Saving Downs are a New Zealand based group of parents and siblings of people with down syndrome. They have formed in response to the New Zealand Government’s new state funded antenatal screening programme that targets and identifies unborn children with Down syndrome for selective abortion.
Midwives and general practitioners have been invited to a series of nationwide workshops in May and June 2012 to further enhance skills, knowledge and understanding in relation to antenatal screening for down syndrome and other conditions.
The down syndrome community has been excluded from participation in the workshops and they are taking this opportunity to provide their perspective on the screening programme.
They have recently produced the following resource for health professionals. For more information on Saving Downs visit their website - www.savingdowns.com.
Eleven facts for midwives, GPs and parents
I
- Like all people, those with Down syndrome are defined by their basic human dignity and not by their genetic makeup. They are loved and valued members of our families and communities. They make positive contributions to our society.
I- Down syndrome is a naturally occurring chromosomal arrangement that has always been a part of the human condition.
I- In a recent Children’s Hospital Boston survey 99 percent of parents of children with Down syndrome reported that they loved their child, 97 percent were proud of their child, and 79 percent attributed a more positive outlook on life to their child.
I- The screening pathway is non-therapeutic. It imposes more harm than benefit to a mother’s unborn child, through miscarriage and morbidity due to diagnostic testing.
I- The screening pathway leads to maternal anxiety and foetal hazard. Interrupting the pregnancy has adverse mental health outcomes for the mother.
I- There is no evidence that babies with down syndrome can have a better medical outcome due to screening and testing. Medical problems associated with down syndrome can be detected by routine antenatal clinical care without a diagnosis.
I- For every 100 women who screen at high risk for Down syndrome, RANZCOG state that only between four and six of them will be carrying a baby with down syndrome.
I- It costs around $70,000 to detect an unborn child with down syndrome.
I- Before the 2010 quality improvements around 55% of all babies with Down syndrome were not born due to antenatal screening and intervention. When Denmark introduced the same “quality improvements” the impact was a further halving in births of children with Down syndrome. A similar trend here would result in around 80% of all births of children with Down syndrome being prevented. Many people recognise that this is eugenics.
I
- The New Zealand Down Syndrome Association does not consider down syndrome in itself a reason for termination of a pregnancy.
I- People with down syndrome and their families are best placed to provide parents with a diagnosis with accurate information and knowledge based in direct experience.
Ethics and the Hippocratic Oath
The original Hippocratic Oath has been updated by the Declaration of Geneva. It has been adopted by the World Medical Association and reflects the dedication of medical professionals to the humanitarian goals of medical practice. It includes:
- A commitment to the service of humanity. A duty to act with conscience and dignity.
- A commitment to not allow a disability to intervene between ones duty and their patients. Upholding the utmost respect for human life.
Many people in the down syndrome community consider the screening programme to be eugenics, as it targets this community for birth prevention based on their biological difference. Such practices offend medical ethics, human dignity and the basic principles of humanitarian justice and international law.
Midwives and general practitioners have a statutory right to refuse to participate in antenatal screening for disabilities under Section 174 of the Health Practitioners Competence Assurance Act 2003. This provides for conscientious objection in relation to any reproductive health service.
Loving Every Child: Defying Eugenics
It is one of life’s great paradoxes that the most gentle, loving and enduring amongst us have always been the target of the eugenicists – those with down syndrome: the very people who embrace those defining human qualities of unconditional love and compassion.
The down syndrome community has witnessed with grave concern the return of eugenics in New Zealand under the guise of prenatal health care, reproductive choice and human rights. It is inflicting serious harm on our unborn children, parents and the down syndrome community.
In response to this Family Life International NZ and SavingDowns are holding a one-day seminar “Loving Every Child: Defying Eugenics”. This will be held in Auckland on the 4th August 2012 at the Columba centre. This will be an opportunity for people to learn about the history of eugenics and its recent emergence into New Zealand society. The seminar will be looking to raise awareness around the issue and to map out a response towards restoring respect and dignity towards the down syndrome community. Midwives and general practitioners have a commitment to the service of humanity and are particularly welcome to attend and participate in this seminar.
Please contact Mike Sullivan at mike.b.sullivan@xtra.co.nz for further information.
American author Henry David Thoreau once said “True friendship can afford true knowledge. It does not depend on darkness and ignorance.”
