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’.
Showing posts with label human rights watch. Show all posts
Showing posts with label human rights watch. Show all posts
Tuesday, May 4, 2010
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.
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.
Friday, April 9, 2010
Human Rights China - Babies' bodies found in river
Friday, April 9th, 2010
As highlighted on SKY News last week, the bodies of 21 babies, believed dumped by hospitals, recently washed ashore on a riverbank in eastern China.
Video footage showed that the bodies "stashed in yellow plastic bags, at least one of which was marked 'medical waste'" included some infants several months old.
Some wore identification tags with their mothers' names, birth dates, measurements and weights. The official Xinhua News Agency said there were also female unborn babies among the bodies.
While this particular incident made the news the story itself is not entirely surprising given the imposition in China of the one-child policy which results in 13 million babies being aborted annually. As the recent cover story in The Economist magazine pointed out, the practice of gendercide or female foeticide means that female children are targeted both before and after birth through abortion, infanticide or neglect.
In addition to the massive human rights violations involved in ending the lives of children born and unborn the specific targeting of female babies has also created a huge gender imbalance where there are more unmarried young men in China than the entire population of young men in America.
How come radical feminist groups are turning a blind eye to this widespread gender based human rights abuse? Where is the genuine sense of outrage and concern for women’s rights? The truth is there is logic behind the silence. Marianne Mollman, spokesperson for abortion advocacy group Human Rights Watch* has publicly advised pro-choice groups not to campaign against laws permitting sex selection abortion. The reason is clear - if abortion advocates concede that the lives of some unborn children should be protected it would completely undermine their rigid dogma that unborn children have no rights throughout the nine months of pregnancy.
It is incumbent therefore on pro-life groups to continue to pressure the Irish government to adopt a more robust stand in opposition to human rights abuses in China.
*Human Rights Watch is the same group that recently critisised Ireland’s pro-life status.
As highlighted on SKY News last week, the bodies of 21 babies, believed dumped by hospitals, recently washed ashore on a riverbank in eastern China.
Video footage showed that the bodies "stashed in yellow plastic bags, at least one of which was marked 'medical waste'" included some infants several months old.
Some wore identification tags with their mothers' names, birth dates, measurements and weights. The official Xinhua News Agency said there were also female unborn babies among the bodies.
While this particular incident made the news the story itself is not entirely surprising given the imposition in China of the one-child policy which results in 13 million babies being aborted annually. As the recent cover story in The Economist magazine pointed out, the practice of gendercide or female foeticide means that female children are targeted both before and after birth through abortion, infanticide or neglect.
In addition to the massive human rights violations involved in ending the lives of children born and unborn the specific targeting of female babies has also created a huge gender imbalance where there are more unmarried young men in China than the entire population of young men in America.
How come radical feminist groups are turning a blind eye to this widespread gender based human rights abuse? Where is the genuine sense of outrage and concern for women’s rights? The truth is there is logic behind the silence. Marianne Mollman, spokesperson for abortion advocacy group Human Rights Watch* has publicly advised pro-choice groups not to campaign against laws permitting sex selection abortion. The reason is clear - if abortion advocates concede that the lives of some unborn children should be protected it would completely undermine their rigid dogma that unborn children have no rights throughout the nine months of pregnancy.
It is incumbent therefore on pro-life groups to continue to pressure the Irish government to adopt a more robust stand in opposition to human rights abuses in China.
*Human Rights Watch is the same group that recently critisised Ireland’s pro-life status.
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Abortion, Ireland and Human Rights Watch
Human Rights Watch Report on abortion and Ireland - a lecture on political ideology and a mockery of human rights
It is not difficult to criticise the report issued by the increasingly controversial Human Rights Watch, a US based advocacy group which seeks to attack Ireland’s pro-life ethos.
By criticising Ireland’s law which protects the life of the unborn child and which ensures that Ireland is one of the safest countries in the world for pregnant women and their unborn children, this group has damaged its own credibility and is making a mockery of the concept of human rights.
However one need not be surprised by this report. Human Rights Watch has become an abortion advocacy group and this report is part of an ongoing co-ordinated campaign to push an abortion regime on Ireland. One only has to look at this group’s almost complete lack of interest in other serious women’s rights abuses. For example they appear to have little concern about China’s one child policy -where Chinese women are forced to undergo abortions and sterilisations by the Chinese state.
The Women’s Rights Advocacy Director for this organisation is on record for stating that she doesn’t believe in banning sex selective abortion – which results in the abortion of baby girls because they are girls. This practice is widespread in countries such as China and India. These views are extreme.
It should be noted that because of the lobbying of this organisation and others and their demands for government funding of abortion in the US, a large portion of the US population may well continue to be denied access to universal health care. This is profoundly disappointing.
The Irish public should see this report for what it is. A statement of political ideology rather than a genuine report on human rights.
It is not difficult to criticise the report issued by the increasingly controversial Human Rights Watch, a US based advocacy group which seeks to attack Ireland’s pro-life ethos.
By criticising Ireland’s law which protects the life of the unborn child and which ensures that Ireland is one of the safest countries in the world for pregnant women and their unborn children, this group has damaged its own credibility and is making a mockery of the concept of human rights.
However one need not be surprised by this report. Human Rights Watch has become an abortion advocacy group and this report is part of an ongoing co-ordinated campaign to push an abortion regime on Ireland. One only has to look at this group’s almost complete lack of interest in other serious women’s rights abuses. For example they appear to have little concern about China’s one child policy -where Chinese women are forced to undergo abortions and sterilisations by the Chinese state.
The Women’s Rights Advocacy Director for this organisation is on record for stating that she doesn’t believe in banning sex selective abortion – which results in the abortion of baby girls because they are girls. This practice is widespread in countries such as China and India. These views are extreme.
It should be noted that because of the lobbying of this organisation and others and their demands for government funding of abortion in the US, a large portion of the US population may well continue to be denied access to universal health care. This is profoundly disappointing.
The Irish public should see this report for what it is. A statement of political ideology rather than a genuine report on human rights.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
