George Weigel, evangelizzare l'Europa - di Maria Claudia Ferragni

In NBQ

George Weigel, già docente di teologia, Distinguished senior fellow del prestigioso Ethics and Public Policy Center di Washigton, autorevole giornalista e scrittore cattolico, insignito di numerosi Dottorati Honoris Causa, è considerato il più importante biografo del Beato Papa Giovanni Paolo II. Dando seguito a una promessa fatta al Pontefice stesso solo quattro mesi prima della sua morte, ha di recente pubblicato il libroThe End and the Beginning: Pope John Paul II - The Victory of Freedom, the Last Years, the Legacy.

Lo abbiamo incontrato a Roma, in occasione della storica canonizzazione congiunta dei due più amati Papi del Ventesimo Secolo e gli abbiamo chiesto di parlarci della crisi di fede e politica europea.

Professor Weigel, che fine ha fatto il desiderio di Papa Giovanni Paolo II della riscoperta delle radici cristiane dell'Europa, soprattutto di fronte alla crisi ucraina che riapre scenari di conflitto che ricordano la Guerra Fredda?

Il fatto che oggi l'Europa sia sempre più chiusa su se stessa, incapace di prendere importanti e serie decisioni dal punto di vista politico, è proprio indice del fatto che si è creato un enorme vuoto spirituale e morale, quello di cui parlava con lungimiranza il Beato Papa Giovanni Paolo II. Questo ci dice anche dell'attuale incapacità europea di sostenere il popolo ucraino che desidera essere libero e vivere in una società aperta e giusta. Il movimento del Maidan avrebbe dovuto, infatti, dare una profonda ispirazione a tutta l'Europa a recuperare i suoi valori costituivi, quelli cristiani, ma questo finora purtroppo non è successo.

Quale può essere il ruolo della Chiesa Cattolica oggi, adesso in Europa?

Prima di tutto deve predicare il Vangelo. Questo é il suo compito. Dobbiamo infatti smetterla di dire che bisogna "ricristianizzare" l'Europa, perché va invece "cristianizzata": infatti l'Europa ha completamente dimenticato la fede. Ciò significa quindi che la Chiesa deve assumere un vigoroso atteggiamento missionario e deve assolutamente cominciare a farlo là dove si trova il suo centro: cioè in Europa. Però la Chiesa, proprio come diceva Giovanni Paolo II, deve proporre qualcosa di nuovo. Papa Wojtyla ha infatti letteralmente chiamato e spinto la Chiesa ad abbandonare le "acque basse" e la superficialità rappresentate dalla semplice conservazione del cattolicesimo istituzionale, a favore della ricerca della profondità data dalla nuova evangelizzazione. E ciò deve accadere in primo luogo e prioritariamente in Europa.

Quale può essere il ruolo della Chiesa statunitense anche verso l'Europa?

Sicuramente la Chiesa cattolica americana ha molti problemi, ma può assumere un ruolo estremamente importante perché é nella forma migliore fra tutti paesi occidentali. Sta vivendo un momento di grande vitalità evangelica: ci sono stati centinaia di migliaia di nuovi Battesimi nella Chiesa cattolica durante le recenti festività Pasquali e questa è una grande notizia.

Quindi la Chiesa in America ha imboccato la strada della nuova evangelizzazione e può essere di esempio per la Chiesa in Europa, in Occidente e in tutto il mondo su come si deve muovere la Chiesa nel mondo moderno.

One child and... actually how many parents did you say? - by José Ramos-Ascensão

In europeinfos

A “Comparative study on the regime of surrogacy in EU Member States”, commissioned by the Committee of Legal Affairs, has recently been presented at the European Parliament; whereas, at the same time, it has been announced that rising ‘surrogacy tourism’ in India is boosting an already four-billion dollar industry in that country. A sign of the times!

Surrogate motherhood is the practice whereby a woman (the surrogate mother) becomes pregnant with the intention of handing over the child to someone else (the intended parent) after the birth. A distinction is made between traditional and gestational surrogacy depending on whether the surrogate mother´s eggs are used or not. In the first case, the surrogate is also the genetic mother of the child. In the second case, the intended parent may or may not be also the genetic parent of the child, depending on whether a third person’s gametes were used or not (with regard to the donation of gametes, the so-called heterologous in vitro fertilization, see our article in europeinfos issue no. 146). Finally, with new techniques such as pronuclear transfer, even the “genetic material” might, at least in theory, originate from more than one donor.

Lost count? Indeed, too many “parents” for just one child, let alone mentioning a possible husband or partner of the surrogate mother herself!

Ethical and legal concerns

These assisted reproductive technologies – as a matter of fact, actual reproductive technologic revolutions – pose, of course, enormous ethical and legal questions and difficulties. To complicate things even more, surrogacy may be “commercial” or “altruistic”, and the surrogate mother and the intended parents may be from different countries (“cross-border surrogacy”), with different applicable legislations, often with one of them prohibiting (or simply not recognizing) the surrogacy arrangement – and therefore the corresponding foreign birth certificate – with possible, dire dramas of ‘parentlessness’ and ‘statelessness’ being created, often with the foreknowledge of the intended parents!

All this is pursued in the name of granting the ‘enjoyment’ of an alleged “right to a child” by anyone, at the expense of the disruption of marriage, motherhood and parenthood, and indeed family relationships in general. The human dignity of all parties, above all the surrogate mother and the child to born, is violated inasmuch as they are treated as mere objects or commodities; and, in the case of the child to born in particular, his or her very right to personal identity is also breached.

No wonder that surrogacy experiences a rather negative attitude from the point of view of the general public, despite the fact that some specific groups, such as the LGBTI (Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex) community and activists, are particularly interested in its legalization and facilitation. Nonetheless, only Greece, in the EU, has a comprehensive legal framework allowing ex ante (before birth) “altruistic” gestational surrogacy, yet with access limited to heterosexual couples or single women and, in either case, depending on “medical necessity”.

The way ahead

Notwithstanding, the aforementioned “Comparative study…” claims a lack of European consensus, indicating that the safeguarding of the best interests of the child is possibly the only common recognizable trend among Member States.

The “Comparative study…” also analyses the potential for regulation of surrogacy at the EU level, and possible legal grounds for it: Article 56 (services) and Article 168 (public health) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) enshrining the freedom of movement of patients; Articles 20 and 21 TFEU guaranteeing the freedom of movement of citizens and European citizenship; and Article 19 TFEU, on non-discrimination, among others.

Meanwhile, two cases are pending at the European Court of Justice (Cases C-167/12 and C-363/12) and three more at the European Court of Human Rights (Sylvie Mennesson and other v. France, Francis Labassee and others v. France and Paradiso and Campanelli v. Italy), chiefly linked to Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) or Article 14(prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights.

In any case, given not least the complexity of the issue and the recognized limited competence of the EU regarding family law, the “Comparative study…”  suggests that a global approach would be the most desirable in governing this matter, and it even makes a proposal modelled on the Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption (1993), for regulating cross-border surrogacy.

Definitely an issue of the highest ethical and legal importance to be followed closely in the near future!

Born to be alive. Or maybe not A new ruling could pave the way to a European right to assisted suicide for all - by José Ramos-Ascensão

In europeinfos 

Should the State assist someone willing to commit suicide because he is getting older? Does such a wish to commit suicide generate a positive obligation for the State to facilitate it or to provide the means of suicide of one’s choice?

However odd that it may sound, these were the questions underlying a recent case at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), which monitors respect for

human rights in the 47 Council of Europe member States – including all members of the European Union – that have ratified the European Convention on Human Rights

A life that has just become “monotonous” and a too dangerous jurisprudence

In Gross v. Switzerland, an elderly woman, uncomfortable with her diminishing physical and mental faculties owing to her ageing, wanted to put an end to her life by means of taking a lethal dose of sodium pentobarbital; the only way, in her opinion, to attain a dignified suicide, reaching effectively and painlessly the desired death. However, four medical doctors one after another had refused to issue the necessary prescription for such a drug; the alleged reasons for that refusal included the fact that the Code of Conduct of the Swiss Academy of Medical Sciences –  despite the fact of considering that “the task of the doctor is to alleviate symptoms and to support the patient” and that “assisted suicide is not part of a doctor’s task, because this contradicts the aims of medicine” – recognizes a dilemma for the doctor, requiring a personal decision of conscience which may be to assist the suicide, provided, among other conditions, that the patient is terminally ill.

It is not the first time the ECHR has tackled such end-of-life issues: in previous judgments – Pretty v. United Kingdom (29^th April 2002), Haas v. Switzerland (20^th January 2011) and Koch v. Germany (19^th July 2012) – the Court has gradually built up, from the right to privacy enshrined in Article 8 of the Convention, an individual’s “right to decide by what means and at what point his or her life should end” and “a positive obligation on the State to take the necessary measures to permit a dignified suicide”. A key condition of the aforementioned right is the capacity “of freely reaching a decision on this question and acting in consequence”.

