Ireland

 

Abortion Bus Tours Ireland to tell women how to self-abort

By Randall K. O’Bannon, Ph.D., NRL Director of Education & Research
Don’t look now, but the same people who brought you the abortion ship and the abortion drone are now riding the abortion train and driving the abortion bus.
Women on Web, connected to the group which launched the abortion ship over ten years ago and just last summer flew the “abortion drone,” has teamed with pro-abortion activists in Ireland to kick off a nationwide bus tour to tell women how to get abortion pills in a country where abortion is illegal except to save the life of the mother.

This bus follows on the heels of an “abortion train” some of these same folks rode with great fanfare last year about this time. You may recall they traveled to Belfast to pick up abortion pills which they took, on camera, once arriving back in Dublin.

Political Purposes
Many of the Irish activists belong to ROSA (“Reproductive rights, against Oppression, Sexism & Austerity”), a group initiated, according to the website, by “women in the Socialist Party, with the aim of promoting and organising events, actions and campaign activity on the issues mentioned” (rosa.ie).
Two of the chief goals of ROSA are to “Repeal the 8th amendment,” Ireland’s constitutional amendment protecting unborn children, and to “Stop the hypocrisy of exporting abortion.” They say that “Women should choose, without veto from doctors or the state” and that “Abortion should be provided through the Irish health service, without cost and shame for women.”
Ruth Coppinger, TD (Teachta Dála, member of the Irish Parliament) for the Socialist Party and one of the primary spokespeople for pro-abortion cause in Ireland, called the current law equating the life of the woman and unborn baby “archaic and barbaric” and demanded a national referendum. Asked by a radio reporter if the promotion with the abortion bus amounted to an effort to circumvent, if not break the law, Coppinger said, “Yeah, because that’s necessary for all unjust laws to be challenged” (RTE News, “Morning Ireland” show, 10/19/15).
The Socialists and their allies hold only a handful of seats in the Dáil Éireann, Ireland’s parliament, giving them reason to resort to dramatic stunts like the abortion train and the abortion bus to draw attention to their candidates and support for their cause. It is worth noting that the timing of this cross-country tour corresponds with the parliament’s coming to the end of a five-year election cycle with the Socialist party and its allies hoping to make some gains
Pushing the Abortion Pill
The stated aim for the Abortion Pill Bus, ROSA says, “will be defying Ireland’s unjust and dangerous abortion ban.” Though a few thousand Irish woman travel abroad each year to obtain abortions in England and Scotland, and Irish customs seized over a thousand abortion pills last year, ROSA aims on using the abortion bus as a platform to demonstrate how women can order and use abortion pills shipped from WomenOnWeb.
Though ROSA said there would be abortion pills actually on the bus, it indicated that women seeking information about the abortion pill would be chatting, in a private consultation room on the bus with a WomenOnWeb doctor via Skype, and receive the pills later (Galway Advertiser, 10/22/15, The Irish Independent, 10/24/15).
The normal procedure with WOW is for women to go through the online process, make a “donation,” and then have the pills mailed to their home address. No word on where they were told to call if they have problems.
Promoters mounted a major publicity campaign and were looking for crowds to greet them wherever they stop. Pictures on the Twitter feed make it look as if there were more people in some places than others, and made it clear there were pro-life protesters there on-line as well as in person (#AbortionPillBus). The bus made stops last Friday in Dublin, Galway, and Limerick. Saturday, it was in Cork before returning for a rally in Dublin.
No final count was published in the press, but a spokesperson for ROSA said midway through the tour that it had received more than a dozen calls from women seeking information and had ten walk-ons in Galway, with more appointments booked for Limerick and Cork (The Irish Independent, 10/24/15)
Making Waves
The heavy involvement of WomenOnWeb was not mere opportunism. WomenOnWeb’s history with Ireland goes back to 2001. The original WOW group – “Women on Waves” – launched its “abortion ship” from the Netherlands, anchored in international waters just off the Irish coast, offering women chemical abortions with mifepristone (RU-486) and the prostaglandin misoprostol.
Owing to various legal and logistical factors, no actual abortions are believed to have been performed in that visit (or in the visit the following year). However, it did serve as a rallying point for the nascent Irish pro-abortion movement and helped to bring international attention Women on Waves way.
