Hilary White, Rome Correspondent

Undercover sting: UK abortion clinics performing illegal abortions, ‘no questions asked’

Hilary White, Rome Correspondent
Hilary White, Rome Correspondent
Image

MANCHESTER, February 23, 2012 (LifeSiteNews.com) – British abortion facilities are conducting illegal abortions, including for reasons of sex-selection, an undercover investigation by the Daily Telegraph has revealed. The report has triggered an investigation into abortion practices by the Department of Health.

Pro-life leaders, however, have responded with a complete lack of surprise, saying that the permissiveness of current law and society makes sex-selective abortion “inevitable.”

The Telegraph’s investigation simply confirms “the reality of eugenics in modern British medicine” said Anthony Ozimic, communications director for the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC).

Telegraph reporters accompanied pregnant women to nine abortion facilities around the country. In three of these, doctors were recorded “offering to arrange terminations after being told the mother-to-be did not want to go ahead with the pregnancy because of the sex of the unborn child.”

In one case in Manchester, the doctor asked the woman if she was sure of her reasons. The woman responded, “Oh, absolutely … I can’t have it, this baby, because of the gender, so that’s just how it is.” The abortion was booked for the following week with no further questions asked. 

UK law technically requires that abortions occur only for the approved reasons, which do not currently include sex-selection. But at one facility a woman was told by a medical consultant, “I don’t ask questions. If you want a termination, you want a termination.”

Health Secretary Andrew Lansley responded to the revelations, saying he is “extremely concerned.” Sex selection is still technically illegal in Britain, and Lansley called it “morally wrong.”

“If this is happened not only is it criminal act but it entails professionals falsifying the reports. It’s a shocking thing to have happened. We will follow it up urgently,” he said.

The Department of Health has also said that it is following up on the allegations. “Following this mornings reports in the Telegraph, we will be speaking to the police,” they said in a statement. “Criminal offences may have been committed and we will take urgent action. We will be speaking to the GMC to ask them to investigate individual clinicians and we have asked the Care Quality Commission to urgently inspect the named clinics.

While the Telegraph’s story is making waves among some politicians, pro-life leaders have long pointed out that the surviving legal restrictions on abortion are effectively meaningless. Joseph Lee, spokesman for the SPUC in Scotland, told LifeSiteNews.com that these revelations might be shocking to the general public, they will “shock none who are active in the pro-life movement.”

The abortion lobby, he said, has a stance “rooted firmly in the ideology of ‘choice.’”
“How can they do anything other than defend a woman’s right to choose to abort her child simply because the child is female?

“Maybe when society wakes up to the fact that so-called ‘women’s rights’ are being used to kill girls, it will start to question the radically pro-abortion culture that it has accepted for the past 45 years.”

Andrew Stephenson, the head of Abort 67 – a group that confronts the abortion industry head on with street displays of graphic images of aborted children – commented, “How can the Department of Health recognise the immorality of killing people based on their gender but accept all the other reasons that women have abortions?”

Stephenson’s work brings him into daily contact with abortion-minded women. He said, “One girl who came across us in Brighton told us she had an abortion because she didn’t think her dog would cope with a baby.”

“Some innocent human beings are deemed too inconvenient to be allowed to live,” Anthony Ozimic said. “Sex-selective abortion is an inevitable consequence of easy access to abortion, a situation to which the pro-abortion lobby has no convincing answer.

“The government needs to cut its ties to private abortion providers and to abortion rights organisations”

He pointed out that the British government is already actively “complicit” in supporting sex-selective abortions through China’s population control programs. He observed that there is wide support in Parliament for further loosening of existing abortion restrictions despite the fact that the status quo already effectively provides abortion-on-demand.

Politicians are under constant pressure to abolish all restrictions on abortion from bodies such as the British Medical Association, which wants to see midwives qualified to abort children. Even labor unions, traditionally powerful on the left, have declared they will lobby for abortion on demand.

Under current British law, abortions are technically restricted to a particular set of criteria. The age limit for an abortion for children deemed healthy is 24 weeks gestation, and abortion is allowed for reasons of “mental health” of the woman or “any existing children.” Women are free to give any reason for abortion that fits the legal criteria and no system exists for confirmation.

