Hilary White

‘Legalize abortion now!’: The whole world is baying for the blood of Irish children

Hilary White
Hilary White
Image

ROME, November 16, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – At LifeSiteNews.com, we like to report facts. Things that are actually happening, that people are actually doing and saying. Speculation on things that might be happening, or things that might have happened, is a realm for irresponsible tabloids and the leftist gutter press. Which is why I was hesitant to produce a piece talking any further about the case in Ireland that is arousing passions around the globe.

But I dive in because it seems as if the whole world has suddenly fallen into a frenzy to murder Irish children. I’ll say it again, just so we’re clear: the calls for legalisation of abortion in Ireland, always carefully framed in the media and parliaments as a matter of “women’s rights,” is a call for the unrestricted slaughter of innocent children.

Having got the basic facts of the argument clear, perhaps we can look at the details. We know that a young mother died on October 28th in University Hospital, Galway after she came in presenting symptoms of miscarriage. The hospital has said she died a few days later of septicaemia. At some point, exactly when is unclear, the woman’s husband went to the press, or perhaps the abortion lobbyists, and said that the hospital and the country’s laws, “Catholic ethos” and medical antipathy towards abortion caused his wife’s death.

All else after that is carefully couched around in journalistic disclaimers like “reportedly” and “…he alleged.” Meanwhile, the bereaved husband, in-laws and parents of the young mother have retreated to India and are demanding that Ireland liberalise its abortion laws. This demand is being joined by the Indian Ambassador to Ireland, the legalisation-pushers in Ireland’s parliament, the secular media and professional abortion lobbyists, as well as, perhaps most strangely, the official opposition party of India, the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party.

This despite the fact – as has been pointed out several times in editorials, press releases, blog posts and hundreds of comments boxes both Catholic and non-Catholic – that abortion is not a medical treatment for either miscarriage or for severe systemic infections and no one has any idea whether Savita Halappanavar really wanted an abortion, or whether “early induction” of labour would have saved her life.

Indeed, one doctor in India has pointed out that abortion in such a case would probably have only hastened Savita’s death. Gynaecologist Hema Divakar, resident-elect of the Federation of Obstetric and Gynaecological Societies of India (FOGSI), has told The Hindu, “Based on information in the media, in that situation of septicaemia, if the doctors had meddled with the live baby, Savita would have died two days earlier.”

In response to the media frenzy the Irish government has launched an investigation –  giving the family first say as to what is and is not investigated and made public – and has said that nothing will be decided until the full facts of the case have been made clear. Galway University Hospital is already conducting an internal investigation and the Health Service Executive’s investigation will be joined by an independent external expert in obstetrics and gynaeocology.

So far the story makes a modicum of sense, but quite a bit of the rest of it does not add up.

Ireland’s Minister for Health, Dr. James Reilly, has said he is in possession of facts that cannot at this time be revealed, but that he has no evidence that the “Catholic ethos” of Ireland or the hospital prevented Savita from receiving proper medical treatment.

CLICK ‘LIKE’ IF YOU ARE PRO-LIFE!

Even pro-life advocates have pointed out that the current law and medical guidance include the possibility of abortion in the “rare” cases where the woman’s life may be endangered. The University Hospital would certainly have known this, it being the standard of gynecological care throughout the country. Indeed, I was told today by a reliable Irish source that on the gynecological staff at that hospital is at least one “rabid” pro-abortion doctor who would certainly have made sure that this would have happened had it been medically possible. Eilís Mulroy has written in The Irish Independent, under the headline “Pro-choice side must not hijack this terrible event”, asking, “Was Ms Halappanavar treated in line with existing obstetrical practice in Ireland?

In light of these facts, it seems extremely unlikely, except perhaps in the dreams of rabid anti-Catholics, that the doctors at the hospital would have simply said, “This is a Catholic country, we don’t do that here.”

I also hope I am not the only one wondering why the Indian Ambassador to Ireland has decided to weigh in, adding his voice to the pressure of the abortion lobby/Labour Party/media consortium who have been pressing for years for legalisation. Why is the Indian Ambassador suddenly so interested in Ireland’s abortion laws? Is it really normal practice in modern diplomatic circles to join in partisan demands of a sovereign country to change so fundamental a law?

Mr. Debashish Chakravarti may have revealed more about his own country’s problems than Ireland’s when he issued a statement today claiming, with no more evidence than anyone else has, that Savita Halappanavar “would still be alive if she had been treated in India.” Since when does a diplomatic attaché tell the host country which laws to overturn?

Perhaps someone just forgot to show Mr. Chakravarti the report by the World Health Organisation showing that Ireland, with its abortion restrictions, has one of the lowest maternal mortality rates in the world, one that is vastly better than India’s.

How much better? The WHO’s document shows that from data gathered up to 2005, Ireland had one maternal death. Yes, one. India had 450 per 100,000 live births for a total of about 117,000. Under India’s current law allowing abortion virtually on demand, about 11 million children are (officially reported) killed by abortion annually – just under two and half times the entire population of the Irish Republic – and around 20,000 women die of complications related to these legal abortions.

But calm deliberation on medical, legal or demographic facts has never been the M.O. of abortion lobbyists or their supporters in media or parliaments, and the country is in an uproar with the media/abortion lobby demanding legislation, right NOW, to legalise abortion. Pro-life people I’ve spoken to in Ireland fear that the pressure may prove too much for the waffling and half-hearted pro-life Irish politicians.

The Irish Times ran the first piece on the case on Wednesday, written by the daughter of one of Ireland’s leading Trotskyite abortion lobbyists, with the completely unbiased and totally objective headline, “Woman ‘denied a termination’ dies in hospital”. This shot the journalistic pinball around the mainstream media world, bringing predictable headlines from the usual suspects: the Guardian: “Ireland’s abortion ban: a history of obstruction and denial,” the BBC: “Woman dies after abortion request ‘refused’ at Galway hospital,” the Toronto Star: “Senseless death of Irish woman exposes grim reality for women”.

In this atmosphere of impartial objectivity, Indian newspapers are taking up Mr. Chakravarti’s cry, issuing such headlines as, “Ireland murders pregnant Indian dentist” and “Indian woman died pleading, Irish abortion laws denied a termination”. Several Indian television stations are running footage of Savita’s mother saying, “In an attempt to save a four-month-old fetus they killed my… daughter. How is that fair you tell me?” Demonstrations have been organised by India’s main opposition, Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party with women carrying placards saying, “Catholic Ireland can’t allow the murder of innocent women”.

Praveen Halappanavar is in India now, also issuing demands that Ireland change its laws. “I have lost my wife, but would like to continue the fight for justice. I will return to Galway and continue the fight. The Indian government should wake up and prevail upon the Irish government to make changes to their law,” he said.

I have several other questions that I imagine will not come up in the medical investigations. For starters: the connections between the Halappanavar family and the abortion lobbyists and the rabidly pro-abortion media remain unclear. How exactly did the Irish Times become aware of the case? They quote Praveen Halappanavar extensively, but did he contact them or did he speak to someone in the abortion lobby first?

Because a leaked e-mail obtained by pro-life activists makes it clear that the Irish Choice Network knew the story was going to come to light by November 11th. Who tipped them off in time to organize their “spontaneous” demonstration outside the Dail on Wednesday? Finally, does anyone else wonder and marvel at the fact that this story “broke” on the day that the long-awaited report from the government’s Expert Group on Ireland’s abortion law was released (but still not published)?

Of course, the whole world, competing with each other to show how deeply they care about the tragic death of a beautiful young woman by calling as loudly as possible for the legalization of the killing of Ireland’s unborn children, are going to pour into our own commboxes demanding to know how I can be so callous and unfeeling. All I can say is, it’s a sort of tick of mine to use my brain, especially when stories don’t add up.

Follow us on Twitter:

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