Ireland is one of the few remaining western countries where real protections exist for unborn children. Defying accepted pro-abortion wisdom, even with these “archaic” laws, Ireland possesses one of the world’s lowest maternal mortality rates.
Irish laws are a thorn in the side to the international abortion establishment, so it is hardly surprising that WomenOnWeb has returned to Ireland again and again with new schemes to get pro-life policies overturned.
Abortion Train
Last year about this time, the gimmick was the abortion train. ROSA carried the banner of WomenOnWeb at the train station and it was WOW group’s pills the women took on camera, in Dublin, in October of 2014 (The Irish Indepdendent, 10/28/14).
There were hints this past summer that Ireland would be the next stop for WOW’s “abortion drone.”  Evidently they decided to go with a bus tour this time around instead.
But it wasn’t as if WOW was on the sidelines in the intervening years. After a second unsuccessful effort to Ireland with the abortion ship in 2002, Women on Waves attempted similar voyages to Poland, Portugal, Spain, and Morocco.
Again, though similarly unsuccessful in attracting abortion passengers, WOW was successful in attracting attention. This was something that founder Rebecca Gomperts, a former Greenpeace activist, took advantage of to promote the idea of chemical abortions, essentially giving out the “recipe” telling women how to use commonly available drugs to self abort.
It was only a matter of time before Women on Waves began setting up “hotlines” in Ecuador, Chile, Peru, Venezuela, Argentina, Pakistan, Indonesia, Kenya, Thailand, Poland and Morocco to give out that information to women in countries where abortion was not legal.
Gomperts put together a website called Women on Web (www.womenonweb.org) where women from all over the world could have a digital “consultation” with a doctor and order abortion pills to be sent by international post. It was pills from this source that women on the abortion train used in Ireland and it was to be WOW doctors with whom Irish women on the abortion bus would be conferring.
A risky venture
Promoters have, of course, downplayed the risks. Women who are pregnant (unlike some of those participating in WomenOnWeb’s publicity stunts who were not) who take mifepristone will cramp and bleed profusely. Many may deal with serious nausea, diarrhea, and other forms of gastrointestinal distress. These alone have been enough to put some women in the hospitals.
Of course, something ROSA and WOW never mention when touting the chemical abortions are “safer than Viagra” or have been deemed an “essential medicine by the World Health Organization” (which tells you more about WHO than it does about “essential medicines”) is that women have died after taking these drugs, even in countries where these chemical abortifacients were legal and women were under the care of a doctor.
Women who merely consult with a video doctor face an even greater risk, something even one of the Irish reporters interviewing TD Coppinger noticed. The reporter for Morning Ireland noted that on WomenOnWeb’s online questionnaire women have to fill out before ordering the pills, they have to answer medical queries such as whether they have heart disease or high blood pressure. The reporter observed, “[S]ome people may have these conditions and not know them.” This could prove deadly.
Rather than deny the risk, Coppinger used the occasion to say this was an argument for legalizing abortion.
As noted above Ireland has one of the lowest maternal mortality rates in the world, something that advocates of abortion have difficulty explaining. Their argument that the legalization of abortion is necessary to reduce maternal mortality is contradicted by the low maternal mortality rates seen in countries like Ireland, Poland, and Chile, where the law protects both mothers and their unborn children.
Meeting with Resistance
Thankfully, the voices of Coppinger and ROSA were not the only ones heard.
The bus had trouble finding a parking place in Galway. It was met by about 50 supporters, but also by a number of protesters (The Independent, 10/24/15). There was a counterdemonstration in Limerick (The Journal (Ireland), 10/26/15). Protesters in Cork, some carrying signs reading “Abortion is Murder,” nearly drowned out Coppinger.
Coppinger admitted that the counter protesters in Cork, which she called “vociferous and vocal minority,” made “a lot of noise.” According to the Irish Times, she tried to tell the crowd that those rejecting her message “represent the past and we represent the future.”
Obviously, the message didn’t resonate with everyone.

