Peter Baklinski

Pressured to abort twin daughters, woman fights India’s sex-selective abortion epidemic

Peter Baklinski
Peter Baklinski

NEW DELHI, India, December 14, 2011 ( – A woman who says she was pressured, even to the point of torture, by her husband and in-laws to abort her twin daughters, has taken her grievance to India’s legal system, filing a complaint against her relatives and giving a face to the victims of India’s epidemic of sex-selective abortions in the process.

“Female foeticide is a thriving industry in India,” writes Mitu Khurana, whose story has attracted widespread media attention, on her blog. “The practice is rampant. Private clinics with ultrasound machines and other latest technologies are doing brisk business, making a complete mockery of law. Everywhere, people are paying to know the sex of an unborn child and paying more to abort the female child. The technology has even reached remote areas through facilities like mobile clinics.”

When Mitu, 34, a pediatrician by trade, became pregnant with twins in January of 2005, she says her mother-in-law demanded that she undergo tests to determine the sex of the twins. However, Mitu refused to have the sex-indicator ultrasound, a practice that India prohibited in 1994 to try to curb the widespread cultural practice of female feticide.

Mitu’s refusal triggered a response from her husband and in-laws that she says amounted to torture. In an account of her trials on her blog, Mitu claims that, furious at her insubordination, her husband and in-laws denied her food and water, trying to break her will and force her to submit to the ultrasound. She still would not budge, however.

Her husband finally achieved his purpose through deception. Knowing that Mitu was allergic to eggs, he baked her a cake with eggs, assuring her that it was safe for her to eat. That night, Mitu reacted to the poisoned cake and was taken to the hospital the next morning. There her husband persuaded the gynecologist, without Mitu’s knowledge or consent, to perform a fetal ultrasound and to make it look like it was part of the assessment.

When Mitu was found to be pregnant with twin girls, both husband and in-laws pressured her to abort her babies.

“My mother-in-law even told me that my two daughters would be a big burden on the family and I should get them aborted,” she wrote on her blog. “If not both, she said get at least one aborted. When I refused she said at least give one of them for adoption.”

Join a Facebook page to end abortion here

Mitu says her husband began to completely ignore her, and demanded that she take a paternity test since he refused to believe that he could be the father of not one, but two daughters.

One night the enraged husband threw Mitu out of her own home, telling her to go live with her parents.

Mitu finally delivered two daughters in August, two months premature. Her in-laws begrudgingly visited her in the hospital nine days after the births.

For the sake of her daughters, the young mother says she tried her best to save her marriage, even attempting to return to her former life at home, but her efforts were unsuccessful.

“I had no help in looking after the children. There was no love or respect for the children or me. I was not even sure my children and I would be safe there.”

Mitu began to fear for her daughters’ lives, especially after allegedly witnessing her mother-in-law push her 4-month old baby down a staircase, which Mitu claims was deliberate, although her mother-in-law said it was an accident. Fortunately Mitu was able to reach out and save her baby from harm.

By March 2008 Mitu’s husband had abandoned his wife and daughters. He asked her for a “mutual consent divorce” telling her that he wanted to remarry and have sons.

In April of 2008, Mitu turned to the law, seeking justice for herself and her daughters. She filed a complaint to the Women’s Commissions and the health minister, but received no response.

Finally, she filed a complaint under the Pre-Conception and Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act (PC-PNDT) accusing her husband of arranging her illegal ultrasound while she suffered the effects of the egg-poisoning in the hospital.

Her case finally received some governmental attention after it was highlighted by local media.

At a hearing with the District Appropriate Authority, Mitu says she felt slighted when she was told that the “law needs to be explored,” that she should try to reconcile with her husband, and that she could always get pregnant again and fulfill the wish of her husband for a son.

To this day, Mitu says she remains disappointed with the attitude of government authorities towards the plight of baby girls and their mothers’ who try to keep them safe. She believes that those who heard her case sided with the culprits.