Since the Abortion Act was amended in 1990, there are no restrictions at all on killing children with disabilities, a change that pro-life leaders denounced as outright endorsement of eugenics. While the law states that abortions can be carried out only with the signature of two physicians, it has been revealed that most abortion facilities keep stacks of pre-signed permission forms on hand, making this “restriction” effectively meaningless.

The British government does keep and publish records of the number of abortions that fall under each category, and these have shown that the numbers of eugenic abortions have skyrocketed since the amendment. Thousands of British children are killed every year for non-lethal conditions such as Down’s syndrome or cleft palate or club foot.

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
Lisa Bourne

Parents say they’re now calling four-year-old son a girl

Lisa Bourne
By Lisa Bourne

OAKLAND, CA, July 7, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) -- An Oakland, California, couple is giving their four-year old son the green light to identify as a girl.

Jack Carter Christian, the son of Mary Carter and James Christian, will now be known as “Jackie” and be allowed to dress and act as a little girl.

The family acknowledged they were already letting the boy wear his older sister’s dresses on a regular basis and also that he liked to wear pink boots. James Christian said he thought for a long time that it was a phase his son would get over.

Carter detailed in an NPR interview the conversation with her son that led to the decision to allow him to live as a girl.

“Jackie just looked really, really sad; sadder than a 3-and-a-half-year-old should look,” Carter said. “This weight that looked like it weighed more than she did, something she had to say and I didn’t know what that was.”

“So I asked. I said, ‘Jackie, are you sad that you’re not going to school today?’ And Jackie was really quiet and put her head down and said ‘No, I’m sad because I’m a boy.’”

Carter continued speaking about the details of the day she encouraged her son to act upon the emotion he’d expressed.

 “You’re really not happy being a boy?” Carter queried her son.

“I thought a little bit longer and I said, ‘Well, are you happy being you?’” said Carter. “And that made Jackie smile. And I felt like for that moment that was all that really mattered. That was ‘The Day. ”

It was then that Carter proceeded to a Walgreen’s drug store and purchase elastic hair bands picked out by her son to pull his hair into little ponytails, something that offered apparent satisfaction for mother and son.

“There she was, in these cast-off Little Mermaid pajamas and five pony tails that are sticking out of her head kind, of like twigs, and this smile on her face and I’ve never seen such a happy child,” Carter stated. “To go from maybe an hour before this, this child who looks so sad, to that- pure joy, just pure joy, right there.”

Carter and Christian are one of a number of couples turning up in media stories saying that their young children will no longer live life as their biological gender. The confusion they describe is a disorder classified by the American Psychological Association as gender dysphoria.

San Diego parents Jeff and Hillary Whittington appeared in late May with their six-year old daughter Ryland, who is identifying as a boy, at the 6th annual Harvey Milk Diversity Breakfast. Milk, the first openly homosexual candidate elected to office in San Francisco as City Commissioner, was also notorious for preying sexually upon underage, drug-addicted, runaway boys, and was murdered by a political rival in 1978.

Massachusetts couple Mimi and Joe Lemay have also decided to allow their five-year-old daughter Mia, now going by Jacob, to live as a transgender child, turning to NBC News with the specifics.

They said an April DailyMail.com report that it was “his” choice to become transgender, and also that they shared their story hoping to prove there is no such thing as “being too young” to identify as transgender.

“I realized he had never really been Mia,” Mimi Whittington said. “That had been a figment of my imagination.”

Author and public speaker Walt Heyer, who underwent sex reassignment surgery to become a woman and then later returned to living as a man, told the Daily Caller children cannot be born as one gender and identify as another by accident. He now performs outreach to those experiencing gender confusion.

“There’s a lot of questions here. Kids are not born transgender,” Heyer said. “Childhood developmental disorder that comes out of some event or series of events or abuse or neglect or trauma or overbearing mother or father or someone or a lot of times its sexual abuse.”

Heyer said the experience of having parents or caretakers entertain the idea of gender confusion is at issue and this is what happened to him.

“My grandmother kept cross-dressing me and loving on me as a girl and not as the boy God made,” he said.

Share this article

Advertisement
Featured Image
Lisa Bourne

Utah man faked anti-gay ‘hate crimes’

Lisa Bourne
By Lisa Bourne

July 7, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – A Utah man who faked a series of anti-gay “hate crimes” may face charges after his actions were debunked by rural authorities.