Cora Sherlock, deputy chairwoman of the Pro Life Campaign, who was there in Dublin when the bus pulled out, said that it was the abortion pill bus that was dangerous and irresponsible.
“These pills are dangerous for women. That is a fact. I am not making it up,” she said. “What we have seen is a tragic and inappropriate publicity stunt. It is purely to attract media and political attention. An abortion involves the ending of a human life. It is a traumatic time and to suggest they should step onto the back of a mini bus with colourful posters on the side — that is not dealing with it with the seriousness and gravity it deserves.” (The Irish Times, 10/25/15)
Dr. Ruth Cullen, education officer for the Irish Pro-Life campaign, called this “just the latest publicity stunt from Deputy Coppinger. But it is an incredibly dangerous and irresponsible one that puts the lives of women at serious risk.”

Cullen noted, “Those lending their support to the abortion pill bus have no credibility talking about women’s health in the context of the abortion debate going forward. It is one thing to constantly misrepresent the eighth amendment as Deputy Coppinger does. It’s quite another thing to use an abortion pill bus as a means of attracting publicity.”

Cullen concluded, “The more outrageous the stunt the better, as long as it helps dismantle the eighth amendment, seems to be the thinking. The stories of those who regret their abortions are being drowned out of the debate as well as the rights of the unborn child” (The Journal (Ireland), 10/23/15).

Source" NRLC News

Men and Abortion

 

Research reveals men’s sense of grief and helplessness in response to woman’s abortion

By Randall K. O’Bannon, NRL Director of Education & Research
Editor’s note. This story appears in the October digital edition of National Right to Life News. All the stories, commentaries, President’s column, and editorials can be read at www.nrlc.org/uploads/NRLNews/NRLNewsOct2015.pdf
Studies on women’s negative responses to their abortions have appeared frequently over the past couple of decades. But research on men’s reactions to the abortion of their child have been harder to find.

Now, new research by Catherine T. Coyle and Vincent M. Rue appearing in the October 2015 issue of Counseling and Values offers “A Thematic Analysis of Men’s Experience With a Partner’s Elective Abortion.”

Coyle and Rue report on responses to an online survey of 89 men whose partner (wife or more often girlfriend) had undergone an abortion. The size of the sample and the manner of self-selection (it depended on men finding the website) make it difficult to make any broad statistical observations but still offers valuable experiential data.

Accounts of their experiences are compelling and heart-breaking reading. There are painful commonalities, especially among those whose input into the decision was not welcomed.
The researchers found three common themes among the men’s responses: 1) loss and grief, 2) helplessness and/or victimization, and 3) spiritual healing.

Coyle and Rue offer several examples of men expressing each of the themes. A sample of the ones on “Loss and Grief” include:

I was a father one day and not the next. She told me she had a miscarriage, then I got a call from the abortion clinic, she forgot her medication. I have never felt so awful in my life. (2 years postabortion)

I would have made an excellent father, and I feel now at my age (49) my chance has probably gone. And this makes me sad. (9 years postabortion)

Sometimes, there was an element of guilt involved, even many years later.

The absolute worst thing I have ever done. Words can’t describe the pain and overwhelming guilt that is always with me. I have no one to blame but myself. (26 years postabortion).

Relationships were affected.

Since the abortion we have separated. We constantly argue. She constantly looks at baby things. She desperately wants to become pregnant again. I want our baby back. (1 month postabortion)

The abortion destroyed all the good in our relationship and all the hope I had in the kindness of others. (3 months postabortion)

Coyle and Rue say that “Helpless and/or Victimization” are not qualities typical of many males, but were expressed by the group participating in their on-line survey.

I had no control or no say about the abortion. She said she would have one if I agreed o or not. She had the abortion without me. I would have taken care of the baby myself if she would have just had the baby. (26 years postabortion).

She is going through hell and I can’t help her. I only remind her of it. (2 months postabortion)

Anger was sometimes part of the reaction.

As a man, I was totally in the dark. No one gave me any information or even cared what I thought. (14 ½ years postabortion)

While about 9% (or about one in 11) did not declare any religious affiliation, most (82%) of the men participating in the survey identified themselves as Christian (the remainder labeled themselves as “other” (8%) or said they were Jewish(1%)), and this showed up in responses Coyle and Rue grouped under “Spiritual Healing.”

God has given me grace to confess and feel forgiven. (7 years postabortion)

I have now committed my life to Christ … I know I am forgiven and free but the grief is still felt. (30 years postabortion)

Forgiveness was a common theme, but some men said they were still struggling years after the event.

I know that God forgives me and I am working on my own forgiveness. (27 years postabortion)

Though this self selected sample turned out to be predominantly Christian and Caucasian, the authors felt that “the existential questions raised by abortion would seem to present considerable challenges for men of other faiths as well as for men without a religious worldview.” Coyle and Rue hoped that future research would shed light on how or whether ethnicity or religious belief would contribute to men’s postabortion views.
Coyle and Rue say that the common expressions of guilt and culpability raise important questions about whether men’s innate instincts are violated by induced abortion, whether the cultural expectations surrounding men and their roles are unrealistic or contradictory, and whether men ought to be routinely offered pre- and postabortion counseling.

Men’s sense of helplessness and victimization at their partner’s abortions may be due, at least in part, to the current legal situation which gives them no rights in the matter. Coyle and Rue suggest that efforts to enhance a couple’s communication may help here, but as things stand, the decision will be entirely the mother’s.

At a minimum, though, Coyle and Rue argue that counselors should be aware of such issues and be prepared to explore and address these with their male clients, even if the abortion may have occurred years ago:

When clients appear to be still struggling with the abortion experience, if is helpful to affirm that abortion can be a difficult, even traumatic event. Such affirmation may facilitate awareness and lead to a willingness to work on any unresolved guilt and anger.

Because of the disenfranchisement of men from the abortion decision, men may not feel that they have a “right to grieve” delaying or inhibiting their healing. Forgiveness, both for oneself and for the others involved, may indeed be valuable here, the researchers argue.
Of course, we recognize that not every man responds the same way as these, at least initially. There are those who coerce their partners to have abortions and threaten to abandon the woman if she has the baby.

But this research shows, once again, that the reality of abortion, the destruction of an innocent human life, is not something a mother or a father can simply psychologically shove aside and act as if it never happened.
It’s something a father won’t easily forget.

Source: NRLC News

Question--- WHY????

 

Adopted actress Melissa Gilbert supports Planned Parenthood in political campaign

  Carole Novielli 

A beloved TV child star has come out in support of abortion giant Planned Parenthood, recently exposed for harvesting and selling baby organs. Melissa Gilbert, who played Laura Ingalls Wilder in Michael Landon’s TV series, Little House on the Prairie, which still airs on many cable stations, showed her support for Planned Parenthood in several Facebook posts. The 51-year-old Democrat recently announced her campaign to run for Congress in Michigan.
Gilbert is hoping to unseat freshman pro-life Republican Rep. Mike Bishop of Michigan’s 8th congressional district. On her Gilbert for Michigan website, Gilbert cites family as her reasons for running:

I’m running for Congress to make life a little easier for all the families who feel they have fallen through the cracks in today’s economy. I believe building a new economy is a team effort, and we need to bring fresh voices to the table to get the job done.

A spokesman for the Mike Bishop campaign has called Gilbert a “tax cheat,” noting that she owes $360,000 in back taxes to the U.S. government and $112,000 to California.
“Melissa Gilbert can afford to have a stylist for her dog, but cannot pay her taxes,” he said in a statement. “Her values are out of whack with the district.”
Gilbert’s “values” include support for Planned Parenthood, an abortion organization which – in addition to accepting money for baby body parts – has been exposed as aiding and abetting sex trafficking, failing to report child sexual abuse, giving women inaccurate medical information, and facilitating race-and sex-selective abortions.  Planned Parenthood, at its highest levels has repeatedly misled the public about what health services they provide. Despite all of this, Gilbert publicly showed support for Planned Parenthood on her campaign Facebook page by changing her profile picture to the #StandwithPP meme.
Then, on September 29th, Gilbert asked her Facebook followers to support Planned Parenthood Action on #PinkOutDay.
Gilbert also publicly went after Rep. Bishop for his call to defund Planned Parenthood, writing, “On Friday, Mike Bishop and the House GOP voted to defund Planned Parenthood. Their vote put health care for thousands of women in Michigan at risk. Let’s tell Mike Bishop and the GOP to stop trying to defund Planned Parenthood, and get back to work! Click here… [link]” The link routed Gilbert’s supporters to a website which states: “Mike Bishop: Stop Trying to Defund Planned Parenthood!”

In her most recent move, the former Little House on the Prairie star even took part in a Walk for Choice. On the event’s Facebook page, organizers state that it is an event intended to support Planned Parenthood Mid and South Michigan. A video of the event was published on YouTube:

Shortly after she announced her candidacy, Gilbert received the support of the radically pro-abortion EMILY’s List, who publicly tweeted their congratulations to Gilbert.
What makes Gilbert’s support of abortion giant Planned Parenthood even more tragic is the fact that both she and her brother were spared from abortion and given a home through the miracle of adoption:

[Gilbert] was adopted by actor Paul Gilbert and his wife, actress Barbara Crane, the day after she was born. They later adopted son Jonathan. Half-sister Sara Gilbert [is] Crane’s daughter from a subsequent marriage….

Gilbert’s adopted brother, Jonathan, is known for playing Willie Oleson on Little House on the Prairie. Her sister Sara is best known for playing Darlene Conner on the hit TV show, Roseanne, and is also a creator and star of The Talk.
According to a report from the AP published by a local Michigan media outlet, Melissa Gilbert has never run for political office before and only moved to the state from California two years ago after marrying actor Timothy Busfield.

