Pro-life group’s graphic display censored by foes, attacked by friends
ROME, November 9, 2012, (LifeSiteNews.com) – The pioneering pro-life demonstration group Abort67 is making waves all over Britain with its photographic displays of aborted children, and they are being attacked by friend and foe alike for their troubles.
Fresh from their resounding court victories after being arrested last year for displaying the images in Brighton, Abort67 has moved on to a national platform with new groups forming around the country. Organisers have said that the publicity surrounding their case, including close coverage from the BBC and several national newspapers, was worth the trouble of the arrest and court case.
But not everyone in the pro-life community is pleased with the success of the graphic images strategy. After Abort67’s appearance at their campus, Bristol University Students for Life published an op-ed condemning and distancing themselves from the other group and the use of graphic images. The Students for Life mandate, they say, is the correct way to address the life issues, “from a secular and non-judgemental perspective”.
“Abort 67 and Bristol Students for Life both oppose abortion. That is where the similarities end,” the Bristol students’ group wrote.
“We shall be respectful, accepting and acting with the utmost tolerance towards both the society members, and members of the public regardless of background, opinion and creed”. The group says they have “unanimously rejected” the use of graphic images, saying they “do not feel it is appropriate or useful to cause great distress or alarm to others”.
Bristol Students for Life say they make the case with debate and argument and that they are willing to “engage with” opponents, so that “emotive and graphic pictures are not needed.” The group, however, condemned the arrest of Abort67 activists last year, saying they are “dismayed at the attitude of some British police officers” and that “protest cannot be a criminal offence in a liberal society”.
The Students for Life are thought to be reacting defensively to demonstrate their liberal credentials in the face of a counter-demonstration staged by the University’s students’ union (UBU). While Abort67 brought their graphic image display to campus the officially “pro-choice” UBU set up a banner in front of the graphic abortion display that read, “This union is pro choice”. University student’s unions around the Western world have a long track record of acting against campus pro-life groups and individuals who step out of line and make a strong case against abortion.
But Student’s for Life’s desire to distance themselves from such a high profile and highly successful activist group is not being well received by everyone associated with them. Rhoslyn Thomas, a former Bristol University student and organiser of Bristol Students for Life, told LifeSiteNews.com, “We were much more tolerant and sensible when I was there.” She was on the group’s organising committee for the academic year 2011-2012.
She responded to the accusations of her former classmates that the use of graphic images is counterproductive, saying that before Abort67 started using them, no one in Britain was giving abortion a second thought.
“If it upsets people then they are thinking about what abortion is, aren’t they? We’re upset by a lot of images, things that have happened in the past, like the Hiroshima bombing. Those are horrific pictures, but no one says we shouldn’t see them because it’s upsetting. But we know from that picture that it was wrong and how many people were hurt and killed by it.
“For some reason [the Bristol pro-life students] think people shouldn’t be forcefully reminded of abortion. But if you do nothing but talk about it, people might think it was just one issue among many. But when you see it, it’s much harder to say that it is just a ‘woman’s right to choose,’ because it’s such a horrible reality.”
She added a plea for civility and tolerance to her former classmates, saying that there needs to be a united front among the pro-life movement, or at least one of mutual respect. “Even if they disagree with Abort67, you can always find a way to disagree respectfully,” she said.
“Particularly other pro-life people whom you know have good intentions, and who have saved women from abortions. They’re not breaking the law, and they’re not hurting anyone, in fact they’re helping people.”
Pro-abortion groups have also reacted with outrage at the presence of Abort67 on Monday at historic King’s College, Cambridge. A group of students there brought home-made placards and stood in front of the Abort67 photos. Later King’s students brought out a flower pattern sheet to cover the photo display and disrupt conversations with passersby.
Similar actions were taken by pro-abortion counter-protesters at Abort67 demonstrations in Nottingham and Sussex.
The Huffington Post reported that students at Sussex University felt “distressed and intimidated” by the presence of the photo images and complained to each other on Twitter. The Student Rights group at Sussex said Abort67’s demonstration, held in late October, was “deeply concerning”.
“Students have a right to express pro-life views, but the detrimental impact that Abort67’s intrusive demonstrations have on students wellbeing, as well as on campus cohesion, should mean that they have no place on our campuses.”
‘Little miracles’: Mom gives birth to naturally-conceived quintuplets after refusing ‘selective reduction’
AUSTRALIA, February 5, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) -- A 26-year-old Australian mom has given birth to five healthy babies, all conceived naturally, after refusing the doctor’s advice that she must abort three of them in order to give the remaining two a better chance at life.
“After my initial ultrasound I was told I could consider the selection method to give 2 babies the best chance in life,” wrote mom Kim Tucci in a Facebook post last September.
“I watched a YouTube video on the procedure and I cried. I could never do that! Was I selfish for not giving two the chance of 100% survival? All I knew is that I already love them and that every heart beat I heard I connect with them more. For me life starts when a heart starts beating and all I know for sure is that I will do whatever it takes to bring them into this world healthy,” she wrote.
Last Thursday Kim and her husband Vaughn welcomed the five new members into their family — one boy and four girls —increasing the number of their children from 3 to 8. The babies were born at 30 weeks, 10 weeks early, due to insufficient space in Kim’s womb. They weighed on average about 2.5 pounds.
The quintuplets’ story began last March, after Kim and Vaughn had been trying for six months to conceive just one more child for their family. Due to health complications, Kim wondered if she would ever become a mother again.
After what she thought was an extra long cycle, she decided to take a pregnancy test.
“I was feeling tired and a little nauseated and thought I would take a pregnancy test just to get the ‘what if’ out of my head. To my shock and utter excitement it was positive,” she wrote on a Facebook post.
The parents got the shock of their lives when doctors confirmed in an ultrasound examination that there was not one baby, but five.
“After a long wait for the ultrasound we finally went in. The sonographer told me there were multiple gestational sacks, but she could only see a heart beat in two. I was so excited! Twins!”
“I was moved to another machine for a clearer view and had the head doctor come in and double check the findings. She started to count, one, two, three, four, five. Did i hear that correctly? Five? My legs start to shake uncontrollably and all i can do is laugh. The sonographer then told me the term for five is ‘quintuplets,’” Kim wrote.
Even though Kim began to feel stretched to the limit with all those human lives growing inside her, she chose to focus on her babies, and not herself, referring to them as “my five little miracles.”
“It's getting harder as each day passes to push through the pain, every part of my body aches and sleeping is becoming very painful. No amount of pillows are helping support my back and belly. Sometimes I get so upset that I just want to throw my hands up and give in.”
“Sometimes my pelvis becomes so stiff I can barely walk and my hips feel like they are grinding away constantly. I'm finding it hard to eat as I basically have no room left in my stomach, and the way it is positioned it's pushed all the way back with the babies leaning against it.”
“My skin on my belly is so stretched its painful and hot to touch. It literally feels like I have hives! No amount of cream helps relieve the discomfort. I have a lot of stretch marks now. Dealing with such a huge change in my body is hard.”
“Is it all worth it? Yes!!!! I will keep pushing through,” she wrote in one Facebook post days before the babies were born.
The newborns' names are Keith, Ali, Penelope, Tiffany, and Beatrix. They were born at King Edward Memorial Hospital in Subiaco, Western Australia. Mother and babies are reported to be doing well.
UN rights chief tells Catholic countries to legalize abortion over Zika virus: bishops and cardinal react
GENEVA, February 5, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) -- The United Nations, following the lead of international abortion activists, is now urging Latin American countries hit by the mosquito-borne Zika virus to lift restrictions on abortion for pregnant women who have contacted the virus and whose pre-born children may be at risk for birth defects, including having smaller than normal heads.
The UN human rights office said today that it is not enough for South American countries to urge women to postpone pregnancy without also offering them abortion as a final solution.
“How can they ask these women not to become pregnant, but not offer… the possibility to stop their pregnancies?” UN spokeswoman Cecile Pouilly told reporters.
UN human rights chief Zeid Ra’ad al-Hussein said that governments should make available contraception and abortion services.
“Laws and policies that restrict (women’s) access to these services must be urgently reviewed in line with human rights obligations in order to ensure the right to health for all in practice,” he said.
But Brazil’s bishops strongly asserted yesterday that efforts should be made to eradicate the virus, not the people who may be infected by it.
The disease is “no justification whatsoever to promote abortion,” they said in a statement, adding that it is not morally acceptable to promote abortion “in the cases of microcephaly, as, unfortunately, some groups are proposing to the Supreme Federal Court, in a total lack of respect for the gift of life.”
Honduras Cardinal Oscar Rodriguez Maradiaga has also come out strongly against the notion of “therapeutic abortions” as a response to the problem. Unlike Brazil where abortion is legal in the case of rape or health of the mother, abortion remains entirely illegal in Honduras.
“We should never talk about ‘therapeutic’ abortion,” the cardinal said in a homily at a February 3 Mass in Suyap. “Therapeutic abortion doesn’t exist. Therapeutic means curing, and abortion cures nothing. It takes innocent lives,” he said.
While the World Health Organization (WHO) declared an international public health emergency February 1 on account of concerns over the virus, critics have pointed out, however, that not one death as resulted from the virus. Even on WHO’s own website the virus is described in mild terms.
“It causes mild fever and rash. Other symptoms include muscle pain, joint pain, headache, pain behind the eyes and conjunctivitis. Zika virus disease is usually mild, with symptoms lasting only a few days,” the website states. “To date, there have been no reported deaths associated with Zika virus,” it added.
Critics suspect that the crisis is being manipulated to advance an anti-human agenda on the pre-born.
“Is Zika, actually, a hideous virus that threatens to spread uncontrollably across the world creating an army of disabled children with tiny heads and low IQ’s? Or might this be a willful misinterpretation of the scarce data to manipulate public opinion and legislatures?” wrote pro-life critic Mei-Li Garcia earlier this week.
“It becomes very clear that the publicity surrounding this story has a very little to do with medicine and a lot to do with a convenient crisis that is being used by those pushing for the legalization of abortion around the world,” she wrote.
Hillary’s litmus test for Supreme Court picks: They must ‘preserve Roe v. Wade’
DERRY, NH, February 5, 2016 (LifeSiteNews) - Hillary Clinton has a litmus test for Supreme Court nominees - several, in fact. At a Democratic event on Wednesday, Clinton unveiled her criteria in selecting a judge for the nation's highest court.
“I do have a litmus test, I have a bunch of litmus tests," she said.
"We’ve got to make sure to preserve Roe v. Wade, not let it be nibbled away or repealed,” she said.
That echoes her recent call to arms speech before Planned Parenthood last month, when she stated that taxpayers must fund abortion-on-demand in order to uphold the "right" of choice.
“We have to preserve marriage equality,” Clinton said, referring to last summer's Obergefell v. Hodges case, a 5-4 ruling that redefined marriage nationwide. “We have to go further to end discrimination against the LGBT community."
Her views differentiate her from the Republican front runners. Ted Cruz has called the court's marriage ruling "fundamentally illegitimate," and Donald Trump told Fox News Sunday this week that he would "be very strong on putting certain judges on the bench that I think maybe could change things." Marco Rubio has said he won't "concede" the issue to the one-vote majority.
All Republican presidential hopefuls say they are pro-life and will defund Planned Parenthood.
Her husband, Bill Clinton, raised the makeup of the Supreme Court early last month in New Hampshire, saying it receives "almost no attention" as a campaign issue.
On Wednesday, Hillary said "the next president could get as many as three appointments. It’s one of the many reasons why we can’t turn the White House over to the Republicans again.”
Clinton said her judicial appointees must also reverse the Citizens United ruling on campaign finance and oppose a recent decision striking down a portion of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. In 2013's Shelby County v. Holder, justices struck down Section 4(b) of the act, which said that certain states and jurisdictions had to obtain permission from the federal government before changing their voting laws.
At one time, most politicians frowned upon any "litmus test" for judicial nominees, emphasizing the independence of the third branch of government. "I don't believe in litmus tests," Jeb Bush told Chuck Todd last November.
But with the rise of an activist judiciary in the middle of the 20th century, constitutionalists have sought to rein in the power of the bench.