This maxim seems highly appropriate today, on this, the day that Prolife NZ rolls out it’s Right to Know campaign around New Zealand.
The Right to Know campaign challenges us to consider the important reality that providing women with all of the facts about abortion is ultimately going to be in the best interests of supporting truly free and informed choice.
For some reason, it has been my experience that the very group that is supposedly committed to choice, the pro-choice lobby, are often the most vociferous opponents of putting ALL of the facts about abortion on the table and allowing women access to a full and frank disclosure of the information about abortion.
There is a large, and growing, body of research showing the serious physical and psychological risks associated with abortion, yet for some reason there is often strong resistance from pro-choicers to allowing all of this information into the public arena.
Several years ago when the highly respected Professor David Fergusson, of New Zealand, published his longitudinal research showing that abortion can increase the risk of subsequent mental health issues in women he was sorely rounded on by groups like the Abortion law Reform Association of NZ (ALRANZ).
I remember the then head of ALRANZ, Margaret Sparrow, attacking Professor Fergusson’s research in a radio interview about the subject, and attempting to write off the findings of his research as if he was some sort of Internet hack touting results from a methodologically deficient online survey, or as if his research was agenda driven. This, despite the fact that Professor Fergusson is a highly regarded researcher and he is openly pro-choice on the issue of abortion.
To this day I still don’t understand why ALRANZ would be so doggedly opposed to women being empowered with scientifc knowledge and then choosing to keep their babies, rather than opt for an abortion and expose themselves to the risk of subsequent mental health issues because of that abortion.
When I hear pro-choicers staunchly and emotionally defending positions that would refuse to supply women with all of the facts about the risks associated with abortion, or with full and frank disclosure about fetal development, I really have to wonder to myself what are they so afraid of?
I mean seriously, if basic scientific information and medical facts have become such a big bad wolf to your ideological position then surely you have to wonder about the actual validity of your ideology, don’t you?
If the pro-choice ideology is so strong, and so innate to womanhood (as the pro-choice lobby claims) then what possible threat could there be from supplying women with ALL of the facts about abortion?
Anyone can talk a good game about ‘choice’, but the real test of your commitment to choice is shown by your willingness (or otherwise) to supply ALL of the facts to women so that they can make a truly informed choice.
If you are opposed to women being given all of the facts, then one is really forced to wonder whether your commitment isn’t actually to upholding choice, but rather to upholding abortion and defending it from any medical or scientific information which poses a threat to its popular support.
Ultimately, what is there to fear from women becoming armed with more information about abortion, or is the problem here that the pro-choice lobby views women as being too simplistic and unintelligent to be able to take in all the information that is presented to them and then make truly informed decisions after such awareness empowerment?
If the pro-choice ideology really is a true friend to women, as it claims to be, then surely it could never be opposed to allowing women access to ALL of the facts about abortion, not just some of them, for without that access the pro-choice ideology has become a friend that, as Henry David Thoreau would remind us, is a false friend that depends on darkness and ignorance to maintain control over the lives and decisions that women make about this issue.
For me, this issue is a no-brainer and that’s why I’m getting behind the Prolife NZ Right to Know campaign that kicks off around the country today – knowledge is empowerment, and empowerment is always good!
Officials in Australia are carrying out an inquest this week after a Newcastle woman died in 2007 following an abortion.
Helen Grainger, 29, suffered severe anaphylaxis when she was given an antibiotic at Lambton Road Day Surgery at Broadmeadow, on April 26, 2007.
The fifteen minute abortion procedure was without complications. Afterwards, Mrs Grainger was in a recovery room when she was administered Keflin – an antibiotic used to prevent possible infections after surgery.
She had previously taken Keflin without incident, but on April 26 she began to feel short of breath before a rash broke out across her body.
The inquest heard yesterday that before paramedics arrived, Mrs Grainger’s sedationist administered adrenaline intravenously to manage the reaction and CPR was performed shortly afterwards.
A paramedic of 33 years who treated Mrs Grainger at the surgery, John Gleeson, said she appeared to be suffering severe anaphylaxis and an endotracheal tube (a large, flexible plastic tube inserted into the trachea – the large airway from the mouth to the lungs) was used to resuscitate her.
Mr Gleeson told the inquest he also gave Mrs Grainger adrenaline, but only slowly to avoid what he called the “whammo” effect.
