Cross posted from the Culture Vulture.
Dr. Alveda King, niece of the late civil rights campaigner Dr. Martin Luther King, has compared abortion to slavery at the Juneteenth event in Memphis over the weekend.
The Juneteenth festival, which is the oldest known celebration of its type, celebrates the end of slavery in the USA back in 1865.
According to the Colorado Springs Gazette:
“One hundred and fifty years later, the Dred Scott decision still steams Alveda King.
Slaves, according to the 1857 Supreme Court ruling, weren’t citizens. Instead, according to the court, they were property.
But a second Supreme Court decision — the 1973 Roe v. Wade case that legalized abortion — riles her just as much. Talking at a Juneteenth celebration on Sunday in Fountain’s John Metcalfe Park, King said the ruling paved the way for a different form of slavery — one that has endured long past the Emancipation Proclamation.
“Civil rights begins with human rights,” said King, the niece of Martin Luther King Jr. “From conception until natural death, for everybody.
“Now it’s unbelievable that Dred Scott and womb babies have been told they’re not human beings.”
Unsurprisingly, other mainstream media outlets have covered Dr. Alveda King’s presence at the Juneteenth festival, but they didn’t actually report her comments about abortion – Live Action has the details on that one.
Dr. Alveda King is no stranger to this issue, having had two abortions herself approximately 30 years ago, and at the Juneteenth festival she told the gathered crowds about the fact that she had recently counseled three of her children to say ‘no’ to abortions, and as a result she now has three grandchildren that are “so much fun”.
I would have loved to have been present for this bit…
Breaking into a cappella gospel, King led an impromptu worship service Sunday at the Juneteenth Caribbean Heritage Festival, where King implored people to remember the holiday’s meaning of freedom, amid songs and sermons.
“If your light won’t shine, please don’t put out mine,” sang King, beginning her 50-minute speech.
“Let it shine, let it shine, let it shine,” replied the audience, their voices resounding from the pavilion.
Cross posted from John Jalsevac at LifeSiteNews.com.
Something very interesting is going on.
By way of background, you should know that I graduated in 2008 from Christendom College, one of the few really orthodox Catholic colleges in the United States. As a consequence I have a ton of amazing friends – intelligent, thoroughly Christian, and deeply pro-life.
Lately, however, I have noticed a theme emerging in the conversations and on the blogs and Facebook pages of a shockingly high number these friends – namely, a concern for “the environment.”
More and more I hear my friends asserting such things as the pressing need to develop renewable energy sources, to grow or buy “organic” and locally grown food, to stop the destruction caused by certain chemicals and industries, to reduce the levels of waste that the West is pouring into landfills, etc.
Recently I visited the blog of one of my friends, who couldn’t possibly be more pro-life or conservative if she tried. I read with mild surprise as she expressed her abhorrence for the proliferation of non-biodegradable plastic and indicated a few ways in which she is striving to reduce her “carbon footprint.”
A number of my close friends have gone out of their way to start growing and raising their own food, or have signed up for local organic food co-ops. Increasingly I hear the word “sustainable” used in a positive light. There are even suggestions that taking steps to protect the environment is a “moral imperative,” and that some of the ideas behind Earth Day aren’t really such a bad thing.
So what’s going on here? Are all of these friends buying in to the liberal lie? Are they simply pawns or victims of environmentalist propaganda? Are they selling their souls to the eco-extremist doomsayers?
No. I don’t believe it. Not for one second. In part I don’t believe it, because I have found myself thinking a lot of the same things.
Take this for example: This past week I was travelling with my wife and two children. We stopped for lunch at Wendy’s and I ordered a salad. After I had eaten my lunch I went to dispose of the garbage, when suddenly I paused, and looked. I had in my hand the plastic container in which the salad had been contained, the large plastic carrying bag in which my lunch had been given me, as well as a plastic knife, fork and spoon.
All told, it formed quite the formidable bundle. And I thought to myself: “Good Lord. All this from justone meal from just one person. And now it will all be dumped into a plastic garbage bag, and shipped off to a landfill, where it will sit undecomposed for centuries or even millennia. This can’t possibly be sustainable.”
Tell me, then, was this a bad thought? Was it a sign that I am slipping over to the dark side?
I don’t think so. On the contrary, I think there was a great deal of truth in it.
In fact, this is this sort of common sense revelation that my young pro-life friends seem to be increasingly having. Things like: that the West is producing and consuming non-essential goods at such a breakneck speed that it will inevitably run straight off an environmental and economic cliff if it doesn’t stop, soon; that it is neither healthy nor humane to eat eggs or meat that come from animals that are packed by the thousands into windowless, airless food factories and fed genetically modified grains; that it is a lot more fun and educational to grow your own food, etc.
What we are witnessing is a new, and, I believe, commendable backlash against two different excesses: that of a radical form of capitalism that views incessant wealth creation as the primary purpose of human life, and that of a radical environmentalism that views humans as little more than a pest to be carefully controlled or even eliminated.
Fundamentally I believe this backlash is fueled by one simple, self-evident, but critical fact: that this is the only earth we have, and its resources are necessarily limited. Eco-extremists view this limitedness as a reason to stop humans from reproducing at all, to “save the planet.” Pro-life environmentalists, on the other hand, view this limitedness as a reason to exercise self-restraint and intelligence in the way we consume resources for the sake of future generations – to “save the humans.”
Perhaps to call this a form of “environmentalism” at all is incorrect or misleading. After all, this new, pro-life environmentalism is springing up amongst a generation of young, religious conservatives who do not look at the world as simply “the environment” for the beast homo sapiens, but as a “creation” given to man as a gift by a loving Creator, with the commandment that we are to be intelligent stewards of it. Hence, “creationism” might perhaps be a more accurate or useful term to use, were it not for the fact that the term is already used for another purpose.
Either way, I believe that it is a profoundly good thing.
Apparently Orson Welles once quipped: “I drag my myth around with me”. Based on the most recent news about the RU486 abortion drug (also known as Mifepristone, Mifegyne or Mifeprex) one can’t help but sense that the proponents of RU486 abortions are going to have to start dragging their myths around with them if they wish to continue maintaining a staunch support for increased availability and use of RU486.
A research survey conducted in Australia has found that RU486 chemical abortions are actually more likely to end problematically for women than surgical ones are. The study of 7000 abortions carried out in Australia in 2009 found that 3.3 per cent of women using RU486 had later turned up at emergency departments to seek treatment for problems, whereas only 2.2 per cent of women who had undergone surgical abortions had done so.
The survey also found that 5.7 per cent of women undergoing early medical abortions using drugs had to be admitted to hospital for post-operative treatment, whereas only 0.4 per cent of women undergoing surgical abortions had need to do so.
This survey’s bad news about RU486 was actually foreshadowed last October with the release of other statistics from the Therapeutic Goods Administration in Australia, which revealed that 110 cases of “adverse effects” were reported in 2009 by doctors authorised to prescribe RU486 in Australia. These adverse effects included the retention of placental remains and other “products of conception” — a clinical euphemism for “human fetal remains”.
The information released by the Therapeutic Goods Administration also revealed that there were another 14 Australian cases where RU486 had failed and subsequent surgical abortions were carried out to complete these botched chemical abortions.
Also recently came the tragic news that RU486 has been linked to yet another female death, this time involving a 16-year old Portuguese girl. According toANSAmed, the girl died as a result of a septic shock caused by Clostridium Sordellii, an infection that until now had only been diagnosed in abortion drug related deaths in the United States. The 16-year-old’s death was announced at the 21st European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases, which was held in Milan last month.
The truly tragic death of this young Portuguese girl (which, as stated above, is not the first one) provides yet more ammunition against the current attempts to have RU486 made more widely and easily available to women and girls — something that the NZ Family Planning Association has been trying to do for several years now here in New Zealand.
You see, apart from it’s quick and straightforward nature, the other key selling point that is constantly touted by the advocates of RU486 abortion is the claim that early chemical abortions are far safer than later surgical ones. This mantra of “increased safety” is now looking more and more to be a claim that is completely without merit.
Unless there has been some major methodological flaw in the recent Australian survey showing a greater incidence of emergency department visits and post-operative hospital treatments after RU486 use, it would seem almost certain that RU486 advocates no longer have much of a leg to stand on when they suggest that the drug is a safer alternative to surgical abortion.
This point becomes even more salient when you consider that its advocates regularly talk about wider availability of RU486 being of greatest benefit to women in rural or remote areas, where hospital based abortion services are not readily available. Based on the latest Australian data, it seems that these are the very women who would be at greatest risk if they were to use this method, due to the fact that emergency hospital care wouldn’t be easily accessible to them should they experience any complications.
These latest and very serious challenges to the safety of RU486 abortions also raise major red flags in relation to the issue of abortions carried out on young girls without parental knowledge or consent. This issue raised its head here in New Zealand recently when one of our large Sunday papers ran a lead front page story about a New Zealand mother who was angry and upset about the fact that her 16-year-old daughter’s high school had procured an abortion for the girl without the mother’s knowledge or consent.
If the proponents of RU486 abortion get their way, its availability and use will become far more common and widespread, which means that any abortion taking place without parental knowledge or consent could involve the use of RU486. This would mean that not only would we have secret abortions on young girls taking place, but they would now be secret abortions involving risky drugs.
What happens to a young girl who has one of these secretly procured abortions on a Thursday or Friday, and then begins to suffer RU486 complications over the weekend when she has no school counsellor to seek out for help?
The prospect of a secret abortion ending in the death of a teenager is a truly frightening and horrific one, but we need to face up to the fact that the widespread availability of RU486, coupled with a lack of parental consent laws would be the perfect storm for just such a tragedy to begin occurring on a regular basis.
After Wednesday’s loss in the Court of Appeal for Right to Life as it sought to clarify the role of the Abortion Supervisory Committee, the question is now whether they will appeal to the Supreme Court.
Appealing to the Supreme Court is not an automatic right that citizens have. Instead the Supreme Court has to give leave for a case to be brought, under section 12 of the Supreme Court Act.
To be able to get leave to appeal to the Supreme Court some stringent criteria must be met. These are laid out in section 13 of the Act.
13 Criteria for leave to appeal
(1) The Supreme Court must not give leave to appeal to it unless it is satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of justice for the Court to hear and determine the proposed appeal.
(2) It is necessary in the interests of justice for the Supreme Court to hear and determine a proposed appeal if—
(a) the appeal involves a matter of general or public importance; or
(b) a substantial miscarriage of justice may have occurred, or may occur unless the appeal is heard; or
(c) the appeal involves a matter of general commercial significance.
3) For the purposes of subsection (2), a significant issue relating to the Treaty of Waitangi is a matter of general or public importance.
4) The Supreme Court must not give leave to appeal to it against an order made by the Court of Appeal on an interlocutory application unless satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of justice for the Supreme Court to hear and determine the proposed appeal before the proceeding concerned is concluded.
Right to Life’s best grounds will be on the argument that the appeal involves a matter of general or public importance. This argument will have to be based upon the fact that it is a contentious issue and that the High Court has given a different result to the Court of Appeal, and that the Court of Appeal couldn’t deliver a unanimous judgment on the issue over what the powers of the ASC are. Therefore, some final clarification is needed by the Supreme Court.
While this argument may be put, according to a respected source, apparently only 20% of applications for leave to be sought are actually successful, meaning the question is first whether they can appeal, rather than whether they will.
I have unfortunatley been too busy to be able to make any comment on the decision of the Court of Appeal which came out on Wednesday night regarding the Right to Life v Abortion Supervisory Committee case.
You will probably have seen the news article by now and the headline which says, “Unborn have no right to life, Court of Appeal rules.”
The case dealt with two issues, one was over whether the unborn child has a right to life, and the other over whether the Abortion Supervisory Committee has been carrying out its role correctly in supervising abortion certifying consultants.
In 2008 the High Court found there was doubt over the legality of many abortions, however this was overturned by the majority in this case who said that the law had been used correctly and that the appropriate avenue for any further action would be a complaint to the Health and Disability Commissioner or the police.
While the issue over the right to life was a likely result, the result on the second issue is surprising. As Brendan Malone at the Culture Vulture says, “why would the very committee that is charged with overseeing the practice of abortion in NZ have no ability, or responsibility to actually ensure that procedures are being followed to the letter of the law?!”
Anyway this case result got me thinking. It made me actually go looking, to see if I can find a picture of the Abortion Supervisory Committe, and I have finally found one. Here it is:
All eyes will be on Right to Life now, to see if they appeal to the Supreme Court.
The AMP People’s Choice awards went live today. A friend of mine brought them to my attention and told me about someone you can support.
His name is Johann Landkroon. Johann is a special needs Taekwon Do student from the Hawkes bay who is seeking sponsership to help him get to the opening ceremony of the 2011 Taekwon Do World Champs in September.
Johann is an inspirational 19 year old. Being disabled with down syndrome has not held him back and he is wanting to go further in pursuing this sport.
We all know that many people don’t see value in people with down syndrome and don’t recognize their humanity, but lets use this as an opportunity to be able to show the world that New Zealand recognized and respects all life – no matter what disabilities that person may have.
For Johann to get to the World Champs he is going to need to get lots of support, and winning this AMP scholarship will get him a long way to achieving that.
You can support Johann with just the click of your mouse.
Yep – it’s that easy!
A Facebook page has also been set up so you can invite your friends to support Johann too: https://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=113635895389692
He also has a website: www.hbitf.org.nz/supportjohann.html
Lets support this dude as he seeks to take on the World!