“I filed the first police complaint during my pregnancy and have been filing since then. But, … the police have taken no solid step towards nabbing the culprits. Instead, they are taking sides with the offenders,” she said.

“My husband and in-laws were given a clean chit [official note]. I have been threatened many times and persuaded to withdraw the case and told to reconcile with them.”

“The judiciary should be sensitive and take a stand. It has been more than 14 years since the PCPNDT Act was implemented and the sex-ratio in our country is still falling,” she said.

Mitu’s public stand against the prevailing anti-girl values in Indian have now cost the young mother her job.

“Every authority, be it in the police, the judiciary, or the hospital where I was working, are trying to force me to withdraw my cases. It was due to this harassment and certain threats that I had to leave my job recently.”

Despite all the cultural forces that are against her, the young mother says she believes that her daughters and the daughters of India are worth fighting for.

“When my babies hadn’t even entered the world, their end was already being planned by my relatives who didn’t want girl children. They illegally obtained information about the sex of my babies while I was still pregnant and I was pressurized to have an abortion. I wasn’t going to give up without a fight.”

“I hope for a system that’s kinder to women and not just one that says it is,” said Mitu, adding that it is her “dearest dream to bring around the justice I’ve been seeking for my children as soon as possible.”

Mitu hopes that foreign pressure will wake up India’s government who she says “believes in speaking in front of media and harassing anybody who dares speak against them or the system.”

“Even if I can inspire one woman to fight for herself, I would be a proud woman,” she said.

Mitu Khurana is alleged to be the first woman in New Delhi to file a case against her husband and in-laws under India’s 1994 Pre-Natal Diagnostic Techniques Act. Delhi courts have yet to give her the justice she demands for herself and her daughters.

Contact the High Commission of India in Canada here.

Contact Embassy of India in USA here.

Contact India Government here.

Share this article

Featured Image
Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin

, ,

Clinton: US needs to help refugee rape victims… by funding their abortions

Dustin Siggins Dustin Siggins Follow Dustin
By Dustin Siggins

CLINTON, Iowa, November 25, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – Leading Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton said on Sunday that U.S. taxpayers should be on the hook for abortions for refugees impregnated through rape.

"I do think we have to take a look at this for conflict zones," Clinton said at an Iowa town hall, according to CNN. "And if the United States government, because of very strong feelings against it, maintains our prohibition, then we are going to have to work through non-profit groups and work with other counties to ... provide the support and medical care that a lot of these women need."

Clinton also said that "systematic use of rape as a tool of war and subjection is one that has been around from the beginning of history" but that it has become "even more used by a lot of the most vicious militias and insurgent groups and terrorist groups."

The prohibition referenced by Clinton – and named by the woman who asked Clinton about pregnant refugees – is known as the Helms Amendment. Made into law in 1973, it prevents U.S. foreign aid funds from being used for abortion.

Abortion supporters have urged the Obama administration to unilaterally change its interpretation of the amendment to allow exceptions for pregnancies resulting from rape and incest, and if the mother's life is in danger. They argue that because the law specifically states that "[n]o foreign assistance funds may be used to pay for the performance of abortion as a method of family planning," women who are raped should be excepted.

Click "like" if you are PRO-LIFE!

In August, 81 Democrats signed a letter to President Obama that urged this course of action. CNN reported that while Clinton didn't call for the Helms Amendment to be changed or re-interpreted, she did support other actions to increase women's access to abortion facilities.

If the United States "can't help them [to get an abortion], then we have to help them in every other way and to get other people to at least provide the options" to women raped in conflict, she said.

"They will be total outcasts if they have the child of a terrorist or the child of a militia member," according to Clinton. "Their families won't take them, their communities won't take them."

A study of women who bore their rape-conceived children during the Rwanda genocide found that "motherhood played a positive role for many women, often providing a reason to live again after the genocide."

Featured Image
Cardinal George Pell Patrick Craine / LifeSiteNews
Andrew Guernsey

, ,

Cardinal Pell bets against the odds: insists Pope Francis will strongly reaffirm Catholic tradition

Andrew Guernsey
By Andrew Guernsey


ROME, November 25, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) -- Contradicting the statements of some of the pope’s closest advisors, the Vatican’s financial chief Cardinal George Pell has declared that Pope Francis will re-assert and “clarify” longstanding Church teaching and discipline that prohibits Communion for the divorced and civilly remarried in public adultery without sacramental confession and amendment of life.

In a homily on Monday, Pell stressed the importance of fidelity to the pope, especially today as “we continue to look also to the successor of St. Peter as that guarantee of unity in doctrine and practice.”

Pell was offering Mass at the Basilica of San Clemente in Rome on the feast of Pope St. Clement I, notable in history for being one of the first popes to exert Roman papal primacy to correct the errors in the doctrine and abuses in discipline which other bishops were allowing.

Turning to address the issues at the Synod on the Family, Pell rebuked those who “wanted to say of the recent Synod, that the Church is confused and confusing in her teaching on the question of marriage,” and he insisted that the Church will always remain faithful to “Jesus’ own teaching about adultery and divorce” and “St. Paul’s teaching on the proper dispositions to receive communion.” Pell argues that the possibility of Communion for those in adultery is “not even mentioned in the Synod document.”

Pell asserted that Pope Francis is preparing “to clarify for the faithful what it means to follow the Lord…in His Church in our World.” He said, “We now await the Holy Father’s apostolic exhortation, which will express again the Church’s essential tradition and emphasize that the appeal to discernment and the internal forum can only be used to understand better God’s will as taught in the scriptures and by the magisterium and can never be used to disregard, distort or refute established Church teaching.”

STORY: Vatican Chief of Sacraments: No pope can change divine law on Communion

The final document of the synod talks about the “internal forum” in paragraphs 84-86, refers to private discussions between a parish priest and a member of the faithful, to educate and form their consciences and to determine the “possibility of fuller participation in the life of the Church,” based on their individual circumstances and Church teaching. The selective quoting of John Paul II’s Familiaris Consortio that omitted his statement ruling out the possibility of Communion for those in public adultery has given liberals hope that this “fuller participation” could include reception of Communion.

Pell’s prediction that the pope will side with the orthodox side of this controversy lends two explanations. On one reading, Pell is uncertain what the pope will do in his post-synodal exhortation, but he is using such firm language as a way of warning the pope that he must clearly uphold Church teaching and practice, or else he would risk falling into heresy at worst or grave negligence at best in upholding the unity of the Church.

On another reading, Pell may have inside information, even perhaps from the pope himself, that he will uphold Church teaching and practice on Communion for those in public adultery, that the pope’s regular confidants apparently do not have.

This hypothesis, however, is problematic in that just last week, Pope Francis suggested that Lutherans may “go forward” to receive Holy Communion, contrary to canon law, if they come to a decision on their own, which suggests agreement with the reformers’ line of argument about “conscience.” And earlier last month, the pope granted an interview to his friend Eugenio Scalfari, who quoted the pope as promising to allow those in adultery back to Communion without amendment of life, even though the Vatican refused to confirm the authenticity of the quote since Scalfari does not use notes.

If Pell actually knew for certain what the pope would do, it would also seem to put Pell’s knowledge above that of Cardinal Robert Sarah, who in what could be a warning to Pope Francis, declared last week in no uncertain terms that “Not even a pope can dispense from such a divine law” as the prohibition of public adulterers from Holy Communion.

STORY: Papal confidant signals Pope Francis will allow Communion for the ‘remarried’

Several members of the pope’s inner circle have said publicly that the controversial paragraphs 84-86 of the Synod final document have opened the door for the Holy Father to allow Communion in these cases if he so decides. Fr. Antonio Spadaro, SJ, a close friend of Pope Francis and the editor of La Civita Catholica, a prominent Jesuit journal in Rome reviewed by the Vatican Secretariat of State, wrote this week that the internal forum solution for the divorced in adultery is a viable one:

The Ordinary Synod has thus laid the bases for access to the sacraments [for the divorced and civilly remarried], opening a door that had remained closed in the preceding Synod. It was not even possible, one year ago, to find a clear majority with reference to the debate on this topic, but that is what happened in 2015. We are therefore entitled to speak of a new step.

Spadaro’s predictions and interpretation of the Synod are consistent with the public statements of liberal prelates, some of whom are close confidantes to Pope Francis, including Cardinal Schönborn, Cardinal Wuerl, Cardinal Kasper, Cardinal Nichols, and the head of the Jesuit order, Fr. Nicolás. Fr. Nicolás, in particular, first confirmed that there would be an apostolic exhortation of the pope, and said of Communion for those in public adultery:

The Pope’s recommendation is not to make theories, such as not lumping the divorced and remarried together, because priests have to make a judgment on a case by case and see the situation, the circumstances, what happens, and depending on this decision one thing or the other. There are no general theories which translate into an iron discipline required at all. The fruit of discernment means that you study each case and try to find merciful ways out.

Although in the best analysis, Pell’s prediction about what Pope Francis may do in his post-synodal apostolic exhortation remains just that-- a prediction—he is drawing a line in the sand that if the pope chooses to cross, would bring the barque of Peter into uncharted waters, where the danger of shipwreck is a very real threat.


Featured Image
Lianne Laurence


Jennifer Lawrence just smeared traditional Christians in the worst way

Lianne Laurence
By Lianne Laurence

November 25, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – It’s no surprise that yet another Hollywood star is mouthing the usual liberal platitudes, but the fact that this time around it’s Jennifer Lawrence, a mega-star and lead in blockbuster series Hunger Games, brings a particular sting of disappointment.

That’s because the 25-year-old, effervescent and immensely talented star often comes across not only as very likable, but also as someone capable of independent thought.

But apparently not.

Or at least not when it comes to Kim Davis, the Kentucky clerk famously thrown in jail for refusing to obey a judge’s order that she sign marriage licenses for homosexual couples.

Davis, Lawrence tells Vogue in its November issue, is that “lady who makes me embarrassed to be from Kentucky.”

“Don’t even say her name in this house,” the actress told Vogue writer Jonathan van Meter in an interview that happened to take place the day after Davis was released from her five-day stint in jail.

Lawrence then went on a “rant” about “all those people holding their crucifixes, which may as well be pitchforks, thinking they’re fighting the good fight.”

RELATED STORY: Wrong, Jennifer Lawrence! Real men don’t need porn, and women don’t need to give it to them

She was brought up Republican, she told van Meter, “but I just can’t imagine supporting a party that doesn’t support women’s basic rights. It’s 2015 and gay people can get married and we think that we’ve come so far, so, yay! But have we? I don’t want to stay quiet about that stuff.”

After conjuring up images of Christians as bug-eyed hillbillies on a witchhunt with her reference to “crucifixes as pitchforks,” Lawrence added darkly: “I grew up in Kentucky. I know how they are.”

Perhaps one should infer that it’s lucky for Lawrence she escaped to Los Angeles and its enlightened culture. That hallowed place where, according to van Meter, Kris Jenner (former spouse of Bruce Jenner, who infamously declared himself a woman) brought Lawrence a cake for her birthday that was shaped like excrement and inscribed: “Happy birthday, you piece of sh*t!”

Lawrence is reportedly now Hollywood’s most highly paid actress. Not only is she the star of the hugely popular and lucrative Hunger Games franchise -- the last installment of which, Mockingjay, Part 2 opened November 20 -- but she won an Oscar for Silver Linings Playbook and starred in several others since her breakout role in the 2010 moving and moody indie film, Winter’s Bone.

Lawrence has every right to express her opinion, although no doubt it will be given more weight than it deserves. It is unfortunate, however, that she’s chosen to wield her fame, shall we say, as a pitchfork against Christian moral truths.



Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook