Population and Development Programme of Action states in section 8.2 “Any measures or changes related to abortion within the health system can only be determined at the national or local level according to the national legislative process.”

The Russian State Duma is acting in its sovereign capacity to save the lives of Russian children and offer their mothers real help and support. Such action ought to be applauded, and if not, it should not be opposed as the action is fully compliant with international standards.

Source: NRLC News

This is Scary


Canadian Doctors Want No Limits on Their Ability to Kill Patients in Euthanasia

  Wesley J. Smith 
The Canadian Medical Association has, in short course, gone from resisting euthanasia to being enthusiastic collaborators with the culture of death.
Its draft “principles” have no limits to which patients can be killed by doctors.  Indeed, there isn’t even a mention of an objective illness, disability, or other malady at all.
From the draft, “Principles Based Approach to Assisted Dying in Canada:”
Patient qualifications for access to medical aid in dying
1.1 The patient must be a competent adult.
1.2 Capacity: The attending physician must be satisfied that:
– the patient is mentally capable of making an informed decision at the time of the request(s)
– the patient is capable of giving consent to medical aid in dying
– communications include exploring the priorities, values and fears of the patient, providing information related to the patient’s diagnosis and prognosis, treatment options including palliative care interventions and answering the patient’s questions.
1.3 Voluntariness:…
1.4 Informed decision:
The attending physician must disclose to the patient information regarding their health status, diagnosis, prognosis, the certainty of death upon taking the lethal medication, and alternatives, including comfort care, palliative and hospice care, and pain and symptom control.
This utter abdication of Hippocratic professionalism is even more radical than in the Netherlands and Belgium, which at least gives lip service to patients experiencing actual maladies as a qualification to be made dead.
The CMA:Vichy of the Culture of Death.
#collaborators 
LifeNews.com Note: Wesley J. Smith, J.D., is a special consultant to the Center for Bioethics and Culture and a bioethics attorney who blogs at Human Exeptionalism

Source: LifeSite News

Friday, July 3, 2015

Abortion


 

The beauty of unborn life, the ugliness of abortion, and the shock of recognition

By Dave Andrusko
Juno1What do hair, fingernails, and the following comment from a woman at the front desk of an abortion clinic–“Termination of pregnancy?” she asked in her best would-you-like-fries-with-that voice–have in common?
We talk about all three today and as I was about ready to post them, it occurred to me there is a common denominator: The shock of recognition.
Pro-abortionists hate–loathe, really–the movie Juno. The lead character does not abort, even though she had every attention of “terminating” her pregnancy. That enough would made pro-abortionists’ teeth grind, but worse yet (from their vantage point) the baby is subsequently adopted. Horror of horrors, is there no end to the pro-life skullduggery?!
I thought of Juno because of the pivotal early scene when a lonely, inarticulate pro-life teen stands outside the abortion clinic Juno MacGuff is about to enter. It turns out to be a girl Juno knows from school but nothing she says seems to have any effect. Then…
Juno! Your baby probably has a beating heart, you know. It can feel pain. And it has fingernails.
To which Juno responds
Really? Fingernails?
Her baby has fingernails? The shock of recognition. Juno does not abort her baby.
We also repost a blog by Sarah Terzo in which she excerpts from a pro-abortion book. “Diana” was okay handling late-term aborted babies. But she also says her thinking–and perhaps her soul–was being “more robotic.”
Evidently she was already having hand-to-hand combat with her conscience when “I saw the hair…”
Fingernails…hair… the shock of recognition.
The two posts made me think of a story I wrote last year about a piece that appeared in the New York Times’ “Opinionator blog” which I’m re-running.
To be clear up front, at the end of Lisa Selin Davis’s autobiographical essay about her abortion, Davis does not tell us she had decided to become a member of National Right to Life. But it is also obvious that her “abortion experience” had forever scarred her. Why?

Davis had intended to make her abortion into “art.” Waist-deep in the swamps of “experimental feminist video,” Davis tells us she “could make art out of anything.” Why not use her Ricoh Hi8 video camera to document the demise of the…contents of her uterus?
Along the way, a cabdriver learns where she is going and passionately–and I do mean passionately–tries to dissuade Davis. But she plows ahead.

