Hilary White

, ,

British politician: ‘consider compulsory abortion’ for Downs babies

Hilary White
Hilary White

LONDON, December 19, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – The United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) has suspended a candidate after an uproar when he wrote that it should be mandatory to kill all disabled unborn children. Geoffrey Clark wrote on his website that women carrying children suspected of serious disabilities like Downs syndrome and spina bifida should be forced to have abortions in order to cut back on health care costs. He also called for legalization of euthanasia, free “euthanasia counselling” for people over 80 years old, and the introduction of a two-child population control policy.

Clark, a 66-year-old chartered accountant wrote in his political manifesto that the government should review the National Health Service’s expenditures, saying the review should “re-examine the pregnancy abortion time limit. Consider compulsory abortion when the foetus is detected as having Downs, spina bifida or similar syndrome which, if it is born, will render the child a burden on the state as well as on the family.”

Until today, Clark was UKIP’s candidate for Kent County Council and was standing for Gravesham Borough Council in a by-election on Thursday, a stepping-stone to a parliamentary seat.

The NHS review, he said, also ought to reconsider medical treatment for people over the age of 80, which he called “disproportionately costly.” The NHS ought to consider offering “free euthanasia advice to all folk over 80 years of age,” Clark suggested, “and indeed to all others.”

He described the rise in population in Britain as “desperately bad, pitiable, scary, and a cause for bowing of heads in national shame.” Citing the 18th century father of eugenics Thomas Malthus, Clark wrote, “Population growth and declining quality of life go hand in hand.” He said that the UK should “attack mercilessly” those developing countries with high rates of population growth like Kenya, Nigeria, and Mexico.

“We must attack them for their wantonness; we must reduce their overseas aid to zero if they do not reduce the rapidly rising trend of population growth. Criticize the Pope and the Catholic Church for their wanton negligence on this subject,” he suggested.

“In the UK, restrict Child Benefit and Child Tax Credit to the first two children only, and withdraw those benefits if there is a third and fourth child. The state should not subsidize large families. Educate people to have no more than two children,” he proposed. “We must use all fair means to stabilize the UK population at 62 million, including leaving the EU.”

The comments caused an uproar in the media and social media sites like Twitter. Later, Clark appeared to backpedal from them, saying, “they are for the commission to consider how best to cut service levels if it is decided to do so.”

UKIP issued a statement on Tuesday saying that Clark has been suspended as a candidate and that his views do not reflect the party’s policies. A UKIP spokesman said the party rejects the “abhorrent views expressed in the personal manifesto of Mr. Geoffrey Clark.

(Click “like” if you want to end abortion! )

“The party was not aware of these views when it allowed him to stand under our name. We can confirm that Mr. Clark has been formally suspended as a UKIP candidate. His membership is undergoing disciplinary hearing.

“UKIP would like to apologize to anyone who has suffered distress as a result of this matter.”

The learning disability charity Mencap called Clark’s comments “abhorrent,” but his comments, while politically damaging, generally reflect the feelings of most in Britain where eugenic sentiments have grown. Polls have suggested that as many as 75 percent of British people think abortion should be allowed for disability and abortion lobbyists agree.

In 1990, when some MPs introduced legislation lowering the legal age limit for abortion, abortion campaigners in parliament allowed it to pass on the condition that all age restrictions be removed for eugenic abortion.

Since then, it has become the norm for doctors to recommend abortion under “Ground E” whenever a prenatal test finds a chance of Downs or another “serious” disability. This pressure from doctors to abort disabled children is starting to be noted by medical groups. A 1999 report in the Independent said the Association for Improvements in Maternity Services reported “a stream of complaints” from women who tried to refuse prenatal tests, who were “bullied or treated like pariahs.” The group said that some women would go so far as to avoid all prenatal care until 24 weeks to avoid pressure to abort a potentially disabled child.

In 2001 in England and Wales, there were 1,641 abortions committed under Ground E alone with a further 81 being Ground E combined with another reason. Of this number, 127 were for spina bifida and 347 for Down’s syndrome, six of these abortions being done after 24 weeks.

Since the Conservative Party started adopting more and more left-liberal social policies, refused to bring forward a promised referendum on Britain’s membership in the EU and has done nothing substantive to stem unregulated immigration, UKIP has surged in the polls. This week a former Tory MP reported that more than one in ten Conservative voters at the last election now backs the libertarian UKIP.

Of those, only one-quarter cite the Conservative party’s position on Europe that once formed UKIP’s raison d’être.

Since UKIP started opposing the coalition government’s plans to introduce same-sex “marriage,” polls started showing a jump in the party’s popularity. It has now, without a single MP in the House of Commons, moved to replace the government coalition partner Liberal Democrat party as third after Labour and the Conservatives.

Former Tory vice chairman Lord Ashcroft said that even if the Cameron government offers a referendum now, it is too late to woo disaffected supporters back. Ashcroft’s poll of more than 20,000 voters found their main interests lay in economy growth, welfare, immigration and the deficit.

“These voters think Britain is changing for the worse. They are pessimistic, even fearful, and they want someone and something to blame. They do not think mainstream politicians are willing or able to keep their promises or change things for the better,” Lord Ashcroft told the Daily Mail.

Share this article

Featured Image
John Jalsevac John Jalsevac Follow John

BREAKING: Planned Parenthood shooting suspect surrenders, is in custody: police

John Jalsevac John Jalsevac Follow John
By John Jalsevac

Nov. 27, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) - Five hours after a single male shooter reportedly opened fire at a Colorado Springs Planned Parenthood, chatter on police radio is indicating that the suspect has now been "detained."

"We have our suspect and he says he is alone," said police on the police radio channel. 

Colorado Springs Mayor John Suthers also confirmed via Twitter shortly after 7:00 pm EST that the suspect was in custody.

The news comes almost exactly an hour after the start of a 6:00 pm. press conference in which Lt. Catherine Buckley had confirmed that a single shooter was still at large, and had exchanged gunfire with police moments before.

According to Lt. Buckley, four, and possibly five police officers have been shot since the first 911 call was received at 11:38 am local time today. An unknown number of civilians have also been shot.

Although initial reports had suggested that the shooting began outside the Planned Parenthood, possibly outside a nearby bank, Lt. Buckley said that in fact the incident began at the Planned Parenthood itself.

She said that the suspect had also brought unknown "items" with him to the Planned Parenthood. 

Pro-life groups have started responding to the news, urging caution in jumping to conclusions about the motivations of the shooter, while also condemning the use of violence in promoting the pro-life cause. 

"Information is very sketchy about the currently active shooting situation in Colorado Springs," said Pavone. "The Planned Parenthood was the address given in the initial call to the police, but we still do not know what connection, if any, the shooting has to do with Planned Parenthood or abortion.

"As leaders in the pro-life movement, we call for calm and pray for a peaceful resolution of this situation."

Troy Newman of Operation Rescue and Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, Director of the Christian Defense Coalition, also issued statements.

"Operation Rescue unequivocally deplores and denounces all violence at abortion clinics and has a long history of working through peaceful channels to advocate on behalf of women and their babies," said Newman. "We express deep concern for everyone involved and are praying for the safety of those at the Planned Parenthood office and for law enforcement personnel. We pray this tragic situation can be quickly resolved without further injury to anyone."

"Although we don't know the reasons for the shooting near the Planned Parenthood in Colorado Springs today, the pro-life movement is praying for the safety of all involved and as a movement we have always unequivocally condemned all forms of violence at abortion clinics. We must continually as a nation stand against violence on all levels," said Rev. Patrick J. Mahoney, Director of the Christian Defense Coalition, based in Washington, D.C.


Share this article

Featured Image
Wikimedia Commons
Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin

, , , ,

Rubio says SCOTUS didn’t ‘settle’ marriage issue: ‘God’s rules always win’

Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin
By Dustin Siggins

WASHINGTON, D.C., November 27, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) -- Surging GOP presidential candidate Sen. Marco Rubio, R-FL, says that "God's law" trumps the U.S. Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision imposing same-sex “marriage” nationwide.

The senator also told Christian Broadcast Network's David Brody that the Supreme Court's redefinition of marriage is not "settled," but instead "current law."

“No law is settled,” said Rubio. “Roe v. Wade is current law, but it doesn’t mean that we don’t continue to aspire to fix it, because we think it’s wrong.”

“If you live in a society where the government creates an avenue and a way for you to peacefully change the law, then you’re called to participate in that process to try to change it,” he explained, and "the proper place for that to be defined is at the state level, where marriage has always been regulated — not by the Supreme Court and not by the federal government.”

However, when laws conflict with religious beliefs, "God's rules always win," said Rubio.

“In essence, if we are ever ordered by a government authority to personally violate and sin — violate God’s law and sin — if we’re ordered to stop preaching the Gospel, if we’re ordered to perform a same-sex marriage as someone presiding over it, we are called to ignore that,” Rubio expounded. “We cannot abide by that because government is compelling us to sin.”

“I continue to believe that marriage law should be between one man and one woman," said the senator, who earlier in the fall was backed by billionaire GOP donor and same-sex "marriage" supporter Paul Singer.

Singer, who also backs looser immigration laws and a strong U.S.-Israel alliance, has long pushed for the GOP to change its position on marriage in part due to the sexual orientation of his son.

Despite Singer's support, Rubio's marriage stance has largely been consistent. He told Brody earlier in the year that "there isn't such a right" to same-sex "marriage."

"You have to have a ridiculous reading of the U.S. Constitution to reach the conclusion that people have a right to marry someone of the same sex."

Rubio also said religious liberty should be defended against LGBT activists he says "want to stigmatize, they want to ostracize anyone who disagrees with them as haters."

"I believe, as do a significant percentage of Americans, that the institution of marriage, an institution that existed before government, that existed before laws, that institution should remain in our laws recognized as the union of one man and one woman," he said.

Rubio also hired social conservative leader Eric Teetsel as his director of faith outreach this month.

However, things have not been entirely smooth for Rubio on marriage. Social conservatives were concerned when the executive director of the LGBT-focused Log Cabin Republicans told Reuters in the spring that the Catholic senator is "not as adamantly opposed to all things LGBT as some of his statements suggest."

The LGBT activist group had meetings with Rubio's office "going back some time," though the senator himself never attended those meetings. Rubio has publicly said that he would attend the homosexual "wedding" of a gay loved one, and also that he believed "that sexual preference is something that people are born with," as opposed to being a choice.

Additionally, days after the Supreme Court redefined marriage, Rubio said that he disagreed with the decision but that "we live in a republic and must abide by the law."

"I believe that marriage, as the key to strong family life, is the most important institution in our society and should be between one man and one woman," he said. "People who disagree with the traditional definition of marriage have the right to change their state laws. That is the right of our people, not the right of the unelected judges or justices of the Supreme Court. This decision short-circuits the political process that has been underway on the state level for years.

Rubio also said at the time that "it must be a priority of the next president to nominate judges and justices committed to applying the Constitution as written and originally understood…"

“I firmly believe the question of same sex marriage is a question of the definition of an institution, not the dignity of a human being. Every American has the right to pursue happiness as they see fit. Not every American has to agree on every issue, but all of us do have to share our country. A large number of Americans will continue to believe in traditional marriage, and a large number of Americans will be pleased with the Court’s decision today. In the years ahead, it is my hope that each side will respect the dignity of the other.”

The Florida senator said in July that he opposed a constitutional marriage amendment to the U.S. Constitution to leave marriage up to the states because that would involve the federal government in state marriage policies.

Featured Image
Former The View star Sherri Shepherd and then-husband Lamar Sally in 2010 s_bukley / Shutterstock.com
Steve Weatherbe

Court orders Sherri Shepherd to pay child support for surrogate son she abandoned

Steve Weatherbe
By Steve Weatherbe

November 27, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) -- Sherri Shepherd, a Hollywood celebrity who co-hosted the popular talk show The View for seven years, has lost a maternity suit launched by her ex-husband Lamar Sally, forcing her to pay him alimony and child support for their one-year surrogate son LJ. The decision follows an unseemly fight which pro-life blogger Cassy Fiano says has exposed how surrogacy results in “commodifying” the unborn.

Shepherd, a co-host of the View from 2007 to 2014, met Sally, a screenwriter, in 2010 and they married a year later. Because her eggs were not viable, they arranged a surrogate mother in Pennsylvania to bear them a baby conceived in vitro using Sally’s sperm and a donated egg.

But the marriage soured in mid-term about the time Shepherd lost her job with The View. According to one tabloid explanation, she was worried he would contribute little to parenting responsibilities.  Sally filed for separation in 2014, Shepherd filed for divorce a few days, then Sally sued for sole custody, then alimony and child support.

Earlier this year she told PEOPLE she had gone along with the surrogacy to prevent the breakup of the marriage and had not really wanted the child.

Shepherd, an avowed Christian who once denied evolution on The View and a successful comic actor on Broadway, TV, and in film since the mid-90s, didn’t want anything to do with LJ, as Lamar named the boy, who after all carried none of her genes. She refused to be at bedside for the birth, and refused to let her name be put on the birth certificate and to shoulder any responsibility for LJ’s support.

But in April the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, and now the state’s Superior Court, ruled that Shepherd’s name must go on the birth certificate and she must pay Sally alimony and child support.

“The ultimate outcome is that this baby has two parents and the parents are Lamar Sally and Sherri Shepherd,” Shepherd’s lawyer Tiffany Palmer said.

As for the father, Sally told PEOPLE, “I'm glad it's finally over. I'm glad the judges saw through all the lies that she put out there, and the negative media attention. If she won't be there for L.J. emotionally, I'll be parent enough for the both of us.”

But Shepherd said, “I am appealing the ruling that happened,” though in the meantime, Sally will “get his settlement every month. There’s nothing I can do.”

Commented Fiano in Live Action News, “What’s so sickening about this case is that this little boy, whose life was created in a test tube, was treated as nothing more than a commodity…Saying that you don’t want a baby but will engineer one to get something you want is horrific.” As for trying to get out from child support payments now that the marriage had failed, that was “despicable.”

Fiano went on to characterize the Shepherd-Sally affair as a “notable example” of commodification of children, and “by no means an anomaly.” She cited a British report than over the past five years 123 babies conceived in vitro were callously aborted when they turned out to have Down Syndrome.

“When we’re not ready for babies, we have an abortion,” she added. “But then when we decide we are ready we manufacture them in a laboratory and destroy any extras. Children exist when we want them to exist, to fill the holes in us that we want them to fill, instead of being independent lives with their own inherent value and dignity.”

Share this article


Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook