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

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/

10 WAYS TO SUPPORT HER WHEN SHE’S UNEXPECTEDLY EXPECTING

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:

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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?

  1. 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.

  1. 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”

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/

Miracle baby leaves hospital after being born at 23 weeks

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/

Amy Coney Barrett Open to Overturning Roe v. Wade  Because Precedent Isn’t Forever

Amy Coney Barrett Open to Overturning Roe v. Wade  Because Precedent Isn’t Forever

At the forefront of so many Americans’ minds is the question of how Amy Coney Barrett would rule on abortion if confirmed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Barrett, President Donald Trump’s third Supreme Court nominee, would replace the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a heroine of abortion activists who consistently ruled in favor of abortion during her nearly three decades on the court.

A new analysis on the Law and Crime blog suggested Barrett may indeed believe that Roe v. Wade was wrongly decided and rule against it, if the opportunity arises.

U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley of Missouri strengthened pro-lifers’ hopes Tuesday when he said Barrett meets his expectations. Among other things, the pro-life senator said he “wanted to see evidence that the nominee understood that Roe was wrongly decided, that Roe was an act of judicial imperialism.”

According to Law and Crime, Barrett’s statements and writings about Supreme Court abortion cases as well as stare decisis, which means sticking to past legal precedents, suggest that she may rule to restore protections for unborn babies.

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

Evidence of this comes from a 2013 lecture that Barrett gave at the University of Notre Dame, where she is a law professor. In “Roe at 40: The Supreme Court, Abortion and the Culture War that Followed,” Barrett questioned the way in which the high court ruled on Roe v. Wade.

“It brings up an issue of judicial review: Does the Court have the capacity to decide that women have the right to obtain an abortion or should it be a matter for state legislatures? Would it be better to have this battle in the state legislatures and Congress rather than the Supreme Court?” she asked, according to a student newspaper report.

“Roe was a dramatic shift. The framework of Roe essentially permitted abortion on demand, and Roe recognizes no state interest in the life of a fetus,” Amy Coney Barrett continued.

While Barrett also said it was “very unlikely” that the Supreme Court would overturn Roe and subsequent abortion ruling Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the blog noted that, at the time she said it, the Supreme Court had a liberal majority.

Notably, Barrett 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.

Her writings also suggest that she does not believe the Supreme Court should uphold Roe just for the sake of precedent, or stare decisis.

In a law review article “Precedent and Jurisprudential Disagreement” mentioned in her Senate questionnaire, Barrett wrote that “stare decisis is a soft rule” and “one of policy rather than as an inexorable command.”

A “more relaxed form of constitutional stare decisis” is “both inevitable and probably desirable, at least in those cases in which methodologies clash,” she continued, focusing on issues of precedent that justices disagree with personally.

In the article, she also mentioned Casey, an abortion ruling that came after Roe and decided that states may not pass laws that impose an “undue burden” on women’s so-called right to abortion.

She wrote:

Stare decisis is a self-imposed constraint upon the Court’s ability to overrule precedent. The force of so-called superprecedents [“cases that no justice would overrule, even if she disagrees with”], however, does not derive from any decision by the Court about the degree of deference they warrant. Indeed, Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey shows that the Court is quite incapable of transforming precedent into superprecedent by ipse dixit [editor’s note: that’s Latin for just because the court says so]. The force of these cases derives from the people, who have taken their validity off the Court’s agenda. Litigants do not challenge them [superprecedents]. If they did, no inferior federal court or state court would take them seriously, at least in the absence of any indicia that the broad consensus supporting a precedent was crumbling.

These statements and others suggest Barrett may be a strong pro-life justice who recognizes that human rights are for all human beings, born and unborn.

If confirmed by the Senate, she would solidify a strong 6-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court. Pro-life leaders have praised her as an excellent choice for the court.

Barrett is a former clerk of the late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Like Scalia, she has been described as an “originalist” judge. 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.” She also said she believes that life begins at conception.

A hearing on her confirmation is scheduled for Oct. 12 in the Senate.

This is a Life News opinion piece

MICAIAH BILGER   SEP 30, 2020   |   5:46PM    WASHINGTON, DC

Ref: https://www.lifenews.com/2020/09/30/amy-coney-barrett-open-to-overturning-roe-v-wade-because-precedent-isnt-forever/

 

President Trump Issues Executive Order to Protect Babies Who Survive Abortions

President Trump Issues Executive Order to Protect Babies Who Survive Abortions

Late Friday night, President Donald Trump issued an executive order doing something Democrats in Congress refused more than 80 times to do: provide medical care for babies who survive abortions.

