Author: lifenetwork

53 years of abortion: 9,563,907 lives lost since 1967

53 years of abortion:

9,563,907 lives lost since 1967 — one unborn baby every 3 minutes

Today marks the 53rd anniversary of the Abortion Act receiving Royal Assent.

Since then, a staggering 9,563,907* unborn babies have lost their lives to abortion across England, Wales and Scotland — more than one death every three minutes; 20 lives ended every hour.

Almost 1 in 4 (24%) pregnancies in England and Wales now ends in abortion, according to the most recent Government statistics.

Despite conception rates falling for the eleventh year in a row, this is the highest figure since records began and represents a significant increase from 2012 when approximately 1 in 5 (20.7%) pregnancies ended in abortion.

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

Record abortion figures will likely increase

Unfortunately, those record figures are likely to increase 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. While a month-by-month breakdown is unavailable, 2019 saw the highest number of abortions ever recorded for English and Welsh residents over a full year, at 207,384.

An unsafe industry

The increase in abortion numbers has coincided with a rise in the number of safety abuses and other significant scandals, placing women at risk, with UK abortion providers.

Earlier this year, it was revealed that over 60% of England’s abortion clinics are rated inadequate or requiring improvement when it comes to safety.

Over the past year, the Care Quality Commission (CQC) has released alarming reports detailing health and safety abuses at two of the largest abortion clinics in the UK. Inspectors found an abortion clinic in London which specialises in late-term terminations was putting the lives of women at risk and, in November, the CQC handed BPAS Merseyside the worst rating of any private abortion provider so far.

The situation may be significantly worse too. Despite the damning reports, the CQC announced in March that it would be suspending safety inspections during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In their absence, an undercover investigation found evidence of abortion providers putting women at significant risk by not carrying out basic checks before sending them ‘DIY’ home abortion pills.

The study also discovered ‘DIY’ home abortion pills can easily be obtained and administered to others, potentially in a coercive manner.

In May, it was revealed UK police were investigating the death of an unborn baby after its mother took ‘DIY’ home abortion pills while 28 weeks’ pregnant.

In addition, abortion provider BPAS said they were investigating a further eight cases of women taking ‘DIY’ home abortion pills beyond the 10-week limit, raising questions over what checks are being conducted to ensure the law isn’t being broken and dangerous late-term abortions aren’t happening.

More recently, a nurse in the UK has shared how she was left fearing for her life and needing emergency surgery after Marie Stopes International denied her counselling and pressured her to take abortion pills at home, rather than under the supervision of a doctor in a clinic.

Just two weeks ago, a pregnant woman similarly disclosed that she’d had an abortion after being denied face-to-face counselling services from the UK’s largest abortion provider, BPAS, which boasts that it can offer same-day abortions in its ‘considering abortion’ booklet.

A lucrative industry

Despite the significant rise in safety abuses and other scandals, abortion providers and their bosses continue to be well compensated by the UK taxpayer through Government contributions.

Since the passing of the Act, what was once a crime has become a lucrative industry.

Abortion provider Marie Stopes International’s chief executive earned between £340,000 and £350,000 in 2019 and £434,500 in 2018, according to accounts submitted to Companies House.

The accounts also show the abortion provider had a record income of £308 million from operations here in the UK and overseas, receiving over £46 million in 2019 from the Department for International Development (DfID), who remain the single largest donor.

42 of MSI’s employees were paid more than £100,000 in 2019, an increase of four in the previous year. BPAS, the UK’s largest abortion provider, paid 10 of its staff over £100,000 in 2019, an increase of three on the previous year.

A discriminatory industry

The abortion industry continues to unjustly and disproportionately target unborn babies diagnosed with a disability.

Earlier this year, it was revealed the number of abortions performed on unborn babies with cleft lip and palate in England & Wales has increased 150% since 2011.

Meanwhile, the latest available figures show that 90% of children diagnosed with Down’s syndrome before birth are aborted. There were 3,183 disability selective abortions across England & Wales in 2019, with 656 of those occurring following a prenatal diagnosis of Down’s syndrome.

The UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities’ has made a key recommendation that the UK change its abortion law on disability so that it does not single out babies with disabilities for abortion, right up to the point of birth.

An industry on limited time?

Last week it was announced that the High Court in London will hear a landmark case against the UK Government over the country’s discriminatory abortion legislation.

Currently in England, Scotland and Wales, the law singles out babies with disabilities such as cleft lip,club foot and Down’s syndrome, and allows terminations right up to the point of birth. However, there is a 24-week time limit for most abortions that are carried out when a baby does not have a disability.

Heidi Carter, a 25-year-old woman with Down’s syndrome, and Máire Lea-Wilson, whose sixteen-month-old son Aidan also has the condition, both believe this is “deeply offensive” and have joined forces to challenge the law.

Heidi’s legal challenge has generated widespread support from those with first-hand experience of Down’s syndrome, disability advocates and more, with over 5,000,000 people watching Heidi tell Channel 5 the current law is “deeply offensive”.

Analysis of the 2019 General Election, conducted by pro-life charity Right To Life UK, revealed the number of pro-life MPs has increased while the pro-abortion lobby has lost a large number of MPs.

This played a part in the failure of an attempt to hijack the UK Government’s flagship Domestic Abuse Bill with two extreme abortion proposals, in July.

Majority want safeguards for unborn babies

Opinion polls repeatedly show that the public wants increased protections for unborn babies and the number of abortions reduced – rather than the wholesale removal of legal safeguards around abortion.

Only 1% of the UK population want abortion to be available up to birth and over 70% of women want the abortion limit to be reduced to 20 weeks or lower.

Polling from last year revealed that over 41% of Londoners believe abortion should be illegal in almost all circumstances.

Polling also revealed that two-thirds of women and 70% of 18-34-year-olds in Northern Ireland did not want Europe’s most extreme abortion law imposed on the province by Westminster.

Commemorative event outside parliament

At 12:00pm today, members from pro-life organisations across the country will take part in a live display in Parliament Square to commemorate the Abortion Act receiving Royal Assent.

The event, organised by March for Life UK, will involve people ranging in age from 1 to 53, all dressed in black, standing around the edge of the square holding placards. Each placard will state the exact number of abortions which occurred during the year in which the holder was born.

‘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/53-years-of-abortion-9563907-lives-lost-since-1967-one-unborn-baby-every-3-minutes/

UK MPs fear prenatal testing will result in discriminatory abortions against babies with Down’s syndrome

Politicians fear the roll-out of prenatal tests for Down’s syndrome across England, Wales and Scotland will result in discriminatory abortions of babies with the condition.

In a debate, commemorating Down’s Syndrome Awareness Month, DUP MP Jim Shannon expressed concern that the number of babies born with Down’s syndrome has fallen by 30% in NHS hospitals that have introduced the new non-invasive prenatal tests.

In recent months, the health services in England & Wales and Scotland have announced their intention to roll-out the new tests across all NHS hospitals.

Jim Shannon believes this is putting the UK on the path to the situation in other countries, where almost 100% babies diagnosed with Down’s syndrome are aborted, which is “chilling to the core”.

Outdated and negative views

Sharing in his trepidation, SNP MP Dr Lisa Cameron echoed the comments of Stacey Corrigan, whose six-year-old son, Daniel Murray, has Down’s syndrome.

Stacey had told the Daily Record that the current advice given to parents expecting a baby with Down’s syndrome is both “outdated” and “negative”.

“More often than not the termination is booked at that appointment with the parents are still in shock with the diagnosis,” she added.

The Scottish mother believes pregnant women deserve to be better informed and supported.

Dr Lisa Cameron said a “more comprehensive and accurate narrative needs to be provided,” recognising the richness and diversity of the Down’s syndrome community across the UK.

Parents under pressure to terminate pregnancies

Stacey isn’t the first mother to express concern over the negative advice given to her following a prenatal diagnosis of Down’s syndrome.

A recent report revealed that pregnant mothers who refuse to abort their children with Down’s syndrome are being pressured by some medical professionals to change their decision.

One mother, whose child is now three-years-old, said medical professionals told her they could leave her baby with Down’s syndrome to die if it was struggling after birth.

Another mum told how even at 38 weeks pregnant she was being offered an abortion.

Time for positive conversations about Down’s syndrome

Picking up on these concerns, Rachel Maskell encouraged the present Minister for Health, Helen Whately, to “go away and look again at the conversations that are had with parents who are diagnosed in pregnancy with somebody with Down’s syndrome and see how we can change that conversation, so that people can understand the positivity of bringing up a child and raising someone into adulthood with Down’s syndrome?”

In response, the Health Minister said: “it is absolutely the case that if, during pregnancy, any abnormality is detected or suspected there should at no stage be any bias towards abortion.”

Concluding the short debate, she added: “It is crucial that we should celebrate the achievements and contributions of those with Down’s syndrome to our society, so we have been and are taking action to support those with disabilities, including Down’s syndrome, but I believe that we can always do more and go further. So I say, let’s do that. Let’s do more and go further to support people with Down’s syndrome to achieve their dreams.”

Earlier this month, Dr Lisa Cameron launched an Early Day Motion celebrating the contribution people with Down’s syndrome bring to communities, families, workplaces and society at large.

Scale of Down’s syndrome abortions

There were 3,183 disability selective abortions across England & Wales in 2019, with 656 of those occurring following a prenatal diagnosis of Down’s syndrome.

However, the figures are likely to be much higher.

In a 2013 review on disability-selective abortions, it was revealed 886 babies were aborted for Down’s syndrome in England and Wales in 2010, but only 482 of these were reported in official Department of Health records.

The underreporting was confirmed in 2014 in a Department of Health review.

There has also been an increase in the number of abortions of babies prenatally diagnosed with Down’s syndrome since the introduction of new prenatal screening tests.

Figures published last year show that the number of babies born with Down’s syndrome in the UK has dropped by 30% in NHS hospitals that have introduced the new non-invasive prenatal tests.

The figures prompted Down’s syndrome advocates to ask the Government to halt the roll-out of the new tests and undertake an inquiry into the impact that the tests are having on the birth numbers of babies with Down’s syndrome.

However, their pleas appear to have fallen on deaf ears, as the Government recently announced that it will be proceeding with the procurement and rollout of a nationwide prenatal testing scheme for Down’s syndrome – something which will likely lead to an increase of babies with the condition being aborted.

‘Screening out’ babies with Down’s syndrome seen as ‘cash cow’

Earlier this year a spokesperson for a Chinese biotech firm declared “screening out” babies with Down’s syndrome is a “cash cow” funding the growth of the whole business.

The admission came from a spokesperson for BGI Group – a Chinese genetics conglomerate whose main business is offering non-invasive prenatal tests, primarily used to diagnose Down’s syndrome.

In a segment from an Aljazeera documentary titled Genesis 2.0, the spokesperson gestures towards a digital map of the world and says: “You can see clearly, especially for Down’s syndrome, we have nearly two million samples all over the world. This part is, what we call, BGI’s cash cow, making money to support the growth of the whole group.”

Dismissing a query over potential ethical concerns, she coldly adds: “…with the use of our technology, we could avoid the birth of birth defect, like a Down’s syndrome birth, a Down’s syndrome child, we can screen them out, we can avoid the birth of them.”

Legal challenge

This week it was announced that The High Court in London will hear a landmark case against the UK Government over the country’s discriminatory abortion legislation.

Currently in England, Scotland and Wales, the law singles out babies with disabilities such as cleft lip and club foot and Down’s syndrome and allows terminations right up to the point of birth. However, there is a 24-week time limit for most abortions that are carried out when a baby does not have a disability.

Polish Court Bans All Abortions, Protects Human Rights of Unborn Children

The constitutional court of Poland struck down a discriminatory abortion law Thursday that allows unborn babies with disabilities to be aborted.

The 1993 Polish law prohibits abortions in most circumstances. However, it allows exceptions “when prenatal tests or other medical grounds indicate a high probability of severe and irreversible impairment of the fetus or an incurable life-threatening disease,” according to the Polish News.

AFT reports the constitutional court agreed with pro-life challengers Thursday that the exception violates constitutionally-protected human rights.

In her ruling, Chief Justice Julia Przylebska said the law is “incompatible” with the Polish constitution, according to the report.

The ruling could save thousands of babies’ lives. Polish health officials reported 1,100 abortions in 2019, according to the report.

Irene Donadio, of the International Planned Parenthood Federation European Network, told Euronews in April that about 97 percent of abortions in Poland are done because of fetal anomalies.

Pro-lifers have been working to end the discriminatory exception for years. In 2019, they challenged the constitutionality of the exception, arguing that it discriminates against a certain class of human beings, Polish News reports.

“Since the attribute of human dignity belongs to man from the moment of the inception of human life, and the protection of the right to life is a direct consequence of the protection of human dignity, … the Constitution of the Republic of Poland leads to the conclusion that the right to life is a human right in stage of development, at which he is also entitled to the protection of human dignity, and therefore also in the prenatal period,” they wrote in their petition to the court.

They said the abortion exception violates anti-discrimination laws and should be overturned, the Polish News reports.

“… there is an obligation to protect human life in the prenatal phase and the prohibition of discriminating against conceived human beings by public authorities,” the pro-life petitioners continued. “Since life begins at conception, from the first day of pregnancy, constitutional protection applies to human life in every phase of it.”

Meanwhile, pro-abortion groups told the court that ending the exception would amount to “torture” for women, the BBC reports.

“It’s inhuman, it’s despicable honestly to make anyone carry a pregnancy to term, especially if the fetus is malformed, and 98 percent of legal abortions carried out in Poland are due to fetal malformations,” abortion activist Antonina Lewandowska told the news outlet.

According to Polish News, about 800 doctors also signed an open letter to the court arguing that ending the exception could “inflict or prolong suffering” for mothers who want to abort their unborn babies after a disability diagnosis.

In April, Law and Justice legislators introduced a bill to protect unborn babies with disabilities from discrimination by ending the abortion exception. President Andrzej Duda said he supports the bill.

The country also allows abortions in cases involving rape, incest and threats to the mother’s life.

Poland is predominantly Catholic. Despite on-going pressure from the United Nations, other European countries and abortion advocacy groups, many of its lawmakers have remained committed to protecting unborn babies’ lives.

MICAIAH BILGER OCT 22, 2020 | 11:30AM WARSAW, POLAND

This is a lifenews.com opinion piece

Ref: https://www.lifenews.com/2020/10/22/polish-court-bans-all-abortions-protects-human-rights-of-unborn-children/

A right diminished – Tonio Borg

The government has proposed a law which reduces our constitutional rights

The human rights chapter in the Maltese Constitution is the bedrock and shield of our rights as citizens. Any attempt at changing the contents of such a chapter needs to be scrupulously examined and vetted. Since 1964 every time the chapter was amended, this was to increase rather than reduce the rights enshrined in it.

The first Fenech Adami administration introduced gender as a prohibited ground of discrimination, and the immunity hitherto enjoyed by certain pre-1964 codes of law from the human rights chapter came to an end. Sexual orientation was added as a prohibited ground of discrimination in 2013.

This is set to change.

The government has proposed a law that will diminish rather than embellish our rights set forth in the constitution. The right to a court of law in criminal proceedings was laid down in a 1983 landmark case where a law allowing a price control tribunal to decide criminal cases was declared null and void. Along the years this guarantee of access to a court of law in criminal cases, and nothing else, was extended to cover cases where hefty and punitive so-called “administrative penalties” could be imposed.

Since 2016, by a ruling of the Constitutional Court these cannot be imposed except by a court of law. In 2018 the same court decided that such cases had to be made available both at first and second instance i.e. at all stages of the proceedings.

This bill deserves to be dumped in the bin of legislative history– Tonio Borg

The government is proposing to bury this jurisprudence and rulings and allow administrative tribunals, rather than courts of law, to impose administrative penalties which are in effect criminal in nature.

There is no doubt in my mind that this is being done to save a provision in the equality bills which allows the equality board – not a court of law – to impose hefty fines on private individuals and organisations. A Church school or organisation may be hauled before such administrative tribunal and be given a hefty fine. The opposition, during the second reading of the bills through Clyde Puli and Therese Comodini Cachia rightly criticised this provision as being unconstitutional. What does the government intend to do? Rather than amend the draft law it wants to amend the constitution to regularise the ‘unconstitutional’ provisions!

Thankfully, this bill needs a two-thirds majority of all MPs in its final voting to be approved. I have no doubt in my mind that the opposition will oppose tooth and nail this nefarious draft law. I am saying this for the simple reason that in 2018 the party in opposition, following the institution of a constitutional human rights action, managed to have a law declared as unconstitutional which allowed the Electoral Commission to impose hefty fines against any political party found to have breached the Party Financing Act.

Besides, I am reliably informed that this provision, which needs a two-thirds majority to be approved, was launched by the government without any form of consultation with the opposition whose support it needs to enact this constitutional amendment. Even for such an act of arrogance this bill deserves to be dumped in the bin of legislative history!

To add insult to injury, this bill is being justified on the grounds that it aligns the Maltese Constitution with the European Convention on Human Rights and eliminates a ‘discrepancy’ with the latter. This is pure legal nonsense, and a deceitful assertion; for the Convention allows, indeed encourages, member states of the Council of Europe to provide for rights and guarantees in addition to, or more generous than, the Convention. It does not allow member states to provide lesser guarantees not more.

A solution to this problem would be to set up a special administrative court presided over by a sole member of the judiciary to decide questions relating to administrative penalties.

Changing the Constitution to allow lay tribunals to decide criminal cases would be a first in constitutional history. A first to be ashamed of.

This is a timesofmalta.com opinion piece

Ref: https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/a-right-diminished-tonio-borg.825019

10 WAYS TO SUPPORT HER WHEN SHE’S UNEXPECTEDLY EXPECTING

I had been brought up to believe that life is always a gift, but it certainly didn’t feel like one when I gazed in shock at a positive pregnancy test. As a mom who had my first baby in college, I know that an unexpected pregnancy can sometimes bring fear, shame, and doubt.

However, I also know that an unexpected pregnancy can bring joy, excitement, awe, gratitude, and deeper love than I knew was possible—not to mention the little bundle who inspires these sentiments! About nine months after looking at that pregnancy test, I received the very best gift I have ever been given: my daughter, Maria*.

An unexpected pregnancy might be confusing along the way, but life—though at times difficult—is ultimately beautiful. Perhaps one of your friends has become pregnant unexpectedly. As someone who has been there, I encourage you to support your friend in her new journey of being a mother.

Not sure how to help or what to say? Here are ten tips:

Be available.

An unexpected pregnancy can send a woman into crisis mode. If your friend just found out she is pregnant, she may not be thinking clearly, and she may feel she has no control over anything at the moment.

Be aware of how she is responding to you. Listen to her and let her know you love her and are there for her any time she needs you. Don’t pass judgment on her either interiorly or through words or body language.

Respond positively.

When a woman experiencing challenging circumstances confides she is pregnant, the reaction of the first person she tells tends to set the tone for her decision-making. Avoid responding with shock or alarm, and be calm and understanding. Let her know you’re there for her and that it’s going to be okay. Pay close attention to her emotional state, and act accordingly.

Depending on where she is emotionally, it may or may not be helpful to congratulate her at that time. However, it is always important to affirm that every person’s life—including her child’s and her own—is precious and beautiful no matter the circumstances.

Be honest.

The journey through an unexpected pregnancy is not easy, and it’s okay if you don’t know the perfect words to say. Just be honest. Let her know you are there for her, and ask her how she is feeling and how you can support her.

It’s a good way to open the door to communicate, and she may be grateful for the opportunity to talk freely with someone. She might become emotional at times, but be patient—let’s not forget hormones; the struggle is real.

Offer specific help.

Don’t be afraid to ask her if she needs help with anything or to make specific offers to help. For example, you might offer to help with cleaning, finding a good doctor, or running to the store to pick up the one food that won’t make her feel sick. But remember to read her cues, and make sure you’re not being overbearing.

Set up a support system.

In addition to the standard baby registry, you can help her get other kinds of support by lining up much-needed, practical help. Think outside the box. Food = love, so take advantage of websites that allow friends and family to sign up to make meals, send food deliveries, or simply donate money. Some websites can even help organize other assistance like rides to the doctor, babysitting other children she may have, or help around the house. You can also look into what programs and assistance may be sponsored by your local diocesan pastoral care or Respect Life offices.

Tell her she is beautiful.

She may be feeling physically, spiritually, and emotionally drained with this pregnancy. Take the time to reassure her of her beauty, both inside and out, especially when morning sickness might make her feel otherwise.

Help her recharge and relax.

First-time mothers may have difficulty crossing that threshold into their new life as a mother. Your friend may be fearful that her life is “over,” so help her see it’s okay—good, actually—to still focus on herself sometimes. Even though she is a mother, she will still continue to be a woman, so affirm that it’s healthy and important to take care of herself—not only physically, but emotionally, as well. Help her to do things she really enjoys. Take her out for a nice meal, a movie, or a day of pampering.

Reassure her it’s okay (and good) to be happy.

It can be hard to be happy about a pregnancy that many people see as unfortunate timing at best and totally irresponsible at worst. Even if your friend wants to be happy about her bundle of joy, she may not feel she “deserves” to show that happiness. Get excited about her pregnancy in front of her, and she may just feel comfortable enough to share her own excitement with you.

Also, continue to show your interest and excitement throughout her pregnancy. Ask questions about her developing child. What is she learning at her doctor appointments? What names is she considering? Ask her what she thinks her baby looks like. Does she think they will have her eyes?

Encourage her.

Society tends to focus on ways that an unexpected pregnancy can be challenging. Help your friend to think of the benefits. Remind her of the fluttering kicks, somersaults, and maybe even dance moves her son or daughter will be rocking once they grow a little more. With moms’ groups and opportunities for play dates, there’s a whole new social world to explore. And there are plenty of benefits to being a young mom—like having more energy to chase her kids around.

Point out some real-life role models.

Many amazing young mothers and birthmothers have experienced unexpected pregnancies and still followed their dreams. Other women have discovered that, even when unable to follow their lives as planned, something beautiful and good came out of the twists in the road, bringing opportunities, growth, and joy they hadn’t imagined.

Point your friend to some of the many websites, blogs, and social media accounts dedicated to supporting young mothers. And let’s not forget Mary, whose “yes” to bearing Jesus affected the course of history. The Blessed Mother is a great person to pour her heart out to, and she’s a powerhouse of intercessory prayer.

An unexpected pregnancy can be a difficult and frightening time, and it’s important that your friend knows you are thinking of her and supporting her. Although the tips mentioned can be helpful, don’t forget the most important thing is to pray. Even if it’s just a quick two-second prayer, prayer is the most effective way we can help. Pray for her, for her child, and for guidance in how you can give her the best possible support.

Also, pay attention to how your friend feels most loved. One person might appreciate encouraging words, while another might feel more supported if you wash the dishes. Simple things—letting her know that you care and are always ready to listen, that you are available to help her, that you are praying for her—can give hope and courage when she might otherwise feel alone. Your support might be the only support she receives. Even if we never know how, the smallest things we do can change someone’s life. You can make a difference in her life. Will you?

The author is now a married mother of four who works as an advocate for young mothers facing unexpected pregnancies. She had her first baby in college and is a proud Catholic who supports life in every circumstance and at every stage.

This is a Respectlife.org opinion piece

Ref: https://www.respectlife.org/support-her

Amy Coney Barrett Signed Letter Confirming the “Value of Life From Conception to Natural Death”

Judge Amy Coney Barrett might perhaps be the most pro-life Supreme Court nominee to ever be considered for a spot on the nation’s highest court. Most nominees never produce the kind of pro-life and the kind of involvement in the pro-life movement that Barrett brings to the table.

She signed a letter in 2006 that described abortion as “barbaric” and called for an end to Roe v. Wade. She also was a member of the Notre Dame University Faculty for Life Group from 2010 to 2016, and she received an award from the Thomas More Society, a pro-life Catholic legal group, in 2018.

Barrett also added her name to a 2012 letter that criticized the Obama administration for trying to force religious groups like the Little Sisters of the Poor to pay for contraception, including types that may cause abortions, in their employee health plans.

And she has made several statements about the value of babies in the womb. According to Law and Crime, Barrett signed a public letter in 2015 that emphasized “the value of human life from conception to natural death.” She also said she believes that life begins at conception.

The a 2015 letter Barrett signed was from a group of prominent Catholic women to Catholic bishops. The women wrote that they gave “witness that the Church’s teachings” — including on the “dignity of the human person and the value of human life from conception to natural death” — “provide a sure guide to the Christian life.”

SIGN THE PETITION: Vote to Confirm Supreme Court Nominee Amy Coney Barrett

The letter was meant to stress “our fidelity to and gratitude for the doctrines of the Catholic Church, and our confidence in the Synod of Bishops as it strives to strengthen the Church’s evangelizing mission.

“We see the teachings of the Church as truth—a source of authentic freedom, equality, and happiness for women,” it added.

Judge Barrett’s pro-life views and her originalist approach to evaluating law and the Constitution have earned her double-digit support from the American people.

A new Morning Consult poll shows Americans support Barrett on a 48-31% margin and that 17% margin of support is an increase from the polling firm’s last national survey last week showing a 15% margin in her favor.

During her confirmation hearings, Judge Amy Coney Barrett indicated that the infamous Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade, which ushered in an era of virtually unlimited abortions claiming 62 million lives, is not a “super-precedent” that can’t be overturned.

During a discussion with Senator Lindsey Graham, Judge Barrett acknowledged that Roe “is not super precedent” and referred to an article that has been brought up during her confirmation hearings about how there are only a handful of Supreme Court decisions that are considered so sacrosanct they will never be reversed.

Graham followed on the article and explained that one of the reasons a Supreme Court decision is not super precedent is because there continues to be contention about the issue. He explained that abortion is still contentious and that Congress and state legislatures continue passing laws to protect unborn babies from abortion.

Previously, Judge Barrett said Roe is not in same category as the Supreme Court’s 1954 Brown v. Board of Education ruling, which declared segregated public schools unconstitutional because there is still a massive debate about whether Roe is legitimate.

Barrett says no one talks about overturning the Brown decision but explained that significant disagreement over it “indicates Roe doesn’t fall in that category.” She says it’s “not a case that’s universally accepted.”

“Well people use super precedent differently. The way that it’s used in the scholarship and the way that I was using it in the article the that you’re reading from was to define cases that are so well settled that no political actors and no people seriously push for their overruling and I’m answering a lot of questions about Roe, which I think indicates that Roe doesn’t fall in that category,” Barrett said.

“Scholars across the spectrum say that doesn’t mean Roe should be overruled, but descriptively, it does mean it’s not a case that everyone has accepted and doesn’t call for its overruling,” she continued.

“But that does not mean that Roe should be overturned,” Barrett told Senator Amy Klobuchar. “It just means that it doesn’t fall on the small handful of cases like Marbury v. Madison and Brown v. [The Board of Education] that no one questions anymore.”

In comments during her confirmation process, Judge Amy Coney Barrett also confirmed she is committed to the rule of law.

“I’m committed to the rule of law and the rule of the court,” she said. “If I give off-the-cuff answers then I would be basically a legal pundit and I do not think we want judges to be legal pundit. I think we want judges to approach cases thoughtfully and with an open mind.”

Judge Amy Coney Barrett delivered her opening remarks to the Senate Judiciary Committee yesterday and she made two major points.

First, she talked about the proper role of the courts, saying they are not supposed to make law and legislate from the bench. She also refused to back down to attacks from Senate Democrats on her faith, saying she strongly believes in prayer and thanked the many Americans who are prayer for her amid those attacks on her Christian faith.

“I believe in the power of prayer and it’s been uplifting that so many people have been praying for me,” Judge Barrett told members of the judicial panel.

“Nothing is more important to me, and I am so proud to have them behind me,” she added.

Before that, Judge Barrett discussed the proper role of the Supreme Court.

“Courts are not designed to solve every problem or right every wrong in our life,” she explained. “The policy decisions and value judgments of government must be made by the political branches elected by and accountable to the People. The public should not expect courts to do so, and courts should not try.”

“When I write an opinion resolving a case, I read every word from the perspective of the losing party. I ask myself how would I view the decision if one of my children was the party I was ruling against,” she went on to say. “Even though I would not like the result, would I understand that the decision was fairly reasoned and grounded in the law? That is the standard I set for myself in every case, and it is the standard I will follow as long as I am a judge on any court.”

The liberal American Bar Association has given President Donald Trump’s latest Supreme Court nominee its highest rating, issuing the rating on the opening day of her Supreme Court confirmation hearings in the Senate.

Last week, a new national poll showed Americans support the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett by double-digit margins.

A new Morning Consult poll shows Americans support Barrett on a 46-31% margin and that 15% margin of support is an increase from the polling firms last national survey in September following her nomination. That poll had Americans backing Barrett 37-34%, a resulting 12% increase from the 3% margin previously.

“Democrats are losing the Supreme Court messaging war, new polling indicates, with support for Judge Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation trending in the GOP’s direction,” the polling firm indicated. “Nearly half (46 percent) of voters in an Oct. 2-4 Morning Consult/Politico poll said the Senate should confirm Barrett — up 9 percentage points since President Donald Trump announced her nomination on Sept. 26 — as more voters say the chamber should consider her elevation to the high court as soon as possible, regardless of who wins next month’s election.”

Seventy-seven percent of GOP voters back Barrett’s confirmation, up 6 points from late last month. Among independents, the share who said she should be confirmed increased 8 points, to 36 percent, while the share of Democratic voters who said she should be confirmed increased 10 points, to 24 percent.

Even Democratic voters have softened their opposition to Barrett’s confirmation: The latest survey found 59 percent said the Senate should wait to see who wins the election, compared with 79 percent who said in the wake of Ginsburg’s death that the election winner should pick the next justice.

It’s not as if Barrett’s nomination is flying completely under the radar. Though 1 in 5 voters initially heard “a lot” about it, that share had doubled just a few days later following the first presidential debate.

Barrett, a law professor at the University of Notre Dame and judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, believes life begins at conception and has noted how both pro-life and pro-abortion legal experts have criticized Roe v. Wade as a bad decision. Barrett criticized the ruling for “ignit[ing] a national controversy” through judicial fiat.

Though her judicial rulings on abortion are few, she did rule in support of two Indiana pro-life laws during her time on the Seventh Circuit. She also has made several statements about the value of babies in the womb. According to the Law and Crime blog, Barrett signed a public letter in 2015 that emphasized “the value of human life from conception to natural death.”

Judge Amy Barrett was number one on the Supreme Court wish list for most pro-life voters and she was also the first potential high court nominee to get an in-person meeting with President Donald Trump. That’s not a surprising considering the president previous said he was “saving her” for an appointment to the Supreme Court should Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg retire or pass away.

Barrett, a mother of seven, was a former law clerk to Justice Antonin Scalia. Like Scalia, Barrett describes herself as an “originalist” judge.

When it comes to abortion cases, Barrett has been on the pro-life side. She voted in 2016 to allow a hearing on a pro-life law from the state of Indiana that requires abortion centers to offer a proper burial or cremation for babies they kill in abortions. And in 2019, she voted to allow a hearing on another Indiana pro-life law allowing parents to be notified when their teenage daughter is considering an abortion so they can help her make a better decision for her and her baby.

This is a Lifenews.com opinion piece

Ref: https://www.lifenews.com/2020/10/15/amy-coney-barrett-signed-letter-confirming-the-value-of-life-from-conception-to-natural-death/

Il-Ministru lest jemenda l-Liġi tal-Ugwaljanza

Il-Ministru Edward Zammit Lewis qal li huwa lest jemenda ż-żewġ abbozzi tal-Liġi tal-Ugwaljanza li hemm fil-Parlament. Il-Ministru tal-Ġustizzja semma li huwa lest jemenda l-artikli li jagħtu lil dawn l-abbozzi supremazija fuq kull ligi oħra barra l-Kostituzzjoni u anke l-partijiet li jolqtu ħażin lill-iskejjel tal-Knisja. Iżda kompla jgħid li mhux lest li jdaħħal fl-abbozz klawsola li tintroduċi d-dritt tal-oġġezzjoni tal-kuxjenza.

Il-Ministru Zammit Lewis kien qed jieħdu sehem f’diskussjoni fuq Newsbook.com.mt l-Ħamis wara nofsinnhar. Fid-diskussjoni li tmexxiet mill Fr Joe Borg ħa sehem il-Membru Parlamentari tal-PN Karl Gouder.

Gouder qal li l-PN jaqbel li titneħħa kull diskriminazzjoni u li jkun hemm ugwaljanza veru. Kompla jgħid li iżda trid li titneħħa l-klawsola li tagħti lil din il-liġi supremazija fuq liġijiet oħra. Huwa ddeskriva din il-klawsola bħala perikoluża u bħala klawsola li qed iġġib ħafna reazzjoni negattiva mill-għaqdiet professjonali.

Il-Klawsola tas-supremazjija: problema

Il-Ministru qal li huwa qed jisma’ lil kullħadd u lest li jemenda l-klawsola tas-supremazija waqt li ċaħad bil-qawwa li din il-liġi qed issir biex tħejji t-triq għall-introduzzjoni tal-abort u l-ewtanasna. Huwa qal li mill-banda l-oħra jħoss li f’liġi dwar l-ugwaljanza ma hemmx post għall-klawsola li tagħti dritt għall-oġġezzjoni tal-kuxjenza.

Meta, waqt il-programm il-Ministru kien preżentat bil-kritika li saret minn diversi gruppi professjonali u kritika li saret fuq Newsbook Q&A mill-Prim Imħallef Emeritu Vincent DeGaetano, l-Ministru qal li ma jaqbilx mal-kritika tagħħhom.

Tul il-programm kien hemm intervent minn Fr Jimmy Bartolo SJ li qal li l-abbozzi jħeddu lill-iskejjel tal-Knisja u jġibu fix xejn id-dritt tal-ġenituri li jibgħatu lil uliedhom fl-iskola tal-għażla tagħhom. Fr Bartolo qal li l-iskola tifforma lill-istudenti mhux waqt il-lezzjonijiet tar-reliġjon biss. Huma riedu li jkollhom id-dritt jagħżlu għall-iskejjel amministraturi u għalliema li jkunu jistgħu iġibu ‘l quddiem l-ethos kattoliku tal-iskejjel tal-Knisja u ma jħadħlux amministaturi u għalliema li jmorru kontra dan l-ethos.

Il-MP tal-PN Karl Gouder qal li jaqbel dwar dan.

Zammit Lewis qal li għalkemm se jinsisti li l-liġi tkun approvata huwa lest li jkompli jitkellem mal-iskejjel tal-Knisja biex tinstab soluzzjoni għad-diffikultajiet li qedgħin isemmu.

This is a Newsbook Online opinion piece

Ref: https://newsbook.com.mt/il-ministru-lest-jemenda-l-ligi-tal-ugwaljanza/

Pharmacists join call for conscientous objection in Equality Bill

Say Bill discriminates against pharmacists

The Pharmacy Council is concerned about implications on the pharmacy profession in the Equality Bill.

In a statement on Thursday, the council said the proposed law, which is aimed to provide a legal framework against discrimination, discriminates against pharmacists and other healthcare professionals and undermines pharmacists’ professional autonomy, moral convictions and integrity.

Moreover, it does not include a conscientious objection clause.

Pharmacists, in practising their profession, take decisions based on science and ethical principles inherent to the pharmacy profession and their conscience, the council said.

But the Bill’s articles seven and eight contemplate placing pharmacists into a conflict of conscience in relations to their legal obligations to render a professional service which goes against their conscience.

Acting against one’s conscience was also in breach of the pharmacists’ fundamental right to Freedom of Conscience and Religion as enshrined in the Constitution, the European Convention of Human Rights and the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights of the EU.

A similar call has already been made by doctors and the bishops have warned about serious implications on individual freedoms.

The council said it is most concerned about the proposed articles three and 32, the supremacy articles.

These rendered the proposed legislation supreme over any other present and future legislation, the code of ethics of the pharmaceutical profession and the oath taken by pharmacists to practice

“It is inconceivable that pharmacists would be obliged to render a professional service, which is in breach of the oath they have pledged to adhere to,” it said as it called for the deletion of article 32.

The council said it is imperative to include a conscientious objection clause under article six (exceptions).

“This clause must include a proviso stating that patients are informed of any conscientious objection in a timely manner, and that the State should make provisions to ensure access to lawful health services to protect patients’ rights.”

Malta as a Democratic State should ensure that pharmacists and other health care professionals are protected from a conflict of conscience and from any other form of discrimination, the council insisted.

This is a Times of Malta print opinion piece

Ref: https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/pharmacists-join-call-for-conscientous-objection-in-equality-bill.823159#.X37XNzDz8ks.whatsapp

Miracle baby leaves hospital after being born at 23 weeks

Baby Millie Bushell is now at home with her parents following a nearly 15 week stay in hospital after being born at just 23 weeks – 17 weeks prematurely and one week before the legal abortion limit.

Since her premature birth, Millie has been at three different hospitals and had a score of treatments, including a heart operation, treatment for seven infections, and multiple blood transfusions – all during the coronavirus pandemic.

Tiffany said: “It’s still not her due date but she’s home and she’s 15 weeks old [last] Sunday. It’s just crazy.”

Matthew added: “We’re out of the woods but we had to fight out of the woods.”

An ‘absolute miracle’

Tiffany and Matthew Bushell had dreamed of starting a family since they met 12 years ago.

However, they quickly ran into fertility issues once they started trying to conceive.

After four or five years and an IVF treatment, Tiffany became pregnant with their first daughter, Ruby. Just 24 weeks in, however, Tiffany went into labour and Ruby was born weighing just 1lb 5oz.

Tragically, Ruby didn’t survive.

A year later, Tiffany and Matthew were shocked to learn they were pregnant again, this time without fertility treatments.

And, when she went into labour at 23 weeks, she felt history was about to repeat itself after losing Ruby just 18 months earlier.

“The pregnancy was going really well,” Tiffany told The Mirror. “I was obviously being monitored for anything because of what happened last time, and then at 20 weeks I went in for a routine scan and my cervix was open, so I was taken down for surgery to put a stitch in place. Then three weeks later Millie decided she was coming.

“My waters broke at home so we went to Watford, but we had to be transferred to Chertsey in Surrey, as it was safer for her to be delivered in a level three neo-natal unit because she was so premature.”

Millie was born at St Peter’s Hospital, Cherstey at 2.06pm on 26 April.

Initially, she did not require a ventilator, however, after two days she began to have difficulty breathing and was immediately put on one.

According to her parents, “that was when everything started to happen.”

During her nearly 15 week stay, Millie had a score of treatments, including a heart operation, treatment for seven infections, and multiple blood transfusions – all during the coronavirus pandemic.

In addition, she was transferred to different hospitals twice — once for heart surgery at St Thomas’s in London and a second time to move closer to her parents home at Watford General Hospital.

“She had chest infections from being ventilated, she had the hole in the heart which every baby is born with but they close within the first few hours, but Millie was so premature it didn’t close,” explained Tiffany.

Despite multiple infections, she has continued to grow and feed well and weighed 5lb 4oz when she was allowed to go home with her parents in August.

Millie still has a long journey ahead of her, according to her father: “She’s on oxygen 24 hours a day but a nurse comes every week, so we’re hoping it’s going to be reduced to 23 hours soon.

“As she grows up we’re always going to tell her how strong and special she is. We must have taken 2,000 photos to show her when she is older. We’ll also tell her about Ruby.

“She’s had a tough start but what doesn’t break you makes you stronger. And we are so happy and very proud to be her parents.”

New guidance

The survival rate for extremely premature babies has doubled over the past decade, prompting the creation of new guidance allowing doctors to try to save babies born as early as 22 weeks into a pregnancy.

In 2008 only two out of ten babies born alive at 23 weeks went on to survive. Today it is four out of ten, according to the British Association of Perinatal Medicine.

Once a baby passes 22 weeks, the chances of survival increase week-by-week due to technical advances, better healthcare planning and the increased use of steroids.

The increased survival rates have prompted calls to review the current law in order to help lower abortion numbers and save the lives of babies.

Time for change

A spokesperson for Right to Life UK Catherine Robinson said: “This is something that Parliament should urgently revisit. It has been over a decade since time limits were last debated fully in Parliament, in 2008.

“There is a real contradiction in British law. In one room of a hospital, doctors could be working to save a baby born alive before 24 weeks whilst in another room a doctor could perform an abortion which would end the life of a baby at the same age. Surely this contradiction needs to end.

“Independent polling from Savanta ComRes shows that 70% of women in the UK want to see the time limit for abortion reduced to 20 weeks or below. Our current abortion time limit is way out of line with the rest of Europe where the most common abortion time limit is 12 weeks.

“This change in guidance adds further evidence to the need for Parliament to urgently review our current abortion time limit. We support any change in law that would help lower abortion numbers and save the lives of babies in the womb.

“It’s time that our laws were brought into line with public opinion, modern science and the rest of Europe.”

This is a righttolife.org.uk opinion piece posted on September 14, 2020

https://righttolife.org.uk/news/miracle-baby-leaves-hospital-after-being-born-at-23-weeks/

Persecuted by Equality – Miriam Sciberras

A number of medical associations, the Episcopal Conference, lay Catholic groups, Catholic Voices Malta, representatives of Church schools, the Independent School Association, the Malta Employers’ Association, Life Network Foundation and Christian groups have all sounded warnings and presented their objections in the discussions on the new equality bills, but to no avail.

The red light is on. It is an appeal to our authorities to take note and intervene in the best interest of our country, in the name of freedom.

It has been said ad nauseam that “the equality bills will not make anything that is illegal in Malta legal, so there is no need to worry”. This is at best naïve and concrete amendments need to take place in order for us to be reassured.

The two bills numbered 96 and 97 contain a supremacy clause that prevails over any other ordinary law that runs counter to them. Resistance to the removal of the supremacy clause logically leads one to think that there may be existing laws or others in the future that may be stealthily amended through such a clause.

In our legal system there are two ordinary laws, the European Convention Act (ch. 319) and the European Union Act, which are considered as supreme vis-à-vis any other ordinary law. The equality bill legislation as proposed will have supremacy over them, as well as over the Embryo Protection Act and the Criminal Code. This is another cause for legitimate worry.

It was stated that: “This government will not compromise on the principle of equality for all. It is the backbone of our belief system and the equality bill will further strengthen the legal framework in this regard.” Commendable words indeed, had this not really been a case of doublespeak at its best.

Catholics will have their religious freedom in the public square taken away

The bills will clamp down on anyone who as much as touches upon the ‘protected characteristics’ in a way deemed offensive by anyone, be it in journalism, media and or day to day living. This, in practice, will mean that Christians and Catholics will have their religious freedom in the public square taken away, the right of Church school administration in choosing employees representing their ethos in the senior management teams is no longer guaranteed, the fundamental right of parents to educate their children in their philosophical belief is threatened and the right to conscientious objection is excluded. This is not strengthening of our backbone but reducing the country to a cripple.

In January 2020, Prime Minister Robert Abela, when meeting the Archbishop at the Dar tal-Kleru, stated in a televised interview that he did not see a need for a change to Article II of the Malta Constitution, regarding religion, more so because Malta is a tolerant nation. The prime minister is right – we are a tolerant people. Love your enemy is at the heart of the gospel!

Equality as a principle based on human dignity and the intrinsic value of every person from conception to natural death is a principle easily understood by all people. Tolerance is a virtue we all need to learn and to live in a pluralistic society. We are obliged to accept, love and tolerate each other to live in peace.

However, the equality bills go too far when they include endorsement and promotion within the law. One cannot be forced to endorse and promote lifestyles that run contrary to one’s faith. Freedom of expression, religious freedom in day to day life and conscientious objection are seriously threatened.

Parliament approved the bill decriminalising porn and repealing religious vilification in 2016 in a bid to remove censorship. In 2020, we want to introduce a new censorship, this time a gag order on anyone who will not endorse or promote gender ideology. How can this even start to make sense?

As we pitch gender ideology versus religious freedom, we will see indoctrination attempts rammed down our throats. The targets will be innocent children (who in the name of a false equality will be bombarded by WHO-endorsed early sexualisation programmes in school curricula), ordinary families and individuals. People who just want to go on living their faith as they have always lived it in the last century will be labelled homophobic and ridiculed.

The stage is being set for the persecution of believers.

Miriam Sciberras, Chairman, Life Network Foundation Malta