She returned a pulse on the way to the local John Hunter Hospital where she died two days later from brain hypoxia, the reduced supply of oxygen to the brain.
Expert witness and Director of the Allergy Unit at Royal Prince Alfred Hospital in Sydney, Dr Robert Loblay, told the inquest yesterday that adrenaline was more likely to have caused Mrs Grainger’s respiratory arrest than anaphylaxis.
He said the likely cause of the anaphylaxis was a drug she had been administered previously.
Dr Loblay said the adrenaline should have been injected into muscle, not intravenously, and it should have been injected in increments over more than ten minutes to different parts of her body.
Written evidence tendered to the court indicated that the drug was delivered in about five minutes.
Dr Loblay said the surgery’s emergency trolley should have had one millilitre vials of adrenaline instead of the much larger “mini jet” syringe that was used.
Mrs Grainger and her husband Jon were advised by doctors to terminate their pregnancy in February 2007 because she suffered a serious kidney disorder that threatened the health of her and her baby.
Last December the inquest heard that no local hospital would perform the termination for Mrs Grainger. Her GP, Doctor Harrison Mellows said he referred her to the Lambton clinic because the local John Hunter Hospital rarely does abortions.
When asked if the John Hunter should have performed the abortion, Doctor Mellows stressed, “there was no option to get her to the John Hunter, the John Hunter wouldn’t do this procedure in this situation.”
The inquest resumed yesterday after being adjourned last December to allow a health professional’s report to be considered. The report suggested Mrs Grainger had 20 times the normal amount of adrenaline in her body.
The inquest will continue tomorrow before deputy state coroner Scott Mitchell.
Cross posted from LifeSiteNews.
Today we bring you further coverage from MercatorNet on the research published in Chile a couple of days ago that directly challenges the “safe abortion” myth.
One of the great scandals of today’s global village is the deaths of hundreds of thousands of mothers each year simply because they are carrying or giving birth to a child. The last reliable estimate, from 2008, indicated nearly 343,000 of these maternal deaths. The scandal lies in the fact that most of them are easily preventible with basic health care, as the West discovered more than a century ago.
The West, as we know from many statements from the World Health Organisation and reproductive health groups, is anxious to reduce this awful statistic, which is an important aim of the Millennium Development Goals. Unfortunately, this altogether worthy goal is entangled with another: the reduction of fertility in the developing countries, by the quickest means possible. This means that, often before other basic medical and social improvements are in place, there must be universal access to birth control technology — not only contraception but abortion.
Abortion, however, must be safe for the woman — that is, provided by medically qualified people or by medically certified means — and to be safe it must be legal. Where it is illegal it will happen anyway but it will be unsafe, and often lethal. States which persist in keeping abortion illegal or severely restricted (and not the agents who are pushing this form of birth control) are thus contributing to the dire maternal mortality statistics. And states which ban abortion after it has been legal are similarly putting women’s lives at risk. That, as they say, is the narrative.
There’s just one problem with the drift of this story: there is no proof that it is true. The only hard evidence that we have on the subject of restrictive abortion laws and maternal mortality rates (MMR) is very new and it points in the opposite direction.
Research from Chile published a few days ago shows that, when therapeutic abortion was banned in 1989 after a long period when it had been legal in that country, there was no increase in maternal mortality. None at all. On the contrary, maternal deaths continued to decline. Chile today has one of the lowest maternal mortality rates in the world (16 per 100,000 live births), outstripping the United States (18) and, within the Americas, second only to Canada (9). Rather than the rogue violator of women’s reproductive health that the UN makes it out to be, Chile is looking this week like a model for countries that really want to save the lives of mothers.
Figure 1. Trend for maternal mortality ratio, Chile 1957–2007.
It’s important to note here what the study, Women’s Education Level, Maternal Health Facilities, Abortion Legislation and Maternal Deaths: A Natural Experiment in Chile from 1957 to 2007, does not claim. It does not say that making abortion illegal caused a decline in maternal deaths. But it shows, importantly, that the 1989 law did not increase mortality. It continued to decline substantially, although other factors were at work in the decline — notably, the education of women and their ability to shape their own reproductive behaviour. (The latter does not mean quite what birth control fundamentalists mean, as we shall see.)
The study, published in the open access online journal PLoS One, is the work of Chilean and American researchers led by Dr Elard Koch, epidemiologist and a professor at the University of Chile. The group, who formed the Chilean Maternal Mortality Research Initiative (CMMRI) for the purpose of the study, had access to exceptionally good data: 50 years of official records from Chile’s National Institute of Statistics, 1957 to 2007. These provide the basis of what the authors call a “natural experiment” in fertility and abortion policy.
What these records show is a dramatic decline in MMR from 1965, when abortions were numerous and abortion was the main cause of mortality, through to 1981; a continuing but slower reduction from 1981 to 2003; and a steady state from 2003 to 2007. To explain this pattern the researchers analysed social policies and trends likely to influence maternal mortality. Here are the key ones, especially for the first phase:
* Delivery by skilled birth attendants. For each 1 per cent increase in the number of deliveries performed by skilled attendants there was an estimated decrease of 4.58 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births. Clean water and other sanitary improvements also played a part.
* Access to maternal healthcare services. Nutrition programmes for mother and child, coupled with the distribution of fortified milk at primary care clinics created new opportunities for pregnancy and birth care for both mother and child. This strategy practically eradicated malnutrition, increased birth weight and contributed to the noteworthy reduction in infant mortality observed in Chile, 3.1/1000 live births for infants 28 days to 1 year of age.
* Women’s educational level. This, says Koch, is the most important factor, and the one which increased the effect of all other factors. Educating women enhances a woman’s ability to access existing health care resources and directly leads to a reduction in her risk of dying during pregnancy and childbirth. Data showed that for every additional year of maternal education in Chile there was a corresponding decrease in the MMR of 29.3/100,000 live births.
Cross posted from MercatorNet with additional reporting from ProLife NZ.
Is it just me, or are many pro-choicers (i.e. the dedicated activists, rather than your average kiwi punter who sits on the fence on this issue) starting to sound more and more like the anti-choicers that they accuse pro-lifers of being?
In the last fortnight several different campus rags around NZ have run articles focused on attacking the pro-life position, to the point of absurdity, and even angry hate-fueled ranting – see last week’s blog post about the CRACCUM article.
Tangent: the author of that CRACCUM article, which was published in print edition without any name attached, has since been revealed – he’s a young socialist/atheist who wears a cardboard beer box on his head (no, I will not be inserting any witticisms about the symbolic nature of wearing alcohol product packaging on your head). He actually took the time to post a brief comment on this blog last week, accusing me of engaging in “strawman” arguments – but everyone knows that I don’t believe in strawman arguments, being a good feminist I only accept the existence of ‘strawperson’, or even better, ‘straw subjective gender construct’ arguments. I digress, back to the pro-choice crusade that has begun around the country.
More and more, and this is by no means a NZ-only phenomenon, we are seeing pro-choicers who are becoming decidedly anti-choice in their approach to the issue of abortion.
There seems to be no willingness to actually discuss this issue in a reasoned, open and honest fashion, instead they would prefer to silence even the slightest whiff of dissent from their pro-choice ideology (yep, cause that’s exactly what it is; an ideology that was invented to try and evade the serious ethical challenges to the legitimacy of the act of abortion) with all manner of attacks.
Having said that, I can kind of understand where they’re coming from though, it must be hard to remain steadfastly committed to an ideology whose popular support is waning on a yearly basis, and whose most diehard adherents are now referring to being prop-choice as being part of a shrinking “post-menopausal militia“.
You see, the landscape is changing, and I’m not sure if the pro-choicer’s can actually see what’s happening.
No longer are women lining up in droves to express an ardent and undying commitment to the pro-choice ideology.
I would suggest that a large part of this has to do with the fact that, while many women out there might still be open to the idea of legalized abortion, they certainly aren’t huge fans of the act itself, with many simply choosing to quietly hold a personal opposition to abortion.
You see, we now live in a culture that places a high regard on human rights (and rightly so), and this means that more and young people are being steeped in a culture which encourages them to think about the ethical rights and wrongs of all manner of actions – from product manufacturing and consumption, to the way animals are treated, to the way we establish legal and policy frameworks in relation to human persons.
More and more young people are becoming attuned to important concepts of social justice, and this has coincided with massive leaps in medical science and technology, which now gives us a far greater insight into exactly what a fetus is – a human being (I mean come on, it’s not like a pig or a cow is ever going to pop out of a human womb after nine months – duh!) that meets all of the criteria for biological life (metabolism, growth, reaction to stimuli, reproduction).
