Author: lifenetwork

Abortionist Forced Woman to Have Abortion: “Don’t Scream, You’ll Scare the Other Patients”

Crystal’s abortion was like a horror story in real life.

Pressured by her boyfriend and then forced into it by the abortionist and his staff, the young woman never fully recovered from the trauma of her unborn baby’s abortion death, Live Action News reports.

However, she went to a Rachel’s Vineyard retreat where pro-lifers helped her begin to heal from the pain and abuse that she experienced and grieve the loss of her baby. She shared her story in the book “Shockwaves: Abortions Wider Circle of Victim,” by Janet Morana.

According to the report, Crystal became pregnant at age 18 to her 22-year-old boyfriend. She said he quickly began pressuring her into an abortion, and she consented to go to the abortion facility.

“I was never asked what I wanted to do about the baby, he decided for me,” she said.

The abortion facility staff confirmed that she was 13-weeks pregnant when they did an ultrasound, the report continues. Crystal said she had to beg them repeatedly before they finally let her see her unborn baby’s image.

“Finally, they turned the screen toward me. I could see my BABY, not a ball of tissue or clump of cells, but my BABY moving around. Face, hands, and even the heart beating. I got to see the tiny child turning somersaults in my belly,” she remembered.

REACH PRO-LIFE PEOPLE WORLDWIDE! Advertise with LifeNews to reach hundreds of thousands of pro-life readers every week. Contact us today.

Crystal said she began to argue with her boyfriend again about the abortion, and again he insisted that she go through with it. Because they did not have $1,200 for the abortion and anesthesia, she paid for the abortion without pain relief, the report continues.

She did not want to abort her unborn baby, but the abortion staff did nothing to empower her to make her own choice. Instead, she said they gave her “one-sided opinions, no medical facts.”

“I was lied to! I was told that there were rarely any side effects. ‘Most women go out that night,’ I was told. ‘It’s really no big deal. It will all be over soon…’” she continued. “After filling my head with lies, they took me to a cold room for the procedure.”

Feeling a renewed urgency to save her baby’s life, she told the abortionist that she did not want the abortion, according to the report. Instead of listening, he told the abortion workers to hold her down, she remembered.

Crystal said she yelled at him and told him “no” several times, but he ignored her. At one point, she said she screamed at him to stop. To which he responded: “Don’t scream. You’ll scare the other patients.”

She said she felt “violated and threatened” as he began, and the pain was excruciating.

The horrific experience traumatized her. Crystal said she began to drink to numb the pain. Eventually, she said she dropped out of school and married her abusive boyfriend to “punish” herself.

“Abortion took my soul, and now I didn’t deserve happiness,” she said. “I felt unlovable. I hated myself, and I was unworthy of forgiveness. I deserved to be punished for what I did. I murdered my baby!”

Crystal was physically traumatized as well. She said she passed out during a pap smear because she experienced a painful flashback to her abortion.

Eventually, she connected with pro-lifers who run Rachel’s Vineyard, a post-abortion healing ministry that counsels women and men across the world. Through the retreat, she said she began to heal, but the trauma may never be gone.

Crystal’s horrific experience is not unique. Abuse is commonly connected with abortion, and women frequently say they felt pressured or even forced to abort their unborn babies – sometimes under threat of violence or death. As LifeNews previously reported, one study found that as many as 64 percent of post-abortive women say they felt pressure to have an abortion.

LifeNews has been keeping track of stories involving allegations of forced and coerced abortions, as well as abuse connected with women who refuse to abort their unborn babies. They include:

England – Man Threatens to Slit His Baby’s Throat if His Ex-Girlfriend Didn’t Have Abortion

England – Husband Orders His Wife to Kill Their Unborn Baby in an Abortion

Florida – Jeffrey Epstein Rape Victim Says She Was Pressured to Have Abortion

California – U.S. Swim Coach Accused of Sexual Abuse, Pressuring Girl into Abortion

Pennsylvania – Man Allegedly Used Abortion Pills to Hide Sexual Abuse of Daughter and Stepdaughter When They Got Pregnant

India – Woman’s Parents Allegedly Strangle Her to Death After She Refuses to Kill Her Baby in an Abortion