Source: LiveAction News

Down Syndrome

 

The Congratulations Project: Encouraging 

parents of children with Down syndrome

Kelli 

Far too often, parents receiving a Down syndrome diagnosis for their children are given little support. One group of young adults aims to change that.
At CAMP PALS, a camp for young adults with Down syndrome, campers write letters to parents who have likely been given only bad news about their babies. The Mighty reports on this effort, The Congratulations Project…

Often times, when a child is born with Down syndrome, doctors accompany the news with an “I’m sorry.” They may throw out a bunch of facts, figures and medical jargon, creating one, big overwhelming experience for a new parent. It’s certainly not the way to welcome a new life into the world. So what’s the right thing to tell a new parent of a child with Down syndrome? How about “Congratulations”?

Source: LiveAction News

Compassion and Abortion

 

Is it really compassionate to abort ‘for the sake of the baby’?

  Sarah Terzo  

Patricia Launneborg’s book Abortion: a Positive Decision may be one of the most blatantly pro-abortion books ever written. She champions abortion, describing it in glowing terms, and presents the stories of women who feel their abortion were wonderful.
One thing I noticed as I read through the women’s stories was how many of them justified their abortions, in whole or in part, by saying that they were done for the sake of the preborn baby. These women claim that it is better for a baby to be aborted (i.e., killed) than to be born into a situation where he or she may be unhappy. Whether this argument is a way to justify the abortion to themselves or whether they really believe that their babies are better off dead is hard to say.
(Warning: This article contains a graphic photo of an aborted baby.)
Abortion violently kills a baby. Whether the child is torn apart by a suction machine (the most common abortion method), dismembered limb by limb with forceps, or poisoned by drugs, the baby is brutally killed.
I am going to post some quotes from from women who had abortions and told their stories in Abortion: a Positive Decision. My goal is not to shame these women, but to the show the faulty reasoning they apply to their abortion decisions.
First, here is a photo of babies aborted at nine weeks, still within the first trimester when most abortions take place. When you read the quotes below, remember this picture.  It shows exactly what the women are talking about.

Emphasis is added in the following quotes.
From one woman who had two abortions (page 63 of book):

We must go on with our heads held high. During the April 89 March for Women’s Lives, I felt real strong, real sure in my beliefs, I felt wonderful. I looked at those anti people and they were missing the point, they were ignorant, they were not as compassionate as we were, as human, they were so blinded… Women have choices in life and women cannot keep bringing children into the world that are going to starve and be a drain on the system …It’s just not fair to the child…. Children are too special.

Children are special – special enough to be killed by abortion if they aren’t wanted.
Another woman said the following (on page 18):

Saying that you must have that child if you happen to get impregnated, saying that you must carry that child to term, and then raise that child for 25 years, is anti-family. In that it doesn’t value the woman as a unique individual, and does not value the child. It’s extremely cruel. It feels like a very cold life, it feels terrible to me.

Is allowing the child to live crueler than tearing her apart in an abortion? Is letting a baby live “cold” and “terrible?” Only in a twisted, sad, pro-choice world.
Another woman who said the following (page 127):

I take it very seriously if I am going to have a child. I want my circumstances to be what was right for the child. I don’t really support people’s decisions to go into it being single parents, because I think it’s a poor choice for the child. I think you have to look at what’s there for the child, know what’s there for me.

Perhaps the “what’s there for me” takes precedence over “a poor choice for the child.”
From a woman who had two illegal abortions (page 129):

I was not ready to be a mother. I was not ready to bring those children into the world. I just didn’t think I could give those children what they needed at the time.… I don’t have the money to support a child properly. In those days, welfare wasn’t even heard of. You couldn’t go to the state and say, I’m pregnant, take care of me. And I was raised to support myself and I wasn’t prepared to have a family without a husband. I didn’t consider myself selfish. I knew I was doing it for this unborn child. I didn’t feel capable of raising a child alone.

Of course pro-lifers need to support women in bad financial situations. In fact, many pregnancy resource centers do just that, giving pregnant women baby and maternity clothes, diapers, bassinets, and other things they need for the baby, as well as helping them to apply for social programs such as Medicaid and welfare. No woman should feel pressured to abort because she does not have enough money. But is the claim that a baby is better off dead than poor really accurate?
The next woman says (on page 138):

… If you actually don’t want children and you became pregnant – okay, abortion does destroy life, nobody can argue that – but an unwanted pregnancy and unwanted children destroy more than one life. Unwanted children do fail to thrive. So I don’t think it is selfish decision at all, to have an abortion.

It is very sad that this woman knows that abortion is killing, yet believes that this killing is the best thing for both her and the child (who is murdered.)
Finally, another woman says (141 – 142):

And the reason I always knew I would not have an out of wedlock child is because I have these really high standards of how one should raise a child and it includes having 2 people, not necessarily married, I use wedlock in a very general way. But you need 2 people to take care of each other and also the child. So when I got pregnant, and it was this man I am married to now and with whom I have had a child since, I had known him for a year. I was not about to have a child at that point in my life. It wasn’t right for the child, it wasn’t right for me.

We could apply this belief across the board. Should we round up all the children of single mothers, line them against a wall, and shoot them? Is being the child of a single mother so horrible that a baby is better off dead? When you think about it, this quote is demeaning to all single mothers. It implies that single mothers cannot be good parents, and that their children are better off not being born. That gives a terrible view of women and their capabilities. Of course, the woman who said this was talking only about herself, but her reasoning, if applied to the whole of society, would be misogynistic, cruel, and stigmatizing.
Perhaps the saddest thing about these quotes is that in the pro-choice mindset, all of them make perfect sense. If a baby is not a human being whose rights are to be respected, a woman can use any reason to justify her abortion, including the claim that the baby is better off dead. If she believes preborn babies are just tissue, or collections of cells, the mother can consider herself justified in destroying her child if she thinks he might suffer someday. After all, we euthanize dogs and cats all the time. If a preborn baby is worth less than an animal, why not kill her to prevent the woman or child from experiencing unhappiness? This cheapening of human life, where human comfort and convenience takes precedence over life itself, is what the pro-choice position is all about.
Pro-lifers need to educate the public about what abortion really does to preborn children. We must teach women that their babies are not better off dead than alive. We must tell people that preborn babies have inherent value; that they are not like cats or dogs which can be euthanized if they are unwanted and unloved. Killing human beings to prevent human suffering is wrong. While we must always work to alleviate human suffering, killing the victims of it (or the potential victims of it) is not the answer.
Source: Patricia Launneborg Abortion: a Positive Decision (New York: Bergin & Garvey, 1992)

Source: LiveAction News

Ireland and Euthanasia

 

Euthanasia “Compassionate and Caring” – Ombudsman

Editor’s note. This story comes from the Irish pro-life publication LifeZone.

European Ombudsman Emily O’Reilly

The Irish Ombudsman, a position established in 1980, deals with complaints against Departments of State, local authorities, health boards, and so forth.
Ireland’s former Ombudsman and current European Ombudsman Emily O’Reilly has described euthanasia as “the compassionate and caring thing”. She said that the debate on euthanasia in Ireland is likely to intensify in the next few years. Speaking at a conference on advocacy for older people, Ms O’Reilly predicted that trends in some European countries where euthanasia and assisted suicide are permitted would have an influence in Ireland.
“Ireland isn’t unique. We’re going to be swimming in the same cultural streams—maybe not today or tomorrow, but we will be maybe in five or 10 years’ time and that is the debate,” she said. “In those countries [that permit euthanasia], that’s become the norm and that has become the compassionate and caring thing—to end somebody’s life at a point where, in Ireland, it wouldn’t happen,” she added.
She did highlight, however, the worry that if euthanasia becomes normalised, people who may not appear to have “quality of life” may feel pressurised to end their lives.
“It’s a debate that we will be forced to have anyway, because anything that happens in mainland Europe or elsewhere eventually comes to these shores as well,” she said.

Source: NRLC News

Brain Death- Really?

 

Court Permits Evidence Jahi McMath Alive

By Wesley J. Smith

Jahi McMath

A court in California has permitted Jahi McMath’s mother to present evidence that Jahi ”has standing” to bring a lawsuit.
From the court’s order sustaining a demurrer (meaning the original pleadings were insufficient to go forward):

CHO’s demurrer…is SUSTAINED…WITH LEAVE TO AMEND to allege facts sufficient to state a cognizable cause of action by Jahi against CHO…for negligence, including facts to the effect that Jahi has standing to bring the cause of action despite the issuance of a death certificate on January 3, 2014.

[Ed. Note. CHO refers to Children’s Hospital Oakland.]
What does that mean? A dead person does not have standing to sue.
In other words, the court opened the door for the presentation of evidence that Jahi McMath is not dead, that is, her current condition does not meet the clinical criteria for a declaration of brain death.
There is reason to think that could be done. It has been nearly two years since Jahi’s medical catastrophe, and yet, her body has apparently not deteriorated as generally occurs in a brain death situation.

Declarations from respected physicians have concluded she exhibits neurological functions that are inconsistent with a deceased person.
Note that the judge ruled that saying she is dead because a death certificate so declares she is dead will not be determinative if the plaintiff can offer pleadings indicating facts to the contrary.
I agree with bioethicist and law professor, Thaddeus Mason Pope’s, take:

This is a significant ruling…although a California court has already declared Jahi dead (in 2013), that fact can now be re-litigated. To be sure, this is a ruling only about pleading. If the First Amended Complaint (due in early November) can allege sufficient facts, then Jahi must still later offer sufficient evidence to substantiate them. Still, it seems that the amended complaint had better be pretty detailed.

So, now it is up to the lawyer to make his best case that Jahi is alive. The door is open.
Editor’s note. This appeared at nationalreview.com and is reprinted with permission.

Source: NRLC News

Politics

 

Democratic field down to three as Lincoln Chafee drops out

By Dave Andrusko
To the surprise of probably no one, Former Rhode Island Gov. Lincoln Chafee today joined former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb as the latest candidate to drop out of the race to become the Democrats’ presidential nominee.
With Chafee’s departure–and the decision of Vice President Joe Biden this week not to make a last ditch effort– the field is now down to three candidates: frontrunner former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Democratic Socialist Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.), and former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley, all pro-abortion.
By contrast the Republican contingent remains at 15. They are (in alphabetical order) former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, retired neurosurgeon Dr. Ben Carson, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, Texas Senator Ted Cruz, businesswoman Carly Fiorina, Former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore, South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, former New York Gov. George Pataki, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, Florida Senator Marco Rubio, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, and billionaire businessman Donald Trump.
The third Republican debate is next week–October 28–at the University of Colorado. The second debate among the remaining Democrats is not until next month–November 14–in Des Moines, Iowa.

Source: NRLC News

Babies

Identical Twins born 18 days apart raise intriguing questions

By Dave Andrusko

Link (pictured) was born on September 29 weighing just 1lb 2oz while his brother Logan remained in the womb.

When I read the Daily Mail story about two twins being born 18 days apart–meaning they will have separate birthdays in different months– I couldn’t help but think of two types of stories we carried in NRL News over the years.
One is what the New York Times euphemistically called “The Two-Minus-One Pregnancy,”  otherwise known as “selective reduction.”
As the latter coinage suggests, a mother decides she wants fewer babies than she is carrying and “selectively” aborts one or two or more. That is, alas, perfectly legal.
The other kind of story raises the question not addressed in the Daily Mail story. What if one twin comes prematurely and is born at, say 23 weeks? Doctors, of course, will want the mother to carry the other twin to as close to full term as possible to minimize the chances of problems.
But what if the mother decides, for whatever reason, to abort the second twin? That would be legal, too, essentially up to the full term the physicians wanted her to carry her baby to!
The Daily Mail account does bring up a third type of story we’ve delved into before.
The identical twin boys, Link and Logan Gorveatt, suffered from a rare condition where they share the same placenta. As we’ve discussed in prior stories about ‘twin-twin transfusion syndrome,’ in this situation blood flows unevenly and the twins will suffer from opposite medical difficulties.
As Khaleda Rahman explained

One baby was becoming weak and anemic due to not having enough blood – while the other was becoming ‘over-stuffed’ with blood and likely to suffer heart failure.

He [Dr. Martin Walker] separated the blood vessels, solving the blood flow issues.

Logan (pictured) was born on Saturday morning – 18 days after his brother Link was delivered and around 25 weeks into his mom’s pregnancy.

But Holli Gorveatt went into labor just 23 weeks into her pregnancy and Link was born September 29 weighing 1 pound 2 ounces. “Link was so tiny when he was born that his arm could fit inside his mother’s wedding ring,” Rahman wrote.
According to Rahman, doctors thought Logan would be safely ensconced in his mother’s womb until Mrs. Gorveatt’s due date–next January. Not so.
Doctors grew concerned that Mrs. Gorveatt may have developed an infection and recommended a C-Section. “It was the right call,” she told Rahman. “Then she added, ‘When [Logan] was born, he had the cutest tiny cry.’”
Link and Logan are being cared for in the NICU at Evergreen Health Medical Center in Kirkland, Washington.

Source: NRLC News

Poor Reasoning

 

Article claiming “fetuses aren’t people” reveals pro-choice denial and poor reasoning

  Sarah Terzo 

A recent RH Reality Check article by Amy Littlefield titled, “The Day I Learned Aborted Fetuses Aren’t People,” offers insight into the perpetuation of human denial, blind allegiance to dogma, and the poor reasoning used by pro-choicers.
On October 20, Live Action writer Calvin Freiburger wrote an excellent article addressing Littlefield’s claims, noting that nowhere in the article does Littlefield give any evidence from a scientific or philosophical standpoint to support her views that aborted babies are not people. Further showing how many pro-abortion activists don’t use reasoning, logic, or science to determine whether a preborn baby is a person, lets look at a link from paragraph six of the article.
Carefully reading Littlefield’s article, I noticed that the words “fetuses are not people” in the sixth, short paragraph contain a link to another web page. I thought to myself, this link must be to a page that gives the evidence that’s lacking in Littlefield’s article. There must be philosophical and scientific arguments about the personhood of babies. I expected to see a detailed essay attempting to back up Littlefield’s beliefs.  Instead, when I followed the link, I got this, below (which is the entire content of the web page):

I can’t imagine anything illustrating Freiburger’s point better.
But to move on, I also noticed that Littlefield says:

In my former work as a counselor at abortion clinics, I often avoided seeing what we called the products of conception—the tissue that results from the union of egg and sperm. For me, the embryo—or fetus, in later stages of pregnancy—was irrelevant…. Still, in the clinics where I worked, I tended to avoid seeing the medical waste. I avoided it because it was irrelevant to my work. But I think part of me also avoided it because I thought seeing fetal tissue might diminish my allegiance to my patients.

In other words, I didn’t want to see the bloody remains of the babies I help kill because I was afraid it might shake my pro-choice beliefs. Seeing those bodies might make me think about the baby, which is the last thing I want to think about. I would rather focus on just the woman and ignore the baby. If I have to deal with the reality of babies being killed, I might have to change my beliefs, admit I was wrong, and leave my job. And that would be inconvenient and uncomfortable.
Of course, when Littlefield does see an aborted baby, she’s able to rationalize it. But her reluctance to face reality is not unique among abortion clinic workers.
Clinic worker Carlene Tucker told author Cynthia Gorney that when she was assisting in late-term abortions, she never looked at the bloody body parts being extracted:

Never. I would never look down. Some of the nurses watched as he removed the tissue, but I never looked. If I looked, I would never be able to work there [the clinic] again.

By refusing to see the body parts of the baby, Tucker is able to perpetuate her belief that the baby is just “tissue.” It is her way of not having to face reality. I suspect that something similar is at work in Littlefield’s article.
Wendy Simonds interviewed clinic workers for her book Abortion at Work: Ideology and Practice in a Feminist Clinic and wrote that although some clinic workers showed emotional distress over seeing aborted babies, all of the clinic workers were able to handle and piece them together. They were able to tolerate seeing all parts of the baby, with one exception – none of the workers could look at the babies’ faces.
Ultimately, Littlefield made a choice to believe that the “fetal tissue” she admits was “was shaped like a baby” was not a baby, only medical waste. She offers no evidence at all to support this claim. The baby has human DNA, a human shape, and was born from two human parents. Five minutes before the abortion he or she was a fully functioning, complete human organism. The baby, who was aborted at 22 weeks, had every body part and every organ system he or she would have after birth. In fact, some babies who are born at 22 weeks survive. One wonders if Littlefield could look down at a sleeping 22 week preemie in a bassinet and judge her to be “not a person.” Since Littlefield has no criteria other than her own opinion as to whether someone is a person, why not?

The problem is, anyone can have an opinion. Science teaches that life begins at conception and that preborn babies are human. Two cats will not give birth to a dog, they will give birth to a baby cat, a kitten. Two dogs will not give birth to a cat, but a baby dog, a puppy. And two humans will always give birth to a baby human. There has never been a case in nature where two parents of one species created offspring of another species. Those who support evolution believe that minute changes in animal characteristics over millions of years eventually give rise to animals that can be classified as belonging to a different species. But this is not the same as two animals suddenly giving birth to a completely different type of animal. No human being will ever give birth to a rabbit. And of course, you can point to the fact that human babies have human DNA. If the baby is human and alive (and she must be alive, or she would not be growing and developing), he or she is human life.

And if she is a human life, she is a person. And there is nothing in Littlefield’s article that refutes any of this.

Source:LiveAction News