The president had indicated earlier in the week that he would issue the order and, on Friday night, he made it official.

“Every infant born alive, no matter the circumstances of his or her birth, has the same dignity and the same rights as every other individual and is entitled to the same protections under federal law,” the order reads.

With Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats rejecting the Born Alive bill over 80 times, allowing abortionists to essentially get away with infanticide, President Trump announced an executive order today that would require medical care be given to infants who are born alive after failed abortion attempts.

Law are already in place to protect babies who survive abortions are born prematurely but the laws are not being followed and not being aggressively enforced. The order would provide additional information and educate hospitals about the laws so they are followed properly.

“Despite these laws,” the order says, “some hospitals refuse the required medical screening examination and stabilizing treatment or otherwise do not provide potentially life-saving medical treatment to extremely premature or disabled infants, even when parents plead for such treatment.”

The Executive Order responds to concerns that hospitals have refused to provide medical screening and stabilizing treatment to vulnerable newborns, including those who are premature, born with disabilities, or born in medical distress.  The Executive Order explains that hospitals may issue these refusals “because they believe these infants may not survive, may have to live with long-term disabilities, or may have a quality-of-life deemed to be inadequate.”

“HHS’s mission is to protect the health and well-being of all Americans, and that means all Americans—including infants born prematurely and infants with disabilities,” said HHS Secretary Alex Azar. “The President’s Executive Order is another step by the most pro-life President in American history and ensures that we provide the same protections for innocent infants who are born premature or with disabilities that we provide for every other American.”

For instance, in May 2020, HHS determined that an Ohio hospital had failed in 2017 to ensure medical screening examinations required by EMTALA were performed for twins born prematurely (at 22 weeks gestation) who were not sent to the hospital’s neonatal intensive care unit and died within several hours after delivery

The Executive Order clarifies that all individuals, including these vulnerable babies, are protected under the law.  Examples of federal protections include:

The Executive Order places a number of requirements on the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS):

  • The Secretary must ensure that all federal funding recipients understand their obligations under federal law.  In particular:
    • They have an “obligation to provide an appropriate medical screening examination and stabilizing treatment or transfer, when extremely premature infants are born alive or infants are born with disabilities.”
    • They “may not unlawfully discourage parents from seeking medical treatment for their infant child solely because of their infant child’s disability.”
    • They must “allow the infant patients to be transferred to a more suitable facility if appropriate treatment is not possible at the initial location.”
  • The Secretary shall investigate complaints of violations of federal laws that occurred respecting infants in need of stabilizing treatment whose parents sought medical care for them.  The Secretary shall take appropriate enforcement action against violations of federal law.
  • The Secretary shall “clarify, in an easily understandable format, the process by which parents and hospital staff may submit such complaints for investigation under applicable Federal laws.”
  • The Secretary shall prioritize grant funding to:
    • “Research to develop treatments that may improve survival — especially survival without impairment — of infants …who have an emergency medical condition in need of stabilizing treatment.”
    • “Programs and activities …that provide training to medical personnel regarding the provision of life-saving medical treatment” for these infants.

The Secretary is directed to issue regulations or guidance, as necessary, to implement this order.

Earlier in the week, President Trump signaled he would hand down the pro-life order.

“Today I am announcing that I will be signing the Born-Alive Executive Order to ensure that all precious babies born alive, no matter their circumstances, receive the medical care that they deserve. This is our sacrosanct moral duty,” the president said today at the National Catholic Prayer Breakfast.

Leading pro-life groups told LifeNews.com they were delighted by the news.

The American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists (AAPLOG) celebrated President Trump’s announcement of a new Executive Order, saying “Prematurely-born infants are some of our most vulnerable patients. As a professional medical association dedicated to caring for both patients in question during a pregnancy — the woman and her unborn child — AAPLOG applauds this commonsense order.”

Dr. Donna Harrison, MD, AAPLOG’s Executive Director, said: “AAPLOG has advocated for our most vulnerable patients since we were founded decades ago. We released a Committee Opinion on Fetal Viability during the previous Administration, and we are pleased with this morning’s announcement by the President to ensure at-risk patients receive a consistent standard of care. This is a major victory for patients and providers.”

And Jeanne Mancini, President of March for Life, told LifeNews that this order adds to the long list of pro-life accomplishments during the Trump administration.

“President Trump once again has stepped up for life. His actions today provide necessary legal protections for some of the most vulnerable in society: survivors of failed abortions. These steps had to be taken because some Democrats in the Senate promised to block legislation that mandates basic medical care for children who survive an abortion – an extremist view shared by Vice Presidential candidate Kamala Harris. While any abortion is one too many, the reality is that Americans overwhelmingly want to see greater protections for the most vulnerable. These protections are a strong step in the right direction and the Senate should move quickly to codify the President’s Executive Order and pass Senator Ben Sasse’s (R-Neb.) Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act,” she said.

“President Trump’s executive order protects the youngest of patients and ensures that their right to life is defended to the greatest extent of the law,” said Carol Tobias, president of National Right to Life.

“We thank President Trump for his dedication to the right to life and for working to protect all innocent human life,” said Tobias. “He is a champion for the most vulnerable among us and committed to guarding the right to life of all babies—born and unborn.”

The new order comes as national polling shows Americans — including people who are “pro-choice” on abortion — oppose abortion up to birth and infanticide. And doctors indicate abortions are never needed to protect a woman’s health and women admit having abortions on healthy babies.

And a new poll finds a massive 17 percent shift in the pro-life direction after Democrats have pushed abortions up to birth and infanticide nationally.

H.R. 962, the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act, introduced by Rep. Ann Wagner (R-MO), ensures that a baby born alive after a failed or attempted abortion receives the same medical care as any other newborn. It would also penalize doctors who allow such infants to die or who intentionally kill a newborn following a failed abortion.

Joe Biden has never denounced the rejection of the anti-infanticide bill and his running mate Kamala Harris voted to block it in the Senate.

 

This is a Life News opinion piece

STEVEN ERTELT   SEP 26, 2020   |   10:20AM    WASHINGTON, DC

Ref: https://www.lifenews.com/2020/09/26/president-trump-issues-executive-order-to-protect-babies-who-survive-abortions/

Pro-Life Groups Support Supreme Court Nominee Amy Coney Barrett: She’s an “Absolute All-Star”

Pro-Life Groups Support Supreme Court Nominee Amy Coney Barrett: She’s an “Absolute All-Star”

President Donald Trump today nominated federal appeals court Judge Amy Coney Barrett to be the next Supreme Court justice and that nomination has the strong support of pro-life groups.

“President Trump has chosen an absolute all-star in Judge Amy Coney Barrett to serve as our nation’s newest Supreme Court justice,” said SBA List President Marjorie Dannenfelser. “Amy Coney Barrett is a brilliant jurist in the mold of the late Justice Scalia, and President Trump could not have made a stronger selection to fill this Supreme Court vacancy. We have full confidence that the pro-life Senate majority will move swiftly to confirm her before the election.”

“An accomplished woman of bold conviction, Amy Barrett withstood outrageous personal attacks on her Catholic faith from pro-abortion senators with grace and integrity during her 2017 confirmation hearing. Judge Barrett has shown courage, wisdom, and brilliance during her tenure on the 7th Circuit. Her experience and expertise make her extremely qualified to serve on the nation’s highest court,” Dannenfelser continued.

During her acceptance speech, Judge Barret talked about the correct approach a judge must take: “A judge must apply the law as written. Judges are not policy makers and they must be resolute in setting aside any policy views they might hold.”

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

That resonated with pro-life advocates like Carol Tobias, the president of National Right to Life.

“We commend President Trump for his nomination of an impressively well-qualified judge to the Supreme Court,” said Tobias. “Judge Barrett has demonstrated a commitment to defending the text and history of the Constitution and the principles of judicial restraint.”

She told LifeNews.com that President Trump’s nominee stands in stark contrast with the judicial-legislative activists who would be nominated by Joe Biden. Joe Biden has promised to impose a litmus test of his nominees.

Tobias said she expected a fierce confirmation battle over abortion during Barrett’s confirmation hearing.

“Make no mistake—this confirmation battle will be over abortion because the Democratic Party and pro-abortion Democratic senators will oppose any nominee, no matter how qualified, if the nominee has not pledged in advance to uphold and maintain abortion on demand,” she explained.

“Democrats are prepared to engage in a scorched earth campaign in an effort to block an eminently qualified nominee,” said Tobias. “Shame on them. Shame on Democratic leaders in the Senate for their negative propaganda and for dragging candidates through the mud just so they can curry favor with pro-abortion groups.”

