Featured Image
'I don't think any parent wants a son with a disability,' David Farnell told 60 Minutes, with his wife Wendy sitting at his side.
John Jalsevac John Jalsevac Follow John

Couple who abandoned surrogate baby with Down’s: we wanted refund, abortion

John Jalsevac John Jalsevac Follow John
By John Jalsevac

The Australian couple accused of abandoning their surrogate son in Thailand after he was born with Down syndrome have admitted that they would have preferred that the baby would have been aborted.

"If it would have been safe for the embryo to have been terminated, we probably would have terminated it," David Farnell told 60 Minutes in an extensive interview this weekend.

"I don't think any parent wants a son with a disability," he added, his wife Wendy sitting at his side. “Parents want their children to be healthy and happy and be able to do everything that every other children [sic] do.”

The couple also revealed that they asked the Bangkok-based surrogacy agency for a refund after learning that the baby suffered from Down’s.

"I said: 'Give us back our money. This is your fault,'" David said, explaining that they didn’t find out about the Down’s diagnosis until late in the pregnancy, at which point an abortion would have been risky. "We were very confused and we said that 'this is your fault. You must now take some responsibility for this.'" 

But despite the admission, the couple insisted that they never told the Thai surrogate mother to abort the boy, as she has claimed, and that they never abandoned him.

The Farnells’ story has captured international headlines and forced the couple into hiding after Pattharamon Janbua told Thai media how the pair paid her around $12,000 to act as a surrogate mother.

But when Pattharamon eventually gave birth to twins, the Farnells only took one of the children – a healthy girl – back with them to Australia, while the other child, named Gammy, remained behind with the surrogate mother.

The Farnells claimed in the 60 Minutes interview that they didn’t abandon Gammy and intended to go back to fetch him later.  

“The surrogate mother wanted to take our girl, and we were getting scared that we were going to lose her,” David said. “We had to try and get out as fast as we could.”

The couple vowed that they would go to Thailand to reclaim Gammy, even as they admitted that in the past six months since the baby’s birth they haven’t taken any steps to do so.

For her part Pattharamon has vowed in response that they will never get him back.

"I want them to come to Thailand. I will take Gammy to see them. But they will never get my boy," she told the Sydney Morning Herald.

"You are dreaming. You are already guilty of abandoning Gammy and now you think you can get away with this."

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Gammy has suffered from numerous serious health complications, leaving Pattharamon and her husband struggling to pay for his medical bills.

After news of her predicament broke in international media, a “Hope for Gammy” fund was created, which has brought in over $240,000 in donations to date.

The Farnells, already one of the most hated couples in the world, further lost the sympathy of the public when media learned that David was convicted in the late 90s of numerous child sex offenses against girls as young as seven years old.

In the tense, emotional interview, 60 Minutes also grilled David about his past offenses, asking him whether the Farnells’ surrogate daughter would be safe in their care.

He claimed that the urges to sexually abuse children have “100 percent” stopped.

“I cannot do this again. I can't do this,” he said. “I know that I do not have any urges at all of this nature. For 30 years I've known this. I don't have any urges."

Meanwhile, the case is drawing scrutiny against the largely unregulated international surrogate trade, in which wealthy Westerners often travel to Asian countries and pay poorer women to carry their children.

In response to the case, Thai officials are cracking down on the paid surrogacy trade. A draft law has already reportedly been submitted that would ban commercial surrogacy. 

Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott has said that the case is “sad,” and “illustrates some of the pitfalls involved in this particular business.”

Meanwhile, Pattharamon is warning other Thai woman to avoid the siren call of easy cash from foreigners. 

“I would like to tell Thai women – don’t get into this business as a surrogate,” she told Fairfax Media last week. “Don’t just think only for money - if something goes wrong no one will help us and the baby will be abandoned from society, then we have to take responsibility for that.”

FREE pro-life and pro-family news.

Stay up-to-date on the issues you care about the most. Subscribe today. 

