Hilary White, Rome Correspondent

Leading pro-abortion activist appointed head of Ireland’s health service

Hilary White, Rome Correspondent
Hilary White, Rome Correspondent
Image

DUBLIN, July 30, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The Irish coalition government is continuing to send signals that a change to the abortion law is on the table. Today pro-life advocates and Opposition party officials are outraged at the appointment of Tony O’Brien as the new Director General of Ireland’s Irish Health Service Executive (HSE). O’Brien comes to the job after years as CEO of the country’s leading abortion promoter, the Irish Family Planning Association (FPA).

Responding to a barrage of criticism, health minister James Reilly has defended the appointment, saying that O’Brien will not be involved in policy making. “Tony O’Brien has demonstrated, in a range of different areas, a capability of implementing progress,” Reilly said in a press release. Referring to the government’s plans of deep cuts to public services, Reilly added, “I have full confidence that Tony O’Brien can lead the organization through a period of significant change.”

The statement has failed to reassure pro-life advocates, however, who speculate that liberal members of the lead coalition partner, Fine Gael, are using political appointments to send a message to the more pro-life majority.

They point to the appointment as a Circuit Court judge of barrister Carmel Stewart, a member of the group who brought the notorious ABC case to the European Court of Human Rights, and the “stacking” of the government’s Expert Group on that ECHR ruling with pro-abortion members.

CLICK ‘LIKE’ IF YOU ARE PRO-LIFE!

O’Brien comes to the job directly from serving as Chief Operating Officer of the Special Delivery Unit in the Department of Health, but through the 1990s, he led the charge for FPA against the country’s constitutional protections for the unborn. FPA is an affiliate of International Planned Parenthood Federation and one of the country’s wealthiest and most aggressive political lobbyists for abortion legalization, as well as providers of abortifacient “contraceptives” to young people. O’Brien served as chief executive of the FPA from December 1991 to August 2002 and was chief executive of the UK Family Planning Association from May 1995 to April 1996.

Despite government denials that the appointment signals a motion towards changing abortion law, pro-life people in Ireland have expressed their outrage at the appointment. Rebecca Roughneen of Youth Defence said, “Political appointments can be strongly indicative of how a particular Minister feels on a given issue.”

She pointed to comments of Eilis O’Regan, Health Correspondent for the Irish Independent, who described O’Brien as being “a key part of the Minister’s inner circle.”

“James Reilly has already caused huge controversy for Fine Gael TDs because of his remarks supporting abortion legislation in the Dáíl. Now this appointment is sending entirely the wrong message to the pro-life majority.”

Pat Buckley, spokesman for the European Life Network, told LifeSiteNews.com that pro-abortion elements in the government have “been developing this strategy for some time”.

“There have been many battles and skirmishes but the appointment of Tony O’Brien can only be viewed as an all-out declaration of war on the unborn by Minister Reilly.

“The minister delayed this appointment until after the Dail went into recess giving no opportunity for debate in the House. Nevertheless it will be firmly opposed,” Buckley said.

The appointment was also slammed by the Opposition’s shadow health minister Billy Kelleher, who accused the Fine Gael-Labour coalition government of “politicising” health care and demanded to know the position of the coalition partners on abortion.

This “inside” appointment, he said, was “anything but open and transparent,” having been carried out without the “proper process in place. He added, “The Minister is continually doing that and I’m just afraid that he is politicising health, putting a kitchen cabinet of his own people in charge of health. It’s could put us in a very difficult position, where you have a minister surrounding himself with his own people and having no accountability.”

The lead opposition party, Fianna Fáil, has forthrightly said http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/irish-gvmt-torn-apart-over-abortion-legalisation-leaders-desperate-to-quash they will not support any change to the law, warning that it would open the abortion floodgates. Fianna Fáil leader, Micheál Martin, told the Irish Examiner on the 23rd that his party remained strongly pro-life: “I’m not absolutist in terms of being judgmental on people. But… I think we should do everything we possibly can to preserve the life of the unborn and preserve the life of the mother. And I think we do that in Ireland, actually.”

