Abortion on demand up to 12 weeks, ‘extend abortion into Northern Ireland’: ‘pro-life’ MP Dorries
LONDON, November 6, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The UK’s abortion law needs to be “reformed” by lowering the gestational age limit to 20 from 24 weeks, by extending abortion into Northern Ireland and creating abortion on demand as a right up to 12 weeks, says an MP often characterized as “pro-life” by the media establishment.
Nadine Dorries, a Conservative Party backbench MP who has turned lowering the gestational age limit into her own campaign, secured a debate last week in the House of Commons for 90 minutes in which she laid out her plan to “reform” the 1967 Abortion Act.
Dorries said, “Everyone knows that in this country abortion is obtained on demand by whoever wants it, whenever they want it. I am pro-choice, and I believe that, up until 12 weeks, that should be the case.”
“I am delighted that more than 90% of abortions in this country take place before 12 weeks.”
“As the mother of three young adult daughters, I am a strong believer in a woman’s right to choose. Never, ever would I want to see a return to the bad old days of backstreet abortionists, or restricted access to early abortion.”
John Smeaton, head of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, said that Dorries’ comments reveal that she is a “radical” pro-abortion campaigner whose ideas are confused at best. Smeaton commented that the debate “served to show the dangers inherent in the campaign to reduce the upper time for social abortions.”
Lowering the gestational age limit by amending the Abortion Act will do nothing to save unborn children, SPUC maintains, although it may act to salve the guilt of waffling legislators and the undecided public.
Dorries said in the House that her campaign would exclude “babies with foetal abnormalities or, sadly, disabilities.” She commented, “That is a discussion to be held, as I have said, between parents and doctors.”
SPUC has steadfastly opposed gestational legislation, saying that it not only gives away fundamental ground by saying that selected children can be legally killed based on their age, but that it leaves the legal situation vulnerable to opportunistic amendments by pro-abortion MPs.
CLICK ‘LIKE’ IF YOU ARE PRO-LIFE!
A similar outcome was seen in 1990 when Lord David Alton brought forward a bill to lower the age limit from the previous 28 weeks to 24. Abortion campaigners in Parliament used the opportunity to sweep away legal protections for unborn children suspected of having disabilities, who can now be legally killed up to the time of full gestation. Dorries’ proposal to revisit the issue will, SPUC said, reinforce the “current discrimination against disabled babies, allowing them to be aborted up to birth.”
Dorries’ proposal to extend abortion into Northern Ireland, a goal that has long been dear Parliament’s core of hardened abortion lobbyists like Dianne Abbott, has shocked pro-life advocates in the province. Dorries heartily approved the establishment of the illegal Marie Stopes abortion facility in Belfast, which has created an uproar in recent days.
“I believe the law on abortion should be equal in all parts of the Union,” Dorries told the House of Commons. “There needs to be parity across the board.”
She was particularly pleased that it was Marie Stopes moving into Northern Ireland: “If any abortion provider is to come to Northern Ireland, Marie Stopes is probably the best bet.”
Dorries’ claim that Marie Stopes “has no political ideology and is concerned only for the health of the woman,” and that “it operates in a professional manner,” was received with incredulity by Bernadette Smyth, head of Northern Ireland’s leading pro-life lobby group. Smyth told LifeSiteNews.com called Dorries’ proposal “very dangerous” and said she is “not a pro-life MP” who “needs to butt out of Northern Ireland.”
Smyth confirmed to LSN that the Attorney General for Northern Ireland and the Justice Committee are investigating Marie Stopes for illegal activities. She observed that Marie Stopes is one of the largest and most effective abortion lobbying groups in the world, whose favorite method is to “break the law to change the law.”
In July this year, the abortion giant had their activities permanently “suspended” in Zambia for aborting children illegally there. In that country, Marie Stopes made precisely the same claim as in Northern Ireland, that it would act “within the legal framework.” But Northern Province Permanent Secretary, Emmanuel Mwamba, said the group had conducted hundreds of early term “medical” or chemical abortions in contravention of the law, “based on social reasons, social conditions or performed abortions on the mere basis that the pregnancy was unwanted.”
Smyth said that the response of the public to the Belfast Marie Stopes facility has been strongly negative. “People of Northern Ireland,” she said, “are rising even stronger than before. Outrage is rising all over.” She observed that thus far, no customers have had the proffered early chemical abortions at the Belfast facility, saying that it is clear the purpose of the facility is purely political, “to make it look as though there is a demand”.
