OpinionFri May 11, 2012 - 1:38 pm EST
Since when is murder a solution to illness?: babies with a fatal diagnosis have a right to life
“She was the most amazing little person I could ever put my eyes on. I kissed her and cried .... but most of all I just loved her and held her. I had the 3 greatest days of my life with this little girl and I could not imagine life without knowing her.”
- Dawn, whose baby girl Amanda, was born with anencephaly and lived for three days.
These days, ultrasound scans give an unprecedented window to the womb. It’s pretty amazing for parents to see their baby moving and growing as she or he comes to birth.
But this technology also allows us to see when something is wrong with baby, and, on rare occasions, disorders such as anencephaly or Trisomy 18 show up on the ultrasound. This can mean that baby won’t live for long after birth - though there are some truly astonishing and wonderful exceptions - or that he or she might not make it to birth at all.
Naturally, these are hugely traumatic and distressing situations, and everyone would feel enormous sympathy for parents faced with a fatal diagnosis for their baby. In the past month, the Irish media has been saturated with the testimonies of Irish women who, having received such diagnoses, went to Britain to have their babies aborted. They are now calling for a change in Irish law, and want the practises available in Britain to be made legal here. Those practises include what is known as feticide, where the baby, alive and kicking in the womb, receives a lethal injection into the heart.
Whether by feticide then, or by some other method, the lives of babies with fatal disabilities would be ended, not by allowing nature to take her course, but by the intervention of an abortionist or other medical practitioner. Can this really be the best answer for parents and for baby in these very upsetting circumstances?
Click ‘like’ if you are PRO-LIFE!
It’s important to look at the reality of what’s currently happening in Ireland and at the outcomes for children diagnosed with a fatal abnormality.
These fatal diagnoses are rare, but they happen, and one of the things that has not been acknowledged is that most Irish mothers in these situations carry their babies to term. The Irish Times reported that up to 90% of mothers do not elect to abort their children in these circumstances. You could be forgiven for thinking that the opposite was the case because of recent media reporting, but what’s crystal clear is that all parents in this situation deserve much more than our sympathy - they need us to put professional support systems in place.
That’s why the Life Institute has written to the Minister for Health urging him to establish perinatal hospice services as expeditiously as possible. Many parents facing a fatal diagnosis believe that their children would suffer unbearably following birth - and are not made aware that perinatal hospice care would work to eliminate that suffering.
The good news is that, according to leading experts in the field, centres offering this essential care are not difficult to establish or maintain. In a recent article in the Washington Times, Dr Byron Calhoun of West Virginia University, explained that “all the typical hospital needs is a few extra rooms for these families.” Dr Calhoun explained that the perinatal hospice movement supports parents of children expected to die soon after birth. It offers nurses, chaplains, neonatologists, social workers, bereavement counselors and even a photographer to capture brief moments. “Time with the baby is extremely important to these moms,” he said. “Families want a live birth, a baptism, a chance to hold the baby; to give as much love a child can have in their brief life.”
As Dr Calhoun pointed out, “the only alternative parents are given is termination of pregnancy or they’re told they are on their own.” This should not be acceptable for a society which cares for its most vulnerable citizens.
Where abortion has become readily available, up to 95% of babies diagnosed with anencephaly are aborted, according to the Kennedy Institute of Ethics at Georgetown University. And, tragically, this rate then becomes the norm for babies diagnosed with other conditions, such as Downs Syndrome or Cystic Fibrosis. The facts seem to support the contention that, once we remove the right to life from children with severe disabilities, the definition of being ‘incompatible with life’ stretches further and further.
That’s because we cannot get away from the core ethical principle which must underpin all these discussions: unborn children - whatever their disability, and however short their life may be - have a right to life.
It’s to be regretted then, that recent reporting has sometimes been badly misinformed. For example, the ability of these special children to spend precious time with their parents has been - deliberately or otherwise - vastly understated. It’s been repeated again and again that children with fatal diagnoses are ‘incompatible with life’ - a statement that has correctly been described as a judgment rather than a diagnosis. The impression is given that they will never live, even briefly, after birth, but that’s certainly not always the case. Children with Trisomy 18 or Edwards syndrome for example often live between 5 and 15 days after they are born, and 8% live longer than a year, according to the Trisomy 18 Foundation.
Anencephalic babies similarly often live beyond birth, however briefly. Their parents, broken-hearted and devastated though they may be, have spoken most movingly and courageously of the great joy and tremendous love they experienced in having the opportunity to share that time with their children.
The voices of those parents have been completely shut out of the discussion in the past month in Ireland. I spoke to one mother of a baby with anencephaly who treasured the time she spent feeling her baby moving and kicking before birth, and who then had several hours to say goodbye to her child. She told me that the way the current debate was being played out made her feel as if her little girl’s life was judged as being worthless; a judgment she passionately rejected.
Another mother pointed out that if demands to change the current law succeeded, the right to life of all babies with fatal diagnoses would be taken away. Her baby boy would have had no inherent right to life: whether he lived or died wouldn’t have been about the tragedy of his disorder any longer - it would have been solely down to the decision made by his parents.
She also said she was very concerned for parents who feel that abortion is an answer, and warned that, in time, abortion may be seen as the only option by a health service reluctant to spend resources on babies who they feel are ‘better off dead’. Research in this area is pretty thin, but one 2005 Dutch study suggested that women who aborted for reasons of foetal abnormality showed severe post-traumatic stress up to seven years later.
It comes down to this: whatever the crisis, we can find a better answer than abortion. It was disturbing to see abortion campaigners like the Irish Family Planning Association [a Planned Parenthood affiliate] attempt to use these sad situations to further their own agenda - which is to see abortion on demand legalised in Ireland. Their only answer to the trauma facing parents is to offer the medieval solution of abortion. We reject that solution - and are resolved instead to work towards a answer that loves and protects both mother and baby.
- To see testimonies from parents who’ve carried their children to term see www.benotafraid.net
- Also read the amazing story of Baby Faith Hope who lived with anencephaly for 93 days on this beautiful blog written by her mother Myah.
- The Dutch study can be read here: Korenromp, Christiaens, van den Bout, et al, ‘Longterm psychological consequences of pregnancy termination for fetal abnormality: a cross-sectional study,’ Prenatal Diagnosis, 2005 March 25(3), 253-60,
‘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.