Hilary White

‘Legalize abortion now!’: The whole world is baying for the blood of Irish children

Hilary White
Hilary White
Image

ROME, November 16, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – At LifeSiteNews.com, we like to report facts. Things that are actually happening, that people are actually doing and saying. Speculation on things that might be happening, or things that might have happened, is a realm for irresponsible tabloids and the leftist gutter press. Which is why I was hesitant to produce a piece talking any further about the case in Ireland that is arousing passions around the globe.

But I dive in because it seems as if the whole world has suddenly fallen into a frenzy to murder Irish children. I’ll say it again, just so we’re clear: the calls for legalisation of abortion in Ireland, always carefully framed in the media and parliaments as a matter of “women’s rights,” is a call for the unrestricted slaughter of innocent children.

Having got the basic facts of the argument clear, perhaps we can look at the details. We know that a young mother died on October 28th in University Hospital, Galway after she came in presenting symptoms of miscarriage. The hospital has said she died a few days later of septicaemia. At some point, exactly when is unclear, the woman’s husband went to the press, or perhaps the abortion lobbyists, and said that the hospital and the country’s laws, “Catholic ethos” and medical antipathy towards abortion caused his wife’s death.

All else after that is carefully couched around in journalistic disclaimers like “reportedly” and “…he alleged.” Meanwhile, the bereaved husband, in-laws and parents of the young mother have retreated to India and are demanding that Ireland liberalise its abortion laws. This demand is being joined by the Indian Ambassador to Ireland, the legalisation-pushers in Ireland’s parliament, the secular media and professional abortion lobbyists, as well as, perhaps most strangely, the official opposition party of India, the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party.

This despite the fact – as has been pointed out several times in editorials, press releases, blog posts and hundreds of comments boxes both Catholic and non-Catholic – that abortion is not a medical treatment for either miscarriage or for severe systemic infections and no one has any idea whether Savita Halappanavar really wanted an abortion, or whether “early induction” of labour would have saved her life.

Indeed, one doctor in India has pointed out that abortion in such a case would probably have only hastened Savita’s death. Gynaecologist Hema Divakar, resident-elect of the Federation of Obstetric and Gynaecological Societies of India (FOGSI), has told The Hindu, “Based on information in the media, in that situation of septicaemia, if the doctors had meddled with the live baby, Savita would have died two days earlier.”

In response to the media frenzy the Irish government has launched an investigation –  giving the family first say as to what is and is not investigated and made public – and has said that nothing will be decided until the full facts of the case have been made clear. Galway University Hospital is already conducting an internal investigation and the Health Service Executive’s investigation will be joined by an independent external expert in obstetrics and gynaeocology.

So far the story makes a modicum of sense, but quite a bit of the rest of it does not add up.

Ireland’s Minister for Health, Dr. James Reilly, has said he is in possession of facts that cannot at this time be revealed, but that he has no evidence that the “Catholic ethos” of Ireland or the hospital prevented Savita from receiving proper medical treatment.

CLICK ‘LIKE’ IF YOU ARE PRO-LIFE!

Even pro-life advocates have pointed out that the current law and medical guidance include the possibility of abortion in the “rare” cases where the woman’s life may be endangered. The University Hospital would certainly have known this, it being the standard of gynecological care throughout the country. Indeed, I was told today by a reliable Irish source that on the gynecological staff at that hospital is at least one “rabid” pro-abortion doctor who would certainly have made sure that this would have happened had it been medically possible. Eilís Mulroy has written in The Irish Independent, under the headline “Pro-choice side must not hijack this terrible event”, asking, “Was Ms Halappanavar treated in line with existing obstetrical practice in Ireland?

In light of these facts, it seems extremely unlikely, except perhaps in the dreams of rabid anti-Catholics, that the doctors at the hospital would have simply said, “This is a Catholic country, we don’t do that here.”

I also hope I am not the only one wondering why the Indian Ambassador to Ireland has decided to weigh in, adding his voice to the pressure of the abortion lobby/Labour Party/media consortium who have been pressing for years for legalisation. Why is the Indian Ambassador suddenly so interested in Ireland’s abortion laws? Is it really normal practice in modern diplomatic circles to join in partisan demands of a sovereign country to change so fundamental a law?

Mr. Debashish Chakravarti may have revealed more about his own country’s problems than Ireland’s when he issued a statement today claiming, with no more evidence than anyone else has, that Savita Halappanavar “would still be alive if she had been treated in India.” Since when does a diplomatic attaché tell the host country which laws to overturn?

Perhaps someone just forgot to show Mr. Chakravarti the report by the World Health Organisation showing that Ireland, with its abortion restrictions, has one of the lowest maternal mortality rates in the world, one that is vastly better than India’s.

How much better? The WHO’s document shows that from data gathered up to 2005, Ireland had one maternal death. Yes, one. India had 450 per 100,000 live births for a total of about 117,000. Under India’s current law allowing abortion virtually on demand, about 11 million children are (officially reported) killed by abortion annually – just under two and half times the entire population of the Irish Republic – and around 20,000 women die of complications related to these legal abortions.

But calm deliberation on medical, legal or demographic facts has never been the M.O. of abortion lobbyists or their supporters in media or parliaments, and the country is in an uproar with the media/abortion lobby demanding legislation, right NOW, to legalise abortion. Pro-life people I’ve spoken to in Ireland fear that the pressure may prove too much for the waffling and half-hearted pro-life Irish politicians.

The Irish Times ran the first piece on the case on Wednesday, written by the daughter of one of Ireland’s leading Trotskyite abortion lobbyists, with the completely unbiased and totally objective headline, “Woman ‘denied a termination’ dies in hospital”. This shot the journalistic pinball around the mainstream media world, bringing predictable headlines from the usual suspects: the Guardian: “Ireland’s abortion ban: a history of obstruction and denial,” the BBC: “Woman dies after abortion request ‘refused’ at Galway hospital,” the Toronto Star: “Senseless death of Irish woman exposes grim reality for women”.

In this atmosphere of impartial objectivity, Indian newspapers are taking up Mr. Chakravarti’s cry, issuing such headlines as, “Ireland murders pregnant Indian dentist” and “Indian woman died pleading, Irish abortion laws denied a termination”. Several Indian television stations are running footage of Savita’s mother saying, “In an attempt to save a four-month-old fetus they killed my… daughter. How is that fair you tell me?” Demonstrations have been organised by India’s main opposition, Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party with women carrying placards saying, “Catholic Ireland can’t allow the murder of innocent women”.

Praveen Halappanavar is in India now, also issuing demands that Ireland change its laws. “I have lost my wife, but would like to continue the fight for justice. I will return to Galway and continue the fight. The Indian government should wake up and prevail upon the Irish government to make changes to their law,” he said.

I have several other questions that I imagine will not come up in the medical investigations. For starters: the connections between the Halappanavar family and the abortion lobbyists and the rabidly pro-abortion media remain unclear. How exactly did the Irish Times become aware of the case? They quote Praveen Halappanavar extensively, but did he contact them or did he speak to someone in the abortion lobby first?

Because a leaked e-mail obtained by pro-life activists makes it clear that the Irish Choice Network knew the story was going to come to light by November 11th. Who tipped them off in time to organize their “spontaneous” demonstration outside the Dail on Wednesday? Finally, does anyone else wonder and marvel at the fact that this story “broke” on the day that the long-awaited report from the government’s Expert Group on Ireland’s abortion law was released (but still not published)?

Of course, the whole world, competing with each other to show how deeply they care about the tragic death of a beautiful young woman by calling as loudly as possible for the legalization of the killing of Ireland’s unborn children, are going to pour into our own commboxes demanding to know how I can be so callous and unfeeling. All I can say is, it’s a sort of tick of mine to use my brain, especially when stories don’t add up.

Follow us on Twitter:


Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
LifeSiteNews staff

,

Quebec groups launch court challenge to euthanasia bill

LifeSiteNews staff
By LifeSiteNews staff

As announced when the Quebec legislature adopted Bill 52, An Act respecting end-of-life care, the citizen movement Living with Dignity and the Physicians’ Alliance against Euthanasia, representing together over 650 physicians and 17,000 citizens, filed a lawsuit before the Superior Court of Quebec in the District of Montreal on Thursday.

The lawsuit requests that the Court declare invalid all the provisions of the Act that deal with “medical aid in dying”, a term the groups say is a euphemism for euthanasia. This Act not only allows certain patients to demand that a physician provoke their death, but also grants physicians the right to cause the death of these patients by the administration of a lethal substance.

The two organizations are challenging the constitutionality of those provisions in the Act which are aimed at decriminalizing euthanasia under the euphemism “medical aid in dying”. Euthanasia constitutes a culpable homicide under Canada’s Criminal Code, and the organizations maintain that it is at the core of the exclusive federal legislative power in relation to criminal law and Quebec therefore does not have the power to adopt these provisions.

The organizations also say the impugned provisions unjustifiably infringe the rights to life and to security of patients guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. They further infringe the right to the safeguard of the dignity of the person, which is also protected by the Quebec Charter.

In view of the gravity of the situation and the urgent need to protect all vulnerable persons in Quebec, they are requesting an accelerated management of the case in order to obtain a judgment before the Act is expected to come into force on December 10, 2015.


Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
LifeSiteNews staff

,

Colorado baker appeals gvmt ‘re-education’ order

LifeSiteNews staff
By LifeSiteNews staff

A Colorado cake artist who declined to use his creative talents to promote and endorse a same-sex ceremony appealed a May 30 order from the Colorado Civil Rights Commission to the Colorado Court of Appeals Wednesday.

The commission’s order requires cake artist Jack Phillips and his staff at Masterpiece Cakeshop to create cakes for same-sex celebrations, forces him to re-educate his staff that Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act means that artists must endorse all views, compels him to implement new policies to comply with the commission’s order, and requires him to file quarterly “compliance” reports for two years. The reports must include the number of patrons declined a wedding cake or any other product and state the reason for doing so to ensure he has fully eliminated his religious beliefs from his business.

“Americans should not be forced by the government – or by another citizen – to endorse or promote ideas with which they disagree,” said the cake artist’s lead counsel Nicolle Martin, an attorney allied with Alliance Defending Freedom. “This is not about the people who asked for a cake; it’s about the message the cake communicates. Just as Jack doesn’t create baked works of art for other events with which he disagrees, he doesn’t create cake art for same-sex ceremonies regardless of who walks in the door to place the order.”

“In America, we don’t force artists to create expression that is contrary to their convictions,” added Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Legal Counsel Jeremy Tedesco. “A paint artist who identifies as homosexual shouldn’t be intimidated into creating a painting that celebrates one-man, one-woman marriage. A pro-life photographer shouldn’t be forced to work a pro-abortion rally. And Christian cake artists shouldn’t be punished for declining to participate in a same-sex ceremony or promote its message.”

Click "like" if you want to defend true marriage.

In July 2012, Charlie Craig and David Mullins asked Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, to make a wedding cake to celebrate their same-sex ceremony. In an exchange lasting about 30 seconds, Phillips politely declined, explaining that he would gladly make them any other type of baked item they wanted but that he could not make a cake promoting a same-sex ceremony because of his faith. Craig and Mullins, now represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, immediately left the shop and later filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Division. The case now goes to the Colorado Court of Appeals as Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Craig.

“Jack, and other cake artists like him – such as those seen on TV shows like ‘Ace of Cakes’ and ‘Cake Boss’ – prepare unique creations that are inherently expressive,” Tedesco explained. “Jack invests many hours in the wedding cake creative process, which includes meeting the clients, designing and sketching the cake, and then baking, sculpting, and decorating it. The ACLU calls Jack a mere ‘retail service provider,’ but, in fact, he is an artist who uses his talents and abilities to create expression that the First Amendment fully protects."

Celebrity cake artists have written publicly about their art and the significant expressive work that goes into the artistic design process for wedding cakes.


Advertisement
Featured Image
Tony Gosgnach / LifeSiteNews.com
Tony Gosgnach

,

Prisoner of conscience Mary Wagner appeals her conviction

Tony Gosgnach
By Tony Gosgnach

TORONTO -- As promised, Mary Wagner has, through her counsel Dr. Charles Lugosi, filed a formal notice of appeal on numerous points regarding her recent, almost two-year-long court case that ended on June 12.

Justice Fergus O’Donnell of the Ontario Court of Justice rejected every application made by the defence – including for access to abortion center records, public funding, standing for a constitutional challenge and for expert witnesses to be heard – before he found Wagner guilty and sentenced her to five months in jail on a charge of mischief and four months on four counts of failing to comply with probation orders.

He further levied two years of probation, with terms that she stay at least 100 metres away from any abortion site. However, because Wagner had spent a greater time in jail than the sentence, she was freed immediately. She had been arrested at the “Women’s Care Clinic” abortion site on Lawrence Avenue West in Toronto on August 15, 2012 after attempting to speak to abortion-bound women there. She then spent the duration of the trial in prison for refusing to sign bail conditions requiring her to stay away from abortion sites.