“It is probably the only abortion facility in the world that doesn’t do abortions, because no one here wants them.”
With few exceptions, pro-life people in Britain have “uniformly” rejected the call for lowered age limits, Smyth said. Instead there is “universal agreement that abortion must be abolished outright.” To change the law to include a lower age limit, she said, would make abortion a right to be regulated. “As it is, abortion is still covered under the criminal code, which is where it belongs.”
Smyth said that Precious Life has written to MPs asking that Dorries “never be given a platform again” in Parliament for her plans.
Smyth said she believes Marie Stopes is working closely with other abortion advocate groups, including the Irish Family Planning Association, who has launched another court case, set to be heard on January 22nd, the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, alleging that Northern Ireland has failed to issue clear “termination of pregnancy guidelines”.
Speaking against Dorries was Jim Shannon, a DUP MP from Northern Ireland, who said, “I believe in human rights. I believe in the most basic of human rights, the right to life, so I am against abortion. I believe that the strong have a duty to protect the weak and the vulnerable.”
Shannon pointed to statistics showing that Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic, with their very restrictive laws on abortion, have some of the lowest rates of maternal death and mortality in the world. “The UK mainland, with its more liberal abortion law, has a higher rate of maternal deaths. That speaks volumes, and it is clear that restricted abortion to save the mother’s life, which we have in Northern Ireland, works well to save both mother and child.”
“If there was the option of bringing in Northern Ireland’s abortion laws, I would be pleading with everyone in this House to do just that,” he added. “Although I cannot today change the law in England and Wales, I speak for those babies who feel the pain of being ripped from their mother’s womb. This must stop today.”
Smyth said her sources in the House of Commons say that it is unlikely that Dorries’ proposal will succeed. “She’s exhausted all the avenues they said and there is no will in Parliament for that motion to be put forward,” she said.
View CommentsClick to view or comment.
Share this article
Planned Parenthood closes Iowa abortion facility because of low business
DUBUQUE, Iowa, May 3, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Planned Parenthood closed an Iowa abortion facility on Friday, noting low business that left the facility unsustainable from a financial standpoint.
Although Planned Parenthood of the Heartland announced in January that it planned to close the Dubuque, Iowa, office, pro-life sidewalk counselors were overjoyed on Friday to read the sign in the window that read: “Our office is closed, effective April 28, 2016.”
The office did not perform surgical abortions but did provide medication abortions to the community of about 58,000.
“Rejoice with us for the lives of unborn children saved!” Iowa Right to Life said in a statement after the closure.
As with numerous other closures, Planned Parenthood, which styles itself a provider of “care no matter what,” emphasized it was closing its doors to preserve its bottom line.
“After assessing the shifting health care landscape, changing demographics, and the challenges of operating in areas with low patient volumes, we made the tough decision to close the Dubuque Health Center,” the group said in an announcement. “This change allows us to expand hours and see more patients in Cedar Rapids, where there is unmet demand due to lack of clinician hours.”
“While we regret making this change, we know it is a necessary step in order to continue our mission to provide, promote and protect reproductive and sexual health through health services, education and advocacy. Patients have been notified, and if they wish, they can receive a broader array of services at our health center in Cedar Rapids, where we have expanded hours to accommodate more patient,” Planned Parenthood said.
American Life League’s vice president, Jim Sedlak, remembers speaking to the county right to life group nine years ago.
“I told them at the time that they needed to protest outside Planned Parenthood at least once a week,” he said. “They told me they would do better than that. Over the last eight years, these dedicated pro-lifers were outside Planned Parenthood every hour it was open. And now...it’s closed for good.”
That aligns with advice that David Bereit, the founder of 40 Days for Life, once told young people who wanted to know how to end abortion.
Be loving and compassionate, he said.
“Your peaceful, loving presence out there flies in the face of all the stereotypes they want to throw onto us,” he added. “When you show them love instead of condemnation, when you show them peace and joy instead of anger and judgment, that will begin to break down the walls.”
Iowa Right to Life credited just such tactics with closing an office in Red Oak that performed webcam abortions. “Planned Parenthood shut down in Red Oak in large part because of the constant, prayerful presence outside their clinic,” the group said.
Upon hearing of the latest abortion facility shuttering, the Dubuque County Right to Life said that Planned Parenthood isn't the only group that will move its base of operations. “We will probably put our efforts in Cedar Rapids and will continue to spread the pro-life message,” said Executive Director Marian Bourek.
Ted Cruz confronted by mom who supports aborting disabled babies…just like hers
MARION, Indiana, May 3, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) – Senator Ted Cruz was met on the campaign trail by a mother who strongly opposed a state pro-life law that would have protected children with birth conditions – like her own.
Andrea DeBruler, a 41-year-old nurse, confronted the presidential hopeful in the city of Marion as Cruz campaigned with Gov. Mike Pence.
DeBruler first asked Cruz, then Pence, about House Bill 1337, which bans abortions performed due to the child's race, sex, or disability, such as Down syndome.
DeBruler held up a picture of her daughter, Jania, who was born with cerebral palsy. “This was a choice,” she said.
She asked Sen. Cruz if he supported the bill, which made Indiana the second state in the nation to ban abortion for Down syndrome, after North Dakota.
“I'm not Governor Pence,” he replied. “But I'll tell you this: I believe in protecting human life.”
Pence, who endorsed Cruz in today's make-or-break Indiana primary, listened to her objections.
“I'm not here as a Republican, I'm not here as a Democrat. I'm here as a woman, a woman with choices, choices that you guys should not make,” DeBruler said.
After hearing that she felt many families lacked sufficient resources to care for children, especially in an area like Marion, Gov. Pence offered to connect her with social services.
“God bless her,” he said, looking at Jania's picture, “and God bless you.”
Though it may be unusual to encounter a woman arguing for the right to abort her own child, the governor handled it calmly. Pence had specifically reflected on “precious moments” he spent with “families of children with disabilities, especially those raising children with Down syndrome” when he signed the bill into law in March.
"We are truly thankful for the passage of this historic legislation by the Indiana House and applaud the new civil rights protections this bill creates for unborn children, as well as the new provisions this bill establishes for the humane final disposition of aborted babies," Indiana Right to Life President Mike Fichter said at the time.
DeBruler told the UK media outlet The Independent that H.B. 1337 “means you can no longer have an abortion based on deformity. I’m against this law, because I think it should be a woman’s choice” to abort for any reason.
Congressional Democrats made similar statements during hearings last month for Rep. Trent Franks' federal Prenatal Nondiscrimination Act (PRENDA), with Congressman John Conyers saying the bill is “patently unconstitutional,” because a woman has the right to abort a child before viability for any reason.
Both leading contenders for the Democratic nomination expressed their displeasure with the law, which protects unborn children from racial or sexual discrimination, as well as discrimination on the basis of an inborn trait like mental capacity.
When Gov. Pence signed the law, Sen. Bernie Sanders tweeted:
The decision to have an abortion is for a woman to make, not the Governor of Indiana. https://t.co/1VOroXS2br— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) March 24, 2016
Hillary Clinton later said, “I commend the women of this state, young and old, for standing up against this governor and this legislature.”
DeBruler told The Independent, despite her comment about not being a Democrat or a Republican, she is in fact a Democrat and will vote for Hillary Clinton in today's primary.
The moral challenge to Cardinal Wuerl in pending Notre Dame outrage
May 3, 2016 (CatholicCulture) -- In 2009, when the University of Notre Dame invited President Barack Obama to deliver a commencement address, dozens of American bishops lodged loud public protests. Yet this year, as Notre Dame prepares to confer an even greater honor on Vice President Joe Biden (together with former House Speaker John Boehner), the silence from the hierarchy is deafening.
Back in 2009, Cardinal Daniel DiNardo of Houston said that Notre Dame’s invitation to President Obama was “very disappointing,”, while then-Archbishop Timothy Dolan termed it a “big mistake.” The late Bishop John D’Arcy, then leader of the Indiana diocese in which the university is located, spoke of “the terrible breach which has taken place between Notre Dame and the Church.” For the first time in his 25 years of service to the Fort Wayne-South Bend diocese, Bishop D’Arcy declined to attend the Notre Dame commencement exercises; instead he addressed a protest rally organized by pro-life students, faculty, alumni, and staff.
These prelates and others explained their dismay by referring to the statement “Catholics in Political Life,” released in 2004 by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops. In that document, the bishops reflected on the need to maintain a consistent public witness in defense of human life, and therefore to distance themselves from public officials who support legal abortion. The statement set forth a clear policy that Catholic institutions should not give public honors to “pro-choice” politicians:
The Catholic community and Catholic institutions should not honor those who act in defiance of our fundamental moral principles. They should not be given awards, honors or platforms which would suggest support for their actions.
By giving President Obama an honorary degree and offering him an opportunity to speak at graduation, Notre Dame clearly violated that policy. University officials could offer only garbled partial defenses, claiming that they were honoring Obama not because he supports unrestricted abortion, but because he is President of the United States.
This year the university cannot offer even that lame defense of the decision to award the Laetare Medal to Vice President Biden. Unlike Obama, Biden is a Catholic, and by granting him this award the university is explicitly saying that the Vice President has “illustrated the ideals of the Church and enriched the heritage of humanity.” In other words, Notre Dame is honoring Vice President Biden as a Catholic political leader despite his unwavering support for abortion and same-sex marriage.
Give credit to Bishop Kevin Rhoades, the current leader of the Fort Wayne-South Bend diocese, for raising a lonely voice of protest. “I believe it is wrong for Notre Dame to honor any ‘pro-choice’ public official with the Laetare Medal, even if he/she has other positive accomplishments in public service,” Bishop Rhoades said. But if any other bishops have joined him in that rebuke to Notre Dame, I must have missed their public announcements.
Some observers, of liberal political sympathies, have argued that it is wrong to honor John Boehner, too, because the former Speaker disagreed with the US bishops’ stand on immigration. This is a tired old argument, conflating disagreement with the bishops on a prudential political decision with defiance of Church teaching on a fundamental moral principle. But it is noteworthy that Notre Dame officials saw fit to make a joint award, no doubt in a cynical effort to dodge political criticism by choosing one honoree from each side of the political spectrum.
“We live in a toxic political environment where poisonous invective and partisan gamesmanship pass for political leadership,” said Father John Jenkins, the president of Notre Dame, in announcing the Laetare Award recipients. (Notice the pre-emptive suggestion that those who criticize the school’s choices may be engaged in “poisonous invective.”) He went on to make a tortured argument that although Notre Dame is honoring two politicians, it is not honoring them for what they have done in their political careers:
In recognizing both men, Notre Dame is not endorsing the policy positions of either, but celebrating two lives dedicated to keeping our democratic institutions working for the common good through dialogue focused on the issues and responsible compromise.
By now we all know the familiar dodges. The politician claims to oppose abortion personally, but to feel a delicate reticence about imposing his views on others. He says that we must be willing to compromise (even on life-and-death decisions). He insists that he is not “pro-abortion” but “pro-choice.”
That last bubble of rhetoric was unceremoniously burst by Cardinal Donald Wuerl of Washington, DC, when he celebrated Mass at Georgetown after Planned Parenthood president Cecile Richard had delivered a lecture there. “The word ‘choice’ is a smokescreen,” he said, “behind which those killing unborn children take refuge. Every chance you get, blow that smoke away!”
Now Cardinal Wuerl himself has a chance to “blow that smoke away.” As things stand, he is scheduled to celebrate Mass at the Notre Dame commencement, and to receive an honorary degree. He could pull out; he could absent himself from the ceremonies, to ensure that he does not become part of an event that pays homage to a “pro-choice” Catholic politician.
And there is a precedent. Back in 2009, the Harvard legal scholar (and former US ambassador to the Holy See) Mary Ann Glendon was chosen to receive the Laetare Award. But when she learned that President Obama would be speaking, she announced her decision to decline the award. Clearly annoyed that her presence might be used to quiet the critics of the honor for Obama, Ambassador Glendon wrote that she did not want to be used as a counterweight, nor did she see the Notre Dame commencement as an appropriate venue for a genteel debate about legal abortion:
A commencement, however, is supposed to be a joyous day for the graduates and their families. It is not the right place, nor is a brief acceptance speech the right vehicle, for engagement with the very serious problems raised by Notre Dame’s decision—in disregard of the settled position of the U.S. bishops—to honor a prominent and uncompromising opponent of the Church’s position on issues involving fundamental principles of justice.
Could Cardinal Wuerl do this year what Ambassador Glendon did in 2009? Even at this late date, his withdrawal would send a powerful message of support for the right to life: an unmistakable rebuke to politicians who hide behind the smokescreen that the cardinal himself identified. To be sure, if he did withdraw, the cardinal would be caught in an avalanche of public criticism; he would suffer for his public witness. But there is a reason why cardinals wear red.
View CommentsClick to view or comment.