At the abortion clinic, Davis tells us,
At the clinic’s counter, the receptionist asked me what I’d come for. I said, “Um …”
“Termination of pregnancy?” she asked in her best would-you-like-fries-with-that voice. I nodded.
She also encounters a woman having her ninth abortion…and hears the sucking sound as her baby is vacuumed out of her womb.

The shock of recognition does not make a pro-life convert out of her— “I want my daughters to have the option of safe and legal abortion, of course”—but adds, “I just don’t want them to have to use it.”
Let me end with one of Davis’s own conclusions. She tells us that the pain eventually stopped:
Or, at least, it stopped the physical pain. The begging cabdriver and the woman on her ninth abortion and the shocking suction in my womb: It was too traumatic for me to make art of. Or maybe it was just that I wasn’t a good enough artist to transform that level of trauma into something that others could learn from and use. I had been taught that a woman’s right to choose was the most important thing to fight for, but I hadn’t known what a brutal choice it was.

Source: NRLC News

Life, Liberty and Pursuit of ...


 

For unborn babies, the assault on America is very real indeed

babyandflag33Our nation, formed in such idealism in 1776, today is under assault. Some people might think that word “assault” is just a metaphor. Our values under “assault.” Our religious rights of conscience being “attacked.”
All that is true, of course. But I’m talking about real, literal assault.

Unborn babies in today’s America are literally – not figuratively – assaulted. They are physically attacked in the womb, dismembered, often in the most painful ways imaginable.
They, even more than our nation itself, are truly “under assault.”

Through the work of National Right to Life, our state affiliates, local chapters and others, we can be thankful that over 500,000 fewer unborn babies are assaulted and killed than were decades ago. Our nation is becoming more pro-life, more respectful once again of the meaning of the promise of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
But tragically, about a million still die annually.

America will not be whole until we extend the promise of Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness to every member of the human family. To the unborn. To the elderly and ill threatened by denial of care or so-called “assisted suicide.” To persons with disabilities, young and old, who society deems unworthy of the level of necessary medical care the rest of us are afforded.
Millions of good Americans have helped the Right to Life movement fight for that promise over the years through their volunteer efforts and donations. And that has saved millions and millions of lives. As we commemorate this 4th of July, please help us give hope for the promise of Life to every human being with your continued financial support and earnest prayers for our nation.
Because we want every American to be welcomed in life and protected in law. That is truly the promise of the Fourth of July.

Source: NRLC News

Wednesday, July 1, 2015

Dissability Rights Groups and Assisted Suicide


 

Disability rights advocates fight California assisted suicide bill

By Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director – Euthanasia Prevention Coalition
USA Today published a very interesting article written by Anna Gorman of Kaiser Health News concerning the role of disability rights activists in the assisted suicide debate in America.
Anthony Oriface
Anthony Oriface
For instance, Anthony Orefice from Valencia California had a motorcycle accident when he was 19.
Anthony Orefice hit a telephone pole on his motorcycle going 100 miles per hour. Doctors told his family he wouldn’t survive. He did, but the accident left him paralyzed from the chest down … “All you are thinking is the worst, worst, worst – everything you can’t do … I wanted to be dead.”
Orefice, who is now 40, is married, has a 7-year-old son, owns a medical supply company and counsels people who are newly disabled with spinal cord injuries. Orefice says
“Depression … is part of the healing process.”
Orefice is one of many disability rights activists who are speaking up against the California assisted suicide bill. He and others are concerned that
depression and incorrect prognoses may lead people with serious disabilities to end their lives prematurely.
Marilyn Golden
Marilyn Golden
Marilyn Golden, the senior policy analyst at Disability Rights Education & Defense Fund, argues that the assisted suicide bill poses “considerable dangers” to people with new disabilities who may have suicidal thoughts. Golden states that
“It would almost be too easy to make an irrevocable choice,”
Golden added:
many people who initially received terminal diagnoses have “lived full lives (for) years or even decades” longer than expected.
John Kelly
John Kelly
John Kelly, with the disability rights group Not Dead Yet, explained
that the disability rights groups were less organized when Oregon and Washington State and Vermont passed assisted suicide bills, but since then they have effectively defeated bill in many states including Massachusetts, Colorado and Connecticut.
Gorman adds that Kelly said:

they are determined to defeat any bill, including the one in California.
The disability rights coalition is actively opposing the California assisted suicide bill SB 128. Deborah Doctor, a legislative advocate for Disability Rights California, wrote in a letter to State Sen. Lois Wolk late last month saying

disabled people are vulnerable to abuse and could be coerced by family members not acting in the patients’ best interests. Relatives, she said, could put pressure on people to take life-ending medication.
“Our responsibility is to think of people who are the most vulnerable to coercion, abuse and pressure.”
Doctor is also concerned that:
physicians may simply be wrong about how long someone has to live. Insurance companies also might overrule treatment for people with disabilities because of the cost of care.
Laurie Hoirup
Laurie Hoirup
Laurie Hoirup is another disability rights activist who strongly opposes assisted suicide, but based on her personal experience. Hoirup has had spinal muscular atrophy since she was a toddler. She has a curved spine and rods in her back, she cannot eat, bathe or go to the bathroom on her own and has trouble breathing.
According to Gorman, Hoirup said that:
Physicians told her family that she wouldn’t live past 10 years old.
“Anyone could be given the wrong diagnoses,” she said. “I am certainly the perfect example of that.”
Hoirup, who is now a grandmother, spent many years working in government and other positions on behalf of people with disabilities.
The article concludes
Orefice, who wished for death when he was 19, said he is now glad for what he calls the years of “bonus time.”
But Orefice said he doesn’t dwell on his disability or think much about death. Instead, he focuses on his family and thinks what he’s been able to accomplish and what he still hopes to. He paddle boards, plays wheelchair hockey and races specially equipped off-road vehicles.
“I have affected more lives than I would have if I was walking,” he said. “When you are in the trenches, you don’t see that.”

Source: NRLC News

Born Alive by Abortion


 

Baby born alive during abortion: ‘It lived for several days,’ abortionist says

By Sarah Terzo
smallhumansreFormer abortionist Dr. Paul Jarrett gave his testimony at a conference held by the Pro-Life Action League called “Meet the Abortion Providers.” In a speech reproduced on the Priests for Life website, he talks about his experiences with late-term abortion.
An OB/GYN, Dr. Jarrett did his residency between 1970 and 1973 in Indiana. Roe v. Wade, which legalized abortion throughout the United States, was decided in 1973, but in the first year of Dr. Jarrett’s residency, some abortions were being done legally. In Indiana at the time, a woman could get an abortion legally if she went to two psychiatrist and had them certify that her pregnancy was a threat to her mental health. According to Jarrett:

Although my textbook stated that true psychiatric indications for abortion were extremely rare, in practice it was relatively easy for a woman to get two psychiatrists to rubber stamp her abortion request for the price of a consultation visit. By the time all the paperwork was done, these pregnancies were more advanced and were classified as second trimester. Technically, these could be between 14 and 27 weeks, but usually they were 18 – 20 weeks along.

He describes how these abortions were done:
This type of abortion was then done by hypertonic saline injection. In laymen’s terms this meant injecting a very caustic salt solution into the amniotic sac which the baby swallows, causing his death. Labor begins 12 – 36 hours later. A well liked member of the teaching faculty would inject the solution and the patient was admitted to the gynecology ward to await delivery.

Saline abortions were painful for both the baby and the mother. The child could take hours to die in the womb. The mother had to go through labor and essentially “give birth” to her dead baby.
Dr. Jarrett goes on to describe his role in the saline abortions:
It was my job to go to the ward and pick up the dead baby from the labor bed and make sure the placenta had all come out. This was my least favorite duty as a resident…
Saline abortions were also very dangerous for women, because the caustic solution could cause a woman’s death if it entered her bloodstream. As doctors investigated different techniques, hypertonic urea was used for a short time to induce labor in women who were having late-term abortions. As Dr. Jarrett says:
The major disadvantage in using it [urea] was the problem of live births. I remember using it on a patient that the psychiatric residents brought to us from their — clinic an institutionalized patient who really was crazy. I’ll never forget delivering her nearly two pound baby, and hearing her screams, “My baby’s alive, my baby’s alive.” It lived several days.