Writing from London, John Smeaton, head of the UK’s Society for the Protection of Unborn Children has said that Catholic Church authorities should be leading the outcry against the appointment. Pointing to what he said were some recent ambiguous actions over abortion from some of the highest positions in the Catholic Church, Smeaton called on Church leadership to “take off the shelf” the Church’s teachings on the sanctity of life and the “duty to oppose” the corruption of young people.

“Will Catholic church leaders stand up and be counted - in Ireland, or in Rome - and try to stop what is almost certain to happen to the Irish people unless they act?” Smeaton wrote.

“Accommodation of the pro-abortion lobby, as we saw in 2009 with Archbishop Rino Fisichella, hasn’t worked. It’s simply served to embolden the most powerful political leaders in the world - Obama in the US, Blair and Cameron in Britain - who know that they can promote their abortion policies without fear of disapproval.”

“It’s time to get up in the pulpits and out in the public square; it’s time to speak the truth and to defend this generation’s families and children - just as the Scottish bishops have done so well over the years and in recent weeks.”


To contact Prime Minister Enda Kenny
In Parliament
Dáil Éireann
Dublin 2
Phone: +353 1 (0)94 9025600

Telephone: 01-6183379
Fax: 01-6184143
Email: fg.press.office@oireachtas.ie

At Fine Gael Headquarters
Reception & General Enquiries
51 Upper Mount Street,
Dublin 2
Telephone: 01-6198444
Fax: 01-6625046
Email: finegael@finegael.ie

To contact the Department of Health,
Hawkins House,
Hawkins Street,
Dublin 2, Ireland

Phone: +353 1 635 4000
Fax: +353 1 6354001

Customer service email contact form
http://www.dohc.ie/about_us/contact/custserv.html


Advertisement
Featured Image
A Nazi extermination camp. Pete Baklinski / LifeSiteNews
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete

Imagine the outrage if anti-Semites were crowdsourcing for gas chambers

Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete
By Pete Baklinski
Image
A Nazi oven where the gassed victims were destroyed by fire. Pete Baklinski / LifeSiteNews
Image
Empty canisters of the poison used by Nazis to exterminate the prisoners. Pete Baklinski / LifeSiteNews
Image
Syringe for Manual Vacuum Aspiration abortion AbortionInstruments.com
Image
Uterine Currette AbortionInstruments.com
Image

Imagine the outrage if the Nazis had used online crowdsourcing to pay for the instruments and equipment used to eradicate Jews, gypsies, the handicapped, and other population groups — labeled “undesirable” — in their large industrialized World War II extermination facilities. 

Imagine if they posted a plea online stating: “We need to raise $85,000 to buy Zyklon B gas, to maintain the gas chambers, and to provide a full range of services to complete the ‘final solution.’”

People would be more than outraged. They would be sickened, disgusted, horrified. Humanitarian organizations would fly into high gear to do everything in their power to stop what everyone would agree was madness. Governments would issue the strongest condemnations.

Civilized persons would agree: No class of persons should ever be targeted for extermination, no matter what the reason. Everyone would tear the euphemistic language of “final solution” to shreds, knowing that it really means the hideous crime of annihilating a class of people through clinical, efficient, and state-approved methods of destruction. 

But crowdsourcing to pay for the instruments and equipment to exterminate human beings is exactly what one group in New Brunswick is doing.

Reproductive Justice NB has just finished raising more than $100,000 to lease the Morgentaler abortion facility in Fredericton, NB, which is about to close over finances. They’re now asking the public for “support and enthusiasm” to move forward with what they call “phase 2” of their goal.

“For a further $85,000 we can potentially buy all the equipment currently located at the clinic; equipment that is required to provide a full range of reproductive health services,” the group states on its Facebook page.

But what are the instruments and equipment used in a surgical abortion to destroy the pre-born child? It depends how old the child is. 

A Manual Vacuum Aspiration abortion uses a syringe-like instrument that creates suction to break apart and suck the baby up. It’s used to abort a child from 6 weeks to 12 weeks of age. Abortionist Martin Haskell has said the baby’s heart is often still beating as it’s sucked down the tube into the collection jar.

For older babies up to 16 weeks there is the Dilation and Curettage (D&C) abortion method. A Uterine Currette has one sharp side for cutting the pre-born child into pieces. The other side is used to scrape the uterus to remove the placenta. The baby’s remains are often removed by a vacuum.

For babies past 16 weeks there is the Dilation and Evacuation (D&E) abortion method, which uses forceps to crush, grasp, and pull the baby’s body apart before extraction. If the baby’s head is too large, it must be crushed before it can be removed.

For babies past 20 weeks, there is the Dilation and Extraction (D&X) abortion method. Guided by ultrasound, the abortionist uses forceps to partially deliver the baby until his or her head becomes visible. With the head often too big to pass through the cervix, the abortionist punctures the skull, sucks out the brains to collapse the skull, and delivers the dead baby.

Other equipment employed to kill the pre-born would include chemicals such as Methotrexate, Misoprostol, and saline injections. Standard office equipment would include such items as a gynecologist chair, oxygen equipment, and a heart monitor.

“It’s a bargain we don’t want to miss but we need your help,” writes the abortion group.

People should be absolutely outraged that a group is raising funds to purchase the instruments of death used to destroy a class of people called the pre-born. Citizens and human rights activists should be demanding the organizers be brought to justice. Politicians should be issuing condemnations with the most hard-hitting language.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Everyone should be tearing to shreds the euphemistic language of “reproductive health services,” knowing that it in part stands for the hideous crime of annihilating a class of people through clinical, efficient, and state-approved methods of destruction that include dismemberment, decapitation, and disembowelment.

There’s a saying about people not being able to perceive the error of their day. This was generally true of many in Hitler’s Germany who uncritically subscribed to his eugenics-driven ideology in which certain people were viewed as sub-human. And it’s generally true of many in Canada today who uncritically subscribe to the ideology of ‘choice’ in which the pre-born are viewed as sub-human.

It’s time for all of us to wake-up and see the youngest members of the human family are being brutally exterminated by abortion. They need our help. We must stand up for them and end this injustice.

Let us arise!


Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
Paul Wilson

The antidote to coercive population control

Paul Wilson
By Paul Wilson

The primary tenet of population control is simple: using contraception and abortifacients, families can “control” when their reproductive systems work and when they don’t – hence the endless cries that women “should have control over their own bodies” in the name of reproductive health.

However, in much of the world, the glittering rhetoric of fertility control gives way to the reality of control of the poorest citizens by their governments or large corporations. Governments and foreign aid organizations routinely foist contraception on women in developing countries. In many cases, any pretense of consent is steamrolled – men and women are forcibly sterilized by governments seeking to thin their citizens’ numbers.  (And this “helping women achieve their ‘ideal family size’” only goes one way – there is no government support for families that actually want more children.)

In countries where medical conditions are subpar and standards of care and oversight are low, the contraceptive chemicals population control proponents push have a plethora of nasty side effects – including permanent sterilization. So much for control over fertility; more accurately, the goal appears to be the elimination of fertility altogether.

There is a method for regulating fertility that doesn’t involve chemicals, cannot be co-opted or manipulated, and requires the mutual consent of the partners in order to work effectively. This method is Natural Family Planning (NFP).

Natural Family Planning is a method in which a woman tracks her natural indicators (such as her period, her temperature, cervical mucus, etc.) to identify when she is fertile. Having identified fertile days, couples can then choose whether or not to have sex during those days--abstaining if they wish to postpone pregnancy, or engaging in sex if pregnancy is desired.

Of course, the population control crowd, fixated on forcing the West’s vision of limitless bacchanalia through protective rubber and magical chemicals upon the rest of the world, loathes NFP. They deliberately confuse NFP with the older “rhythm method,” and cite statistics from the media’s favorite “research institute” (the Guttmacher Institute, named for a former director of Planned Parenthood) claiming that NFP has a 25% failure rate with “typical use.” Even the World Health Organization, in their several hundred page publication, “Family Planning: A Global Handbook for Providers,” admits that the basal body temperature method (a natural method) has a less than 1% failure rate—a success rate much higher than male condoms, female condoms, diaphragms, cervical caps or spermicides.

Ironically, the methods which they ignore – natural methods – grant true control over one’s fertility – helping couples both to avoid pregnancy or (horror of horrors!) to have children, with no government intervention required and no choices infringed upon.

The legitimacy of natural methods blows the cover on population controllers’ pretext to help women. Instead, it reveals their push for contraceptives and sterilizations for what they are—an attempt to control the fertility of others. 

Reprinted with permission from the Population Research Institute.


Advertisement
Featured Image
United Nations headquarters in New York Shutterstock.com
Rebecca Oas, Ph.D.

New development goals shut out abortion rights

Rebecca Oas, Ph.D.
By Rebecca Oas Ph.D.

Co-authored by Stefano Gennarini, J.D.

A two week marathon negotiation over the world’s development priorities through 2030 ended at U.N. headquarters on Saturday with abortion rights shut out once again.

When the co-chairs’ gavel finally fell Saturday afternoon to signal the adoption of a new set of development goals, delegates broke out in applause. The applause was more a sigh of relief that a final round of negotiations lasting twenty-eight hours had come to its end than a sign of approval for the new goals.

Last-minute changes and blanket assurances ushered the way for the chairman to present his version of the document delivered with an implicit “take it or leave it.”

Aside from familiar divisions between poor and wealthy countries, the proposed development agenda that delegates have mulled over for nearly two years remains unwieldy and unmarketable, with 17 goals and 169 targets on everything from ending poverty and hunger, to universal health coverage, economic development, and climate change.

Once again hotly contested social issues were responsible for keeping delegates up all night. The outcome was a compromise.

Abortion advocates were perhaps the most frustrated. They engaged in a multi-year lobbying campaign for new terminology to advance abortion rights, with little to show for their efforts. The new term “sexual and reproductive health and rights,” which has been associated with abortion on demand, as well as special new rights for individuals who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual or transsexual (LGBT), did not get traction, even with 58 countries expressing support.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Despite this notable omission, countries with laws protecting unborn children were disappointed at the continued use of the term “reproductive rights,” which is not in the Rio+20 agreement from 2012 that called for the new goals. The term is seen as inappropriate in an agenda about outcomes and results rather than normative changes on sensitive subjects.

Even so, “reproductive rights” is tempered by a reference to the 1994 International Conference on Population and Development, which recognizes that abortion is a matter to be dealt with in national legislation. It generally casts abortion in a bad light and does not recognize it as a right. The new terminology that failed was an attempt to leave the 1994 agreement behind in order to reframe abortion as a human rights issue.

Sexual and reproductive health was one of a handful of subjects that held up agreement in the final hours of negotiations. The failure to get the new terminology in the goals prompted the United States and European countries to insist on having a second target about sexual and reproductive health. They also failed to include “comprehensive sexuality education” in the goals because of concerns over sex education programs that emphasize risk reduction rather than risk avoidance.

The same countries failed to delete the only reference to “the family” in the whole document. Unable to insert any direct reference to LGBT rights at the United Nations, they are concentrating their efforts on diluting or eliminating the longstanding U.N. definition of the family. They argue “the family” is a “monolithic” term that excludes other households. Delegates from Mexico, Colombia and Peru, supporters of LGBT rights, asked that the only reference to the family be “suppressed.”

The proposed goals are not the final word on the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). They will be submitted to the General Assembly, whose task is to elaborate a post-2015 development agenda to replace the Millennium Development Goals next year.

Reprinted with permission from C-FAM.org.


Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook