Welcome to The Pro Life Campaign Blogspot

Thank you for visiting our blog. We want this to be a rich and informative discussion forum and look forward to your participation. You can visit our website at www.prolifecampaign.ie or email us on info@prolifecampaign.ie







Friday, April 23, 2010

News corporations impose pro-abortion newspeak on reporters

US National Public Radio has just issued a mandatory censorship protocol for reporters.

They are no longer allowed to use the word ‘pro-life’ to those campaigning for the right to life of unborn children. They have to call them ‘abortion rights opponents’.
 
In describing those who support abortion, reporters have been forbidden to use the phrase ‘pro-abortion.’ They may, naturally, describe those who oppose abortion as ‘anti-abortion’.
 
Similar thought-control policies have been adopted by major US news corporations Associated Press, Washington Post, New York Times, Philadelphia Inquirer, CNN, CBS and NBC.

Dictats on what words reporters are allowed to use? Prescribed words? Forbidden words? Sound familiar?

This kind of ideological censorship was chillingly diagnosed by George Orwell in his final novel, 1984. The totalitarian society seeks to suppress and eventually eliminate dissent from the officially desired thoughts by gradually imposing a new obligatory official language called Newspeak so that dissenting opinion, not only cannot be articulated in a publicly approved way, but, in the end, cannot even be thought privately.
 
As Orwell put it, the purpose was not only to provide a medium of expression for the ‘proper’ worldview and mental habits, ‘but to make all other modes of thought impossible’ – it was intended that when Newspeak.had been adopted for once and for all, an unorthodox thought ‘should be literally unthinkable.’ This was done, he says, ‘chiefly by the eliminating undesirable words and by stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings.’ The imposed words, Orwell says, ‘had been deliberately constructed for political purposes’, that is, they ‘were intended to impose a desirable mental attitude upon the person using them.’

What a terrible irony – major news organizations in the free world are imposing Newspeak on their reporters.

Now we have major news outlets in the free world succumbing to the ideology of abortion rights which renders the unborn child what in Orwellian Newspeak presciently calls an ‘unperson.’

In Nazi Germany, gleichschaltung was the process by which one institution after another conformed to the totalitarian ideology in power, sometimes without even having to be compelled - they just saw the way the wind was blowing and got in line voluntarily.

The fact that major news institutions in the US are engaging in a self-imposed pro-abortion gleichschaltung is hard not to read it as a move of desperation on the part of the pro-abortion ideological elite.

They sense public opinion gradually shifting from majority pro-abortion to majority pro-life. They see this reflected in polls showing a majority in the US for the first time in recent years describing itself as pro-life rather than pro-abortion.
 
They see one movie after another exploring unexpected pregnancies in a positive light and showing ways forward, movies like Waitress, Knocked Up, Juno, Precious and Leonera, and on the other hand, the even more radical emergence of movies showing the dark side of abortion, movies like 4 Months, 3 Weeks & 2 Days.

They see women who’ve been through abortion coming forward together asking for their experience to be heard and heeded.

They’re losing the debate, so they’re changing tack. ‘If we can’t win the debate, let’s not have the debate, let’s suppress it’, they seem to be saying.

If news outlets opt to turn themselves into a pro-abortion echo-chamber – talking to one another in a fake language designed to pretend that abortion is not destroying a human life - they will lose half the public.

With the click of a mouse, the days of this kind of censorship are well and truly numbered.

Groups pressure Lancet editor to delay publication of maternal mortality research

Lancet, a leading medical journal, has just published a new study of international maternal mortality rates, which finds that the World Bank, the WHO and UNICEF statistics for maternal mortality were over 100,000 too high due to reporting and methodological problems.

But in a corrupt and brazen, and thankfully, unsuccessful, attempt to subordinate science to politics, ‘advocacy groups’ lobbied the editor of Lancet, Dr Richard Horton to delay the publication of the new study until after upcoming meetings of the UN Commission on Population and Development, the Women Deliver Conference and the next UN Assembly, which are scheduled to discuss maternal mortality.

What’s bugging these ‘advocates’? Dr Donna Harrison, President of the American Academy of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, said of the new Lancet article:

"The study uses the best statistical methods currently available and clearly demonstrates that worldwide legalization of abortion is unnecessary to bring about significant decreases in maternal mortality. The American Academy of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynaecologists encourages the UN member nations to continue to develop even better statistical information by improving the identification of maternal mortality causality, especially induced abortion related mortality, which is most often underreported or misreported".

Where the UN bodies have been pushing for ‘safe’ and ‘legal’ abortion as the key to bringing improving maternal mortality rates, the new Lancet article does not. It found key causal factors improving maternal mortality – falling pregnancy rates in some countries, higher per capita income, higher education rates for women, and increasing availability of basic medical care, and in particular, ‘skilled birth attendants’.

You can read more about the new research in the New York Times here

You can access the Lancet article here

Cannes Film Festival to feature pro-life movie

The Cannes Film Festival next month is to premier a new film called 22 Weeks. It tells the true story of Angele, a woman in her 30's who had an abortion in Florida in 2005.

She chose what was called a 'labour and delivery' type of abortion , which was to take two days. She opted for this rather than other forms of abortion, which she felt would be more distressing and harmful for her baby.

The film is significant for a number of reasons.

Firstly, it will show graphically the mindset of the abortionists in action. An abortion is a procedure the entire intention, aim and purpose of which is that the baby does not survive. Sometimes a baby does not die during the procedure but is deliberately left to die after it.

Secondly, it will give us a sense of how profoundly misguided some politicians are on the issue. As a State senator in Illinois, President Obama voted against a Bill to protect babies who survive abortions.

But thirdly and most importantly, it is a testimony to the confused and suddenly traumatic experience of the mother.

Driven by who knows what pressure to opt for abortion, Angele allowed herself to be seduced by the soothing reassurances of the abortionists, which at one level she wanted to believe.

She asked them what would happen if the baby were born alive and they said ‘they would guide a needle into his heart and it would put him to sleep, and he wouldn’t feel anything.’

She took pills to induce labour and by the time she arrived at the abortion clinic she was experiencing painful contractions, but it was not open. The contractions were getting closer. Eventually she got in and delivered her son, apparently on her own.

Then suddenly she sees. She sees her baby for the first time in the flesh. Fighting for his life. And her motherliness awakens and she calls for help. Surely they will look after him.

When a women working in the abortion clinic staff arrived, she refused the give her baby emergency medical care or to call a 911 for medical help for him. Angele called a friend to ring for an ambulance, but the clinic staff turned them away when they arrived and he died.

That terrible journey made at the speed of light from dreamlike denial to full waking, seeing her baby face to face, real at last but too late, is a precious part of women’s experience of abortion.

22 weeks is yet another straw in the wind that shows the cultural consensus on abortion is turning. 

Thursday, April 15, 2010

Pro Life Campaign Opinion Poll on Abortion


Survey finds overwhelming support for
legal protection of unborn child

Comments by Dr Berry Kiely at the Pro-Life Campaign Press Conference,
Buswells Hotel, Dublin, 11.30am, 15th April 2010

The latest research on abortion shows a substantial majority of the public supporting a prohibition on abortion, while allowing necessary medical interventions in pregnancy to save the life of the mother.

The Pro-Life Campaign commissioned Millward Brown Lansdowne to carry out the survey on a quota controlled sample of 950 people aged 18+ between 27th January and 6th February 2010.

The question reads as follows:

“Are you in favour of, or opposed to, constitutional protection for the unborn that prohibits abortion but allows the continuation of the existing practice of intervention to save a mother’s life in accordance with Irish medical ethics?”

The finding shows that 70% support constitutional protection for the unborn, 13% oppose it and 16% don’t know or have no opinion.

What distinguishes this finding from polls showing support for abortion is the distinction it makes between necessary medical interventions in pregnancy and induced abortion where the life of the unborn child is directly targeted.[1]

This is a critical ethical distinction which abortion advocates constantly seek to blur. Some abortion advocates claim that legalised abortion ‘confronts the reality of crisis pregnancy.’ However, this contention ignores the humanity of the unborn child throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy and the latest research highlighting the negative consequences of abortion for women.[2]

If we are to have a genuinely honest debate on abortion we cannot arbitrarily airbrush the unborn child out of the debate or the many testimonies of women who regret their abortions.

As a country we should be immensely proud of the fact that Ireland without abortion is currently listed as the safest country in the world in which to be pregnant, according to the latest UN survey on maternal health.[3]

All human beings share a common dignity by virtue of their humanity. To deny the right to life simply because the unborn child is at an early stage of development completely undermines an authentic vision of human rights.

The Millward Brown Lansdowne research published today is hugely reassuring as it points to overwhelming public support for an ethos of care for both mother and baby during pregnancy.
Ends

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[1]YouGov online poll showing support for abortion conducted for Marie Stopes, released on 08-03-2010
[2] David M. Fergusson, L. John Horwood and Joseph M. Boden, "Abortion and mental health disorders: evidence from a 30-year longitudinal study," The British Journal of Psychiatry, 2008
[3]Report on Maternal Mortality by World Health Organisation, UNICEF, UNFPA and the World Bank, 2007

To view this article on our website and view the poll result click here

Friday, April 9, 2010

March For Life held in Brussels

The first ever pan-European March for Life was held in Brussels on Sunday, 28th March. The event was organised by university students from Belgium who collaborated with pro-life advocates and organisations throughout Europe.

The March was addressed by pro-life representatives from around Europe and the world. According to the official website of the organisers the idea of the March was born out of a “desire to express our solidarity with and compassion for those women who have been forced to abort. We also want to lend our voice to the unborn children that have been sacrificed”

As with the March For Life in Washington DC in January last, looking at the photos of this event the youthfulness and for that matter cheerfulness of the participants is striking. The March started at the Royal Palace and participants marched to the Palais de Justice.

No doubt this event will go from strength to strength and plans are already underway for next years March For Life which is scheduled for March 27th, 2011.


Conjoined twin boys a "wonderful gift" sent to their family

What an inspiring story the Benhaffaf family from Cork has to share.  For those who haven’t already heard, the Benhaffaf’s youngest children – twin boys Hassan and Hussein - were born conjoined at the chest last December.

Yesterday the baby boys underwent a 14 hour operation at Great Ormond Street Hospital in London in an intricate surgery to separate them led by Cork born paediatric surgeon Edward Kiely. Thankfully the boys are stable after the surgery and doing well though their doctors have warned that getting through the next few days is key to their survival. The incidence of conjoined twins surviving separation operations and dying thereafter is high and so the Benhaffaf babies family are praying that their boys will endure.

The story of Hassan and Hussein’s lives in the womb is as sensational as their young lives have been so far. Their mother Angie Benhaffaf said her family’s world was turned upside down when they realised the babies were conjoined. She explained how the boys interacted in the womb “they were holding hands and were helping each other – they always mind one another” She explains that despite the struggles and doubts of her pregnancy, the children have been an extraordinary gift to their family.

“The first day I held the two boys in my arms I knew I was chosen. They were a gift. We do feel blessed by them. It was never expected that they would live or do as well as they have been doing so hence their name, "the little fighters".

Angie Benhaffaf wrote a poem to her babies as a tribute to them no matter what the outcome of the operation. In it she imparts in an ordinary way the struggles and joy of their lives from the moment she first knew the babies would be conjoined at just four weeks gestation

“I loved you both from the very start, when doctors thought you shared one heart. I cried so much during that time, we did not think, that all would be fine. Your two big sisters got me through the worst; I really felt that I had been cursed. For eight months I was in such a lonely place, as the birth was something I thought I couldn't face. But then came that beautiful winter's morn, on the 2nd of December my "little fighters" were born!”

She continues “You both have given me courage and strength, What a wonderful "gift", we have been sent!.... Boys - you have filled us all with love and hope, Without you both, we would never cope….No matter how this will all end, I am forever grateful for the time we did spend".

Speaking to the media yesterday after the operation Mrs. Benhaffaf said “We are so proud of the courage and strength Hassan and Hussein have shown and they have both made the world a much better place with them in it”

The attitude of the Benhaffafs is inspiring. They are treating their time with the baby boys as a gift to be celebrated. As we reflect on the lives so far of the Benhaffaf twins we should also consider the many children who are not born because pre-natal diagnoses result in their parents choosing abortion.

The Benhaffaf’s story proves that every life no matter how short or threatened is a gift to celebrate and a life worth living. The Benhaffaf babies have certainly brought inspiration to their family and to the country. Let’s hope ‘the little fighters’ persevere.





Human Rights China - Babies bodies found in river

As highlighted on SKY News last week, the bodies of 21 babies, believed dumped by hospitals, recently washed ashore on a riverbank in eastern China.

Video footage showed that the bodies "stashed in yellow plastic bags, at least one of which was marked 'medical waste'" included some infants several months old.

Some wore identification tags with their mothers' names, birth dates, measurements and weights. The official Xinhua News Agency said there were also female unborn babies among the bodies.

While this particular incident made the news the story itself is not entirely surprising given the imposition in China of the one-child policy which results in 13 million babies being aborted annually. As the recent cover story in The Economist magazine pointed out, the practice of gendercide or female foeticide means that female children are targeted both before and after birth through abortion, infanticide or neglect.

In addition to the massive human rights violations involved in ending the lives of children born and unborn the specific targeting of female babies has also created a huge gender imbalance where there are more unmarried young men in China than the entire population of young men in America.

How come radical feminist groups are turning a blind eye to this widespread gender based human rights abuse? Where is the genuine sense of outrage and concern for women’s rights? The truth is there is logic behind the silence. Marianne Mollman, spokesperson for abortion advocacy group Human Rights Watch* has publicly advised pro-choice groups not to campaign against laws permitting sex selection abortion. The reason is clear - if abortion advocates concede that the lives of some unborn children should be protected it would completely undermine their rigid dogma that unborn children have no rights throughout the nine months of pregnancy.

It is incumbent therefore on pro-life groups to continue to pressure the Irish government to adopt a more robust stand in opposition to human rights abuses in China.

*Human Rights Watch is the same group that recently critisised Ireland’s pro-life status.