Marie Boswell expected to get the latest information about the status of her unborn child from her physician. In a rare ultrasound picture showing her baby giving her a thumbs up, she got a progress report from the baby boy himself.
Bosworth was stunned by the ultrasound photo of her 20-week-old unborn baby giving her the popular sign when everything’s alright.
Brendan O’Neill says that the state’s cruel and antiquated one-child policy is being propped up by British environmentalists with an agenda — but the Chinese are striking back
Professor Yang Zhizhu is a brave man. In flagrant defiance of China’s womb-policing one-child policy, he and his wife have chosen to become outlaws by having two children and flat out refusing to pay the second-child fine (around £18,000). ‘Why should I pay money for having my own kid?’ asked Professor Yang in an interview last month. ‘It’s our right as citizens.’ For the crime of starting a two-child family, Professor Yang was fired from his job at the Beijing Youth Politics College and now faces an uncertain future.
Yet at the same time as this Beijing-based academic is taking huge risks to become, in his words, ‘a nail in the coffin of China’s one-child policy’, some British academics — of the miserabilist, misanthropic variety — are providing the Chinese state with new arguments for keeping the one-child policy. A Chinese teacher is trying to topple it, while British researchers are helping to prop it up.
It all started when Yang’s wife, Chen Hong, gave birth to their second child on 21 December last year. They were immediately slapped with the hefty state fine. After Professor Yang refused to pay — not, he says, because he couldn’t afford it, but because the one-child policy is ‘ridiculous’ — he was turfed out of his cushy job last month and will now live on ‘subsistence allowances’. As an illegal second child, his daughter, Ruonan, will not get the Beijing hukou, the permanent residency document that recognises her as a citizen. This means she won’t have access to public services such as education, medical facilities and, later in life, Beijing-based jobs. ‘I only pray that she doesn’t come down with some drastic illness,’ says Professor Yang.
Yang has become a hero across China — testament to the extent to which Chinese people hate the National Population and Family Planning Commission (NPFPC), the vast state body which employs an eye-popping 509,000 public servants to police and punish people’s reproductive habits. In a survey of 75,300 people carried out by a popular Chinese website, 91 per cent of respondents said they supported Yang. His university colleagues have written a letter demanding his reinstatement, arguing ‘it is time to adjust the existing family planning policy’. Even China Daily, the English-language state newspaper, admits Yang has won ‘tens of thousands of hearts across the country’.
Before Yang, tycoons and celebs had been infuriating the regime by simply stumping up the cash for the second-child fine in order that they could expand their families. One wealthy couple waltzed into their local birth control office, slammed some money on the table and said: ‘Here is 200,000 yuan [£18,000]. Please do not come to disturb us.’ Poorer families, who can’t afford the fines, are having second children as secretively as possible. Meanwhile, experts argue that the one-child policy is giving rise to a demographic nightmare: China has a growing population of old people but not enough youngsters to provide for them. So some cities, including Shanghai, are starting to relax the one-child policy.
In response, the NPFPC is desperately scrabbling around for new moral justifications for its barbaric bureaucracy. And who is it turning to? Increasingly to green-leaning British Malthusians, in particular to the Optimum Population Trust (OPT), a weird outfit which counts Sir David Attenborough and Jonathon Porritt among its backers and whose anti-human arguments for population reduction are like manna from heaven for China’s beleaguered population police.
Last December, as Professor Yang’s wife was preparing for her rebellious labour, Zhao Baige, vice-minister of the NPFPC, gave a speech at the Copenhagen summit on climate change. To a creepily sympathetic audience of green-leaning officials and activists, she presented the one-child policy as a ‘climate-friendly’ initiative, in the sense that population reduction limits the number of ‘polluters’ (formerly known as human beings) marauding around the planet. To back up her perverse claims, she enthusiastically cited research carried out by Thomas Wire at the London School of Economics, published in August last year, which claimed that ‘promoting family planning’ — that is, curbing human numbers — is the cheapest way to tackle climate change. According to Wire, ‘Each $7 spent on basic family planning would reduce CO2 emissions by more than one tonne.’
Pro-Life groups have condemned the airing of TV commercials for abortionist group Marie Stopes in Britain that they say cover up the dangers of abortion and “trivialize” the taking of human life. Marie Stopes, one of the world’s largest international abortionist groups that receives an estimated £30 million a year from the National Health Service, claimed that the ads were needed to “inform” women and help them “confront the taboo” surrounding abortion.
Women who refuse requests from their husbands or boyfriends to have abortions are often finding themselves subject to violent attacks that sometimes result in their deaths. That’s the finding of a new report from the Elliot Institute, which calls the problem a “widespread epidemic.”
The new report, Forced Abortion in America, is drawing attention to attacks on pregnant women and girls in order to prevent them from continuing their pregnancies.
It points out a “widespread epidemic of unwanted, coerced and forced abortions taking place in the United States.”
The report notes how research suggests most abortions are likely unwanted or coerced, with one survey of women who had abortions finding that 64 percent said they felt pressured by others to abort.
The same survey found 80 percent of women said they did not receive the counseling they needed to make a decision — even though more than half said they felt rushed or uncertain about the abortion.
Almost one late-term abortion is performed in Victoria every day, and 54 babies survived the procedure to die post-natally, according to figures released by the State Government.
Of the 345 late-term abortions in 2007 – the highest number on record – 164 were performed at a Melbourne clinic on women with healthy foetuses who said they were suffering psychological or social problems.
Many of the women who were granted late term abortions for “psycho-social” reasons travel from overseas or interstate to have the procedure done at the clinic, one of the few facilities in the country willing to perform late-term abortions.
Two of the terminations of healthy foetuses were older than 28 weeks’ gestation, but the majority were performed on women who were about six months’ pregnant.
For those who haven’t heard it already, here is the radio advert for the new eugenic screening programme targeting people with Down syndrome in NZ.
Note the soothing music and gentle voice of the female narrator, and the way that the advert implies that genetic screening is one of the most important and urgent things that a pregnant woman needs to do.
Of course there is no mention of the fact that they’re testing for Down syndrome, or that women will be offered the opportunity to abort any Down syndrome babies the test happens to discover.
Earlier this week Radio NZ interviewed Alexander Sanger, the grandson of the infamous eugenist, population control proponent, oh, and racist.
But they didn’t even really come close to asking him any of the hard questions about his infamous grandmother, the founder of Planned Parenthood, who Alexander works for.
In fact, it seems that not much research was done about Margaret Sanger at all, instead Radio NZ merely appear to have accepted some whitewashed Planned Parenthood PR about Sanger, and then repeated it on air.
I love it when, during the interview, the suggestion is made that Sanger was basically a Suffragette – sure, if by ‘Suffragette’ you mean someone who proposed concentration camps to stop the ‘unfit’ from breeding, promoted race and class based eugenic sterilization, and maintained very close ties to high ranking Nazis.
What was truly scary was hearing Alexander Sanger’s unbelievably ludicrous philosophical views on when a human being comes into existence, and why a mother is a mother from conception, but fatherhood doesn’t begin until birth.
We have bee sent a copy of an official National Screening Unit (NSU) Report from 2007 (obtained under the Official Information Act).
The report is titled: Summary of Key Informant Interviews Antenatal Down syndrome Screening, Final Report, and in a section titled “Cost Effectiveness”, it clearly outlines the case for why aborting Down syndrome babies is more cost effective than allowing them to live.
What is rather interesting about this document is that it doesn’t use the word ‘abortion’, instead it uses sanitized euphemisms like ‘avoiding the birth of a baby’.
Here’s what that section says (emphasis added):
2.3.2 Cost Effectiveness
A further assumption regarding the establishment of formal screening programmes is that the programme will be cost beneficial for the population and the health system.
The scan highlighted literature that supported the premise that the economic costs of screening outweigh the high costs associated with the long term care needs of an individual with Down syndrome. For example Wald and colleagues assessed the implementation of antenatal screening for Down syndrome in practice using individual risk estimates based on maternal age and three serum markers. This study assessed the uptake of screening, detection rates, false positive rate, probability of Down syndrome relative to the positive result, the uptake of amniocentesis in women with a positive result together with the costs of the screening programme. The findings concluded that antenatal maternal serum screening for Down syndrome is effective practice and can be readily integrated into routine antenatal care. It is cost effective as the estimated cost of avoiding the birth of a baby with Down syndrome (about 38,000 pounds) is substantially less than the lifetime costs of care.
Further support for this view also suggested that while screening costs will vary depending on the testing format, and while some may feel that the cost of about 40,000 pounds sterling to prevent the birth of a baby with Down syndrome to a woman under 30 may be expensive, it is low compared with the costs of caring for someone with Down syndrome.
A Health Technology report, “First and second trimester antenatal screening for Down syndrome: the results of the serum, urine and Ultrasound Screening Study”, (known as the SURUSS report), contains detailed cost analyses of the screening test options. This study concluded that on the basis of efficacy, safety and cost, an integrated screening test format was the test of choice.
Other literature emphasis that the implementation of new strategies for the detection of Down syndrome all have economic implications, these are unique to antenatal diagnoses, and must be considered prior to implementation. Indirect and intangible costs must be included in the analysis, not just direct medical costs.
The report is dated March 2007, and it states the following statement about the NSU in its Executive Summary:
“The National Screen Unit (NSU), a business unit of the Ministry of Health (the Ministry) has responsibility for the strategic management, operation and oversight of three screening programmes, and is conducting preliminary work on other strategic screening programmes.”
The Executive Summary then goes on to state the purpose of the report:
“The intention of this report is to provide the National Screening Unit of the Ministry of Health information to inform its decision as to whether a national antenatal screening programme for Down syndrome should be established in New Zealand.”
Make no mistake about it, the brutal and inhuman practice of eugenics is alive and well in NZ.
Rozanda “Chilli” Thomas, better known as a member of the successful 1990s hip-hop trio TLC, has joined a growing number of women and men who have come forward with horrendous stories of post-abortion grief. In a recent interview, the singer revealed that an abortion that she got when she was 20 years old “broke my spirit,” and robbed her of her “strong self.”
The singer discussed her abortion on the May 9 episode of the VH1 reality TV series “What Chilli Wants,” which follows the singer as she seeks help to establish a long-lasting relationship. Prompted to discuss her first relationship, with producer Dallas Austin, Thomas recounted her emotions upon realizing that she was pregnant for the first time at 20 years old.
“I didn’t have the support, and so I was so scared and didn’t know what to do,” she said, “and chose to not have it (the baby) – one of the biggest mistakes.”
Far from an empowering option, the singer said the abortion seemed forced upon her by her budding career – and that it was a choice she didn’t really want to make. “I’m 20, my career hadn’t even really started, you know, so how do I do all that? How do I be a mommy?” she recalled. “It messed me up. I don’t know – it broke my spirit.”
She continued, through tears: “I feel like I became, I don’t know – kind of like, not my strong self anymore. I feel like I gave in and I broke to what someone else wanted.
“And I would break down and I would just cry – because I wasn’t a mommy. I cried almost every day for almost nine years.”