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.”

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.

Barrett has served on the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals since 2017 after being confirmed by a vote of 55-43. A summa cum laude graduate of Notre Dame Law School, she joined the school’s faculty after serving as a law clerk to Judge Laurence Silberman on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia.

Barrett and her husband Jesse have seven children, including two adopted from Haiti and a young son with Down syndrome. The Barretts live in South Bend, Indiana.

 

This is a Life News opinion piece

STEVEN ERTELT   SEP 26, 2020   |   6:02PM    WASHINGTON, DC

Ref: https://www.lifenews.com/2020/09/26/pro-life-groups-support-scotus-nominee-amy-coney-barrett-shes-an-absolute-all-star/

Pro-Abortion Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dies at 87

Pro-Abortion Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dies at 87

The Supreme Court says pro-abortion Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died of metastatic pancreatic cancer at age 87. Her death will undoubtedly set off a massive campaign to determine her replacement and President Donald Trump may fight aggressively to appoint her successor — whether he is re-elected in November or if pro-abortion Joe Biden wins.

Should President Trump be able to name a replacement, the new SCOTUS justice will likely be someone who upholds the rule of law and isn’t willing to go along with left-wing judicial activism. That would make it much easier to uphold pro-life legislation saving babies from abortion — and could realistically make it possible to envision the overturning of Roe v. Wade and its allowance for abortion on demand.

Just 9 days ago President Trump released a list of potential Supreme Court nominees from which he would nominate any future judges on the nation’s highest court if he is re-elected to a second term. The list includes the kind of conservative jurists pro-life groups support because they have a history of upholding pro-life legislation or following the rule of law rather than legislating from the bench.

Ginsburg, an idol of abortion activists, has has ruled against rights and protections for unborn babies. She also has made some discriminatory statements that are reflective of the old eugenics thinking rooted in abortion activism.

In 2019, for example, when she accepted the Berggruen Prize, she brought up poor women as a reason for her support of abortion:

Ginsburg noted that poor women are the only people being affected by lack of access to abortion.

“One of the things that happened after Roe v. Wade is that women wanted to be able to control their own destiny. They won, so they retreated. And the other side geared up, and we have the situation that we have today,” Ginsburg said. “[People should] care about it the way they did when many women didn’t have access, didn’t have the right to choose. It is so obvious that the only people restricted are poor women. One day, I think people will wake up to that reality.”

Though abortion activists portray such talk as sympathetic, their solution is not to help struggling women out of poverty but to abort their unborn babies.

In 2009, Ginsburg caused a stir when she made comments about Roe v. Wade that also hinted at eugenics.

Click here to sign up for pro-life news alerts from LifeNews.com

“Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of,” Ginsburg told the New York Times.

Then, in 2014, she told Elle magazine something similar, “It makes no sense as a national policy to promote birth only among poor people.”

Ginsburg consistently rules against all abortion regulations and restrictions that reach the high court.

In 2016, she was one of the five justices who sided with abortion activists in the decision Whole Woman’s Health v. Hellerstedt, which struck down Texas abortion clinic regulations that protected women’s health and safety. Ginsburg and four other justices ruled that these safety regulations were an “undue burden” on women’s access to abortion.

She also sided with the Obama administration in trying to force nuns with the Little Sisters of the Poor to pay for drugs that may cause abortions in their employee health care plans.

After a majority of the high court justices sided with Hobby Lobby in a similar case, Ginsburg accused them of being sexist. In an interview with pro-abortion media icon Katie Couric, Ginsburg lashed out at her colleagues and claimed they have a “blind spot” towards women because they decided that Hobby Lobby should not be forced to pay for drugs that may cause abortions for their employees.

Last year, Ginsburg criticized fellow Justice Clarence Thomas for referring to women who have abortions as “mothers.”

And in October, former President Bill Clinton admitted that abortion was a major factor in his decision to nominate Ginsburg to the U.S. Supreme Court.

 

This is a lifenews.com opinion piece

Ref: https://www.lifenews.com/2020/09/18/pro-abortion-supreme-court-justice-ruth-bader-ginsburg-dies-at-87/

There is nothing more progressive and liberal than protecting human life – Bishop Galea-Curmi

There is nothing more progressive and liberal than protecting human life – Bishop Galea-Curmi

Homily by Bishop Joseph Galea-Curmi for Mass organised by the LifeNetwork Foundation in memory of abortion victims around the world 

Today, we are commemorating the precious human lives which were cut short during their development, and thus could not be born. They never had the opportunity to show the world their potential. We mourn the loss of these unborn lives, because human life should always be cherished. Their loss is a great loss for us all. It is not only a loss for those who believe in Christ, but also a loss for all those who, in one way or another, value human life from its conception.

However, today, we also mourn with those who took the decision to terminate human life in its early stages. There could have been so many reasons for them to do this.  They might have found themselves in a situation where they could not understand fully what they were doing, and what the consequences would be. Perhaps they faced great hardship and did not find the support they needed. Instead of finding people to help them, they could have been under pressure to terminate human life. Whatever the reason, may they now find people to support them as they go through the process of forgiveness in order to arrive at complete healing. May those who made this wrong decision find the help they need to be able to start afresh, and work fervently in favour of life.

Whoever wants to end human life in its early stages is not progressive but regressive. It has been said correctly that the strength of a society is measured by the progress of the most vulnerable.

Protection in Society

We are also here today to renew our commitment to work actively in favour of life, even when we are faced by a mind-set that is promoting a culture of death. We should remember that, when slavery existed, this mentality was commonly accepted. By time, thanks to the involvement of courageous people, a number of societies understood the injustice involved, and began to work wholeheartedly against slavery, rejecting the concept completely, because it went against human dignity.

Today, in various parts of the world, there is a mentality which accepts and promotes the ending of a human life which has been conceived, but not yet born. It is a widespread mentality. We hope and pray that the time will come when, just as different societies saw the error of their ways and worked wholeheartedly against slavery, they will do the same in the case of human life, that is, become fully aware of the reality, and work passionately against the idea that someone can end another person’s life.

Progressive and liberal

At times, it is said that if one is progressive and liberal, one must advocate for the right to choose to eliminate human life that has started, but has not yet been born. However, if you take the time to reflect on the meaning of progressive and liberal, you will realise that there is nothing more progressive and liberal than the safeguarding of human life.

We pray for consistency where the cherishing of life is concerned … Anyone who is begging for help because he is drowning, literally or metaphorically, should also have his or her life safeguarded.

What does it mean to be progressive? It means that you want progress; you want people to move ahead in life. I presume it means that you would want progress for everyone. A person is progressive when s/he can guarantee that the few cells that are present at the beginning of human life can continue progressing. On the contrary, whoever wants to end human life in its early stages is not progressive but regressive. It has been said correctly that the strength of a society is measured by the progress of the most vulnerable.

What does it mean to be liberal? It means that you treasure liberty, and that you do not want anyone to obstruct liberty. This implies that we should respect everyone’s liberty to develop and have a better life. When there is human life at an early stage, being liberal means allowing it to live, not eliminating it.

A Prayer

Today we ask the Lord to strengthen our resolve to value life and protect it from all danger. In a special way, we value the life of the most vulnerable, those without a voice, those who depend on others completely.

We pray for consistency where the cherishing of life is concerned – that is, from the moment of its conception to its natural death, and in its every stage. Anyone who is begging for help because he is drowning, literally or metaphorically, should also have his or her life safeguarded.

We pray that doctors, nurses, and those who work in the health sector, will always be faithful to their mission of upholding the value of life, as is their duty, and to do this even when it means obeying their conscience and saying ‘No’.

We pray especially for those mothers who are facing difficult situations, that they may find the help and support they need for the protection of life, and that they never end up victims of abusive systems.

We also pray for our country, that it will never succumb to the pressure against life but will be a country that accepts and appreciates every human life, creates awareness about the value of life, and has laws that protect and safeguard life.

Joseph Galea-Curmi Auxiliary Bishop, Archdiocese of Malta

 

This is an article from The Archdiocese of Malta Website 

Ref:  https://church.mt/there-is-nothing-more-progressive-and-liberal-than-protecting-the-human-life-bishop-galea-curmi/

A call for diversity and more transparency

A call for diversity and more transparency

The Equality Bill as presently formulated has several shortcomings

The quest for social justice, equality and the adherence to fundamental human rights has always been embraced by Church schools. As many students can attest, our schools safeguard and promote these values – which is why we welcome initiatives such as those included in the draft legislation Equality Bill 96 and 97.

We are stakeholders in the national effort to promote equality but we are also educators with a mission and a duty to uphold our school ethos and tolerance. We work hand in hand with those hundreds of parents who send their children to our schools to learn about our Christian faith and our ideals. We want a law which respects diversity, not one which is oppressive, imposes a bland uniformity on all and leads to persecution by prosecution.

This is the reason why we put forward proposals to Parliamentary Secretary for Equality Rosianne Cutajar. The Equality Bill as currently formulated has several shortcomings, several of which threaten freedom of religion and freedom of expression. The Venice Commission (European Commission for Democracy through Law) has also commented unfavourably on certain aspects of the draft equality legislation which shows that we are not the only ones to voice concern about it. The Independent Schools Association has also presented its amendments to the bill. Sources from other faith communities are also very concerned.

Our proposals to the parliamentary secretary Rosianne Cutajar were primarily twofold. In the first place, we want to continue our mission to promote and celebrate our particular school ethos by being allowed to employ persons who respected that ethos, particularly in the leadership roles within our institutions. School leaders are the interpreters of faith to the community. It is not discriminatory to expect the leaders of our schools who will perpetuate that ethos, who are not hostile to it and who will fashion a framework around that Christian ethos.

We want to retain the freedom to engage such educational leaders in this crucial role. We cannot understand why the parliamentary secretary is so adamant in closing the door to this eminently reasonable suggestion. The leaders of a political party, of trade unions are expected to embrace its ideals, so why are Church school educators and leaders being denied this right? Why is this being described as discriminatory only when Church schools wish to engage leaders who reflect and perpetuate their values? It is ironic to see that legislation, which is supposed to promote equality, is actually discriminatory in effect.

If the law is enacted as formulated, Church schools will have next to little choice as to whether to engage persons who are openly hostile to their values. This is utterly disrespectful of the hundreds of parents who wish their children to experience religious values and norms in a communal educational setting. There are parents who wish to send their children to Church schools specifically for this reason.

We want a law which respects diversity, not one which is oppressive and imposes a bland uniformity on all

Relegating religious values to a 40-minute slot during a religion lesson is not what the parents wish for their children. Such values are imbibed during all lessons, activities and extracurricular outings and yes – we would like to be able to engage people who are willing to participate in these holistic activities. We don’t understand why Cutajar continues to describe this as discrimination. We are hurt to see her thinly veiled attacks on us, describing us as “the privileged few” and portraying us as being hostile to the LGBTIQ+ community.

It is a known fact that members of this community form an integral part of educational communities – even at senior management level. We value them and appreciate their contribution just like anybody else.

We also asked the parliamentary secretary to introduce a clause to allow persons to register a conscientious objection based on belief, creed or religion to perform, participate, endorse or promote any measure. This was deliberately misrepresented as a request for a licence to discriminate.

It is nothing of the sort. On the contrary – forcing people to participate or endorse acts to which they object because of deep moral objections is undemocratic and despotic.

The right to conscientious objection is recognised in many democratic states. In the Declaration on the Importance of Strengthening the Fundamental Right to Freedom of Conscience made in Brussels, on April 21, 2016. Members of the European Parliament stressed that freedom of conscience is a fundamental right that needs to be protected everywhere.

Only recently, 14 associations representing various medical specialities called for the inclusion of a conscientious objection clause in a new law on equality, currently before parliament. The associations stated that “Doctors should not be faced with clinical situations where they are forced to act against their ethical convictions or be deemed liable if they exert their freedom of conscience.” Like us, their support for the introduction of a conscientious objection clause is also motivated by the implications of the supremacy clauses included in the bill. These will allow the new law to override criminal and civil laws if a matter of legal contention arises.

Despite these repeated pleas to listen to reason and experts in the field, our suggestions have not been taken up. The process by which the bill is being passed through parliament is obscure and not transparent. It is a pity that stakeholders’ concerns and suggestions are not being taken on board. We are ready to continue promoting non-discrimination in good faith. We hope that our proposals will not continue to fall on deaf ears.

Fr Charles Mallia is Delegate for Catholic Education; Fr Jimmy Bartolo is Rector of St Aloysius College and coordinator of the Church Schools Association; Claire Bonello is representative for Church Schools Parents’ Associations; Sr Rachel Frendo is Provincial of Augustinian Sisters and vice president of the Council for Religious Major Superiors.

This is a Times of Malta print opinion piece

Ref: https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/a-call-for-diversity-and-more-transparency.818551