One can only imagine how watching her baby, who was supposed to be born dead, kick and struggle after the abortion affected this woman’s “mental health.” …
[T]the euthanasia of infants with disabilities was tacitly approved of by some of Dr. Jarrett’s colleagues. He says:

Later, I was taught by my chief resident that if I was delivering a defective baby, such as an anencephalic, I should place it in the bucket of water at my side and declare it a stillborn. I never did that, but I’ll always remember it.

How many times did this chief resident, or the doctors under him, perform such infanticide? And were the mothers ever aware that their children were euthanized? Sadly, such actions are not unheard of.
In March of this year, I wrote about the infanticide of Down syndrome newborns that allegedly took place in one hospital.

To return to the abortion issue, live births also occurred with saline solution, and it was a real problem for the abortion industry. Eventually, the abortionists hit upon a macabre solution – the D&E procedure, which is known as a “dismemberment abortion.” This is now the most commonly used abortion procedure in the second trimester, though some abortions are still done by induction and live births still do occur. A D&E procedure, as you can see in the diagram below, is performed by tearing apart the baby with forceps, extracting one piece at a time.
Obviously, there is no chance of the baby being born alive.

Dr. Jarrett would eventually leave the abortion business, and I will talk about what led to his conversion in the next article.
Editor’s note. This appeared at liveactionnews.org and is reprinted with permission.

Source: NRLC News

Bizarre but With Agenda


 

Is the “Abortion Drone” headed for Ireland next? That and many more questions unclear after drone lands in Poland

By Dave Andrusko
abortiondroneYesterday Dr. Randall K. O’Bannon provided an in-depth report on the “Abortion Drone” which took off from Germany and landed in Poland.
There remains a great deal of uncertainty, not only about what laws are in play in Poland and Germany; about whether any charges will be pressed for bringing chemical abortifacients into Poland; and also about where else (such as Ireland) “Women on Waves” will try providing the two drugs that women could use for a “DIY” [Do It Yourself] abortions.
Here’s what appears to be clear.

First, the distance traveled June 27 was very small — from Frankfurt an den Oder across the Oder river border separating Germany and Poland –basically a sight-of-vision trip.
The video and pictures appear to show two women removing (and we are told by reporters actually taking) the packages of pills, containing mifepristone (RU-486) and a prostaglandin (misoprostol), which were “delivered” to women in Slubice, where abortion laws are highly protective.
Likely for tactical reasons, the two Polish women were not pregnant (according to Agence France-Presse). They swallowed the pills as part of a “symbolic” stunt organized by Women on Waves to draw attention to (itself and) Poland’s abortion policies.
“It’s a symbolic operation designed to show that just a few kilometres [between the take-off and the landing site] can be a gulf in terms of respect for women’s rights, reproductive rights which are human rights,” said Jula Gaweda, a spokesperson for Feminoteka, one of the local groups responsible for the event.

( Women on Waves, the main organizer, is the same organization that brought us the “abortion ship,” abortion hotlines where women can learn how to self-abort, and the related “I need an abortion” website where women can order abortifacients responsible for this latest misuse of technology. They insist that these chemical abortifacients can be taken “without medical supervision” for pregnancies of less than nine weeks.)

But there is much more that is unclear. For example, according to Newsweek’s European edition, German police arrived and confiscated the pilot’s controllers and iPad once the drone landed in Poland. No one was arrested in Germany. However Eilish O’Gara reported today
Women on Waves say German authorities are now seeking to press criminal charges against those involved in the drone’s first flight, but add that it is “totally unclear on what grounds they can take legal action”.

Maybe, to the contrary, it’s totally clear. Not knowing German law, I couldn’t even speculate.
In a highly sympathetic story that appeared in The Telegraph, reporter Radhika Sanghani laid out the case for the stunt’s legality.

The ‘abortion drone’ is not thought to be illegal – though it will be illegal for any Polish woman to take the pills without approval from physicians or prosecutors, and if she does not meet the country’s conditions for abortion.
[Founder and director Rebecca] Gomperts said: “There are no regulations or laws that prevent us from doing this or any that say it would be illegal.
“It’s the first time we’re doing something like this, so we don’t know what the Government’s going to do. We’re just going to see what happens.”
Though it is illegal for women in Poland to have abortions in cases that fall outside of the restrictions, such as when they feel economically unable to care for their child, or there is only a slight risk to the woman’s health, there is no punishment.
They cannot be imprisoned for their actions, though a physician who performs an abortion in violation of the law can be subjected to up to two years’ imprisonment.

So what does all that mean? Again, not knowing Polish abortion laws (or German laws about delivering drugs across national borders), if laws against abortion in Poland are honored more in the breach than in the observance, why all the Women on Waves rhetoric about how “difficult” it is to get abortions in Poland and how many women go outside the country to get abortions–beyond the usual pro-abortion bluster and propaganda?

If no physician is involved–if women secure the abortion pills whether by drone (highly unlikely) or some other way–are there no consequences for killing the unborn child? (See below.)
O’Gara suggest Women on Waves may be taking their act to Ireland. There are at least two questions.
First, where would a drone be launched?

Second, however, as Gomperts told Newsweek Europe,
the legal implications of sending a drone to women in Ireland, who can be prosecuted for taking the abortion pill themselves, will need to be addressed

But if it is illegal for women in Ireland to “take” the abortion pill themselves, given the way the sentence is written, does this imply that it is not illegal to do so in Poland? Very confusing.
We will keep track of this increasingly bizarre behavior and report back as we learn more.

Source: NRLC News

Horrible Serial Killing Story


 

Trial underway in case of French woman charged with strangling 8 newborns

Several of the bodies kept in the bedroom

By Dave Andrusko
Dominique Cottrez
Dominique Cottrez (R) in discussion with her lawyers Franck Berton (2nd R) and Marie-Helene Carlier (C) (AFP)

The resemblance to Megan Huntsman is overwhelming, ghastly, and terribly sad.
Huntsman, the mother of two living children, murdered six newborns over a ten-year span and is serving a life sentence.

The headline in today’s Daily Telegraph reports on “France’s ‘worst ever’ infanticide trial opens as mother admits to killing 8 newborns.”
Dominique Cottrez is also the mother of two living children.
Huntsman hid her babies’ bodies in the garage. Cottrez, facing charges of first and second-degree murder of minors, is charged with “hiding their bodies in plastic bags around the house, including two in the bedroom she shared with her unsuspecting husband,” according to reporter Henry Samuel.
And like Huntsman’s husband, Cottrez’s husband also said he knew nothing about the murders.
Samuel wrote that Cottrez

said she killed the newborns over an 11-year period from 1989 to 2000 as an act of “belated contraception” because she feared they were the product of her incestuous relationship with her father [who died in 2007].
She faces life in prison if found guilty by a jury in the northern city of Douai.
Huntsman’s murdered newborns were discovered when her estranged husband and one of their daughters cleared out the garage.

The bodies of Cottrez’s eight newborns, whom she suffocated with her bare hands, were discovered in 2010. The new owner of her old home was digging in the back garden when “he unearthed two tiny corpses,” Samuel reported. He was scheduled to be among the first witnesses to testify.
Cottrez, who is very heavy, was able to hide her pregnancies. But how could she smother all these babies without her husband suspecting something? The explanations go from the incredible to the bizarre.
Samuel reports
Cottrez said she managed to give birth onto sheets in the bathroom while her husband was away on business, and strangled the newborns. She put them in plastic bags in various locations including a laundry basket, cupboards and the garage.
She even kept several in the bedroom she shared with her husband, aerating the room often, apparently without her husband or her two adult daughters suspecting anything untoward. They are not facing charges.
“As long as she prepared her husband’s meals, it was sufficient. It’s a terrible thing to say but she was a good mother,” said Yves Crespin, lawyer for de child protection charity, L’Enfant bleu-Enfance maltraitée, a civil plaintiff.

The trial is not expected to be a lengthy one. Samuel speculated it could be concluded by Thursday.

Source: NRLC News