Wagner is using the matter as a test case to challenge the current definition of a human being in Canadian law – that is, that a human being is legally recognized as such only after he or she has fully emerged from the birth canal in a breathing state.

Wagner’s notice states the appeal is regarding:

  • Her conviction and sentence on a single count of mischief (interference with property),
  • Her conviction and sentence on four counts of breach of probation,
  • The order denying public funding,
  • The order denying the disclosure of third-party records,
  • The order denying the admission of evidence from experts on the applicant’s constitutional challenge concerning the constitutional validity of Section 223 of the Criminal Code,
  • The order denying the admission of evidence from experts concerning the construction of Section 37 of the Criminal Code,
  • The probation order denying Wagner her constitutional rights to freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of conscience and freedom of religion on all public sidewalks and public areas within 100 metres of places where abortions are committed,
  • And each conviction and sentence and all orders and rulings made by O’Donnell.

In the notice of appeal, Lugosi cites numerous points on which O’Donnell erred:

  • He denied Wagner her constitutional right to make full answer and defence.
  • He denied Wagner her right to rely on Section 37 of the Criminal Code, which permits “everyone” to come to the third-party defence and rescue of any human being (in this case, the preborn) facing imminent assault.
  • He decided the factual basis of Wagner’s constitutional arguments was a waste of the court’s time and that no purpose would have been served by having an evidentiary hearing on her Charter application because, in the current state of Canadian law, it had no possibility of success.
  • He misapplied case law and prejudged the case, “giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias and impeding the legal evolution of the law to adapt to new circumstances, knowledge and changed societal values and morals.”
  • He accepted the Crown’s submission that it is beyond the jurisdiction of the courts to question the jurisdiction of Parliament legally to define “human being” in any manner Parliament sees fit.
  • He ruled Section 223 of the Criminal Code is not beyond the powers of Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
  • He ruled Section 223 of the Criminal Code does not violate the Preamble to, as well as Sections 7, 11(d), 15 and 26, of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
  • He denied Wagner standing to raise a constitutional challenge to the validity of Section 223 of the Criminal Code.
  • He ruled that Section 223 of the Criminal Code applied generally throughout the entire Criminal Code and used it to deny unborn human beings the benefit of equal protection as born human beings under Section 37 of the Criminal Code.
  • He denied the production and disclosure of third-party records in the possession of the “Women’s Care Clinic” abortion site, although the records were required to prove Wagner was justified in using reasonable force in the form of oral and written words to try to persuade pregnant mothers from killing their unborn children by abortion.
  • He denied Wagner the defence of Section 37 of the Criminal Code by ruling unborn children did not come within the scope of human beings eligible to be protected by a third party.
  • He ruled Wagner did not come within the scope of Section 37 because she was found to be non-violent (in that she did not use physical force).
  • He ruled the unborn children Wagner was trying to rescue were not under her protection.
  • He denied Wagner the common-law defences of necessity and the rescue of third parties in need of protection.
  • He denied Wagner public funding to make full answer and defence for a constitutional test case of great public importance and national significance.
  • He imposed an unconstitutional sentence upon Wagner by, in effect, imposing an injunction as a condition of probation, contrary to her constitutional rights of free speech, freedom of expression, freedom of conscience and freedom of religion.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Among the orders Lugosi is seeking are:

  • That an appeal be allowed against conviction on all counts and that a verdict of acquittal be entered on all counts,
  • That Section 223 of the Criminal Code be found unconstitutional  and contrary to Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, as well as the unwritten constitution of Canada,
  • That the sentence be declared unconstitutional and contrary to Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and the unwritten constitution of Canada or that a new trial be conducted, with Wagner permitted to make full answer and defence, be given standing to make a constitutional attack on Section 223 of the Criminal Code, with the admission of expert witnesses,
  • That the Women’s Care Clinic abortion site be made to produce third-party records pertaining to patients seen on August 15, 2012 (when Wagner entered the site),
  • And that there be public funding for two defence counsels at any retrial and for any appeal related to the case.

No date has yet been established for a decision on the appeal or hearings.

A defence fund for Wagner’s case is still raising money. Details on how to contribute to it can be found here.


Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook