Hilary White Hilary White Follow Hilary

,

Irish gvmt ‘torn apart’ over abortion legalisation: leaders desperate to quash cross-party revolt

Hilary White Hilary White Follow Hilary
By Hilary White
Image

DUBLIN, Ireland July 26, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Leading party insiders are expressing fears that the fragile coalition government will be “torn apart” if it continues to insist on liberalising the abortion law. Signs are increasing of growing tensions across party boundaries over demands from the left for legalisation.

The chairman of the ruling party, Fine Gael’s Charles Flanagan, told the heavily left-leaning Irish Independent last weekend that the government is running the risk of getting “bogged down in a liberal crusade during a time of high unemployment and economic difficulties.”

He said the party fears strife and division and “ultimate defeat” over it. “The parallels between last week and the eighties, or the errors of the Greens in the last government, are not going un-noticed.”

The Independent’s John Drennan reports that “the Government will face a large-scale, cross-party revolt of Fine Gael and Labour TDs and senators should they attempt to liberalise Ireland’s abortion regime via the legislative route.” The report follows revelations last week that the ruling party is in turmoil over abortion, with 15 backbenchers threatening a full-scale revolt.

Drennan says, however, that opposition “is far more widespread,” in the government ranks, and “far more than two” coalition TDs will resign over it should legislation be put forward. Opposition is reportedly so widespread that the government would have to secure support across parties, an outcome that is growing increasingly unlikely.

The Independent quoted an unnamed source in closed-door meetings who said, “The Taoiseach’s [Prime Minister’s] handlers are very paranoid. The usual suspects were on the phones, quelling dissent and warning people.”

Sources have revealed that even in the Labour party, whose leader Eamon Gilmore has stated that the country must legalise abortion, support is far from unanimous. The Independent quotes one Labour TD complaining of “the excessive influence of a pro-choice wing led by a Dublin elite.”  A letter signed by a group of Labour TDs said, “The attitudes of a Dublin liberal elite are not representative of the complex and diverse stance on this issue that is contained within the Labour Party.” Another party source said that should Gilmore attempt to force the issue, “it will take a fair man to bring us all to heel on a matter involving our personal consciences.”

While the coalition government is struggling under the pressure of the unpopular abortion issue, added to the country’s growing economic distress, the former leading party, Fianna Fáil, is waiting in the wings. Micheál Martin, Fianna Fáil’s leader, has strongly reiterated their opposition to legislating for abortion. He told the Irish Examiner on the 23rd that he “remains to be convinced that it’s a doable proposition” to bring in a new abortion law based on the 1992 X case.

Such legislation, he said, could open the door to abortion in more widespread circumstances than the Supreme Court intended. The court ruled that abortion is allowable in cases where the woman’s life is at risk, including in cases where she has threatened suicide. The decision was condemned by abortion opponents as a major breach in the country’s legal protections for the unborn.

Martin’s comments follow those of Minister of State at the Department of Health, Kathleen Lynch, who told RTÉ radio this weekend that she believes the government will “have no choice” but to bring forward legislation. “Clearly, there will be differences [of opinion] but, in terms of legislation, in this particular instance, we won’t have a choice,” Lynch said.

Asked whether the Health Minister, Dr. James Reilly, should go forward with legislation, Martin said, “It’s not as black and white as is being portrayed, and I’m not so sure that that route necessarily is going to lead to a significant improvement for anybody.

“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.”

All parties are waiting for the findings of an “expert group” on the question, but the group has had to fight heavy criticism that the government has “stacked” it with abortion supporters. Currently, abortion is outlawed in the country by a constitutional amendment, which can only be changed by a public referendum. Abortion-promoters have been working to find a way around the referendum requirement since polls continue to show that the public desire to see abortion legalised remains negligible. 

Fianna Fáil are waiting with everyone else for the outcome of the expert group’s report, but Martin reiterated the party’s opposition to abortion, saying it “hasn’t changed” and “is not going to change.” “The right to life is something we believe in as a political party,” he said.

At the same time, pro-life observers have called the government’s bluff, calling the “no choice” claim “disingenuous”. Patrick Buckley, the European Union and Dublin representative of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, said, “This statement is clearly disingenuous since the Expert Group is tasked with producing a range of options for consideration by the government not to recommend one particular course of action.”
 
Moreover, Buckley said, the ECHR ruling said nothing about requiring legalisation, but only that there should be “clarity” on the current law.

“Those seeking to introduce abortion in Ireland are intentionally distorting the A, B and C judgment to support their own agenda while ignoring another important fact, namely, that Ireland, without abortion, is the safest place in the world for pregnant women,” Buckley added.

In a 2002 referendum then-ruling Fianna Fáil unsuccessfully proposed removing suicide as a legal ground for abortion. Martin said, “We felt the suicide option — if you legislate for that, you’re essentially creating an open-door situation, and it will be very difficult to hold back.”

While it is thought to be impossible to change the law through a referendum, activists have been hammering on the issue by the “back door,” through the courts and medical practice guidelines in the Republic and in Northern Ireland. The most successful wedge so far was the case brought by abortion lobby groups to the European Court of Human Rights, the A, B and C case, in which three women complained that they had been denied abortions.

The ECHR ruled in 2010 that although there was no requirement for legalisation of abortion, the Irish government had violated women’s rights to privacy and must issue legislation to clarify under what circumstances exactly abortion could be allowed with regards to the notorious X case.

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
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

, , , ,

The first pro-abortion Republican enters the 2016 presidential race

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben
By Ben Johnson

EXETER, NH, May 28, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The large and expanding field of would-be Republican presidential candidates grew by one today, as George Pataki became the first GOP presidential hopeful this election season to openly support abortion-on-demand.

The 69-year-old long-shot candidate also has a history of supporting homosexual legislative causes.

In the weeks leading up to his formal announcement, George Pataki took out TV ads asking Republicans to refrain from talking about abortion and gay “marriage,” branding them “distractions.”

“In 12 years [as governor], I don’t think I talked about that issue twice,” he once said of abortion.

On same-sex “marriage,” he says, “I think, leave it to the states. I don’t think it’s a role in Washington.”

However, Pataki has a long history of enacting the homosexual political agenda as governor of New York from 1994-2006. He signed a “hate crimes” law that added the words “gay” and “lesbian” to New York state law for the first time.

He signed the Sexual Orientation Nondiscrimination Act (SONDA), which prohibits business owners from “discriminating” against homosexuals in housing or hiring, with an exemption only for religious institutions.

He also added sexual orientation to state civil rights laws, alongside such immutable characteristics as race and sex, in an apparent quid pro quo for a gay activist group's endorsement in his last run for governor. The New York Times reported that, under pressure from Pataki, then then-Senate Majority Leader “shifted his position on the bill as part of what is tacitly acknowledged, even by Senator [Joseph] Bruno's senior aides, to have been a deal to win an endorsement for Governor Pataki from the state's largest gay rights group, the Empire State Pride Agenda.”

After the LGBT activist group endorsed Pataki in 2002, citing a long list of his service to the homosexual political cause, Pataki personally lobbied senators for the bill's passage, then signed it into law that December.

Coupled with his stance on gun control, environmentalism, and other issues, he stands well to the left of the Republican mainstream.

The three-term governor of New York, who belongs to the Roman Catholic Church, took his own advice by largely avoiding social issues today. The closest he came was his vow, “I'd repeal oppressive laws like ObamaCare and end Common Core.”

He added that he would “fire every current IRS employee abusing government power to discriminate on the basis of politics or religion. That is not America!”

Otherwise, Pataki's announcement speech hewed to stand pat Republican issues like reducing taxes, shrinking the number of federal employees, increasing military spending, and supporting entrepreneurship.

He began by thanking his supporters, in English and Spanish.

Smiling, his head pivoting between twin teleprompters, he said, “Let me tell you some of the things I'd do right away to get oppressive government off the backs of Americans.”

He would institute a lifetime ban on congressmen acting as lobbyists after they leave office. “If you ever served one day in Congress, you will never be a lobbyist,” he said. He favors forcing Congress to live under the laws it passes, so there will be “no special rules for the powerful.”

He cited his history of cutting taxes, reducing welfare rolls, and leaving his state with billions of dollars in surplus. “That's what our policies can do,” he said. “I know we can do the same thing for the United States.”

In recent weeks, he has called for a more interventionist foreign policy in the Middle East. Today, he reminded his audience that he was governor of New York in 9/11. “I will not fear the lesson of September 11,” he said. “To protect us, first we must protect the border,” he said – an unexpected phrase, as Pataki supports amnesty for the at least 11 million illegal immigrants already in the United States.

“We will stand with our ally, Israel, a democracy on the front lines of terror and barbarism,” he said.

Like former Sen. Rick Santorum, who announced he is running for president yesterday, Pataki agreed that “if necessary, American forces will be used to actually defeat and destroy ISIS on the ground – although he promised not to become “the world's policeman.”

Some of his campaign promises drew skepticism, such as seeking to develop self-driving cars and to cure Alzheimer's disease and cancer within the next decade.

The speech's venue was chosen deliberately by Pataki, who considered entering the presidential race in 2000, 2008, and 2012. The town of Exeter, New Hampshire, claims to be the founding place of the Republican Party. (Ripon, Wisconsin, makes a similar claim.)

More importantly, the first-in-the-nation primary skews more libertarian on social issues than evangelical-dominated Iowa and South Carolina, so Pataki has essentially staked his candidacy on doing well in New Hampshire. Fellow pro-abortion Republican Rudy Giuliani made a similar bet in 2008, banking on a good showing among transplanted New Yorkers in the Florida primary. He left the race after finishing a distant third.

Short of a stunning upset in the Granite State, Pataki has little chance of breaking through the pack this year. A Fox News poll ranks him dead last among 16 announced and potential candidates. Holly Bailey of Yahoo! News said, “George Pataki would never say this, but you do have to wonder if he's sort of, maybe, gaming for vice president.”

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

Pataki is not the first “pro-choice” Republican to run for president.  Giuliani (who supported partial birth abortion) and Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore (another potential 2016 candidate, who supports abortion during the first trimester) ran in 2008. Twelve years earlier, both California Gov. Pete Wilson and Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter supported abortion-on-demand. Arlen Specter later left the party and became a Democrat.

In 1988, General Alexander Haig opposed a human life amendment to the U.S. Constitution. So did Texas Gov. John Connally in 1980.

George H.W. Bush supported abortion and voted for Planned Parenthood funding early in his career but changed his position by the time he ran for president the second time, in 1988.

President Gerald Ford was the last Republican nominee to proclaim himself “pro-choice.” 

Advertisement
Featured Image
Steve Jalsevac / LifeSiteNews
Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete

, , , ,

Ireland ‘defied God’ by voting for gay ‘marriage’: Cardinal Burke

Pete Baklinski Pete Baklinski Follow Pete
By Pete Baklinski

OXFORD, May 28, 2015 (LifeSiteNews.com) -- Cardinal Raymond Burke lamented how formerly Catholic Ireland has gone further than the pagans in the pre-Christian days of old and “defied God” by calling homosexual behavior “marriage” in the referendum last week.

“I mean, this is a defiance of God. It’s just incredible. Pagans may have tolerated homosexual behaviours, they never dared to say this was marriage,” he told the Newman Society, Oxford University’s Catholic organization, in an address Wednesday about the intellectual heritage of Pope Benedict XVI. The Tablet, Britain’s liberal Catholic newspaper, reported his remarks.

On Friday, 1.2 million Irish people voted to amend the country’s constitution to say: “Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.” A little over 734,000 people voted against the proposal. 

Burke said that he could not understand “any nation redefining marriage.”

Click "like" to support Catholics Restoring the Culture!

The cardinal also emphasized the important role that parents play in protecting their children in a culture increasingly hostile to God’s laws. “The culture is thoroughly corrupted, if I may say so, and the children are being exposed to this, especially through the internet,” he said. One practical piece of advice that he offered families was to put computers in public areas to prevent children from “imbib[ing] this poison that’s out there.”

During the same Oxford visit, but during a homily at a Mass the day before, Burke called marriage between a man and woman a “fundamental truth” that has been “ignored, defied, and violated.”

Burke warned during the homily of the dangers of “various ideological currents” and of “human deception and trickery which strives to lead us into error.”

Advertisement
Featured Image
Shutterstock.com
John Stonestreet

,

Why young Christians can’t grasp our arguments against gay ‘marriage’

John Stonestreet
By John Stonestreet

May 28, 2015 (BreakPoint.org) -- For five years, Dr. Abigail Rine has been teaching a course on gender theory at George Fox University, an evangelical school in the Quaker tradition.

At the beginning of the semester, she tells her students that “they are guaranteed to read something they will find disagreeable, probably even offensive.”

Writing at FirstThings.com recently, she related how five years ago it was easy to find readings that challenged and even offended the evangelical college students “considering the secular bent of contemporary gender studies.”

But today, things are different. “Students now,” she says, “arrive in my class thoroughly versed in the language and categories of identity politics; they are reticent to disagree with anything for fear of seeming intolerant—except, of course, what they perceive to be intolerant.”

And what do they find “intolerant”? Well, in her class, an essay entitled “What is Marriage?” by Sherif Girgis, Robert George, and Ryan Anderson, which was the beginning of the book “What Is Marriage?: Man and Woman: A Defense.”

In their article, Girgis, George, and Anderson defend what they call the conjugal view of marriage. “Marriage,” they write, “is the union of a man and a woman who make a permanent and exclusive commitment to each other … that is naturally fulfilled by bearing and rearing children together.” They defend this view against what they call the “revisionist view” of marriage, which redefines marriage to include, among other things, same-sex couples.

“My students hate it,” Dr. Rine wrote. They “lambast the article.” “They also,” she adds, “seem unable to fully understand the argument.” And again, these are evangelical students at an evangelical school.

The only argument for conjugal marriage they’ve ever encountered has been the wooden proof-texting from the Bible. And besides, wrote Rine, “What the article names as a ‘revisionist’ idea of marriage—marriage as an emotional, romantic, sexual bond between two people—does not seem ‘new’ to my students at all, because this is the view of marriage they were raised with, albeit with a scriptural, heterosexual gloss.”

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

As Rine points out “the redefinition of marriage began decades ago” when “the link between sexuality and procreation was severed in our cultural imagination.”

And if marriage “has only an arbitrary relationship to reproduction,” then it seems mean-spirited to Rine’s students to argue that marriage by its very nature excludes same-sex couples.

And where do students get the idea that marriage “has only an arbitrary relationship to reproduction”? Well, everywhere—television, church, school, their homes, in youth groups.

Rine writes, “As I consider my own upbringing and the various ‘sex talks’ I encountered in evangelical church settings over the past twenty years, I realize that the view of marital sex presented there was primarily revisionist.”

In other words, once you say, “I do,” you get “the gift” of sex which is presented as “a ‘gift’ largely due to its [erotic], unitive properties, rather than its intrinsic capacity to create life.” Even in the Church, children have become an optional add-on to married life rather than its primary purpose.

What can we do to win back our children, our churches, and the culture? In our recent book “Same Sex Marriage,” Sean McDowell and I lay out a game plan. We offer strategies for the short-term and the long-term, with the ultimate goal: re-shaping the cultural imagination towards what God intended marriage to be, starting with the church. Come to BreakPoint.org to pick up your copy.

As Chuck Colson once said in a BreakPoint commentary about marriage, “We Christians are very good at saying ‘No.’ But we’ve got to get better at saying ‘Yes’: showing how God’s plan for humanity is a blessing. That His ways, including faithful, life-giving marriage between one man and one woman, lead to human flourishing physically, emotionally, and spiritually.”

I couldn’t agree more.

Reprinted with permission from Break Point.

Share this article

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook