an information resource
for orthodox Anglicans

Abortion on demand + scientific progress = eugenics

March 7th, 2014 Jill Posted in Eugenics, pro-life/abortion Comments Off

By Peter Franklin, Conservative Home

These days eugenics is a dirty word – instant condemnation awaits any politician who even flirts with the idea. Indeed, we prefer to forget just how many eminent figures of the 20th Century were ardent eugenicists – deluding ourselves that it was only the Nazis who believed in human breeding programmes.
 
In a brilliant article for the Spectator, Mary Wakefield reminds us that eugenics has never really gone away – and that scientific progress means that the issue is becoming more not less relevant:
“…the screening of embryos is becoming ever easier. Preimplantation genetic screening, it’s called, or PGS: you fertilise a clutch of eggs, then carefully extract a single cell from each to see which genes what’s got. So there’s a scientific pincer moment going on. The more genes we ‘discover’ and the cheaper PGS becomes, the closer we come to that sci-fi day when parents can shop for their fantasy tot. Your grandchildren may be able to browse for genetic traits in their kids the way you choose shoes — and for me that’s where the trouble begins…”
Though our society has lost its religious faith in the sanctity of unborn human life, Wakefield pleads for a secular version of it:
“Maybe it’s no worse to snuff out an embryo than to squash a pea under a fork — but… don’t you feel in your bones that there should at least be some serious reason to make and break life — or it’s as if we’ve forgotten we were all embryos once.
 
“My half-baked position, thought through mostly in waiting rooms, is that it’s a better fit with our instincts to assume that embryos do have some moral status, even if just a shadow of one; enough so we can accept it’s at least a sadness to snuff ’em out…”
However, if such an instinct does still flicker within the modern mind – then it lies crushed beneath the everyday practice of abortion. When we accept the destruction of human foetal life on an industrial scale, then it seems unlikely that any lingering sense of squeamishness can prevent the eugenic selection of embryos.
 
The only real barriers are those of scientific know-how and economic affordability – and once those are surmounted, what’s to stop us from exploiting the possibilities?
 
Read here
 
AddThis Social Bookmark Button

The culture of death bares its teeth: Planned Parenthood president says life begins at delivery

March 6th, 2014 Jill Posted in pro-life/abortion Comments Off

By Albert Mohler

Cecile Richards is no stranger to controversy. As the president of Planned Parenthood she leads one of the central institutions of the Culture of Death — an organization that was born in the dark vision of Margaret Sanger and now exists as the nation’s most visible promoter and provider of abortion. Cecile Richards has been an ardent defender of a woman’s “right” to abort her baby at any time for any reason. She also believes that women should be able to abort their babies for free, with taxpayers footing the bill.

Her support of abortion for any reason and for any stage of fetal development — including the most barbarous partial-birth abortions — was explained, perhaps accidentally, in an interview she recently gave to Jorge Ramos of Fusion TV. When Ramos asked Richards when life begins, she said: “It’s not something I really feel like is really part of this conversation … every woman needs to make their own decision.”

Her non-answer to one of the most fundamental questions of human dignity was shocking enough, but there was more to come. As it turns out, Richards does have a belief about when life begins.

Ramos was apparently surprised by her evasion of the question and asked, “Why would it be controversial for you to say when you think life starts?”

Read here

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

British contraceptive service admits an uncomfortable truth

February 25th, 2014 Jill Posted in pro-life/abortion Comments Off

By Louise Kirk, MercatorNet

[...]  BPAS tells us that contraceptive pills have a “perfect use” failure rate of one per cent when used exactly as instructed, “but with ‘typical use’ around nine in 100 women will become pregnant a year”. Likewise perfect condom use results in two pregnancies per 100 users while “with typical use – in which the condom is sometimes not put on or taken off properly – that increases to 12 in every 100”.
 
“Contraception fails and sometimes we fail to use it properly,” says Ann Furedi, chief executive of BPAS. “Ultimately women cannot control their fertility through contraception alone, and need accessible abortion services as a back-up for when their contraception lets them down.”
 
Congratulations to Ann Furedi for her frankness. However, I wonder if she will take the next obvious step and use her study to change the advice given out to school children in their ubiquitous sex lessons. After all, BPAS is a key player on our Sex Education Forum, which largely dictates what our children receive.
 
Read here
 
AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Three out of every ten human deaths in the UK occur as a result of ‘medical intervention’ before birth

February 19th, 2014 Jill Posted in pro-life/abortion Comments Off

By Peter Saunders, CMF

In 2012 there were 499,331 deaths registered in England and Wales, 54,937 in Scotland and 14,756 in Northern Ireland – a total of 569,024 human deaths.

In the same year there were 185,122 abortions carried out on women resident in England and Wales, 1,330 on women from other parts of the UK (including 905 from Northern Ireland) and 12,447 in Scotland – a total of 198,899 human deaths.

According to the answer given to a parliamentary question asked by Lord Alton yesterday, there were 166,631 human embryos that were allowed to perish in the UK in 2012 – a total of 166,631 human deaths. These are 'excess' embryos created in a laboratory by IVF technology that are thrown away.

In addition there are about 250,000 miscarriages in the UK every year – a total of 250,000 human deaths.

So that’s a total of 1,184,554 human deaths in the UK in 2012 – 569,024 registered deaths, 250,000 miscarriages, 198,899 aborted babies, and 166,631 embryos allowed to perish.

Of this total number of human deaths over half (52%) were human beings who were never born, and of these 365,530 (31%) were human lives ended by doctors before birth (abortions and embryos allowed to perish).

Each of this latter group were human beings that no one wanted and that a doctor, or other health professional, acted to destroy.

Read here


AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Behind the headlines: information and misinformation in pregnancy counselling

February 13th, 2014 Jill Posted in Media, pro-life/abortion Comments Off

by Peter Saunders, CMF

The pro-abortion organisation, Education For Choice (EFC) which is a project within the sexual health charity, Brook, who themselves work closely with the Family Planning Association to promote abortion, has produced a new report based on its own mystery shopping of some independent pregnancy counselling centres, mainly linked to LIFE and Care Confidential.
 
Their findings have been reported by the Daily Telegraph, with calls to clamp down on independent counselling clinics and talk of scandalous misinformation being given out.
 
Crisis pregnancy counselling must always be professional and evidence-based. The use of bad science and research is wrong. Counselling clinics must provide women with unbiased information so that they can make fully informed decisions about their options.
 
With that in mind, let’s take a look at what the EFC report claims, and who is behind it.
 
The Daily Telegraph news report highlights cases of poor practice (a grand total of two!), and ignores all counselling or centres where there is very good independent advice and counselling offered ie. the overwhelming majority.
 
Read here
 
 
 
AddThis Social Bookmark Button

The Decline of the “Right” to Abortion in Europe

February 7th, 2014 Jill Posted in pro-life/abortion Comments Off

By Grégor Puppinck, PhD,  Turtle Bay & Beyond

The “right to abortion” is on the decline in Europe and in the United States which explains the will of the French government to reaffirm it.

Two million abortions are legally practiced each year in Europe. To this day, only a third of European States still prohibit abortion on demand. However, the proportion of States which pose conditions on abortion during the first weeks of gestation may increase. In fact, in recent years, a growing number of European and American States are reopening the debate on abortion and revising their legislation in a restrictive sense. The Spanish Bill is an example, amongst others, to the point that we can now speak of a trend. This moves towards considering abortion more as a social problem than as a right or an individual freedom. In general, these new laws aim to reduce the legal time limit for abortion in order to better protect the child and to avoid abortions which lack a sufficiently serious motive.

Apart from the symbolic case of Spain, where the Bill aims to remove abortion on demand, the British Parliament regularly considers the reduction of the legal time limit for abortion, with the support of the current Prime Minister[1], as in Norway[2] which, at the beginning of January 2014, completely prohibited abortion after 22 weeks – the threshold of viability outside the womb as determined by the World Health Organisation.

Read here


AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Two-thirds of women seeking abortions were using contraception

February 6th, 2014 Jill Posted in pro-life/abortion Comments Off

By Peter Baklinski, LifeSite News

The claim that increasing contraception reduces abortion received a death blow this week from the UK’s biggest abortion provider. Figures from the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) reveal that a staggering two-thirds of women having an abortion were using a contraceptive at the time they conceived.

“Ultimately women cannot control their fertility through contraception alone, and need accessible abortion services as a back-up for when their contraception lets them down,” said Ann Furedi, BPAS’ chief executive, in a press release.
 
BPAS looked at the contraceptive use of 156,751 women aged 15 and over visiting its clinics for an abortion between January 2011 and December 2013.
 
“Two thirds (66%) of women having an abortion at bpas reported using a form of contraception when they conceived. 40% of these say they were using the contraceptive pill, the most popular prescribed contraceptive in the UK,” the abortion organization stated in a report titled “Women trying hard to avoid unwanted pregnancy.”
 
Figures on condom use for preventing pregnancy were almost as dismal as those of the pill.
 
Over a third of women (35%), about 54,862, having an abortion at BPAS became pregnant while using condoms.
 
Read here
 
AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Promoting abortion and undermining marriage is the real ‘inequality’

February 3rd, 2014 Jill Posted in Gay Marriage, Marriage, pro-life/abortion Comments Off

By Ben Johnson, LifeSite News

President Obama raged against “inequality” during his 2014 State of the Union address, using the phrase three times in just over an hour. But Senator Mike Lee said Obama has misunderstood the concept.

Real inequality has less to do with the gap between income classes and more to do with whether the government is using its might to retard economic opportunity, suppress the traditional definition of marriage, and deny millions of children the right to be born, says the senator.

“Inequality is denying viable, unborn children any protection under the law, while exempting unsanitary, late-term abortion clinics from basic safety standards,” the Utah Republican said during his response to the State of the Union address, which was sponsored by the Tea Party Express.

“It's denying citizens their right to define marriage in their states as traditionally or as broadly as their diverse values dictate,” he added.

President Obama has often been cited as the most pro-abortion president in history, vowing to veto bills that would restrict late-term abortion or prevent taxpayers from funding abortion.

But perhaps his most aggressive work has been in promoting the redefinition of marriage from a union of one man and one woman to include same-sex couples.

Senator Lee's Utah constituents have felt the brunt of that effort. After a federal judge struck down the state's constitutional marriage protection amendment, Governor Gary Herbert won an injunction staying the order until the case could be decided – likely by the U.S. Supreme Court.

But the Obama administration announced it would recognize same-sex “marriages” conducted between the ruling and the stay. Such unions would be legally null and void if the judge's ruling is overturned.

Lee, a Tea Party favorite, said many Americans “feel they have been forgotten by both political parties.”

Read here


AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Any change to abortion laws should be made in Parliament – not by civil servants

January 31st, 2014 Jill Posted in pro-life/abortion Comments Off

By Chris Whitehouse, Conservative Home

The Conservative Party has consistently held a noble position on the issue of abortion – it has recognised that this is an issue of conscience for Members of Parliament and hence is the subject of free, un-whipped votes. The current Health Secretary, Jeremy Hunt, has previously indicated that he would support a reduction in the upper age limit for abortions, but has not used his position to bring that about, accepting that such change is a matter for private members, not government legislation.

Yet officials of his Department pursue a very different agenda – working in close partnership with the big private abortion providers to find ever-more liberal ways to interpret and implement the law. Last November, the Department launched a consultation on the Required Standard Operating Procedures (RSOP) which independent abortion providers must follow to keep their licences. The consultation closes next Monday. On first reading, this seems innocuous. Yet, on closer inspection, the proposed regulations would significantly liberalise the way our abortion laws are interpreted and implemented. Worse, we will be stuck with these new regulations for at least four years, after which it will be extremely difficult to roll them back.

Whilst views within the Party reflect the whole spectrum on this issue, it is simply a matter of electoral pragmatism to point out that in the run-up to the general election, picking a further fight with the great faiths (Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc) would be political suicide. Yet it seems that our Ministers have sleep-walked into a major row that is about to explode as the consultation closes and they are asked to take decisions.

The scope of the proposed change is dramatic. First: the new RSOPs make clear that the criteria of the Abortion Act can actually be met without the woman ever having been seen by a doctor. Following last week’s admission from the Government that 98,000 abortions – 46 per cent of the total number of abortions in the UK for 2012 – were undertaken without the doctor ever having met the woman, this new operating procedure puts women at risk and highlights how casual we have become with infant life.

Read here


AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Abortion pills being sold online for as little as 78p

January 30th, 2014 Jill Posted in pro-life/abortion Comments Off

From The Christian Institute

Abortion pills are being sold online for just 78p, according to an investigation by the Daily Mirror into the drugs black market.

The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, which regulates medicines for the Government, is planning raids on addresses across the UK in an attempt to tackle the problem.

Investigator Danny Lee-Frost from the organisation said the abortion pills, which the newspaper did not name, can cause death to the mother.

According to the Mirror, UK investigators looking into abortion were sold one prescription drug targeted at stomach acid and ulcers.

It is unclear as to whether the drug was an abortion pill masquerading as treatment for stomach acid and ulcers, or whether it was a genuine stomach remedy that inadvertently caused abortions.

The drug was sold unlawfully, without official packaging to explain it was not to be used by women who are pregnant.

Niall Gooch, from the pro-life group Life, said: “It seems this is becoming more common. But it’s difficult to regulate, as these drugs are sold on the internet.”

Read here


AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Abortion and the American Conscience

January 23rd, 2014 Jill Posted in pro-life/abortion Comments Off

By Albert Mohler

[...]  January 22, 2014, is the 41st anniversary of one of the darkest days in American history — the day that the United States Supreme Court handed down the Roe v. Wade decision legalizing abortion on demand. Since that date, almost 55 million unborn babies have been aborted in American wombs.

America has been at war over abortion for the last four decades and more. When the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its decision in Roe v. Wade, the court’s majority attempted to put an end to the abortion question. To the contrary, that decision both enlarged and revealed the great moral divide that runs through the center of our culture.
 
Most Americans seem completely unaware of the actual contours of the abortion debate as it emerged in the early 1970s. In 1973, the primary opposition to abortion on demand came from the Roman Catholic Church. Evangelicals — representative of the larger American culture — were largely out of the debate. At that time, a majority of evangelicals seemed to see abortion as a largely Catholic issue. It took the shock of Roe v. Wade and the reality of abortion on demand to awaken the Evangelical conscience.
 
Read here
 
Read also:  Pro-Lifers in 41st March for Life Brave Harsh Conditions, New American
 
 
AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Heart of Darkness: gender-based abortion is only half the story

January 23rd, 2014 Jill Posted in Gendercide, pro-life/abortion Comments Off

By David Baker, Christian Today

There is a phrase in Joseph Conrad's famous story Heart Of Darkness which came to mind as I read recent revelations about gender-selective abortion.

The dying words of one of the novel's central characters are a simple yet haunting refrain: "The horror! The horror!"

Such words seem the only fit response to the news that – according to The Independent – the "illegal abortion of female foetuses solely to ensure that families have sons is widely practised within some ethnic communities in Britain and has resulted in significant shortfalls in the proportion of girls".

It is estimated that the practice has reduced the UK population of females by up to 4,700. Globally, The Daily Telegraph has suggested the equivalent figure could be as high as 200 million.

The news attracted nearly universal condemnation. And yet, I couldn't help thinking that there seemed to be double standards here. For while gender-selective abortion is generally deemed unacceptable on the grounds of sexism, abortion in which gender is not taken into consideration as a factor is apparently quite alright. In other words, many commentators have seemed to suggest that if an abortion takes place because an unborn child is a girl, this is somehow wrong. But if an abortion takes place regardless of the sex of the foetus, then it suddenly becomes okay.

Read here


AddThis Social Bookmark Button

This is the liberal legacy: killing baby girls in the womb, no questions asked

January 20th, 2014 Jill Posted in pro-life/abortion Comments Off

Lord Steelby Dominic Lawson, Mailonline

No one should be shocked, or even faintly surprised, by last week’s two revelations about the booming British abortion business.

First, The Independent published statistical analysis of the 2011 National Census, demonstrating that there have been ‘illegal’ sex-selective abortions within communities from the subcontinent, resulting in the ‘disappearance’ of up to 4,700 girls.

A day later, Government ministers admitted that in more than half of the almost 200,000 abortions that take place annually, the woman seeking termination had been seen by neither of the two doctors whose assent and signatures are required.

When the Daily Mail put this second revelation to Lord Steel, who as a young MP was responsible for the 1967 Abortion Act, he declared that the figures were ‘regrettable’ and ‘against the spirit of the Act’.

Excuse me, Lord Steel, but they are entirely in the spirit of the Act you piloted through Parliament as a precocious 29-year-old — and it’s hard to believe that you don’t remember. During that parliamentary battle, opposing MPs repeatedly pointed out that the so-called ‘social’ clause — allowing abortions if continuation of the pregnancy would impair the ‘mental health’ of the woman more than termination — was indistinguishable in practice from abortion on demand.

Read here

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Women wanting abortions will not have to see doctor

January 16th, 2014 Jill Posted in pro-life/abortion Comments Off

By John Bingham and Laura Donnelly, Telegraph

Women will be allowed to have an abortion without a doctor properly considering their case under draft guidance proposed by ministers.

The proposals state that there will be no legal requirement that a woman must consult a doctor before terminating a foetus. MPs and campaign groups said the proposals for private clinics rendered meaningless the central safeguard of the 1967 Abortion Act — that two doctors must authorise a termination.

They claim that the destruction of a foetus will be downgraded to a trivial procedure usually performed by a nurse.

Details of the proposals emerged as ministers admitted that fewer than half of women who have abortions now see either of the doctors face-to-face before being granted approval.

That amounts to more than 96,000 abortions a year in England and Wales being signed off by doctors who have never met the patient.

The new guidelines go further, suggesting that it is not even a legal requirement for doctors to give individual requests any consideration before approving them.

The proposals, described by opponents as a fundamental change to the practice of abortion in Britain, are contained in a Government consultation opened before Christmas with no publicity. It officially closes in two weeks.

Read here

Read also:  Department of Health officials attempt to bring in nurse and home abortion through back door by Peter Saunders, CMF

 

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Gendercide: the silence of the so-called ‘feminists’

January 15th, 2014 Jill Posted in Children/Family, Feminism, Gendercide, pro-life/abortion Comments Off

by Cristina Odone, Telegraph
 
Where are the girls? The answer should shame us all. Abortion for sex selection is practised so regularly in this country that it's led to a shortfall in the population of girls. Thousands are "missing", especially in certain immigrant communities. Aborting babies because they are female has been widespread in India and China for generations: there are as many as 120 boys for every 100 girls there. Now the practice has come to distort British demography – and values.
 
Sex-selective abortion remains a crime in Britain, but, as the Telegraph investigation last year revealed, it is increasingly common. The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has ruled that guidance for doctors in this area should be updated – but did not prosecute the two doctors exposed in the Telegraph investigation.
 
When parents can abort a baby because it's a girl, they are guilty of the worst kind of sexism. Rape, porn, the tyranny of beauty that compels little girls to perform plastic surgery to attain perfection: these are nothing in comparison to the mindset that will not allow for girls to be conceived in the first place. Our daughters – and not just in immigrant communities – are learning that a girl's life is worthless. Feminists should be up in arms about this. They are not. While they have fought tooth and nail the sexist app that allows little girls to perform plastic surgery on a Barbie, most have stayed silent on a far worse crime against women.
 
 
 
AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Relativism, abortion, and Calvin and Hobbes

January 15th, 2014 Jill Posted in Morality, pro-life/abortion Comments Off

by Paul Stark, National Right to Life

Hobbes: “How are you doing on your New Year’s resolutions?”
 
Calvin: “I didn’t make any. See, in order to improve oneself, one must have some idea of what’s ‘good.’ That implies certain values. But as we all know, values are relative. Every system of belief is equally valid and we need to tolerate diversity. Virtue isn’t ‘better’ than vice. It’s just different.”
 
Hobbes: “I don’t know if I can tolerate that much tolerance.”
 
Calvin: “I refuse to be victimized by notions of virtuous behavior.” — Bill Watterson, Calvin and Hobbes (Jan. 2, 1995)
 
Often a defender of legal abortion will say something like, “If you don’t like abortion, don’t have one.” But this seems to be a misunderstanding. For opponents of abortion are not saying they don’t like abortion; they are asserting that abortion is wrong, whether they like it or not. (It is true that we dislike abortion, but that stems from the wrongness of the act, not the other way around.) To clearly see the error, imagine someone saying, “If you don’t like spousal abuse, then don’t abuse your spouse.” That’s absurd.
 
The pro-choice advocate has misconstrued the pro-life position as a subjective claim, rather than a claim of objective morality. He has reduced abortion to a question of personal preference — e.g., “If you don’t like Pixar, watch Dreamworks instead” — rather than objective fact.
 
Consider another claim: “I’m personally opposed to abortion, but I don’t want to force my view on everyone else by telling them they shouldn’t have abortions.” Again, the person making this statement sees opposition to abortion as a mere personal preference. Imagine someone saying, “I’m personally opposed to slavery, but I don’t want to force my view on everyone else. So if you want to enslave the Canadians, go right ahead.”
 
Underlying these statements is an idea called moral/ethical relativism. It holds that no objective standard of right and wrong exists; rather, morality is relative to each individual or culture. “What is right (or wrong) for me,” the explicit relativist says, “might not be right (or wrong) for you.” The alternative view is called moral objectivism or realism, which holds that morality is independent of what any particular person or culture thinks, feels or decides.
 
Read here
 
AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Teens Who Have Sex By Age 16 Account for 75% of All Abortions

January 13th, 2014 Jill Posted in Sexualisation, pro-life/abortion Comments Off

by Steven Ertelt, Life News

The pro-life movement has noted for years that the abortion industry understands the link between teen sex and abortions. That’s why Planned Parenthood, the biggest abortion business in the United States, has pushed so hard to get sex education classes in as many high schools as possible.
 
Now, new information from the Family Research Council confirms these concerns and the information will be presented in an upcoming lecture.
 
“Recent analysis of demographic data on abortions indicates that abortion advocates use inflated abortion numbers to support their positions.
 
Rather than the 1/3 of women commonly cited by abortion supporters as having obtained an abortion an analysis of the data indicates that the number is 1/6,” FRC says in a promotional for the lecture. “Come listen the FRC’s Marriage and Religion Research Institute team as they discuss these compelling new numbers.”
 
FRC continues:
 
Some of the other important findings that will be discussed include:
  • Almost 3/4 of abortions are to women who initiated sex at age 16 or younger
  • 40% of women who begin sexual intercourse very early (12-13-14) will have abortions
  • No great difference by income status in the percentage of women who procure abortions
The presenters at the FRC lecture include:
 
Read here
 
AddThis Social Bookmark Button

We Need a Real Women’s Agenda, Not Government-Funded Abortion

January 13th, 2014 Jill Posted in pro-life/abortion Comments Off

By Helen Alvaré, Public Discourse

I propose to outline why it serves the interests of American women for the federal government once and for all to remove itself from the business of abortion funding.
 
It has been forty-one years since the Supreme Court overturned the abortion laws of the fifty states. This bill shows the power of a dream of human rights that cannot be extinguished, no matter the amount of money or powers arrayed against it. Americans, including American women, have never made and will never make our peace with abortion. It is a feature of US culture I hear admired in my work all over the world. Abortion is not a social good deserving of federal funding, let alone funding in the name of women’s health or well-being.
 
I make two main points: first, that neither American lawmakers nor citizens, especially women, understand abortion as a public good meriting funding. And second, that abortion is not a part of any genuine “women’s health” agenda according to the federal government’s own statements.
 
Abortion is understood both by lawmakers and citizens to be different from all other projects, programs, or procedures receiving federal funding. The federal budget is broadly devoted to national security, social safety nets, health care, veterans, federal retirement, safe food and drugs, the environment, and investments in education, scientific and medical research, and infrastructure. These support and promote human life versus death, insecurity, and want.
 
Read here
 
AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Estrela-Report: Socialist MEPs launch new attempt to push abortion

January 10th, 2014 Jill Posted in pro-life/abortion Comments Off

By J C von Krempach, JD, Turtle Bay & Beyond

Only four weeks after the notorious Estrela-Report’s spectacular defeat in the European Parliament’s plenary session of 10 December, the EU’s abortionist-homosexualist lobby launches a new attempt to get at least some form of approval for its sinister agenda from the European Parliament. This time they seek to instrumentalize the European Commission to provide the occasion for a surprise attack.
 
On 16 January the plenary agenda of the EP includes a Commission statement on “Non-discrimination in the framework of sexual and reproductive health and rights”, i.e. a statement to be made by a representative of the European Commission. As it appears, the S&D group wants to use his opportunity to achieve a new resolution on sexual health (presumably with the same or similar content as the defeated Estrela-Report) by requesting the use of a procedure foreseen by Rule 110 of the EP Rules. Indeed, Rule 110 states that “Members of the Commission, the Council and the European Council may at any time ask the President of Parliament for permission to make a statement.” A resolution might be added at a later stage: “When placing a statement with debate on its agenda, Parliament shall decide whether or not to wind up the debate with a resolution.”
 
In other terms, the S&D group does not accept that citizens don’t want the Estrela-Agenda. For them he promotion of abortion, the undermining of freedom of conscience, and the imposition of compulsory sex education programs is the absolute top priority.
 
Read here
 
Read also:  Defending human dignity and democracy in Europe from MercatorNet
 
 
AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Against all the odds, abortion is losing at the UN

January 3rd, 2014 Jill Posted in Gay Activism, pro-life/abortion Comments Off

By Austin Ruse, LifeSite News

Pro-abortion forces have spent hundreds of millions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of man-hours in the past twenty years and they have not advanced their agenda even a single syllable past what they got at the Cairo Conference in 1994.

Let that sink if for a moment, because it is something that haunts the days and nights of the UN Population Fund and the International Planned Parenthood Federation. They have dedicated a significant portion of their lives to establish an international right to abortion and all they have achieved is vague language on reproductive health and rights that most countries soundly reject as having anything to do with abortion. They are no nearer to an international right to abortion than they were when they began.
 
It is something that haunts the days and nights of the UN Population Fund and the International Planned Parenthood Federation.

What’s more, they have even begun to see their slight gains fade. Two years ago the UN hosted the 20-year review of the Rio Conference on the environment. Delegates rejected language related to reproductive rights. Hillary Clinton denounced the outcome document as did many other pro-abortion figures including Nafis Sadik, former head of the UN Population Fund.

In the past several months the UN Population Fund has hosted regional conferences in preparation for the upcoming negotiations for new development goals and the 20-year review of the Cairo Conference. These stage-managed regional meetings are full of radical pro-abortion language. How have these documents been received by delegates in New York? With polite disdain.

The other hot-button issue at the UN in recent years has been the attempt to make “sexual orientation and gender identity” new categories of non-discrimination in international law. Delegations have opposed this not because they hate gays but because they know that gays are already protected in international law and that these efforts are really about advancing things like gay marriage and gay adoption, things that most of the world rejects.

They have utterly failed to gain any real ground on this question. The best they have achieved is a PR campaign run by the Office of High Commissioner for Human Rights and a “study” of violence against gays run out of the human rights office in Geneva.

Read here


AddThis Social Bookmark Button