What we are seeing in our culture is a meeting of two beautiful things: growing ethical awareness and growing scientific awareness – and the end result can only lead in one direction – a growing discontentment with the act of abortion, and a desire to move towards a more humane solution to the problems of crisis or unplanned pregnancies.
We see this very thing playing out in the medical fraternity where more and more doctors and other medical professionals are quietly refusing to participate in the ugly business of abortion, preferring instead to devote their talents to the far greater and more fulfilling work of saving and caring for human life.
Sadly many in the pro-choice lobby, especially those in positions of influence and authority, are responding to these positive developments of human enlightenment with negative and reactionary acts, grounded in a desire to remain in an unenlightened and closed approach to the issue of abortion.
Trying to silence groups on campus is far easier than actually having to debate the issues with them, especially when your ideology is not supported by logically sound ethical propositions, or by advances in medical science.
If the pro-choice lobby truly believes that their position is built on solid propositions, and that it enjoys widespread popular support, then why all of the reactionary and fearful closing of the doors to open and honest exploration of this important ethical issue?
Surely for any choice to be truly free and informed then the right to full knowledge has to be the initial foundation upon which that choice is built, explored and eventually made – without knowledge there can be only ignorance, and ignorance can never result in a truly free choice.
Abortion is often described as a necessary component of women’s health. Abortion rights groups contend that unless it is legal and freely available, backyard abortionists will fill the gap in demand and maternal mortality rates will rise. Remarkably, though, for such a contentious issue, there is little data to back up this claim.
Now a ground-breaking study of maternal mortality in Chile published this week in the leading journal PLoS One suggests that “the legal status of abortion does not appear to be related to overall rates of maternal mortality”.
Chile is an important “natural experiment” for abortion policy. In 1989 abortion was made illegal with one of the more restrictive abortions laws in the world. Good statistics from the past 50 years make it possible to compare MMRs before the ban and after.
According to Elard Koch, of the University of Chile, and colleagues, the study “provides counterintuitive evidence showing that making abortion illegal is not necessarily equivalent to promoting unsafe abortion, especially in terms of maternal morbidity and mortality. Chile’s abortion prohibition in 1989 did not cause an increase in the [maternal mortality rate] in this country. On the contrary, after abortion prohibition, the MMR decreased from 41.3 to 12.7 per 100,000 live births –a decrease of 69.2% in fourteen years.” The highest mortality rate was in 1961 (47.9 per 100,000 women of reproductive age), and the lowest in 2003 (0.72 per 100,000).
The article is sure to prove controversial in the never-ending abortion wars in developed countries. Support for “safe, legal and rare” abortion, in US President Bill Clinton’s famous phrase, is based on two assumptions: first, that it is a fundamental right for women and, second, that it is absolutely necessary for women’s reproductive health. Koch’s analysis, the first evidence-based publication to analyse women’s health after elective abortion became illegal in a country, suggests that the second assumption may be wrong.
“The lack of correlation between high maternal mortality and prohibition of abortion observed in this study also confirms circumstantial observations made in Europe. The lowest MMRs in Europe are in countries such as Ireland, Malta and Poland, in which elective abortion is illegal. Considering Chile has one of the lowest maternal mortality rates in the world, this analysis of Chilean maternal mortality statistics provides a model for other countries seeking a successful model for decreasing maternal mortality, and provides evidence that legalization of abortion is unnecessary to decrease maternal mortality.”
The most important factor in reducing the MMR, Koch says, is more education for women. “Educating women enhances a woman’s ability to access existing health care resources and directly leads to a reduction in her risk of dying during pregnancy and childbirth.” Other factors include: nutrition for pregnant women and their children in the primary care network and schools; universal access to improved maternal health facilities; changes in women’s reproductive behavior enabling them to control their own fertility; and clean water and good sanitation.
- Chen Guangcheng and a group of handicapped farmers after going to court in 2002.
A blind Chinese peasant has given the whole world a lesson in the power of one. Chen Guangcheng became one of China’s best-known civil rights activists after defending women in his province who had forced abortions under the one-child policy.
Now, after a dramatic escape from house arrest, he appears to have taken refuge in the US embassy in Beijing. His flight is perfectly timed to coincide with weighty discussions between Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and their Chinese counterparts.
No doubt “barefoot lawyer” Chen realises that he has put both governments in a cleft stick. He has exposed one of China’s most hideous human rights abuses and he has challenged the Obama administration to truly make human rights – in the President’s words — “a core national security interest and core moral responsibility.”
Chen may be blind; he may be poorly educated; he may be a peasant – but he has outsmarted the world’s two most powerful governments. Neither of them wanted the one-child policy exposed to the glare of the world media. But now it is being discussed around the globe.
Forty-year-old Chen is a man of remarkable courage and intelligence. Blind almost from birth, he was raised on classic tales of courageous heroes fighting corrupt officials. He came from a poor family and only began school when he was 17.
In 1996 he began to lobby for rights for the disabled in Shandong Province, about 500 kilometres south of Beijing. He was so successful as a “barefoot lawyer” that local people took their grievances to him. He gained a national reputation by leading protests against illegal taxes, polluters, and discrimination against the disabled.
Local officials had already started harassing him when he launched a protest against illegal implementation of the one-child policy. He documented abuses and worked with victims and lawyers to organise a class-action suit against family planning officials in 2005. This failed, but his reputation grew.
Then local officials revenged themselves. They charged him with “wilfully damaging public property and organising a mob to disturb traffic”. In 2006 he was sentenced to jail for four years.
In 2010 Chen was released but, together with his wife and son, he remained under illegal and sometimes brutal house arrest. Making his guards look like a bunch of Keystone Cops, Chen escaped on the night of April 22. Supporters drove him to Beijing.
From his hiding place Chen has released a YouTube appeal to Premier Wen Jiabao asking that officials who attacked his family be prosecuted and that the government prosecute corruption cases according to the law. Appealing to the law may seem quixotic, but if the draconian family planning laws had just been obeyed to the letter, women would have been spared some of the horror of forced abortions and sterilizations.
Horror is not too strong a word. Activist Annie Jing Zhang, of Women’s Rights in China, told a US Congressional hearing in 2009 that some towns display slogans like “Pregnancy with permit”, “When you are required by policy to get abortion, but if you don’t, your house will be destroyed, your buffalo will be confiscated”, “Abort it, kill it, terminate it. You just cannot give birth to it” or “We would rather to have blood flow like a river than to allow one extra baby to be born”.
Chen ends his YouTube appeal by saying:
“Premier Wen, many people don’t understand these illegal actions. Is it the local Party officials who are disobeying the laws, or do they have the support of the central government? I think that in the near future, you must give the public a clear answer. If we have a thorough investigation and tell the truth to the public, the results will be self-evident. If you continue to ignore this, what will the public think?”
Chen’s audacious ploy discomfits the US as well. Although President Obama recently set up an Atrocities Prevention Board, his administration has been reluctant to question the notorious one-child policy of its biggest trading partner. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told reporters in 2009 that human rights shouldn’t interfere with practical concerns:
“Successive administrations and Chinese governments have been poised back and forth on these issues, and we have to continue to press them. But our pressing on those issues can’t interfere with the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis, and the security crisis.”
And Vice-President Joe Biden gave a speech at Sichuan University last year in which he spoke so diplomatically about the one-child policy that he seemed to be endorsing it: “Your policy has been one which I fully understand — I’m not second-guessing — of one child per family”.
Now it’s time for the Obama Administration to show some courage of its own in standing up for Chen and his family. Essentially his demands are modest. All he wants is the protection of Chinese law. Even his activism against the one-child policy has been focused on getting officials to observe the informed consent enshrined in the law, not to overturn it.
Besides, it is possible that reformers in the upper echelons of the Communist Party like Wen Jiabao actually welcome Chen’s move. The hardline chief of security, Zhou Yongkang, who orchestrated the persecution of Chen, has already been rattled by the purging of party princeling Bo Xilai. Sympathy for Chen weakens his own position.
In any case, it is becoming increasingly clear that the one-child has been a disaster for China, as The Economist recently pointed out. China’s burden of elderly is growing, and the proportion of younger tax-payers is shrinking. Already there are labour shortages. Notwithstanding its current strength, China is a country which will grow old before it grows rich. Chen is a reminder not only of his government’s brutality but its folly in defying the laws of economic growth.
Chen Guangcheng’s fate now depends upon negotiations between two governments who both wish that he would step under a truck. But there is a way to support him. Nominate him for the 30th anniversary of the United Nations Population Award “outstanding contributions to increasing the awareness of population questions”.
In the past the prize has been given to odious family planning apparatchiks and to dictators like Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Indonesian President Suharto. Its inaugural recipients, in 1983, were Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, after her notorious campaign for forced sterilization in the 1970s, and Qian Xinzhong, an architect of China’s one-child policy.
An avalanche of nominations for Chen Guangcheng would show that the world has finally repudiated one of the most despicable, senseless violations of human rights ever implemented by a government against its own people. Click on this link to download an official nomination form.
If you’re living in the ’09′ region, and you attend that bastion of higher education and academia that is Auckland University, then you’ve probably seen the opinion column/angry rant/letter to the editor/rather hateful public statement that was published in CRACCUM, the student rag of Auckland Uni, a week or so back.
The letter/column was a lengthy attack, riddled with all sorts of allegations and angry verbage directed against Prolife Auckland.
Whoever penned this diatribe didn’t even bother to sign their name, or the name of the organisation/group they represent, at the bottom of it – maybe their mind was so addled with rage that they forgot their own name?
Speaking of Angry Birds, is it just me, or is that app the most totally addictive thing on iPhone ever?
Anyway, back to the mater at hand, the wordy rant of the invisible man (oops, sorry, I mean ‘invisible person of non-specific gender’).
The writer(s) start by making the nonsensical claim that abortion is a human right – a claim that only the most diehard of pro-abortionists would try to make, and one that is completely without merit. Abortion is no more a human right than fish and chips at Spicers is – calling something a human right doesn’t magically make it one, no mater how often you keep repeating yourself.
From there the letter/column goes on to make all sorts of ludicrous suggestions about Prolife Auckland, all of which have one thing in common; a complete and utter opposition to pro-life students exercising their legitimate right to freedom of association and expression by gathering together and affiliating as a club at Auckland University.
Yep, that’s right, this is nothing more than thinly disguised opposition to freedom of thought and speech.
The writer(s) of this letter/column hate Prolife Auckland because of the fact that the student members of Prolife Auckland don’t hold the same views as they do regarding the issue of abortion, and it seems abundantly clear that the author(s) of this piece do not at all like to tolerate individuals or groups who hold views contrary to their own.
The unabashed intolerance displayed in this letter is really quite astounding, especially coming from (presumably) members of an academic community – the very community in which a free and open discourse about ideas is meant to be one of the vital foundational principles. This letter/column appears more like it has been written by a grand inquisitor seeking to quash all opposition and dissent than by a member of a healthy academic community where freedom of expression is highly regarded and respected.
One really has to wonder why such vitriol is being directed at Prolife Auckland by our masked crusader – why are they so afraid of Prolife Auckland and the philosophy of total respect for human life and rights which they subscribe to as a club?
I hate to say it, but the term ‘militant fundamentalist’ came to mind when I first read this rant in CRACCUM – and the last thing that any university needs is militant fundamentalists with no tolerance of dissenting views.
Blind forced abortion opponent Chen Guangcheng has “disappeared” from his lengthy house arrest under the Chinese government, according to a source who contacted human rights group Women’s Rights Without Frontiers. Another Chinese human rights group reported Friday that Chen is “100% safe” and has possibly found refuge in the U.S. Embassy.
Yaxue Cao, a key Chinese human rights activist who has been advocating on behalf of Guangcheng, told WRWF that she spoke with Chen’s nephew, Chen Kegui. Kegui’s mother overheard guards saying that Chen Guangcheng had “disappeared” from his home, where he had been under strict house arrest Neither villagers nor family members know where he is. Yaxue Cao posted the recording of her conversation with Chen Kegui here.
He Peirong just told WRWF that she helped Chen escape to an undisclosed location outside of Shandong. She said that his health is stable, but she fears he is in danger. She also stated that the fate of Chen’s wife, mother, daughter and son may be in jeopardy. Eyewitnesses reported Guangcheng and his family looked seriously ill in February.
“We are grateful that Chen is no longer under house arrest, but we are concerned about his safety and that of his family,” said Reggie Littlejohn, president of Women’s Rights Without Frontiers, who called on Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to raise Chen’s case during her upcoming visit to Beijing in May.
However, ChinaAid founder and president Bob Fu announced Friday that he has been in touch with Chen’s friends and family, and was told by a source who brought Chen to Beijing that he is not in any danger and is “100% safe.” There is speculation that Chen is in the U.S. Embassy in Beijing.
The New York Times reported Friday that American officials would not confirm reports that Mr. Chen had entered the American Embassy, and said a source in the Chinese Ministry of State Security backed up a report from the previous day that Chen was thought to be there.
ChinaAid said it was asked on Friday to convey to the outside world Chen’s intention to “fight to the end for the freedom of my family inside China. I want to live a normal life as a Chinese citizen with my family.”
Fu says that Chen does not plan to flee the country.
Meanwhile, Fu said police have arrested one of the friends who helped drive Chen on April 22 from his home. He Peirong was in communication with ChinaAid when she was arrested at her home in Nanjing, coastal Jiangsu province, on Friday at 11:11 a.m. She has not responded to later efforts to reach her.
Both Fu and Littlejohn report that police have also taken into custody Chen’s older brother and his nephew, Chen Guangfu and Chen Kegui, respectively. The father and son were taken from their home early Friday morning. After government officials broke into his home early in the morning by climbing over the back wall, Chen Kegui reportedly thought they were burglars and stabbed them.
The U.S. State Department urged Guangcheng’s release in 2006. He and his family had reportedly been “beaten senseless” last February after secretly releasing a videotaped message.
Batman star Christian Bale drew international attention to the case when he was videotaped beingroughed up as he attempted to visit Guangcheng last year.
“We must report the true fact of this case and not let the Chinese propaganda machine spin this story as they see fit,” said Fu. “We will stand with Chen and work with the international community and world media to fight for his freedom.”
You can view a video and sign a petition to free Chen Guangcheng at www.WomensRightsWithoutFrontiers.org.
Cross posted from LifeSiteNews.
Labour MP Maryan Street.
Cross posted from Stuff.co.nz
Nathaniel Centre director and euthanasia opponent John Kleinsman has hit back at Maryan Street’s euthanasia bill during a debate tonight.
Both were among speakers at an open forum at the Dunedin Public Hospital tonight titled euthanasia and assisted suicide: A discussion we need to have.
Labour MP Street delivered details of a private member’s bill to legalise end of life options she was supporting on behalf of a Nelson group. She said she thrashed the issues out with a couple of Nelson preachers before deciding to sponsor the bill on behalf of a Nelson group of euthanasia advocates, because the debate shoud be religious as well as secular.
The bill aimed to provide end-of-life choices for people with terminal illness and irrecoverable conditions which make life impossible, Street said. She emphasised the inclusion of protections within the proposed legislations for those wanting to die and those involved in the process.
The patient had to be of sound mind when making the choice and protected from coercion. This would be attested by doctors. There was also protection against the decision being overturned if the person was later unable to express their view.
“Similarly there must be protection against criminal liability-protection for family members who are asked, like Sean (Davidson) to do the unthinkable.”
People who had lived autonomous lives should also be allowed to be autonomous during the end of their lives, she said.
“It’s a matter of human rights.”
Wellington-based Kleinsman, director of his organisation’s Nathaniel Centre, slammed Street’s ideas for protections.
“I don’t think there is any law that can adequately protect against the risks. In fact the law would remove the most protective barrier,” he told a full house at the hospital’s Colquhoun Lecture Theatre.
He launched a scathing attack on the Government’s inadequate funding of palliative care, saying it was driving people to assisted suicide.
If people could be assured of death without agony the voluntary euthanasia debate would be redundant, he said.
“Until every New Zealander has access to high quality palliative care I think it’s unethical to introduce euthanasia. Choosing to die can never be fully voluntary in a society that doesn’t provide palliative care options.”
Kleinsman also criticised rest home care, saying rest homes needed to “lift their game”.
Other considerations in the debate included societal changes such as the increase in elder abuse, and families living long distances from elderly or disabled relatives who believed they were a burden which encouraged life-ending decisions.
The proposed legislation also presented a message that people who were ill or disabled were somehow worthy of less respect.
“The message is subtle but powerful.
“Relaxing the law is fraught with possibilities for abuse. The right to die would very quickly become a duty to die.”
The forum was held on the eve of the departure from New Zealand of Professor Sean Davidson, the Dunedin man last year convicted for the assisted suicide of his mother Patricia. Relased from home detention this week, Davidson is heading back to his family in South Africa.
He outlined his experience at the forum, as well as his support for assisted suicide, to resounding applause.
Recent Comments