Select Your Edition:


Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Lisa Bourne

,

Pressure mounts as Catholic Relief Services fails to act on VP in gay ‘marriage’

Lisa Bourne
By Lisa Bourne
Image
Rick Estridge, Catholic Relief Services' Vice President of Overseas Finance, is in a same-sex "marriage," public records show. Twitter

BALTIMORE, MD, April 24, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- Nearly a week after news broke that a Catholic Relief Services vice president had contracted a homosexual “marriage” while also publicly promoting homosexuality on social media in conflict with Church teaching, the US Bishops international relief agency has taken no apparent steps to address the matter and is also not talking.

CRS Vice President of Overseas Finance Rick Estridge entered into a homosexual “marriage” in Maryland the same month in 2013 that he was promoted by CRS to vice president, public records show.

Despite repeated efforts at a response, CRS has not acknowledged LifeSiteNews’ inquiries during the week. And the agency told ChurchMilitant.com Thursday that no action had been taken beyond discussion of the situation and CRS would have no further comment.

"Nothing has changed,” CRS Senior Manager for Communications Tom said. “No further statement will be made."

LifeSiteNews first contacted CRS for a response prior to the April 20 release of the report and did not receive a reply, however Estridge’s Facebook and LinkeIn profiles were then removed just prior to the report’s release.

CRS also did not acknowledge LifeSiteNews’ follow-up inquiry later in the week.

“Having an executive who publicly celebrates a moral abomination shows the ineffectiveness of CRS' Catholic identity training,” Lepanto Institute President Michael Hichborn told LifeSiteNews. “How many others who hate Catholic moral teaching work at CRS?”

CRS did admit it was aware Estridge was in a “same-sex civil marriage” to Catholic News Agency (CNA) Monday afternoon, and confirmed he was VP of Overseas Finance and had been with CRS for 16 years.

“At this point we are in deliberations on this matter,” Price told CNA that day.

ChurchMilitant.com also reported that according to its sources, it was a well-known fact at CRS headquarters in Baltimore that Estridge was in a homosexual “marriage.” 

“There is no way CRS didn't know one of its executives entered into a mock-marriage until we broke the story,” Hichborn said. “The implication is clear; CRS top brass had no problem with having an executive so deliberately flouting Catholic moral teaching.”

“The big question is,” Hichborn continued, “what other morally repugnant matters is CRS comfortable with?”

While the wait continues for the Bishops’ relief organization to address the matter, those behind the report and other critics of prior instances of CRS involvement in programs and groups that violate Church principles continue to call for a thorough and independent review of the agency programs and personnel.

“How long should it take to call an employee into your office, tell him that his behavior is incompatible with the mission of the organization, and ask for his resignation?” asked Population Research Institute President Steven Mosher. “About thirty minutes, I would say.”

“The Catholic identity of CRS is at stake,” Hichborn stated. “If CRS does nothing, then there is no way faithful Catholics can trust the integrity of CRS's programs or desire to make its Catholicity preeminent.” 

Advertisement
Featured Image
Thousands of marriage activists gathered in D.C. June 19, 2014 for the 2nd March for Marriage. Dustin Siggins / LifeSiteNews.com
The Editors

, ,

Watch the March for Marriage online—only at LifeSiteNews

The Editors
By

WASHINGTON, D.C., April 24, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- At noon on Saturday, the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) and dozens of cosponsors, coalition partners, and speakers will launch the third annual March for Marriage. Thousands of people are expected to take place in this important event to show the support real marriage has among the American people.

As the sole media sponsor of the March, LifeSiteNews is proud to exclusively livestream the March. Click here to see the rally at noon Eastern Time near the U.S. Capitol, and the March to the Supreme Court at 1:00 Eastern Time.

And don't forget to pray that God's Will is done on Tuesday, when the Supreme Court hears arguments about marriage!

Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

, ,

Hillary Clinton: ‘Religious beliefs’ against abortion ‘have to be changed’

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben
By Ben Johnson

NEW YORK CITY, April 24, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Speaking to an influential gathering in New York City on Thursday, Hillary Clinton declared that “religious beliefs” that condemn "reproductive rights," “have to be changed.”

“Yes, we've cut the maternal mortality rate in half, but far too many women are still denied critical access to reproductive health,” Hillary told the Women in the World Summit yesterday.

Liberal politicians use “reproductive health” as a blanket term that includes abortion. However, Hillary's reference echoes National Organization for Women (NOW) president Terry O’Neill's op-ed from last May that called abortion “an essential measure to prevent the heartbreak of infant mortality.”

The Democratic presidential hopeful added that governments should throw the power of state coercion behind the effort to redefine traditional religious dogmas.

“Rights have to exist in practice, not just on paper. Laws have to be backed up with resources, and political will,” she said. “Deep-seated cultural codes, religious beliefs, and structural biases have to be changed.”

The line received rousing applause at the feminist conference, hosted in Manhattan's Lincoln Center by Tina Brown.

She also cited religious-based objections to the HHS mandate, funding Planned Parenthood, and the homosexual and transgender agenda as obstacles that the government must defeat.

“America moves ahead when all women are guaranteed the right to make their own health care choices, not when those choices are taken away by an employer like Hobby Lobby,” she said. The Supreme Court ruled last year that closely held corporations had the right to opt out of the provision of ObamaCare requiring them to provide abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives, and sterilization to employees with no co-pay – a mandate that violates the teachings of the Catholic Church and other Christian bodies.

Clinton lamented that “there are those who offer themselves as leaders...who would defund the country's leading provider of family planning,” Planned Parenthood, “and want to let health insurance companies once again charge women just because of our gender.”

“We move forward when gay and transgender women are embraced...not fired from good jobs because of who they love or who they are,” she added.

It is not the first time the former first lady had said that liberal social policies should displace religious views. In a December 2011 speech in Geneva, then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said perhaps the “most challenging issue arises when people cite religious or cultural values as a reason to violate or not to protect the human rights of LGBT citizens.” These objections, she said, are “not unlike the justification offered for violent practices towards women like honor killings, widow burning, or female genital mutilation.”

While opinions on homosexuality are “still evolving,” in time “we came to learn that no [religious] practice or tradition trumps the human rights that belong to all of us.”

Her views, if outside the American political mainstream, have been supported by the United Nations. The UN Population Fund stated in its 2012 annual report that religious objections to abortion-inducing drugs had to be overcome. According to the UNFPA report, “‘duty-bearers’ (governments and others)” have a responsibility to assure that all forms of contraception – including sterilization and abortion-inducing ‘emergency contraception’ – are viewed as acceptable – “But if they are not acceptable for cultural, religious or other reasons, they will not be used.”

Two years later, the United Nations' Committee on the Rights of the Child instructed the Vatican last February that the Catholic Church should amend canon law “relating to abortion with a view to identifying circumstances under which access to abortion services may be permitted.”

At Thursday's speech, Hillary called the legal, state-enforced implementation of feminist politics “the great unfinished business of the 21st century,” which must be accomplished “not just for women but for everyone — and not just in far away countries but right here in the United States.”

“These are not just women's fights. These have to be America's fights and the world's fights,” she said. “There's still much to be done in our own country, much more to be done around the world, but I'm confident and optimistic that if we get to work, we will get it done together.”

American critics called Clinton's suggestion that a nation founded upon freedom of religion begin using state force to change religious practices unprecedented.

“Never before have we seen a presidential candidate be this bold about directly confronting the Catholic Church's teachings on abortion,” said Bill Donohue of the Catholic League.

“In one sense, this shows just how extreme the pro-abortion caucus actually is,” Ed Morrissey writes at HotAir.com. “Running for president on the basis of promising to use the power of government to change 'deep seated cultural codes [and] religious beliefs' might be the most honest progressive slogan in history.”

He hoped that, now that she had called for governments to change religious doctrines, “voters will now see the real Hillary Clinton, the one who dismisses their faith just the same as Obama did, and this time publicly rather than in a private fundraiser.”

Donohue asked Hillary “to take the next step and tell us exactly what she plans to do about delivering on her pledge. Not only would practicing Catholics like to know, so would Evangelicals, Orthodox Jews, Muslims, and all those who value life from conception to natural death.”

You may watch Hillary's speech below.

Her comments on religion begin at approximately 9:00. 

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook