Category: Pro-Life

Argentineans Fall Victim to Legalized Abortion

In the chaos that characterized the end of 2020, many people missed one of the most important – and discouraging – stories of the year. In the waning hours of 2020, the Argentinean Senate voted 38-29 to legalize abortion-on-demand up to the 14th week of pregnancy. The Chamber of Deputies had passed the bill a few weeks earlier.

And so, one more nation falls to the culture of death.

The scenes from Argentina in the moments after the Senate vote was announced were reminiscent of the scenes from Ireland in 2018, after the vote to repeal the 8th Amendment, which had banned abortion in the Catholic country. As in Ireland, the pro-abortion crowds gathered in the streets of Argentina screamed and shouted and wept, hugging one another in raptures of joy.

As someone who knows that the unborn child is a living human being, as deserving of the right to life as you or I, it is difficult to reconcile these scenes of happiness with the reality of what had just occurred. People were openly celebrating the “right” to kill other human beings. They were shedding tears of joy over this “progress.”

If only those pro-abortion activists knew what they had just unleashed on their country! In one fell swoop they had just undermined the entire foundation of the edifice of human rights, and potentially paved the way for the further advancement of the culture of death in the region.

As Pope St. John Paul II wrote in Christifideles Laici,

The inviolability of the person which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God, finds its primary and fundamental expression in the inviolability of human life. Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights – for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture – is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination. (no. 38)

International Pressure

The pro-life organization C-Fam reports that the abortion law passed in Argentina is especially sinister in a number of ways.

“Argentina’s new law doesn’t just decriminalize abortion,” writes Stefano Gennarini. “It declares abortion-on-demand in the first 14 weeks of pregnancy an international human right. It refers to ‘gestating persons’ instead of pregnant women. Girls as young as 13 will be able to get an abortion without parental consent under the new law.”

In addition, the law erodes conscience rights, making it illegal for nurses or doctors to try to convince a woman not to get an abortion.

Argentina only legalized abortion after an intense pressure campaign from wealthy and powerful developed nations. As Gennarini reports, “Argentina was urged to legalize abortion by Germany, France, and Norway, and another half-dozen countries in the Human Rights Council in Geneva in 2017, when it last reported on its human rights record.”

In addition, according t0 Gennarini, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) “had made legalizing abortion a condition of repackaging Argentina’s out of control national debt.” In other words, powerful international forces had blackmailed Argentina into sacrificing its unborn children, in exchange for financial benefits.

In general, Latin America remains strongly pro-life. Only a few nations allow abortion, and even then, abortion is typically only legal in a certain number of cases. However, international pro-abortion forces believe that once they can get a foothold on the region, then perhaps they might see a domino effect, with other nations soon following suit.

Pro-Lifers Prepare to Fight

HLI has been for nearly three decades an active participant in the pro-life movement in Argentina. I personally have been on missions in this country, working closely with our affiliates and international team in Latin America. Through these affiliate relationships and in collaboration with Church and civil leaders, as well as with other pro-life activists, we have worked tirelessly on the cultural battlefield in Argentina to protect human life from the culture of death, educating the public on the intrinsic evil of abortion and the dire consequences if accepted and legalized. Pro-life advocates in Argentina fought vigorously to protect their nation and people from the ensuing violence and they are to be commended for their heroic efforts.

The legalization vote came after a multi-year fight, in which pro-life activists in the country ran one of the most sophisticated, jubilant, and massive pro-life campaigns in history.

Each side in the debate was represented by a certain color – the pro-life side by blue, and the pro-abortion side by green. Over the past two years, the pro-life side has organized some of the largest pro-life marches in history, with an estimated attendance of multiple millions of participants across the country.

The imagery from these marches is astonishing and inspiring. Massive crowds of young families danced and sang through the streets, many of them dressed in blue or carrying blue banners. Vast seas of pro-life Argentineans hit the streets to tell legislators that they stand with the vulnerable.

The loss with this legalization is crushing for the country’s pro-life activists. But with an indefatigable spirit, they are vowing to continue fighting. And they have a plan.

“First, we’re trying to brake this in court,” pro-life leader Camila Duro told LifeSiteNews in a recent interview. “After that,” she said, “the cultural battle is the priority. We’ll work to make abortion unthinkable. We’ll fight. Our doctors and the people are mostly against abortion. This is just a new start.” (emphasis added)

Life: The First and Foundational Human Right

All human rights originate in the immutable and innate dignity of the human person. In our times, evil forces are working tirelessly to degrade the fundamental uniqueness and inviolable dignity of every human person, most especially the child in the womb.

Is killing a human right? If killing an innocent child in the womb is a “human right,” then the same right gives me the permission, the right, to arbitrarily kill someone outside the womb. There is no distinction. Mother Teresa spoke of this issue: “If we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell people not to kill one another?”

In a powerful statement on abortion, the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith noted:

“The first right of the human person is his life. He has other goods and some are more precious, but this one is fundamental – the condition of all the others. Hence it must be protected above all others. It does not belong to society, nor does it belong to public authority in any form to recognize this right for some and not for others.” (Declaration on Procured Abortion, no. 11)

A child in the womb is an independent life, separate from the life of the mother – just like a person walking alongside me on the street. By denying the right to life to an entire class of its most vulnerable citizens, Argentina has opened the door to all manner of human rights abuses, and to societal and family breakdown.

However, the Argentinean pro-life movement is prepared for the fight, for as long as it might last.

“It was painful. Very painful,” Camila Duro said of the vote to legalize abortion. “I think the best we can do is to fight this battle till the end. The worst thing is to consider how many years this new battle is going to take, and how many babies are going to die because of this law, and how many women are going to be broken because of abortion.”

Pro-life activists, like those in Argentina, are the true civil rights heroes of our time. Despite facing powerful and well-funded international pro-abortion forces, they retain a spirit of hope and determination. The same is true here in the United States, and in so many nations around the world.

Though the culture of death is dominant in so much of the world, we know that death will not have the final word. “O grave, where is your victory? Where, O death, is your sting?” wrote St. Paul to the Corinthians. The culture of death has claimed, and will claim, many lives. But it is not the final word. For, continues St. Paul, “thanks be to God who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.”

This is www.hli.org opinion piece

Ref: https://www.hli.org/2021/01/argentineans-fall-victim-to-legalized-abortion/?vcrmeid=BdotVti4kGMR7m2OWnSuw&vcrmiid=4Bgye-70G0mwUcPF91joPA

Abortion, Not COVID-19, Named Leading Cause of Death in 2020 With Nearly 43 Million Killed Worldwide

More people died in 2020 from abortions than any other cause of death worldwide.

That’s right. Despite the overwhelming number of deaths that 2020 brought us through the coronavirus pandemic, abortion was once again named the leading cause of death last year, killing nearly 24 times more people than the coronavirus.

Data compiled by Worldometers — a highly accredited site that collects official data from governments, scientific journals, and other reputable groups like the World Health Organization — revealed that as of December 31, 2020, an estimated 42.7 MILLION abortions had been performed over the course of the year.

Those staggering statistics, when compared to the number of babies born in 2020, would suggest that nearly a quarter of all pregnancies worldwide (23 percent) ended in abortion. For every 33 live births last year, 10 babies were aborted.

In the U.S. alone, where nearly half of all pregnancies are unplanned and 4 in 10 of these are terminated by abortion, there are over 3,000 abortions per day.

Abortion and The Global Death Toll

According to Johns Hopkins University, worldwide deaths from the coronavirus in 2020 totaled 1.8 million.

By comparison, Worldometers revealed that 8.2 million people died from cancer, 5 million from smoking, and 1.7 million of HIV/AIDS.

With deaths from abortion exceeding those from cancer, HIV/Aids, suicide, malaria, and car accidents combined, several pro-life activist groups are calling abortion “the social justice cause of our time.”

In a year when our eyes were opened even more to the racial injustices our country and world faces, we can’t ignore the facts that our unborn black brothers and sisters are at an even higher risk of abortion.

Abortion and The Black Community

According to data published in the Journal of Primary Care and Community Health, black women have been experiencing induced abortions at a rate nearly 4 times that of White women for at least 3 decades, and likely much longer.

“The science community has refused to engage on the subject and the popular media has essentially ignored it,” the authors write. “In the current unfolding environment, there may be no better metric for the value of Black lives.”

In a podcast with Nick Cannon earlier this year, Kanye West called abortion “black genocide.”

“Planned Parenthood was set up and placed in minority communities to kill black people,” West said, noting that “over 1,000 black babies are aborted every day.”

Cannon, who is also a vocal pro-life advocate, pointed to the racist beliefs of Margaret Sanger—the founder of Planned Parenthood, and listened intently as West read an excerpt about her from his phone.

“Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was an avowed racist whose goal was to reduce the black population in America and she succeeded,” West read from his phone. “Eighty percent of abortion clinics in America are in minority neighborhoods.

The organization recently disavowed Sanger over her “harmful connections” to racist movements, like eugenics.

“We are inside genocide as we speak,” West says.

When we count each and every one of these babies — the same way God sees and knows and loves every single one of them — as humans who died, the actual number of deaths worldwide in 2020 was approximately 101 million.

Pro-Life Advocacy

Although pro-life advocates are working tirelessly to put an end to abortion, their efforts continue to be met with social and political reform. And with complications posed by the coronavirus pandemic, it remains an uphill battle.

Although abortion rates in the U.S. are reportedly on the decline, it is still one of the leading causes of death, robbing the lives of an estimated 1 million U.S, babies annually. And a report from the UK Department of Health earlier this year revealed that in 2019 — the most recent year on record for which the Department has revised abortion statistics — the number of abortions in the UK hit an all-time high. Official figures show it was the highest number of abortions in a year since the historic vote in 1967 to legalize abortion in Britain through the Abortion Act.

Later this month, thousands will gather in Washington D.C. for the 48th annual March for Life rally on January 29th. This year’s theme is “Together Strong: Life Unites.”

The annual march commemorates the January 22, 1973 Supreme Court decision of Roe v. Wade, which invalidated 50 state laws and made abortion legal and available on demand throughout the United States.

This is a www.ForEveryMom.com opinion piece

Ref: https://foreverymom.com/society/abortion-not-covid-19-named-leading-cause-death-2020/

Abortion – Womb or Tomb? – Giovanni Bonello

Abortion – womb or tomb? – Giovanni Bonello

The University Għaqda Studenti tal-Liġi has come out strongly in favour of decriminalisation of abortion in Malta. No one disputes their fundamental right to hold and spread opinions, all the more so when the opinions are necessarily subjective and often more emotionally than rationally based. Perhaps they could have been more cautious where angels fear to tread.

I propose to deal briefly with some current legal misconceptions, avoiding as much as possible the equally relevant minefields of science, ethics, cultural traditions and religious belief.

So, exclusively law, and starting with fundamental law. It is often repeated that a woman’s right to abortion is her fundamental human right. Is it? Who says so?

In Europe there is an empirical but universally accepted standard as to what is a fundamental human right and what is not. In brief, fundamental human rights are only those which the European Court of Human Rights says are fundamental human rights (though domestic law is entitled to add to the list).

Now, in its 61 years existence and its tens of thousands of judgments, a number of which dealt specifically with abortion-related issues, not once, repeat, not once has the supreme court of Europe qualified abortion as a human right.

The closest it came was to rule that, if domestic legislation allowed abortion, then it would be a violation of a women’s rights to deny her, directly or indirectly, that option. Never has the supreme court of Europe ruled that a state must legalise abortion. Every sovereign state remains free to legalise abortion, to decriminalise it in given circumstances or to criminalise it.

A second legal misconception: rights only begin at birth. Not quite so. Our law deems a woman, whether one week or nine months pregnant, as a “woman with child”.

A look at current Maltese law dismisses the fable that a foetus is merely “a clump of cells”, the same way a beauty-spot, a bunion or a blister is. Not at all. The very words of the Criminal Code negate this.

Abortion, according to the code (Article 241), occurs when anyone causes the miscarriage of “a woman with child”. Not the miscarriage of “a woman with a clump of cells”. A foetus, however early, is by Maltese law considered to be a child, with some of the rights and the expectations of a child – among them, the right not to be quashed before birth.

This the Criminal Code repeats in the notion of grievous bodily harm. The law qualifies a harm as grievous when, if “committed on a woman with child, it causes miscarriage” (Article 218). A harm is not grievous if committed on a woman with “a clump of cells”. It escalates in gravity when a woman is “with child”.

Maltese law dismisses the fable that a foetus is merely “a clump of cells”. Above is an illustration of an early-stage embryo. Photo: Sciepro/Shutterstock.comWhen protecting the right to life, for the purposes of establishing criminal guilt, Maltese law does not differentiate between a foetus and a born child. It safeguards them equally, however early the pregnancy. There is only a difference in the punishment, not in the criminal guilt.

Though not specified in the written law of procedure, in practice our traditional system of protection under the law has adopted the institute of ‘curator of the womb’ known by its old-style name of curatore al ventre. When a pregnant married woman is widowed, the court may, at the request of any interested person, appoint a curator to safeguard the interests of the unborn child.

The court does not appoint a curator to defend the expectations of a clump of cells but to protect an unborn being deemed to be holder of potential or actual rights.

And, before capital punishment was abolished in Malta in 2000, it was official government policy to commute the death penalty of any woman who was pregnant at the time of sentencing or of execution. Did the state care about not sending to death a woman with a clump of cells, or was it concerned with not terminating the autonomous life of a separate being who had not been convicted of any crime?

On the horns of a dilemma, the state preferred that a guilty pregnant woman should escape just retribution, rather than that an innocent foetus should have his or her life terminated. I am now being told that the state was not choosing between justice, on one hand, and an unborn child on the other. Oh no, the state was officially opting for injustice to society in order to save… a clump of cells.

In prohibiting the execution of pregnant women, Malta was following the principle now enshrined in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: “Sentence of death shall not be carried out on pregnant women” (Article 6). The life of a criminal mother is spared, obviously not to upset a clump of cells.

I understand that a purely ‘legal’ configuration of the abortion narrative informs only a part of the debate and that powerful arguments militate on either side of the fence. But it is simplistic to reduce complex and contentious issues to black or white.

There is excellent material in this Position Paper, though it is massively one-sided in problems so seeped in controversy. I wished the Għaqda Studenti tal-Liġi, whose function it is to promote the study of law, had been more balanced and nuanced.

Giovanni Bonello, ex-judge at the European Court of Human Rights

This is www.timesofmalta.com opinion piece

Ref: https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/abortion-womb-or-tomb-giovanni-bonello.841637

An ominous resolution – Tonio Borg

The EU cannot interfere on matters such as abortion

Poland was recently at loggerheads with the European Union. It was objecting to a new mechanism which permitted the withdrawal of EU funds to countries that do not abide by the rule of law.

Thankfully, Poland finally yielded and now the mechanism, with certain safeguards, will be launched. A country cannot abuse of its sovereignty in rule of law matters while belonging to the Union, benefitting from its membership but ignoring its values.

This mechanism could be a lifesaver for any country whose government tries to cross the red lines of what it is allowed to do.

What is, however, perturbing is that in the midst of this crisis, the European Parliament passed a controversial, even though non-binding, resolution which condemned Poland because its Constitutional Court has ruled that the right to life protects even unborn children who are physically or mentally deformed or disabled.

The charge against Poland was that “many pregnant women who have been informed that there is a high probability of the foetus having a severe and irreversible abnormality or an incurable disease have had their access to legal abortion restricted”.

It then “strongly condemned the Constitutional Tribunal’s ruling and the setback to women’s sexual and reproductive rights in Poland”. It also affirmed that “the ruling puts women’s health and lives at risk”. It even assumed that wilful termination of a pregnancy is a fundamental right although no European instrument of law recognises such right.

This resolution, even though not binding, is astounding. Since when is the apex court of an EU member state subject to criticism for its judgments on matters which are outside the powers and jurisdiction of the EU organs such as abortion?

In fact, European commissioners have repeatedly made it clear that, according to the principle of subsidiarity, abortion and euthanasia are matters to be dealt with by the member states themselves. Some allow them. Others, like Poland and Malta, are vehemently against.

The government cannot cajole the Catholic vote on the one hand and allow its pundits and MEPs to encourage the introduction of abortion in Malta– Tonio Borg

This intrusion on the subsidiarity principle and the margin of appreciation, which each member state enjoys in such matters, was conveniently forgotten by the European Parliament. It is appropriate to recall that, during the negotiations leading to Malta’s accession to the Union, the Fenech Adami government had managed to include a protocol in the Treaty of Accession to the effect that, even though the current legal position is that the EU cannot interfere in such matters as abortion, Malta retained the right that, should the rules change, it remains the arbiter to decide whether to introduce the wilful termination of a woman’ pregnancy in Maltese law.

Now for the rules to change, one needs the unanimous decision of the member states. Yet, to be doubly sure, a Nationalist government insisted on including such a protocol.

It is sad to note that out of six Maltese MEPs, only two, namely Nationalist MEPs Roberta Metsola and David Casa, voted against the EP resolution. Even though the official position of the current Labour government, as expressed by the prime minister, is that the current administration is against the introduction of abortion, two Labour MEPs, in Pilate-like fashion, washed their hands of the issue and actually abstained on a resolution condemning a country for restricting abortion.

Another Labour MEP did not turn up for the vote. But, worse than that, one Labour MEP, Cyrus Engerer, voted in favour. In his considered opinion, the selection of healthy unborn children and the elimination of the unhealthy ones in their mother’ womb could actually be even considered as a human right, an evil that could be one day be taken as laudable and morally right.

He stated that “the ruling of October 22 by Poland’s Constitutional Tribunal to make abortion illegal in cases involving severe and irreversible foetal defects “puts women’s health and lives at risk”,

Besides, the inertia, and, in one case, the outright approval, regarding the resolution by Labour MEPs has created a dangerous precedent for Malta whose laws are in line with the ruling of the Polish Constitutional Court.

We inevitably shudder when we read about the extermination of disabled, deformed or abnormal human beings during the last World War by totalitarian regimes in pursuit of the superior race doctrine. Still, it seems that some of us find nothing objectionable if such human beings are exterminated before they are born. They style themselves pro-choice but the only persons who have no choice at all are the unborn.

This is similar to a recent boast by one member state that practically there were no longer any children born with Down Syndrome in its territory, not because a cure was found for such condition but because all unborn children showing signs of such condition were eliminated before having the chance of being born!

It is useless paying only lip service to the right to life. The right to life needs to be defended every day. The government cannot cajole the Catholic vote on the one hand and allow its pundits and MEPs to encourage the introduction of abortion in Malta.

Tonio Borg is former European Commissioner.

Ref: This is a timesofmalta.com opinion piece

https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/an-ominous-resolution-tonio-borg.839705#.X977ob14ooQ.whatsapp

2020 a year of Significant Pro-Life Victories for Right To Life UK

Right To Life UK has had a challenging and busy year, with the abortion lobby attempting to exploit the COVID-19 crisis at every step to seek changes to abortion legislation and policy.

Right To Life UK have been able to put up a strong fight every time they have attempted to advance their campaign in Parliament, the media and amongst the wider public.

Alongside this, we have been able to secure a number of key victories and achievements, here are the main achievements:

1. Defeat of major attempt to introduce extreme abortion law to England and Wales

In July the abortion lobby staged a major attempt to introduce an extreme abortion law to England and Wales by hijacking the Domestic Abuse Bill.

The attempt to hijack the UK Government’s flagship Domestic Abuse Bill with two extreme abortion proposals failed, in a major pro-life victory.

To put in perspective how embarrassing a defeat on this amendment would have been for the abortion lobby, if they had taken the amendment through to a vote and lost, this would have been the first time that a pro-abortion amendment or Bill had been defeated in a vote in UK history.

Thank you to the thousands of people that rallied friends and family to email their MPs. MPs received more emails ahead of this vote than they have ever received ahead of an abortion vote.

Thank you also to our supporters who gave so generously to enable us to have the resources in place to run a very large campaign against these amendments.

We spent 18 months preparing for this battle. This project has included building a large network of relationships with active pro-life MPs in Parliament. This helped to ensure that there was a very strong case made to the Speaker from this network of pro-life MPs to identify the most extreme abortion amendment as out of scope, and to help mobilise MPs across Parliament against the remaining abortion amendment.

Alongside this, we worked to place a large number of positive pro-life articles in the mainstream media to provide the right momentum in the public eye for our side over this period.

The final key component has been building a very large base of grassroots supporters in every constituency in the country. This meant that when we asked people like you to email their MPs, it became crystal clear that a large number of people in their constituencies did not want these extreme changes.

None of this would have been in place in order to help achieve this amazing victory without your generous financial support. Thank you.

2. Continued strong opposition to assisted suicide

We have taken the strategic, media and digital expertise that we built up from working with a large group of allies to defeat the Marris Assisted Suicide Bill, to continue to ensure assisted suicide is not legalised.

The decisive win has meant that it has been difficult for the assisted suicide lobby to bring forward legislation on this issue. They have therefore been working quietly behind the scenes to try and grow their numbers ahead of another attempt to change the law. During 2020 we have focused on defensive work in Westminster to help limit their advance.

We have also faced an onslaught of activity from the assisted suicide lobby targeting the Royal Colleges, British Medical Association etc. to attempt to get them to drop their opposition to assisted suicide. This tactic is being used as it will make it easier for the assisted suicide lobby to pass legislation introducing assisted suicide if it does not face opposition from the medical establishment. We have been working with allied organisations to block these attempts.

In 2021, we expect the assisted suicide lobby to make a new attempt to introduce assisted suicide and continue their work to move the Royal Colleges from their current stance of opposing assisted suicide. We will be working hard to oppose them at every step along the way and will need your help with contacting MPs and other activities.

3. Abortion (Cleft Lip, Cleft Palate and Clubfoot) Bill launched

Currently abortion is allowed up to birth for babies with disabilities including cleft lip, cleft palate and club foot.

This year a cross-party group of MPs from the three largest parties in the UK Parliament have brought forward the Abortion (Cleft Lip, Cleft Palate and Clubfoot) Bill to raise the profile of this issue in Parliament. This Bill would change the law to clarify that cleft palate, cleft lip and club foot are not grounds for abortion in the UK.

This Bill seeks to address the disability discrimination inherent in our abortion law: currently abortion is permitted beyond the 24-week standard limit (which is already far beyond the time limit in most European countries of 12 weeks) to birth if a baby is diagnosed with a cleft lip, cleft palate, or club foot – all of which can be treated with surgery and therapy following birth.

Alongside the launch of the Bill, we worked with people with these conditions and their families to launch the Stand Up and Smile campaign to raise the profile of this issue outside Parliament.

As a result of the campaign, thousands of people have written to their MP asking them to support the Bill and a large number of MPs have signed an Early Day Motion supporting the Bill. The Bill has also been covered extensively by the mainstream media including articles in The Guardian, The Times and the Mail on Sunday.

The Bill is due for a second reading on 21 March 2021. We will be in contact ahead of then with details on how you can help build further support for a law change in this important area.

4. New digital news platform launched and now the most visited pro-life website in Europe

We have just launched our Right To Life News digital news platform. This has been launched so that we can reach a far wider audience of people with pro-life news that will keep people informed and help change even more hearts and minds on life issues.

Our website is already the most viewed pro-life website in Europe and the fourth most viewed pro-life website in the world – and this digital news platform has been built to enable us to reach even more people.

Our digital team has spent a number of months building the platform from the ground up so that it provides visitors with the world-class user-driven design experience that they would expect from a platform run by a major global media outlet. We have also designed the platform so that it is easily viewable across desktop, mobile and tablet, as increasing numbers of people are accessing content on their mobile phones and tablet devices.

We are concerned that some media outlets are moving to position themselves as journalists ‘campaigning’ for abortion access; the most recent example being the changes to the Guardian’s guidelines on how they report on abortion, a move which follows long-term bias from the BBC in their language guidelines. If this trend continues, it will become increasingly difficult for the mainstream public to be informed on the pro-life side of debates on issues such as abortion.

Right To Life News ensures that we have a platform where reliable pro-life news is accessible to everyone in the UK and beyond – and that we are not limited by what editors in major newspapers choose to publish.

Thank you to the many supporters who have regularly used the news service and shared the articles: you have played a big part in making this news service a success.

This is only the beginning. In 2021 we will be rolling out further plans to increase the number of people we are reaching through the news service. This includes the further roll-out of our syndication programme, where we form relationships with media outlets and allow them to republish our articles free of charge. This has already enabled our articles to be republished by a number of major media outlets with very large audiences – this all helps to ensure we reach many more people and change many more hearts and minds on life issues.

5. Growing network of MPs and peers to further our proactive political strategy

In the run up to the General Election at the end of last year, we ran the Vote for Both Lives campaign, a major initiative that we rolled out throughout the country in the lead up to election day. The campaign resulted in hundreds of thousands of emails being sent to MP candidates along with people visiting their candidates in person to encourage them to sign the Both Lives Pledge.

Over 200 MP candidates signed the Both Lives Pledge making a commitment to support pro-life legislation in this parliament.

This election campaign has meant that there are a number of new MPs who have committed to support pro-life legislation in this parliament. The campaign was also part of a wider shift in the make-up of parliament, which saw a large number of pro-abortion MPs either step down or lose their seats.

This left us with a new parliament with considerably better numbers in place to fight the push from the abortion lobby to introduce extreme abortion legislation along with a larger team of pro-life MPs to support positive pro-life legislation that is brought forward during this new parliament.

In 2020, our Public Affairs team has worked to offer support to the large number of new pro-life MPs who entered Parliament after the General Election, and grow their network further.

This has built on the already large number of MPs and Peers we have a direct relationship with, and has enabled us to work with them to defeat the introduction of an extreme abortion law to England and Wales along with a number of other initiatives.

This work ensures that life issues stay on the agenda in Parliament and that we are building a better political situation for the unborn child and pregnant women.

6. Shining a light on the millions spent from the UK’s international aid budget on abortion

Over the year, we have been working to expose the enormous amount of international aid funding that is going from the UK to provide abortion services in developing countries.

This work has focused on putting pressure from within Parliament on the Foreign, Commonwealth & Development Office on this issue. We have also helped raise the issue in the mainstream media so that the wider public is aware of the negative impact that this spending is having in developing countries.

The biggest single donor to international abortion giant Marie Stopes International (now rebranded as MSI Reproductive Choices) is the UK taxpayer, through the UK international aid funding that is given to the organisation each year. UK international aid funding is also given to a number of other organisations that provide abortions in developing countries and lobby Governments to introduce extreme abortion legislation to these countries.

Attempts backed by international abortion organisations to introduce extreme abortion legislation to Kenya and Malawi have thankfully both been stalled in 2020 due to strong opposition.

In 2021, we expect there to be many more challenges on this front. MSI Reproductive Choices has set a goal of vastly increasing the number of abortions that it is performing in developing countries over the next ten years – and the new US adminstration is likely to reverse the previous administration’s restrictions on funding abortions overseas.

This will mean that international abortion providers will likely see a large increase in the amount of funding they receive to spend on abortion along with lobbying teams dedicated to attempting to change legislation on abortion in developing countries.

7. Our digital strategy is changing even more hearts and minds of a new generation online

In 2020 we have worked on growing our digital strategy to reach an even larger audience online with smart, relevant and viral-focused content.

Our social media channels across Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, Pinterest, LinkedIn and TikTok have reached a new generation of people on a massive scale allowing us to reach tens of millions of people across these platforms during the year.

We have further built our in-house capability to produce world-class digital content – all of this has been produced in-house for a fraction of the cost of hiring leading agencies.

Alongside our social media strategy, we have further developed our website with a focus on making it the go-to tool that any member of the public can use to easily contact their MPs and access the latest information on life issues.

This year, within hours of a key development in Parliament, thousands of emails have been able to be sent directly to MPs. This ensures that MPs are aware that there is a very large and active grassroots movement in their constituencies who are pro-life and care about how their MPs vote on these issues.

The feedback we have had from MPs has been overwhelmingly positive as they have felt that there is real momentum for positive pro-life change from within their constituencies.

8. Our media strategy continues to help shape the mainstream media narrative on life issues

Concrete policy change on life issues can only happen in conjunction with wider cultural change outside parliament.

A key part of our work to change the wider culture on these issues is ensuring that pro-life messaging is heard in the mainstream media on a regular basis, and is supporting positive changes that are being brought forward in parliament.

In 2020 we have further grown our media reach with a big focus on getting positive pro-life messaging regularly featured in the mainstream media.

Our focus on mainstream media has been so important because this allows us to reach a large middle ground of people on this issue, with a focus on areas where research shows the majority of people are very open to seeing a positive political and cultural change to our abortion laws.

Wherever possible, we have ensured that the spokespeople we use as the voice on these issues in the media are most likely to connect with mainstream audiences. This has included women who have been personally affected by abortion, people with disabilities and medical experts.

9. Our education & training programmes are developing a new generation of pro-lifers

We have continued our work to develop a new generation of pro-lifers who are equipped to effectively communicate an evidence-based case for positive change on life issues.

This includes our Media and Communications Training Programme which provides young pro-lifers with an understanding of key pro-life issues and the ability to communicate these issues in the media. The programme equips participants with the necessary skills and techniques to deliver strong interviews, control difficult and hostile questions and to deliver an authentic perspective on life issues.

Our Internship Programme has been designed to introduce student right-to-lifers and new graduates to the world of the right-to-life movement and its work across the media, politics, education and grassroots engagement. In 2020 we have seen more of our graduates go on to a number of important roles in a variety of sectors.

Together with our wider digital outreach, these programmes work to enable us to educate and develop a new movement of young people who are passionate about achieving positive change on life issues. In 2021 we will be expanding our education and training programmes further.

Ref: www.rightolife.co.uk

Prominent House of Lords Member Speaks Out Against Dangerous DIY Abortion

Prominent peer speaks out against ‘dangerous’ DIY home abortion scheme

A prominent member of the House of Lords has called on the Government to stop the provision of ‘DIY’ home abortions, which she says have “proven to be so dangerous”.

In a recent article, Baroness Philippa Stroud criticised the Government for introducing a dangerous and harmful ‘DIY’ home abortion concession as part of efforts to ‘Protect the NHS’ during the COVID-19 pandemic. She said that the decision to allow ‘pills-by-post’ or ‘at home’ abortion represents “the largest change to abortion law since 1967 and was done without any parliamentary scrutiny or public consultation”.

“The measures allow consultations with a single doctor or nurse over the phone, after which both sets of abortion pills (one mifepristone/six misoprostol) are sent to the patient’s home for a woman to effectively perform a DIY abortion, up until 10 weeks gestation”.

In March, just a week after the beginning of lockdown, Secretary of State for Health, Matt Hancock confirmed that there were no plans to change the abortion law as part of the COVID-19 response. However, as Baroness Stroud points out, these reassurances were quickly forgotten as the Government U-turned to allow ‘DIY’ home abortion throughout the pandemic, despite the Health Minister Lord Bethell admitting in the House of Lords that “it is not right to rush through this type of change in a sensitive area such as abortion without adequate parliamentary scrutiny.”

Unintended consequences

“It is difficult to quantify the number of complications that have arisen from these pills, such as incomplete abortion and continued bleeding, due to insufficient data collection of patients receiving the pills, but Freedom of Information (FOI) requests have revealed the aftermath from the pills-by-post process to include sepsis, hemorrhaging, embolisms, renal failure and trauma to pelvic organs, among other medical complications”, she said.

The limit for ‘DIY’ home abortion is supposed to be 10 weeks gestation. As the abortion provider BPAS states, one week’s difference, from less than 9 weeks gestation to a 9-10 week gestational age more than doubles the risk of an incomplete abortion from 3% to 7%.

Baroness Stroud highlighted that “there are at least 52 cases officially reported to the Department of Health and Social Care of women who were provided pills-by-post beyond 10 weeks gestation, including one case where the unborn child was at 28 weeks gestation (beyond the legal limit)”.

A leaked email from a Regional Chief Midwife at NHS England and NHS Improvement concerning the “escalating risks” around ‘DIY’ home abortion revealed that one woman was able to receive abortion pills at 32 weeks pregnant and mentions “3 police investigations […] linked to these incidents”, one of which is a murder investigation “as there is a concern that the baby was live born” after a woman used the ‘DIY’ home abortion service.

“Threat to vulnerable women and girls”

Alongside the medical complications of ‘DIY’ home abortion, the Baroness decried the potential for abuse and coercion, which becomes difficult to detect without in-person consultation.

She noted: “This poses a threat to vulnerable women and girls who are at risk from an abusive partner, sex-trafficking or child-sex abuse, as the home abortion could be used by their abusers as a means to more easily cover up trafficking or abuse scandals”.

“Proven to be so dangerous”

Despite Government guidance encouraging people to attend medical appointments in person during lockdown, such access to physical healthcare has not been applied to ‘DIY’ home abortion, thereby leaving vulnerable women and girls to fend for themselves in their own homes.

As Baroness Stroud powerfully concludes, “it is crucial that the Government reverses these damaging concessions that were made at the beginning of the pandemic that have proven to be so dangerous, and restores protections for women during these unprecedented times, and reverses the concessions for at-home abortions”.

Right To Life UK’s spokesperson, Catherine Robinson said:

“The pre-COVID abortion law in England and Wales, although certainly a very bad and dangerous law, did at least provide some minimal protections against forced abortions and ensured at least a minimum of post-abortion care. Once abortion pills are sent in the post, no one can be certain who takes them and at what stage of pregnancy. The potential for complications and abuse is extensive especially considering that thousands of women have procured an abortion via this method”.

“Baroness Stroud is absolutely right to call on the Government to rescind this appalling law, which was introduced with no parliamentary scrutiny and next to no discussion. The concern that abortion access be expanded at all costs is once again on clear display. The abortion providers distributing this pill and knowing the many risks involved are showing how little they actually care for women, let alone their unborn children”.

This is a www.righttolife.org.uk opinion piece

Ref: https://righttolife.org.uk/news/prominent-peer-speaks-out-against-dangerous-diy-home-abortion-scheme

Brave pregnant mother with cancer refuses abortion and delays treatment

Brave mother with cancer refuses abortion and delays treatment, given all clear

A 21-year-old mum who delayed cancer treatment rather than have an abortion has now been given the all clear.

Ellie Whittaker from Chesterfield was diagnosed with Hodgkin’s Lymphoma in October 2019 while she was also 16 weeks pregnant. Ellie was told that chemotherapy to treat the cancer could harm her unborn baby, so her doctors told her she should have an abortion.

“I don’t regret my decision and I’d make the same one again given the choice.”

Ellie refused to have an abortion and decided to delay chemotherapy until after her daughter was born.

‘The doctor advised I have an abortion because cancer treatment could cause problems for the baby. There was no way I was going to give her up so I chose to delay it.’

‘I pushed the cancer as far from my mind and focused on Connie – I couldn’t wait to be a mum.

Her daughter, Connie, was born on 18th March 2020, and by that time the cancer had progressed. Ellie started treatment almost immediately after the birth.

She said: ‘I tried to spend as much time with Connie as I could before I started. I remember crying and thinking I wouldn’t be able to be there for her.

‘I knew the chemotherapy would take its toll.

‘But when they scanned me the cancer had progressed to stage three – it had spread to my stomach and spleen.’

The all clear

Ellie underwent 12 gruelling rounds of chemotherapy between March and September before doctors finally gave her the all clear in October 2020.

“I’m so pleased it’s gone and I can focus on being a mum.”

“Connie’s an amazing baby – she started teething and trying to sit-up. She’s the quietest baby and sleeps through the night. I wouldn’t change her for the world.”

Pressured to have an abortion

Women are advised or even pressured to have abortions for many different reasons. They are often pressured to have an abortion if doctors think their child might be disabled.

In 2017, a damning report from the UK’s Care Quality Commission (CQC) accused Marie Stopes International (now MSI Reproductive Choices) of paying staff bonuses for persuading women to have abortions.

In October of this year, a nurse in the UK said she was left fearing for her life and needing emergency surgery after MSI Reproductive Choices denied her proper counselling and pressured her to take abortion pills at home, rather than under the supervision of a doctor in a clinic.

Right To Life UK’s spokesperson, Catherine Robinson, said: “It’s wonderful that Ellie is now free of chemotherapy and her daughter is healthy. It’s so encouraging to see this brave mother refuse an abortion despite potential risks to her own health.”

“Sadly, in this case the doctors are endorsing a form of twisted logic that says: ‘Better to have an abortion than risk harming the baby.’ In reality of course, nothing could harm the baby more than ending his or her life through abortion.”

This is a www.righttolife.org.uk opinion piece

Ref: https://righttolife.org.uk/news/brave-mother-with-cancer-refuses-abortion-and-delays-treatment-given-all-clear?fbclid=IwAR1DS2aIqPo-6-QmpjP7X964swO_YdBSY5lQr8HBZehW8Cg87wySXRcaa88

Pro-Life People Will Sing Christmas Carols at Abortion Clinics to Save Babies, Share Christ

With messages of hope and life, pro-life advocates plan to sing Christmas carols outside abortion facilities all across the country this December.

The Christian Post reports the “Peace in the Womb” caroling project has been going on for seven years, and, through their singing and encouragement, pro-lifers have helped save unborn babies from abortion.

“More than any other factor, it’s fear that drives a woman to seek abortion. Fear for her future, fear of giving birth, even fear over her partners’ reaction to her pregnancy,” said Eric Scheidler, executive director of the Pro-Life Action League, in a statement. “These fears have been compounded by the COVID pandemic and resulting economic downturn.”

Though participation in pro-life sidewalk advocacy is down due to the coronavirus, Scheidler said pro-lifers in dozens of cities still plan to participate this year.

“So far, the number of locations is a little bit down this year because some places, particularly hard-hit states, we’ve had some of our leaders decide to either scale down the event or postpone it or wait until next year,” he told the Christian Post.

Follow LifeNews on the Parler social media network for the latest pro-life news!

He said they hope the Christmas carols will plant a seed in women’s minds that there is hope for them and their babies and there is forgiveness for those seeking abortions.

“It’s particularly sort of horrifying to think of a woman seeking an abortion at this time of year, when all of us are putting together Christmas lists and praying in preparation for Christmas and reflecting on the beauty of Mary and Joseph saying yes to our Lord and becoming parents, even in trying circumstances,” Scheidler told One News Now.

“Our mission is to bring the light of the incarnation, the light of the birth of Christ to this place of despair,” he added.

Though the carolers sometimes face “very aggressive” pro-abortion counter-protesters, he said they know that they are making a difference for life. He told the Post that, during one event in Jacksonville, Florida, a mother and daughter who came for an abortion heard the Christmas carols and had a change of heart.

“ … when they heard that we were there singing Christmas carols trying to appeal to the moms to choose life, the mom and daughter left the abortion clinic and then the pro-lifers followed up and found out that the girl had absolutely chosen to keep her baby,” Scheidler said.

Find a list of events here.

This is a www.lifenews.com opinion piece

Ref: https://www.lifenews.com/2020/12/11/pro-life-people-will-sing-christmas-carols-outside-abortion-clinics-to-save-babies/

Morning After Pill Charades

The morning after pill can be abortifacient and women need to know the truth.

I read the article by Isabel Stabile, published on TMIS of Sunday, 6 December, and as a researcher and gynecologist in the field, I must answer in the interest of correct consumer information to the Maltese citizens.

I base my reply quoting the Official Assessment Reports on EllaOne by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) itself. It is pertinent to note that we are speaking of two very different drugs mentioned as Morning after pill, each having a completely different mode of action. These are Levonogestrel (morning after pill) and Ella One (five days after pill).

From the studies presented, it is clear that Levonogestrel (LNG) is unable to prevent or delay ovulation; however, it leads to a shortened or inadequate corpus luteum that does not allow the endometrium to prepare for implantation. The diagram below, from a study by Brache et al, confirms that compared to the placebo, Levonogestrel does not prevent ovulation. The data is presented and shared by EMA itself in its EPAR (European Public Assessment Report) on EllaOne page 9 and updated yearly; last update being on 20 May.

The EMA shows officially that LNG does not work by affecting ovulation and is placebo-like in the fertile days, when fertilization is possible. In spite of this, the EMA presents LNG as an ovulation-inhibitor. Why?

EllaOne (ulipristal acetate, UPA) can prevent implantation and also terminate ongoing pregnancies. “Ulipristal acetate prevents progesterone from occupying its receptor, thus the gene transcription normally turned on by progesterone is blocked, and the proteins necessary to begin and maintain pregnancy are not synthesized.” (EMEA 2617/87/2009, Page 8: 2.3). On page 10 of the same document, it goes on to say that: “The ability of Ulipristal Acetate (UPA) to terminate pregnancy was investigated. Ulipristal, mifepristone and lilopristone were approximately equipotent” further confirming that it can terminate an ongoing pregnancy.

The science and the marketing of the morning after pill (MAPs) are diametrically opposed. The consumer can easily be misled into thinking that the MAPs are “normal” contraceptives when in fact they can be and are anti-implantation drugs and EllaOne can likely interrupt ongoing pregnancies.

Women who would be reluctant to take any medicinal that could endanger their embryo’s life should have access to the correct information and biological processes taking place in their body. The law in Malta protects the embryo from conception. Professionals can also have a conscientious objection to referral and/or supply of such medicinals.

In her article, Stabile also emphasised the relevance of the SPC. Have a look at the image below taken from page 41 of the same 2009 EMA Assessment Report: the highlighted sentences: “Omit any sentence in the SPC and the PL suggesting that the product could be used as an abortifacient”, “Pregnancy should be excluded before EllaOne is administered” and “Contraindication: Pregnancy”, speak volumes.

Furthermore, the European Medicines Authority in the Assessment Report EMA/73099/2015 on page 35, reports that during the evaluation process of the ellaOne registration dossier, the company, HRA-Pharma, was “requested to study any potential off-label use of ellaOne, in particular during pregnancy, possibly as an abortifacient. No such clinical studies were performed with Ulipristal-Acetate and it is therefore left as an unknown, whether it is possible to use it for abortion”. This notwithstanding, at the end of the 2015 AR, EMA presented ellaOne once again as an anti-ovulatory drug and made it “not subject to medical prescription”.

EllaOne does not prevent ovulation in the most fertile days and yet over 80% of expected pregnancies do not appear clinically. The drug does not allow endometrial maturation, so necessary for the embryo to implant. This leads to the embryo losing his or her life.

EllaOne and Levonogestrel are being sold over the counter and without prescription to young adults and women who think that they are using contraceptives that are safe. No advice is obligatory as to the side effects that these medicinals can have on their health, especially with recurrent use of EllaOne. In fact, Esmya, a medicine containing the same active ingredient, ulipristal acetate, has been withdrawn from clinical use due to a direct relationship between UPA and severe liver injuries, including liver transplantation. A case of severe DILI (Drug Induced Liver Injury) occurred after an UPA consumption, not greater than the dosage in one-two tablets of EllaOne, and EllaOne, unlike Esmya, can be self-administered repeatedly, without any medical surveillance.

The scientifically correct information regarding the mechanism of action of these drugs must be available to our politicians, decision-makers, doctors, chemists and other professionals and last but not least to the women consuming these pills. Their rights and freedom of informed choice are being deliberately thwarted. Women are being deceived. They are being informed that ovulation will be prevented after taking Emergency Contraceptives, but, on the contrary, they can ovulate and can conceive, but their offspring dies as these drugs inhibit implantation. Healthwise they are completely unaware of the severe drug induced liver injury (DILI) potentially due to Ulipristal acetate.

For further information on toxicity and on the mechanism of action, please see, respectively: Ulipristal Acetate and liver-injuries: while Esmya is revoked, EllaOne is allowed in repeated self-administrations possibly exceeding UPA toxic-dosing with Esmya. Mozzanega B. J Hepatol 2020 Nov. 30; S0168-8278(20)33828-9. doi: 10.1016/j.jhep.2020.11.041.

UPA and LNG in emergency contraception: the information by EMA and the scientific evidences indicate a prevalent anti-implantation effect. Mozzanega B, Nardelli GB. Eur J Contracept Reprod Health Care 2019; 24(1):4-10. doi: 10.1080/13625187.2018.1555662. Epub 2019 Jan. 18

Further scientific papers are available on http://www.sipre.eu in Italian or English

Bruno Mozzanega, Dept SDB (Woman’s and Child’s Health), University of Padua (I)

This is a www.independent.com.mt opinion piece

Ref: https://www.independent.com.mt/articles/2020-12-13/newspaper-opinions/Morning-After-Pill-charades-6736229383

Ectopic Pregnancy: The Truth

by Klaus Vella Bardon

In their increasingly aggressive campaign to promote abortion, Doctors for Choice again claimed that the criminal code has no provision for abortion under any circumstance, not even when a woman’s life is imminently at risk of death as a result of a pregnancy.

To prove their point, they stoop to any level and are now exploiting a relatively recent case of ectopic pregnancy.

An ectopic pregnancy is a non-viable pregnancy that occurs outside of the uterine cavity, most commonly in the fallopian tube.

As a pro-life activist, I checked the facts with the help of an expert of how this condition is treated in Malta

I was informed that there are basically three ways to deal with an ectopic pregnancy and that saving the mother is the top priority.

One either waits, or one treats the case medically, or, thirdly, as a last resort, it is removed surgically.

As in all sound medical practice, invasive treatment is kept to a minimum in the interest of the patient’s well-being.

Usually, unless otherwise indicated, the mother is kept under strict observation and, often, the body solves the problem on its own, unassisted medically.

The second line of treatment is the medical option where the drug methotrexate, that cuts short the pregnancy, is administered.

The use of methotrexate is also not so straightforward as its side effects and contraindications have to be taken into account. Yet, even here, one has to weigh the risks of taking methotrexate when the risk of surgery is higher.

Once the specialist treating the mother decides medically that the patient needs methotrexate, the decision is final.

There are formulary drugs and non-formulary drugs. Formulary are easily accessible, one just needs to prescribe them, like paracetamol or certain antibiotics.

Non-formulary are more difficult to access, not for ethical reasons but because of logistical and safety issues.

Being a dangerous non-formulary drug, methotrexate needs to be signed off by the specialist/consultant and head of department, then sent to the pharmacy where the drug is prepared and finally forwarded for its administration. The whole process takes time and some delay is inevitable as the use of drugs that carry certain grave risks must be controlled.

It is about time that the pro-abortion lobbyists make a serious attempt to respect the facts. We all have a very serious obligation to ensure that the public is given the truth, especially about such life and death matters.

Sadly, again and again, ethics is not the forte of the so called ‘pro-choice’ brigade.

It is profoundly unjust and dishonest that they grasp and manipulate any extreme case they can find in order to justify their false claim that anti-abortion laws place pregnant women at risk.

Klaus Vella Bardon – Balzan

_________________________________________________________________

It is disingenuous and entirely wrong for the self-styled “doctors for choice” to use the case of an unfortunate woman who suffered the traumas of an ectopic pregnancy as a “trojan horse” attempt at changing Malta’s abortion laws.

This poor lady (assuming the account in the Times of Malta is accurate) appears to have suffered additional distress as a result of what appears to have been bureaucratic delay in being given the correct treatment for her serious and potentially life-threatening problem, which is always to end the pregnancy. This case, in itself, establishes the fact that Malta’s abortion laws have nothing to do with the difficulties encountered and I cannot fathom how anyone could claim otherwise.

It should be evident that the solution to prevention of a similar future occurrence of this most regrettable incident must surely lie in modifying or speeding up the procedures already in place to ensure expeditious delivery of necessary treatment. I fail to see why the laborious process of parliamentary legislation should be required to achieve this desirable outcome.

There has never been any controversy about the need to terminate ectopic pregnancies. No pro-life institution, government or Church has ever challenged this fact.

Abortion, on the other hand, almost invariably involves the deliberate ending of a healthy, viable pregnancy. It is rarely carried out for what might be termed ‘good medical reasons’, the usual situations being ‘domestic arrangements’ or ‘economic hardship’. The minority associated with abuse/assault/foetal abnormality create tremendous difficulty all round as they are, inevitably, tragic situations to which there is no ‘happy or easy’ solution.

Malta’s would-be abortionists might like to ask themselves to explain the schizophrenic approach like-minded clinicians adopt towards pregnancy. If the baby is wanted, the foetus is happily referred to as ‘your baby/little boy/little girl’; on the other hand, if unwanted, it remains an ‘it’ and is treated like an unwanted wart, to be disposed of expeditiously.

Whither the Hippocratic oath, which, for thousands of years, included the line “I will not administer a pessary to a woman to induce an abortion”, until the evermore utilitarian approach the human race has adopted towards life led to its removal in around 1970?

Anton Borg – Gloucestershire, UK

This is a www.timesofmalta.com opinion piece

Ref: https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/letters-to-the-editor-december-10-2020.837920