UN Commitee Deeply Hypocritical on Abortion

The Pro Life Campaign has described the recent UN hearings on abortion in Geneva as the latest chapter in an ongoing charade perpetrated by a Committee that is deeply hypocritical when it comes to abortion.

Deputy Chairperson of the Pro Life Campaign, Cora Sherlock commented on the Report which issued from the UN’s Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, saying:

“The Report highlights the importance of fighting discrimination, recommending that the State adopt “comprehensive anti-discrimination legislation” before then going on to advocate the further liberalisation of Ireland’s abortion laws. As the Committee members will be aware, abortion is the ultimate discrimination, targeting the right to life of the unborn, the most vulnerable in our society.

“In a similar vein, the Committee recommends a series of measures to benefit the disabled but it ignores the fact that in countries like the UK, abortion is available right up to birth where a baby is diagnosed with a disability. The Committee cannot continue to ignore these inconsistencies and expect its credibility to remain unchallenged.”

She continued:

“There is no “right to abortion” in international human rights law, a fact which has been conveniently ignored by the members of this Committee. There is, however, a “right to life” which is clearly set out in Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The UN should ensure that all of its Committee members adhere to the founding principles of this Declaration, and do not advocate measures which would impact negatively on the right to life of any human being, particularly the most vulnerable in society.”

More here

Groups presssure Lancet editor to delay publication of maternal mortality research

Lancet, a leading medical journal, has just published a new study of international maternal mortality rates, which finds that the World Bank, the WHO and UNICEF statistics for maternal mortality were over 100,000 too high due to reporting and methodological problems.

But in a corrupt and brazen, and thankfully, unsuccessful, attempt to subordinate science to politics, ‘advocacy groups’ lobbied the editor of Lancet, Dr Richard Horton to delay the publication of the new study until after upcoming meetings of the UN Commission on Population and Development, the Women Deliver Conference and the next UN Assembly, which are scheduled to discuss maternal mortality.

What’s bugging these ‘advocates’? Dr Donna Harrison, President of the American Academy of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, said of the new Lancet article:

"The study uses the best statistical methods currently available and clearly demonstrates that worldwide legalization of abortion is unnecessary to bring about significant decreases in maternal mortality. The American Academy of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynaecologists encourages the UN member nations to continue to develop even better statistical information by improving the identification of maternal mortality causality, especially induced abortion related mortality, which is most often underreported or misreported".

Where the UN bodies have been pushing for ‘safe’ and ‘legal’ abortion as the key to bringing improving maternal mortality rates, the new Lancet article does not. It found key causal factors improving maternal mortality – falling pregnancy rates in some countries, higher per capita income, higher education rates for women, and increasing availability of basic medical care, and in particular, ‘skilled birth attendants’.

Cannes Film Festival Features Pro-Life Movie

The Cannes Film Festival next month is to premier a new film called 22 Weeks. It tells the true story of Angele, a woman in her 30's who had an abortion in Florida in 2005.

She chose what was called a 'labour and delivery' type of abortion , which was to take two days. She opted for this rather than other forms of abortion, which she felt would be more distressing and harmful for her baby.

The film is significant for a number of reasons.

Firstly, it will show graphically the mindset of the abortionists in action. An abortion is a procedure the entire intention, aim and purpose of which is that the baby does not survive. Sometimes a baby does not die during the procedure but is deliberately left to die after it.

Secondly, it will give us a sense of how profoundly misguided some politicians are on the issue. As a State senator in Illinois, President Obama voted against a Bill to protect babies who survive abortions.

But thirdly and most importantly, it is a testimony to the confused and suddenly traumatic experience of the mother.

Driven by who knows what pressure to opt for abortion, Angele allowed herself to be seduced by the soothing reassurances of the abortionists, which at one level she wanted to believe.

She asked them what would happen if the baby were born alive and they said ‘they would guide a needle into his heart and it would put him to sleep, and he wouldn’t feel anything.’

She took pills to induce labour and by the time she arrived at the abortion clinic she was experiencing painful contractions, but it was not open. The contractions were getting closer. Eventually she got in and delivered her son, apparently on her own.

Then suddenly she sees. She sees her baby for the first time in the flesh. Fighting for his life. And her motherliness awakens and she calls for help. Surely they will look after him.

When a women working in the abortion clinic staff arrived, she refused the give her baby emergency medical care or to call a 911 for medical help for him. Angele called a friend to ring for an ambulance, but the clinic staff turned them away when they arrived and he died.

That terrible journey made at the speed of light from dreamlike denial to full waking, seeing her baby face to face, real at last but too late, is a precious part of women’s experience of abortion.

22 weeks is yet another straw in the wind that shows the cultural consensus on abortion is turning.

Survey finds overwhelming support for legal protection of unborn child

The latest research on abortion shows a substantial majority of the public supporting a prohibition on abortion, while allowing necessary medical interventions in pregnancy to save the life of the mother.

The Pro-Life Campaign commissioned Millward Brown Lansdowne to carry out the survey on a quota controlled sample of 950 people aged 18+ between 27th January and 6th February 2010.

The question reads as follows:

“Are you in favour of, or opposed to, constitutional protection for the unborn that prohibits abortion but allows the continuation of the existing practice of intervention to save a mother’s life in accordance with Irish medical ethics?”

The finding shows that 70% support constitutional protection for the unborn, 13% oppose it and 16% don’t know or have no opinion.

What distinguishes this finding from polls showing support for abortion is the distinction it makes between necessary medical interventions in pregnancy and induced abortion where the life of the unborn child is directly targeted.[1]

This is a critical ethical distinction which abortion advocates constantly seek to blur. Some abortion advocates claim that legalised abortion ‘confronts the reality of crisis pregnancy.’ However, this contention ignores the humanity of the unborn child throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy and the latest research highlighting the negative consequences of abortion for women.[2]

If we are to have a genuinely honest debate on abortion we cannot arbitrarily airbrush the unborn child out of the debate or the many testimonies of women who regret their abortions.

As a country we should be immensely proud of the fact that Ireland without abortion is currently listed as the safest country in the world in which to be pregnant, according to the latest UN survey on maternal health.[3]

All human beings share a common dignity by virtue of their humanity. To deny the right to life simply because the unborn child is at an early stage of development completely undermines an authentic vision of human rights.

The Millward Brown Lansdowne research published today is hugely reassuring as it points to overwhelming public support for an ethos of care for both mother and baby during pregnancy.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1] YouGov online poll showing support for abortion conducted for Marie Stopes, released on 08-03-2010
[2] David M. Fergusson, L. John Horwood and Joseph M. Boden, "Abortion and mental health disorders: evidence from a 30-year longitudinal study," The British Journal of Psychiatry, 2008
[3] Report on Maternal Mortality by World Health Organisation, UNICEF, UNFPA and the World Bank, 2007

Ireland and Stem Cell Research

Killing Embryos in Stem Cell Research Unnecessary, Expert Says : 22nd Feb 10


Professor Tommie McCarthy of the Department of Biochemistry, University College Cork (UCC), has taken issue with Dr Dolores Dooley’s recent dismissal of adult and induced pluripotent stem cell (iPSC) research as more effective and ethical alternatives to human embryonic stem cell (hESC) research.

Writing in "The Irish Times", he said a search of the world’s largest registry of clinical trials shows more than 1,900 current trials using adult stem cells, compared to only three hESC transplantation trials. Dr Dooley, who headed the recently disbanded Irish Council for Bioethics, had argued that hESCs are required as controls for adult stem cell research.

But Prof McCarthy said that was incorrect, because adult stem cell research has been in progress for decades without hESCs. Dr Dooley’s argument about hESCs as controls is purely relative because human iPSC research (which emanated from equivalent research in mice) will advance rapidly with or without hESCs.

“The justification that ‘all forms of stem-cell research need to continue and all are important’ is only academic, and academic endeavour, in my view, should never undermine the dignity of human life”, Prof McCarthy concluded.

The Irish Times. February 3.

Source: Family and Life