Rick Jones said someone beat him, leaving facial and head bruising, and carved a homosexual slur in his arm, part of a series of staged attacks that spanned from April to June.

Jones, 21, told a local TV news station in June he believed he was being targeted because he was homosexual.

Jones is also implicated in spray-painting a slur on his family’s home, throwing a rock and a Molotov cocktail through his home’s window, spray-painting the family pizza business, and also breaking in and stealing $1,000 from the business.

The Millard County Sheriff’s office found discrepancies with evidence in the case and Jones ultimately admitted to perpetrating the harassment himself.

Jones could face charges of filing a false report and reckless burning.

His lawyer said the incidents were a cry for help geared toward the people close to Jones, and that Jones didn’t realize how much attention they would get.

Attorney Brett Tolman said that Jones has since begun treatment for mental health.

Tolman said his client did not have any criminal intent and praised the community’s response to the fake accusations, saying that the outpouring of support after the hate crime claims became public still was a good message.

Utah Lt. Gov. Spencer Cox was one who had publicly declared his support after the false accusations surfaced. Cox said Tuesday he’s relieved the allegations weren’t true, and expressed concern for Jones and his family.

Tolman also used the faked crimes as evidence that gays face discrimination.

“I think it’s such good evidence of the difficulties members of the gay community deal with,” said Tolman, “and some make better choices than others.”

Advertisement
Featured Image
Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben

, ,

U.S. senator: Individuals don’t have religious freedom, just churches

Ben Johnson Ben Johnson Follow Ben
By Ben Johnson

WASHINGTON, D.C., July 7, 2015 (LifeSiteNews) – The freedom of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment applies only to churches, not to individuals, a U.S. senator said on national television recently.

Sen. Tammy Baldwin, D-WI – the nation's first openly lesbian elected to the U.S. Senate – addressed the Supreme Court's Obergefell v. Hodges decision on June 27 on MSNBC's Up with Steve Kornacki.

"Should the bakery have to bake the cake for the gay couple getting married?” the host asked. “Where do you come down on that?"

Baldwin responded that the First Amendment gave Americans no right to exercise religion outside the sanctuary of their church, synagogue, or mosque.

“Certainly the First Amendment says that in institutions of faith that there is absolute power to, you know, to observe deeply held religious beliefs. But I don’t think it extends far beyond that,” she said.

Sen. Baldwin then likened the issue to the Obama administration's contentious HHS mandate, requiring employers to furnish contraceptives, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs to female employees with no co-pay.

“We’ve certainly seen the set of arguments play out in issues such as access to contraception,” Baldwin said. “Should it be the individual pharmacist whose religious beliefs guides whether a prescription is filled, or in this context, they’re talking about expanding this far beyond our churches and synagogues to businesses and individuals across this country.”

“I think there are clear limits that have been set in other contexts, and we ought to abide by those in this new context across America.”

That view contrasts with a broad and deep body of law saying that individuals have the right to exercise their religion freely under the First Amendment, not merely to hold or teach their beliefs.

“At the Founding, as today, 'exercise' connoted action, not just internal belief,” wrote Thomas C. Berg, the James L. Oberstar Professor of Law and Public Policy at the University of St. Thomas School of Law.

That body of cases shows the First Amendment is an individual, not merely a corporate, right.

Further, the extent – and the constitutionality – of the HHS mandate is far from settled.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty has won 28 injunctions against the ObamaCare regulation and lost six.

The most significant statement to date has been the U.S. Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision last June, when the justices ruled 5-4 that closely held corporations do, indeed, exercise conscience protections under the terms of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

"We reject HHS's arguments that the owners of the companies forfeited all RFRA protection when they decided to organize their businesses as corporations rather than sole proprietorships or general partnerships," they added. "The plain terms of RFRA make it perfectly clear that Congress did not discriminate in this way against men and women who wish to run their business as for-profit corporations in the manner required by their religious beliefs."

However, the justices did not invoke the First Amendment's guarantee to freedom of religion – the “first freedom” that many say has been increasingly constricted under the Obama administration. The president rhetorically has spoken only of the “freedom of worship,” while conservatives say the “free exercise” clause grants Americans the right to practice their religion inside or outside church, in any relevant aspect of their lives, subject only to the most extreme provisions.

The RFRA holds that the government may not substantially burden any religious belief without having a compelling governmental interest.

Advertisement

Customize your experience.

Login with Facebook