The 22-week infant died one day later in intensive care at a hospital in the mother’s home town of Rossano in southern Italy.
The mother, pregnant for the first time, had opted for an abortion after prenatal scans suggested that her baby was disabled.
However, the infant survived the procedure, carried out on Saturday in the Rossano Calabro hospital, and was left by doctors to die.
He was discovered alive the following day – some 20 hours after the operation – by Father Antonio Martello, the hospital chaplain, who had gone to pray beside his body.
He found that the baby, wrapped in a sheet with his umbilical cord still attached, was moving and breathing.
The priest raised the alarm and doctors immediately arranged for the infant to be taken to a specialist neo-natal unit at the neighbouring Cosenza hospital, where he died on Monday morning.
Italian police are investigating the case for “homicide” because infanticide is illegal in Italy.
The law means that doctors have had an obligation to try to preserve the life of the child once he had survived the abortion.
The Italian government is also considering an inquiry into the conduct of the hospital staff.
Doctors in southern China are working around the clock to fulfil a government goal to sterilise — by force if necessary — almost 10,000 men and women who have violated birth control policies. Family planning authorities are so determined to stop couples from producing more children than the regulations allow that they are detaining the relatives of those who resist.
About 1,300 people are being held in cramped conditions in towns across Puning county, in Guangdong Province, as officials try to put pressure on couples who have illegal children to come forward for sterilisation.
The 20-day campaign, which was launched on April 7, aims to complete 9,559 sterilisations in Puning, which, with a population of 2.24 million, is the most populous county in the province.
A doctor in Daba village said that his team was working flat out, beginning sterilisations every day at 8am and working straight through until 4am the following day.
Tim Tebow recently told a sold-out crowd at Lipscomb University that “multiple companies told him before the Super Bowl that they could not let him represent their products if he went ahead with his pro-life commercial at the Super Bowl,” according to the Palm Beach Post.
However, the Heisman Trophy-winning quarterback and pro-life celebrity went on to say that, “losing sponsors was a small price to pay for the ability to spread his message about family and faith.”
Over 300 people marched in Christchurch on April 10 to highlight the value of all human life, and to speak out against abortion.
The first ever March For Life held in New Zealand focused especially on the application by the pro-abortion Family Planning Association, a member of the International Planned Parenthood Federation, to the New Zealand Abortion Supervisory Committee for a license to use the chemical abortion drug RU 486 at their Hamilton clinic.
New Zealand March for Life organizer Joseph Houghton told LifeSiteNews that Christchurch Catholic parishes were well represented, with at least 8 Catholic clergy present.
“The March for Life witnessed one of the largest presences of clergy a prolife event in New Zealand has seen,” Houghton said. “Many other denominations, such as Anglican and Baptist, were represented also.”
Young people from area Catholic colleges embraced the call to create a culture of life, with students from St. Bede’s Catholic College, Villa Maria College and Marian College addressing the crowd together.
Houghton reported that the March for Life was supported by New Zealand Family First, Right to Life New Zealand, Focus on the Family, Family Life International, Prolife NZ and Stop Family Planning NZ.
Despite protests and pressure from feminists and pro-abortion groups, an 11-year-old girl in the Mexican city of Chetumal has refused to undergo an abortion. The young girl explained her decision saying that she understands, “a life is growing in her womb.”
The girl is receiving medical attention at a local clinic, where doctors say the results of psychological tests have been positive. The recent tests, said Lizbeth Gamboa Song, director of the National System for the Comprehensive Development of the Family, show the girl has a proper understanding of the new life within her and of what to expect during the pregnancy.
Dr. Juan Carlos Navarrete Jaimes of the Merida Clinic performed an ultrasound on the girl and found the mother and child to be in excellent health. He also provided guidance on the prenatal care she needs during the coming months to ensure the pregnancy proceeds without complications.
Family First recently commissioned a poll, which was conducted by Curia Market Research, and its results make for some interesting reading.
The poll found that 80% of parents surveyed supported parental notification laws regarding abortion.
It found that 3 out of 4 parents of young children want abstinence to be taught as part of sex education classes – and there was 69% overall support for this.
The survey also found that 2/3rds of Kiwis are concerned about broadcasting standards in NZ, and that there is a majority support for stay-at-home parents receiving government subsidies.
Despite protests from Republicans, a pro-abortion nominee President Barack Obama put forward for a federal appeals court position is receiving a hearing today in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Obama nominated pro-abortion professor Goodwin Liu for a spot on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit.
Liu is a professor at the liberal University of California, Berkeley and he came under fire earlier this month when officials discovered he left 117 questions blank on the official Senate judicial questionnaire.
The hearing is going forward today notwithstanding Republican objections to the short period of time they’ve had to review Liu’s recent submission of papers correcting those problems.
Liu’s nomination is seen as a test case in the ability of Obama and Senate Democrats to get a liberal,pro-abortion judge approved in the Senate in advance of a Supreme Court nomination.
The process is infuriating Republicans, who have stopped short of threatening a filibuster.
“The concern here is whether this reflects President Obama’s view of what a good judge is,” said Sen. Jeff Sessions, a pro-life Alabama lawmaker who is the top Republican on the judicial panel, according to Politico.
“There is now a serious question as to whether Professor Liu has approached this process with the degree of candor and respect required of nominees who come before the committee,” Sessions told pro-abortion Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Sen. Pat Leahy on Thursday. “We can no longer extend him the benefit of the doubt that these substantial omissions—in which several of his more extreme statements appear—were a mere oversight.”
But, mindful of the Gang of 14, a group of bipartisan senators who are opposing filibusters except under “extraordinary circumstances,” Sessions told Politico he would not back a filibuster — “I’m reluctant to filibuster.”
Ed Whelan, a judicial expert writing at National Review, says Liu is a problem because he believes the Constitution to be a “living” document, the same view as those jurists on the Supreme Court who invented an unlimited right to abortion throughout pregnancy in the Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton cases.
“Goodwin Liu has urged judicial invention (usually in an “interstitial” role) of constitutional rights,” he writes today.
Liu “presents a volatile mix of aggressive left-wing ideology and raw inexperience,” Whelan adds.
“Liu is closely aligned with various left-wing groups. For example, he is (or recently was) on the boards of directors of the American Constitution Society, the ACLU of Northern California, and the National Women’s Law Center. He apparently practiced law for about two years,” he notes.
Liu has said he believes in the pro-abortion notion of a changing Constitution that can, for example, allow for unlimited abortion rights.
A new study out this week by the leading British medical journal shows maternal mortality rates have been significantly overestimated by United Nations (UN) agencies. The Lancet reports that maternal deaths worldwide in 2008 totaled 342,900 rather than the 500,000+ used by the World Bank, World Health Organization (WHO) and the UN Children’s Fund (UNICEF) in recent years.
The study finds both that the numbers from WHO and UNICEF were faulty due to a lack of proper reporting and also imprecise statistical modeling. But The Lancet study also finds progress has been made in preventing pregnant women from dying.
The study cites four main reasons for the improvement: declining pregnancy rates in some countries, higher per capita income, higher education rates for women, and increasing availability of basic medical care including “skilled birth attendants.”
The report finds that HIV/AIDS caused 60,000 maternal deaths and suggests that maternal deaths would have been significantly lower in Africa if mothers were given antiretroviral drugs. This sharply contradicts current UN and Obama administration policies, which divert funding from HIV/AIDS to family planning as a way to reduce maternal deaths.
The study shows that 50% of maternal deaths come from just six countries; India, Nigeria, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Ethiopia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Researchers were surprised that three of the richest countries in the world actually showed increased maternal mortality: the United States, Canada and Norway, three countries with the most liberal abortion laws in the world.
What was not cited anywhere in the document is abortion. Contrary to this study, the UN has promoted better maternal health through legal, or “safe,” abortion. At the UN-sponsored Women Deliver Conference in London two years ago, which was billed as a conference on maternal mortality, abortion advocate Frances Kissling told the Friday Fax the conference was a “pro-choice conference.”
The Lancet’s editor Dr. Richard Horton told the New York Times he was pressured “by advocacy groups” to delay publication of the report until later this year. Horton said the groups wanted the information withheld until after the current UN Commission on Population and Development (CPD), the Women Deliver Conference scheduled for this June in Washington DC, and the next UN General Assembly, which is also scheduled to address maternal mortality.
Pro-life critics of the maternal mortality numbers have long complained that the 500,000 number was likely too high and based on ideological assumptions. Dr. Donna Harrison, writing in a C-FAM briefing paper last year, said the WHO introduction of medical abortion in some countries to reduce maternal mortality has been based on unreliable data, unreliability now confirmed by a much broader and more detailed study by The Lancet.