Philippines – Police Officer Charged with Raping Intern, Forcing Her to Abort Her Unborn Child

Uganda – Man Stabs 18 Year-Old Girlfriend to Death After She Refuses to Have Abortion

India – Teacher Rapes 13-Year-Old Student, Then Forces Her to Have Abortion

England – Pastor Raped Multiple Women and Children From His Congregation, Forced Them to Have Abortions

Wales – Man Accused of Brutally Strangling His Pregnant Girlfriend, Demanding She Get an Abortion

Texas – Man Jailed for Life After Killing His Pregnant Girlfriend Because She Wouldn’t Abort Their Baby

California – Man Reportedly Forced His Girlfriend at Gunpoint at Take Drugs to Kill Her Baby in Abortion

Wisconsin – Man Allegedly Slipped Abortion Drugs into Pregnant Girlfriend’s Drink

England – Man Allegedly Tries to Force Girlfriend to Abort Their Disabled Baby: “It Would be Cruel to Have a Baby Like That”

Indiana – Teen Kills Pregnant Girlfriend After She Waited Too Long to Get Abortion: “I Took Action, I Took Her Life”

Tennessee – Man Kills Girlfriend and 4-Month Old Baby, She Refused to Abort So He Could Escape Child Support

New York – Attacker Kills Woman 5 Months Pregnant, New York’s New Abortion Law Says Her Baby Isn’t a Human Being

Utah – Man Reportedly Killed His Pregnant Ex-Girlfriend Because She Refused to Have Abortion

Virginia – Doctor Convicted of Spiking Pregnant Girlfriend’s Drink with Abortion Drugs

Hawaii – Man Stabs His Girlfriend More Than Two Dozen Times Because She Refused an Abortion

California – Man Hired Hitman to Kill His Girlfriend and Unborn Son Because She Refused Abortion

Florida – Man Sentenced to 15 Years in Prison for Tricking Pregnant Girlfriend into Taking Abortion Drugs

Norway – Man Convicted of Killing Unborn Baby after Slipping Abortion Drugs into Girlfriend’s Drink

Indiana – Man Charged with Attempted Feticide for Allegedly Spiking Girlfriend’s Drink with Abortion Herbs

New York – Man Convicted of Attempted Murder after Secretly Giving Girlfriend Abortion Drugs

Pennsylvania – Abortion Doc Allegedly Tried to Force His Girlfriend to Abort Their Baby, Then Beat Her When She Refused

Colorado – Man Uses a Skewer to Force His Girlfriend to Abort After She Refuses Demand to Have an Abortion

Indiana – Man Tries to Force Pregnant Girlfriend to Have Abortion By Poisoning Her Drink

England – Man Jailed for Tying Up His Girlfriend, Forcing Abortion Drugs Into Her Vagina

This is a LifeNews.com opinion piece

Ref: https://www.lifenews.com/2020/11/17/abortionist-forced-woman-to-have-abortion-dont-scream-youll-scare-the-other-patients/

50 UK Palliative Care Doctors Speak Out Against Introducing Assisted Suicide

Over fifty doctors working in palliative medicine and care for dying patients have signed a letter to The Times in opposition to any proposed changes in the assisted suicide law.

In the face of continual attempts to legalise assisted suicide, fifty doctors have signalled their continued support for protections in the law for the most vulnerable. In particular, the doctors have called attention to a recent British Medical Association survey on assisted suicide which shows the unwillingness of doctors to participate in assisted suicide and euthanasia.

Most doctors would not participate in assisted suicide or euthanasia

In the letter, the doctors point out that whatever marginal support there is for the idea of assisted suicide, it remains the case that a “majority of doctors licensed to practise would not agree to prescribe lethal drugs (assisted suicide) and a larger majority would not administer them (euthanasia).”

In other words, when the doctors who answered the survey were asked if they would personally “participate in any way in the process” of assisted suicide, 45% said ‘no’, as opposed to 36% who said ‘yes’. When asked if they would personally “participate in any way in the process” of euthanasia, 54% said ‘no’, and only 26% said ‘yes’.

The same BMA survey showed that 84% of doctors in palliative medicine would not be willing to perform euthanasia on a patient should the law ever change.

The letter also notes that supposed safeguards in euthanaisa and assisted suicide laws are regularly breached. “Every legislature that allows ‘safeguarded’ assisted dying has seen its safeguards breached, starkly illustrating the gap between principle and practice.” In the Netherlands, for example, reports indicate that the requirement for explicit consent is frequently ignored, as is the required reporting of all instances of euthanasia.

The signers of the letter also emphasise the role medical professionals, which “if ever assisted dying were to be legalised… must be limited to the provision of an opinion on the applicant’s medical condition. It should be for the courts alone to make decisions – as they do now – on life-or-death issues.”

Being a burden

Calls for the legalisation of assisted suicide come at the same time as countries that have already legalised the practise reveal that the motivations for assisted suicide are social and not medical.

For example, in 2019 Canada reported that more than a third (34%) of those who opted for “medical assistance in dying” cited concerns of being a burden to family or carers. A further 13.7% cited “isolation or loneliness” as their reason for procuring an assisted suicide.

Right To Life UK’s spokesperson Catherine Robinson, said: “Once again, this letter shows that the vast majority of those doctors working with dying patients are opposed to the introduction of assisted suicide.

“The data from Canada shows that ‘isolation or loneliness’ is a reason people choose assisted suicide. With the current COVID 19 lockdowns, loneliness is likely to get worse. This is a serious social problem, not a medical one, and the solution to it is not to end the lives of those suffering.”

This is a Right to Life opinion piece

Ref: https://righttolife.org.uk/news/fifty-palliative-care-doctors-speak-out-against-introducing-assisted-suicide/

A tribute to the fearless and inspirational priest

Article written by Katrine Camilleri and Danielle Vella

A free spirit who was larger than life… for us, that is the best way to describe Fr Pierre Grech Marguerat who died in Italy on Friday morning. Since waking up to the news, we’ve been fending off sadness by remembering what made Pierre such a remarkable person. And here it is: Pierre tried to live life to the full despite the debilitating sickness that plagued him.

Life dealt him a raw deal when it came to his health but for as long as he could, Pierre resolutely refused to give in. Where others would have retreated from the world, Pierre persisted. Asked how he kept from falling into despair, Pierre would chuckle and say, “What would you have me do? Hide myself in a corner and cry?”

We knew Pierre through the Jesuit Refugee Service (JRS) Malta over several years. Pierre was a Jesuit priest and pioneer of JRS. He was a passionate advocate for refugee rights and never afraid to speak out; quite the contrary, he delighted in making his voice heard and did not shy away from controversy.

A gifted communicator, Pierre had a way of explaining things to people, so that they listened and understood. He inspired people and made them want to support him and the causes he was advocating. It was about more than just having the gift of the gab. Pierre was respected because he cared deeply about people, and about justice as a natural expression of his faith in God, and this authenticity came across.

Pierre tried to live life to the full despite the debilitating sickness that plagued him

Pierre’s abiding interest in people went beyond his tireless work for social justice. He was a loyal and concerned friend who liked to know what was going on. There were kind and thoughtful gestures, like calling from abroad if he heard that we were sick or searching for and buying Madhur Jaffrey’s Curry Bible as a gift because he gleaned from conversation how much it would be valued. Pierre liked food and talking about food. Although there was much he could not eat because of his health, he would really appreciate whatever you prepared when invited for dinner, and recall it for ages afterwards.

Pierre’s irrepressible sense of humour, expressed in a trademark mischievous chuckle, made him fun to be around. He was a gregarious soul, who liked to be around people and in where the action was. When we heard about his death, the first thing that occurred to us was how many people around the world will be sorry to hear the news.

Pierre was known and loved by Jesuits and others in the international JRS family. A colleague of ours in Brussels said: “He was of those people who leave a deep impression on those who cross paths with him. We’ll miss him.” People liked Pierre; it was as simple as that. Perhaps it was because he made you feel like you mattered.

Given that Pierre cared so much about others, it was with a twinge of regret that we received news of his death, because of the missed opportunities to contact him in Italy to see how he was doing. But then our guilt was wiped away by the realisation that Pierre would never dream of holding our failings against us.

Pierre was free from pettiness, he was never one to get offended, or sulk or nurse grudges in his heart. His freedom frees us too, to remember the great times spent together in work and in fun, and to learn from the touch of greatness that made Pierre who he was. Thank you, Pierre, we’ll never forget you.

This is a timesofmalta.com opinion piece

Ref: https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/a-tribute-to-the-fearless-and-inspirational-priest.831841

Equality Bill is not Radical Enough

By Fr Carlo Calleja -November 13, 2020 9:26 AM

I am in full agreement with the thinking behind the proposed Equality Bill. Every human being is created with equal dignity. My only issue with it is that it is not radical enough.

What I mean is that by focusing simply on equality, the Bill is—for want of a better word—ineffective. In his most recent social encyclical issued last October, Fratelli Tutti Pope Francis, impels us to go much further than mere equality, and to embrace fraternity instead.

Five take-aways

Here are five take-aways from Fratelli Tutti applied to the proposed Equality Bill.

First, with the pretext of promoting equality and preventing discrimination, the proposed Bill silences voices that might be interpreted in some way or other as discriminatory. As a result, the only voice that is heard is that which pleases those in power, or as is interpreted by them (206).

Second, the Bill takes on the bold mission of promoting equality. This, however, can never be reached if there is no serious effort to address the removal of economic inequalities (168). This is not done only by providing social services but by creating just structures, a project which leaves much to be desired. A practical example is the increasing number of people who have to depend on different forms of charity to receive their daily bread, a situation that was already existent but which was further aggravated by the pandemic.

Third, equality will remain a nothing but “an abstract proclamation” unless it is supported and encouraged by structures that engender fraternity (104). This can also be brought about through reciprocity and mutual enrichment (103). As the pope himself insists, “the future is not monochrome” (100).

Fourth, history has shown us that when a group is silenced, it emerges with much greater voracity. This is perhaps the greatest threat that must be avoided. The risk is not from the mainstream church, but from vociferous fringe groups who defend a certain worldview and feel that they are being persecuted. If such groups rise to power in some way or another, the resulting inequality would be even more pronounced (191).

Fifth, the Bill does nothing to change a mentality. Instead it simply enforces a law. As a result, people act out of fear of not being charged and taken to court. They will circumvent rules and misinterpret laws rather than act out of the conviction that every human being has equal dignity (104).

Post-Enlightenment Europe has sought to engrain liberty and equality in its citizens with poor results. What is really needed is social friendship, a recognition that we all belong to the same family and that I must treat you equally not because the law says so but because I recognise that you are endowed with equal dignity despite our differences.

Fr Carlo Calleja is a member of the Justice and Peace Commission of the Archdiocese of Malta and a lecturer in Moral Theology at the Faculty of Theology, University of Malta.

This is a newsbook.com opinion piece

Ref: https://newsbook.com.mt/en/blog/equality-bill-is-not-radical-enough/

Ban on Celebrating Mass During Lockdown: the French Government’s Abuse of Power

A judge of the Conseil d’État, ruling in summary proceedings, decided this Saturday, November 7, not to restore full freedom of worship, thus rejecting the appeal filed by the Conference of Catholic Bishops, Congregations and Faithful. This decision deserves several comments.

Article published in the French weekly Newspaper Valeurs Actuelles on Novembre, 9.

A first observation is obvious: the decline in the knowledge of Catholicism by public authorities, and the resulting historical choice of the bishops to take the government to court to defend their liberties. This is a cultural change.

For the government, commerce is more worthy than religion; and at no time has the Conseil d’État questioned this axiom. Freedom of worship would be only one aspect of freedom of assembly and would be worth less than freedom of demonstration, which is still permitted.

This is a considerable fall because never before had the drafters of the 1905 law imagined that freedom of worship would be belittled in this way. International law even places this freedom of religion above the other freedoms by admitting “no derogation” from it, even “in the event of a public emergency which threatens the existence of the nation and is proclaimed by an official act.” Surprisingly, the judge deliberately ignored this provision of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Nor did the judge note the government’s abuse of power in deciding which religious ceremonies can be celebrated in a church (marriage and burial with 6 and 30 people respectively) to the exclusion of others (baptisms, confirmations, ordinations, etc.), which clearly violates the 1905 law. The Republic is supposed to ignore religious practices.

However, we can be grateful to the Conseil d’État for providing several useful clarifications:

The faithful may go to places of worship located more than one kilometre away and for a period of more than one hour, by checking the box “urgent family reason” [in the auto-attestation form that is compulsory to go outside during the lockdown in France]. In this regard, the judge in charge of summary proceedings invites the Government to correct the form to “explain” this option.

The ministers of religion may receive the faithful individually, go to their homes and to the establishments where they are chaplains to exercise their ministry. Catholic priests may therefore administer the sacraments in the church, in private homes, as well as in schools, prisons or hospitals, without being subject to the limit of six persons constituting a group when this does not apply.

The faithful may also go to places of worship while the priest is celebrating Mass, provided that they avoid “any gathering with persons who do not share their home.” On this last point, the criteria are still unclear. As the government acknowledged at the hearing, one can be more than six people in a large church without creating a grouping… it all depends on the size of the place of worship. It is regrettable in this regard that France has not adopted an objective criterion of density of faithful per square meter, as many countries have done.

Finally, the scope of this decision should be put into perspective.

Like every summary proceeding, it is a decision taken by a single judge, in a state of urgency. It is not final and is only valid “in the state of the investigation and at the date of the present order.”

Thus, the judge may be called again in summary proceedings as soon as new circumstances can be invoked in support of the release of the cult. In this respect, the judge emphasized that the extension of the state of health emergency “presupposes the commitment to a consultation with all the representatives of the main religions, aimed at clarifying the conditions under which these restrictions could evolve.” In doing so, the judge discreetly supports the request of the representatives of the cults to be heard.

Finally, any believer can still appeal to the Conseil d’État against the decree of October 29, 2020, so that the judges, sitting this time in a collegial manner, can decide this question on the merits. A priority question of constitutionality (QPC) could even be added to the procedure. But this procedure will take several months.

In the meantime, it remains possible to declare at the prefecture the holding of demonstrations in public squares, to demand full freedom of worship while celebrating mass. Priests can also celebrate daily requiem Masses with thirty faithful, even in the absence of a body, as the decree authorizes them to do.

This is a eclj.org opinion piece by Grégor Puppinck

Ref: https://eclj.org/religious-freedom/french-institutions/ban-on-celebrating-mass-during-lockdown-the-governments-abuse-of-power

As president, Biden will re-start funding international organizations that promote abortion

Biden plans to rejoin Paris Agreement and WHO, undo other Trump decisions on Day 1

He would also reinstate DACA and repeal Trump’s travel ban targeting majority Muslim countries.

President-elect Joe Biden plans, on his first day in the White House, to enact four executive orders rolling back President Trump’s efforts on a number of issues, the campaign told Fox News on Monday.

The executive actions would include rejoining the Paris Climate Agreement, reinstating the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, rejoin the World Health Organization and repeal Trump’s travel ban targeting majority Muslim nations.

The pledge came after several media outlets, including Fox News, projected Biden as the winner of the 2020 presidential election. As of Monday, the Trump campaign vowed to continue challenging the results, citing issues with ballots and the counting process.

Monday’s news signaled the beginning of a longer effort to undo a variety of policies pursued by Trump. Biden has vowed to repeal Trump’s tax cuts, for example, and said that he would reverse the Mexico City Policy, which Trump reinstated shortly after taking office in 2017.

FAUCI SAYS HE’S NOT LEAVING JOB AFTER 2020 ELECTION, EXPECTS COVID VACCINES BY END OF THE YEAR

That policy restricts international funding for organizations that promote abortion. Other abortion-related policies and those weakening the Affordable Care Act, will likely be on the chopping block in a Biden-Harris administration as well.

The White House did not immediately respond to Fox News’ request for comment.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Biden’s decision to re-enter the WHO reflected a broader effort to combat the coronavirus upon taking office. Democrats have decried Trump’s decision to exit the transnational organization in the middle of a pandemic. Trump has defended the move as a way to hold the organization accountable for alleged missteps during the pandemic.

In an official move, the president-elect formed a coronavirus advisory board dominated by scientists and doctors.

“The challenge before us right now is still immense and growing, and so is the need for bold action to fight this pandemic,” Biden said after being briefed on the virus. “We are still facing a dark winter.”

By Sam Dorman, Hillary Vaughn | Fox News

Ref: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-executive-orders-day-one

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Amendment to divorce law is ‘crucial’, prime minister says

Amendment will tackle need for four years before couples can seek divorce

The government intends to amend Malta’s divorce law where it lays down that couples need to be separated for four years before filing for divorce.

Prime Minister Robert Abela said in parliament on Tuesday this amendment was ‘crucial’.

He said the government would continue to champion civil rights and it would seek agreement with the opposition for this amendment.

“The Divorce Law is creating hardship and injustice for many people. I could never understand why one had to wait four years to get divorced after separation. Four years are an eternity in people’s lives, what logic is this?” he asked.

Maybe there was logic and a sense of compromise when the law was enacted, he said. At the time, getting the law through was a battle and some had campaigned against it, he said in a dig at opposition leader Bernard Grech.

But he hoped that lessons had been learnt from those mistakes and both sides could move forward together on such an important amendment.

Abela did not specify how the government intends to amend the law.

Divorce was introduced in Malta after a ‘yes’ vote in a referendum in 2011.

Malta has a system of ‘No-fault divorce’ that allows the dissolution of marriage without the need for the spouses to accuse each other of specific faults (such as infidelity or abandonment). These issues are tackled at the separation stage.

A couple, however, has to be legally separated or living apart for at least four years to obtain a divorce.

Clause was defended in 2011

At the time of the referendum debate, the pro-divorce movement had praised the four-year delay, saying in a statement:

“What is being proposed is a responsible type of divorce because it gives ample time for the spouses to get back together if they so wish before they become eligible to even apply for divorce.

“This is important in order to have moral certainty that the marriage has, in fact, irretrievably broken down. Those who try and plant doubts in people’s minds that the four-year period is not a must or that maintenance, care, custody and access to children are not dealt with in the law are out to mislead,” it said.

“Having a marriage contract that states that one is married when nothing that effectively constitutes marriage subsists is a ridiculous state of affairs,” the movement added.

Low divorce rate

Times of Malta reported in July that according to Eurostat statistics, Malta only has 0.7 divorces per 1,000 people, putting it on a par with Ireland, which registered the same rate.

On the lower end of the scale came Slovenia, with a divorce rate of 1.1, followed by Italy, Croatia and Bulgaria, all on 1.5.

Conversely, Latvia and Lithuania had the highest rates of divorce at 3.1, followed by Denmark at 2.6 and Sweden at 2.5.

The average divorce rate across the EU stood at two per 1,000 people, more than doubling since records started being kept in 1965, where the rate stood at 0.8 at the time.

This is a timesofmalta.com opinion piece

Ref: https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/amendment-to-divorce-law-crucial-prime-minister-says.827779

Pro-life campaigners gather outside UK parliament to commemorate abortion ‘crisis’

Pro-life campaigners from across the UK gathered outside the Palace of Westminster in Parliament Square today to commemorate the 9,563,907* lives lost since the passing of the Abortion Act, which happened 53 years ago on 27 October 1967.

The event, which was organised by March for Life UK, included a live display of people, ranging in age from one to 53 years old, holding signs revealing the total number of abortions performed in the calendar year they were born.

March for Life UK Directors Ben Thatcher and Isabel Vaughan-Spruce said the idea behind the pro-life demonstration was to give a face to the 9,563,907 lives lost to abortion over the past 53 years.

Isabel said: “Each of these individuals was more than just a number but was an irreplaceable human being.”

She called for more to be done to offer pregnant women who are vulnerable practical help, love and support, adding that “abortion has not solved the crisis” but is the crisis.

Continuous rise

Since the passing of the Abortion Act, there has been an almost continuous year-on-year rise in the number of abortions in England & Wales and Scotland.

In 1969, the first full calendar year abortion was legal, there were 54,819 terminations in England & Wales and 3,556 in Scotland.

Back in 2007, when the number of abortions reached 205,598 in England & Wales and 13,778 in Scotland, the architect of the Abortion Act, Lord Steel, admitted that he never anticipated “‘anything like’ the current number of terminations”.

Yet the number of abortions is still increasing.

In 2019, the number of abortions in England & Wales reached an all-time high of 209,519, while the number of terminations performed in Scotland was the second-highest on record at 13,583.

Unfortunately, this pattern of ever-rising abortion numbers could continue in the future, following the introduction of an extreme abortion regime in Northern Ireland and policy changes allowing for ‘DIY’ home abortions across England, Scotland and Wales.

New and radical abortion legislation in Northern Ireland, imposed upon them by the Government in Westminster, allows abortion-on-demand up to 24 weeks and disability-selective abortion right up to birth – including for Down’s syndrome, cleft lip and club foot.

Earlier this month, it was revealed 664 terminations have already taken place under the new regime despite the fact the Northern Ireland Department of Health has not officially commissioned abortion ‘services’.

Meanwhile, the introduction of ‘DIY’ home abortion schemes across Great Britain has coincided with record-high abortion numbers in England and Wales.

Abortion statistics released by the Department of Health and Social Care show that 109,836 abortions were performed for English and Welsh residents in the 6 months between 1 January and 30 June 2020. This is 4,296 higher than a six-month average of 105,540 in 2019.

‘Monstrous figure’

Three years ago, Lord Alton of Liverpool marked the 50th anniversary of the Abortion Act by saying the number of abortions being performed was ‘a monstrous figure’.

Hundreds of pro-life campaigners listened to the pro-life peer as he condemned the “willful killing of the smallest and most helpless member of the human family in the very place she should be safest – her mother’s womb”.

He said: “What we mark today, is nothing less than the greatest shame of our nation. The fact that we neuter the protections in our laws for our tiniest countrymen and countrywomen is a horror and disgrace on a massive scale.

“We are here to signify that we are not going away, that we are not going to remain quiet while injustice occurs and we are not going to stop working and educating and championing and fighting until we live in a society where the humanity, dignity and the rights of every member of our nation are together recognised.”

‘National Tragedy’

A spokesperson for Right to Life UK, Catherine Robinson said:

“The UK’s abortion law is failing both women and unborn babies. It is a national tragedy that 9,563,907 lives have been lost since the passing of the 1967 Abortion Act, each one a valuable human being who was denied the right to life.

“Every one of these abortions represents a failure of our society to protect the lives of babies in the womb and a failure to offer full support to women with unplanned pregnancies.

“We are always looking at how we can save more lives by ensuring that protections for unborn babies are introduced and safeguards are strengthened to protect both mothers and babies.”

*This figure is a projection for England, Wales and Scotland through to midnight on 27/10/20 and has been calculated based on the following assumptions:

The number of abortions per day in England & Wales will remain the same in 2020 as in 2019.
The number of abortions per day in Scotland will remain the same in 2020 as in 2019.
The rate of abortions throughout the year is evenly distributed.
Please note, figures have been released for the number of abortions through to June 2020. We have not used this published data in our modelling as it only provides data for the first half of the year, which is unreliable for making a prediction due to possible seasonal variation. We have not included data for abortions that have occurred in Northern Ireland in 2020 because it has not been made clear on which day abortions began being performed in Northern Ireland and it is therefore unreliable to model a projection for the remainder of the year using this.

This is a Righttolife.org.uk opinion piece

Ref: https://righttolife.org.uk/news/pro-life-campaigners-gather-outside-uk-parliament-to-commemorate-abortion-crisis/

“Int Id-Dawl Ta’ Ħajjitna” – Tamara Webb Tiċċelebra Għeluq It-Twelid Ta’ Bintha

Il-personalità tal-midja Tamara Webb illum żvelat li t-tifla tagħha Pixie Rose għadha kif għalqet xahrejn! “Ma nistax ngħid li ‘ż-żmien tar’ għax inħoss li hi kienet parti minni ħajti kollha,” kitbet Tamara fuq il-midja soċjali.

Iżda x’ġara eżatt f’dawn ix-xahrejn ta’ ħajja u mħabba? Tamara żvelat li Pixie Rose “kellha l-ewwel tbissima tagħha u dewbitilna qalbna.”

Tamara kompliet billi kitbet lista tal-aktar affarijiet li Pixie Rose tħobb tagħmel.

“Tħobb iżżomm rasha ‘l fuq għal perjodi ta’ żmien estiżi, l-aktar fuq missierha!”

“Tħobb leħen il-mamà u tidher ukoll li xi kultant trid titkellem magħha”

“Tħobb il-ħin ta’ filgħodu, tieħu nagħsa u l-bobo tagħha”

“Mhux dilettanta tal-ħin ta’ filgħaxija, il-ħin taż-żaqq u wisq bews”

Fl-aħħar, Tamara kitbet: “Int id-dawl ta’ ħajjitna. Happy 2 months baby girl.” Aħna minn Gwida.mt nawguraw lil Tamara u Ken aktar mumenti mill-isbaħ bħal dawn. Awguri mill-qalb liċ-ċkejkna Pixie Rose!

This is a gwida.mt opinion piece

Ref: https://www.gwida.mt/mt/bir-ritratt-int-id-dawl-ta-hajjitna—tamara-webb-ticcelebra-gheluq-it-twelid-ta-bintha?fbclid=IwAR3kMGQuHKWd2k6BiihAot3lHEUqM-GuqX3LS7uZcn876I8YYyL5Z3egOiQ

Amy Coney Barrett sworn in as Supreme Court justice at White House

Barrett’s confirmation solidified a conservative majority on the high court

Judge Amy Coney Barrett, fresh off her confirmation to serve as an associate justice on the nation’s highest court, took her constitutional oath on Monday at the White House.

The Supreme Court said in a press release that Barrett will be able to start her new role after Chief Justice John Roberts administers her judicial oath on Tuesday. Justice Clarence Thomas administered the constitutional oath at Monday’s ceremony.

Thomas has long been considered one of the more conservative justices on the court, along with Barrett’s mentor, the late Justice Antonin Scalia. Echoing her mentor, Barrett underscored the need for a separation of powers between the judicial and legislative branches.

“It is the job of a senator to pursue her policy preferences,” Barrett said to an audience on the South Lawn of the White House. “In fact, it would be a dereliction of duty for her to put policy goals aside. By contrast, it is the job of a judge to resist her policy preferences. It would be a dereliction of duty for her to give into them. Federal judges don’t stand for election. Thus, they have no basis for claiming that their preferences reflect those of the people.”

CNN, MSNBC SKIP HISTORIC SENATE VOTE CONFIRMING AMY CONEY BARRETT TO SUPREME COURT

The separation of duty is what makes the judiciary distinct, she said.

“A judge declares independence not only from Congress and the president, but also from the private beliefs that might otherwise move her,” she said.

The Senate confirmed Barrett with a 52-48 vote. All 45 Democrats and two independents who caucus with the Democrats opposed her confirmation.

Controversial from the start, her confirmation prompted a wave of backlash on Monday. Almost immediately after the Senate voted, Democratic lawmakers panned the decision while some called demanded leaders “expand the court.”

SEN. JOHN KENNEDY LAUDS BARRETT SUPREME COURT CONFIRMATION AS ‘VICTORY FOR OUR FOUNDERS’

Barrett’s confirmation solidified a conservative majority on the nation’s highest court, and gave Trump another victory as he headed into election day.

Whoever wins on Nov. 3 will likely have major consequences on the Supreme Court as an American institution. Former Vice President Joe Biden has mostly refused to answer questions about whether he would pack the courts.

On Monday, Biden said that he might be open to shifting Supreme Court justices to lower courts if elected president, noting that he hadn’t made any judgment yet on the issue.

“There is some literature among constitutional scholars about the possibility of going from one court to another court, not just always staying the whole time in the Supreme Court but I have made no judgment,” Biden said at a campaign stop in Chester, Pa.

AMY CONEY BARRETT CONFIRMED TO SUPREME COURT, ‘SQUAD’ MEMBERS CALL FOR EXPANDING THE BENCH

He went on to say that “there are just a group of serious constitutional scholars, have a number of ideas how we should proceed from this point on.”

“That’s what we’re going to be doing. We’re going to give them 180 days God-willing if I’m elected, from the time I’m sworn in to be able to make such a recommendation.”