This time, however, there is a key distinction: Ms. Gross was not even ill, let alone seriously or terminally ill.

Legal uncertainty or a Court simply too sympathetic to the wish to commit suicide?

The Swiss law lays down that doctors can prescribe drugs “within the limits justified by their practice”, “in conformity with the requirements of their profession” and while respecting  “the recognized rules of  (…) medical sciences” The requirement of medical prescription in the case under consideration served interests such as the prevention of crime and the risk of abuse, ensuring that one “lacking discernment does not obtain a lethal dose of sodium pentobarbital”, discernment which is indispensible for the fulfillment of the condition which the ECHR itself attaches to the right it derives from Article 8.

Notwithstanding, the Court considered the Swiss law insufficient, and required the Swiss authorities to “issue comprehensive and clear guidelines on whether and under which circumstances an individual in the applicant’s situation – that is, someone not suffering from a terminal illness – should be granted the ability to acquire a lethal dose of medication allowing them to end their life”. Such guidelines, according to the Court, should not be issued by a non-governmental organization; instead, they should have the formal quality of law, as the Court departed from its previous understanding that the wish to die or to an assisted suicide falls within the scope of Article 8 and, therefore, the regime applicable to any interference to a fundamental right must prevail.

The Court even pointed out the way ahead referring to the need for “State-approved guidelines defining the circumstances under which medical practitioners are authorised to issue the requested prescription in cases where an individual has come to a serious decision, in the exercise of his or her free will, to end his or her life”.

Therefore, the ECHR is clearly paving the way to a right to assisted suicide for all which will impact on the legislation of all member States of the Council of Europe. If the case is referred to the Grand Chamber, however, there is still a hope that this path might still be halted, as the present decision was taken by a minimum margin (4 votes for, 3 against) and as only four members States of the Council of Europe allow medical doctors to prescribe drugs which enable their patients to end their own lives.

So, coming back to the question at the outset, the answer is no, not entirely. For now, Gross v. Switzerland has ruled that the State is bound at least by the obligation to provide a clear, legal framework. However, a right to assisted suicide for all, regardless of their health situation, may well be on its way to becoming a new standard in European human rights law a little sooner than you might have foreseen.

10 steps to legalizing abortion using lies, ignorance, bullying and stealth - by Dr. Eoghan De Faoite

In Life Institute

1. Get Planned Parenthood to take a dubious court case to Europe and pay for it with Irish taxes.

This is what kicked it all off; ABC v Ireland at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). The court ruled in favour of 'C', a cancer patient who said she was unclear whether she could have an abortion in Ireland if her pregnancy affected her cancer and became life-threatening. Here are some little known facts about that case: C did not have cancer at the time of her abortion; she had completed therapy for a “rare form of cancer” and was in remission.

She decided to have an abortion because she was unsure if and how the pregnancy would affect her on the off-chance that her cancer relapses. She said she was unsure because her GP could not provide her with sufficient information on her condition. Not surprising, this is not a General Practitioners area. No evidence was offered as to whether she sought advice from a gynae-oncologist who specializes in cancer in pregnancy and who would have been able to give her all the info she required for her hypothetical scenario. In fact this case heard no medical evidence whatsoever. (1)

A vague case with a questionable story that heard no medical evidence and was fought by an American Planned Parenthood lawyer. Wait, an American interfering with Irish abortion laws? I thought that wasn’t allowed? Well it happened. And she was paid with your taxes.

2. Confuse everyone about the results of the ECHR ruling. Or just lie to them. Whatever works

The judges in the ECHR ruled that Ireland should clarify whether, and under which circumstances, an abortion may be performed to save the life of a pregnant woman. CLAR-IF-Y. They said that this clarification can be done by a “legislative or regulatory regime”. Legislation OR regulation. Or do nothing. The ECHR ruling could be ignored altogether if we so wished. Many rulings have been ignored by other Governments. But our Government don’t want you to know that. Instead they have spun the line that they are obliged to legislate because of this ruling and furthermore that they are obliged to legislate for the ruling in the X Case. Rubbish. Firstly the Court said to clarify the situation,which can be done by regulations (if we want) and secondly, the ruling is not binding, so it can be ignored (if we want). Enough of the spin, this ruling did not oblige us in any way to legislate for the X Case.

3. Set up an “Expert Group” to see how the ECHR ruling can be implemented. Be sure to include:

• A doctor who signed a statement supporting abortion legislation 20 years previously
• An associate of the Doctors for Choice group
• A university lecturer who is on record saying the embryo is not a person
• A Senior Counsel who worked on the X Case to establish a legal right to abortion in Ireland

Biased much?

4. Lie to the people to get elected and insult them by breaking the promise you made.

Question: How do you know a politician is lying?

Answer: Their lips are moving.

This is true now more than ever. Let’s be clear about this: In 2011 Fine Gael made a pre-election promise to the Irish electorate that they would not legislate for abortion. (2) They were subsequently elected with a landslide victory. Phil Hogan, the Director of Elections for Fine Gael wrote from the General Election HQ; “Fine Gael is opposed to the legalisation of abortion”. Really Phil. Simon Harris TD sent an “anxious email” to Pro-Life Campaign days before the election; “I am happy and proud to assure you I am pro-life. Please be assured of my support. I need No1 votes on Friday so I can be in a position to support these positions in Dail Eireann”. (3) Really Simon. Last time I checked, voting for a bill that allows abortion through all nine months of pregnancy is not pro-life.

Politicians break promises all the time, nothing new there; however it is a bit more disturbing when a broken promise will cost the life of another human being.

5. Convince people that abortion is medically necessary. Confuse, confuse, confuse.

Convince the people that legalising abortion is all about saving women’s lives. It’s about protecting women. Without abortion women will die and those who are opposed to abortion legislation don’t care if they do. This kind of rhetoric has been spun so much one would be forgiven for thinking abortion is the cure for every illness under the sun.

The facts remain; no pro-life person is against any treatment that is needed to save a woman’s life in pregnancy. We support this treatment even if it risks the life of the baby, and we agree with Dr Sam Coulter Smyth Master of the Rotunda Hospital that these treatments are not considered to be abortions. We support the two patient model whereby a doctor does everything he or she needs to do to preserve the life of the woman while doing everything he or she can do to preserve the life of the baby. And this is what happens in Ireland. Ireland is an extremely safe place for mothers. Our maternal death rate at 8/100,000 (4) is one of the lowest in the world. Lower than the UK, lower than the USA. We also know from UK statistics that women are not leaving Ireland to access life-saving treatment abroad (5).

So what is the problem? At this juncture it would be helpful to note the following statement which originated in Dublin and has been signed by over 200 Obstetricians from Ireland and abroad (6) : “As experienced practitioners and researchers in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, we affirm that direct abortion – the purposeful destruction of the unborn child – is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman. We uphold that there is a fundamental difference between abortion, and necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child. We confirm that the prohibition of abortion does not affect, in any way, the availability of optimal care to pregnant women.”

6. Exploit a tragedy and ignore the facts

Perhaps the most dishonest, disrespectful and hysterical point in the abortion saga was the exploitation of the death of Savita Halappanavar in order to progress the campaign to legalise abortion. (7).

Savita died from E.coli ESBL septicaeamia. That’s according to her official death certificate. According to Kitty Holland she died because she was ‘denied a termination’ and because of a supposed ‘Catholic ethos’ that exists in Irish hospitals. She may not have said it quite as direct ast this but she didn't need to, the spin was there. Never have I seen quotation marks used so advantageously than in that infamous Irish Times headline: “Woman 'denied a termination' dies in hospital”. She may as well have illuminated, underlined, italicised and put 'denied a termination' in bold just to make sure this story became an abortion controversy. Two things contributed to the death of Savita Halappanavar; one was bad luck and the other was bad practice. Savita contracted an infection caused by a severely resistant strain of E.coli known as ESBL. This means that there are only very few antibiotics available that will kill it. These antibiotics would not be commenced initially as you would have no reason to suspect this rare superbug. This means that while you wait to identify the bug (a process that can take up to three days) the ESBL infection is festering and spreading as the antibiotics given to fight the infection would be just like giving administering water; they don’t work against ESBL.

This was the case with Savita. It was, unfortunately, very bad luck that she contracted an infection of this nature and it seems she contracted it prior to her admission into hospital. The second contributor was that her diagnosis of sepsis was missed by staff. A blood test on admission showing infection was not followed up on and her vital signs indicating sepsis were not acted upon because of poor communication. In subsequent, but perhaps too-little-too-late reporting, the Irish Times admits that “had four-hourly measurements of pulse, blood pressure, temperature and respiratory rate been carried out in accordance with guidelines..then the clinical team would have reacted more promptly”. (8)

This is unfortunately bad practice and this led to a delay in making the diagnosis. Dr Peter Boylan, the expert witness to the coroner’s inquest, says in his submission that her signs on Tuesday at 7pm were “in hindsight” suggestive of a developing chorioamnionitis. The treatment of a chorioamnionitis is antibiotics and removal of the source of sepsis (placenta and amniotic sac). Unfortunately for Savita however, the antibiotic she was on was never going to work and the diagnosis at that time was missed. This may be poor performance, but let’s not forget that according to the UK report on bacterial sepsis in pregnancy sepsis is often missed, it is insidious in onset, spreads quickly and can be a “silent killer”. It is the number one cause of maternal death in the UK where abortion is legal. (9) But this extremely relevant information does not make it into the mainstream press. Instead the name Savita Halappanavar will forever be followed by the line “the Indian woman who died after being denied a termination”. Good one Kitty.

7. Hold pretend hearings (x 2) on the abortion legislation but be careful not to listen to the evidence presented.

They were described as a “farce” by one member of the Oireachtas committee. The Minster of Health was criticised for “running out of the chamber” before the hearings even began. (10) It looked like the evidence was going to be ignored before it was even presented. An exercise in time -wasting. Every invited psychiatrist testified that abortion is not a treatment for suicidal ideation. The countries leading suicide researcher Prof Kevin Malone warned that the bill could ‘normalise suicide’. Every invited obstetrician testified that they do not withhold any treatment during pregnancy if a woman needs it to save her life. The two Masters of the maternity hospitals said that neither of them knew of a case where a woman in Ireland had died because treatment was withheld.

Dr Sam Coulter Smyth, Master of the Rotunda Hospital, the countries busiest maternity hospital, said that there was “no evidence” to treat suicide with abortion and that he and his consultant colleagues would have major concerns with legalising abortion on suicide grounds. But what was the point of all this? The January hearings had finished maybe 5 minitues before the Minister of Health addressed the room and said the Government was committed to legislation. And he had not even been there for the hearings. What a sham. Everything that was presented, all of the problems with the bill, all the medical evidence given by experts was ignored. It didn’t even go in one ear, let alone out the other. Save your breath experts, you may as well be talking to the wall.

8. Talk about everything else except what’s in the Bill.

Whatever you do, do not talk about Bill. In fact do not even talk about abortion. Give the bill a very nice name like “Protection of Life in Pregnancy Bill”. Don’t mention abortion! Talk about everything else except abortion; the Catholic Church, abuse scandals, rosaries, gay rights, nasty emails, crazy pro-lifers. Tell the world about every negative comment you receive about your legalisation of abortion but don’t produce any evidence (Regina Doherty) (11).

Tell the world about these horrible people tormenting you with holy medals and brown scapulars (Enda Kenny) (12).

Talk about anything else under the sun so you won’t have to talk about what’s in the Bill. So you won’t have to talk about the fact that it allows abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy. So you won’t have to acknowledge that abortion is not a treatment of suicidal ideation. So you won’t have to be reminded that you are openly breaking your pre-election promise to the electorate.

So you won’t have to talk about the fact that you propose forced premature delivery of a healthy baby, subjecting them to all complications of prematurity which they must then live with in state custody. Say anything to deflect the attention away from the bill and towards the horrible pro-lifers who are exposing what you are really doing. And remember to keep insisting you are 100% pro-life while you legislate for abortion. You couldn't make this stuff up!

9. Repeat yourself ad nauseum about the ‘restrictive’ nature of the bill. Be careful not to let anything else slip!

If we’ve heard it once we’ve heard it a thousand times. “This is a very restrictive piece of legislation”. “This bill won’t open the floodgates for abortion”. “This bill only clarifies what is already existing law”. “This isn’t about taking the first step towards more liberal abortion”. Really? Not according to to Aodhan O’Riordan TD and Anne Ferris TD who were more a lot more truthful about what’s really involved, albeit not realizing that they were blowing the lid on the Government. (13)

In secretly taped conversations that were published in the Sunday Independent, we get to hear what’s really going on with the abortion bill: this is a “starting point” says O’Riordan but admits he wouldn’t state this publicly. Ferris said “we get the first part done and we move on to the next bit”. But careful not to say this in public! Be sure to go along with what Enda Kenny and Eamon Gilmore are saying that the bill is very restrictive. O’Riordan explains how to do this: “I’m on the radio and somebody says to me ‘it’s a starting point for abortion on demand’ I’m gonna say ‘No of course it isn’t – it is what it is”. Wow Aodhan, thanks for the lesson in how to be deceiving liar.

10. Don’t be a leader; be an autocratic ruler who won’t take NO for an answer

Whether Eamon Gilmore has him on a leash or whether he’s on his own personal abortion crusade Enda Kenny has shown just what kind of a leader he really is. He isn’t one. He is an autocratic ruler who dictates to his party colleagues – it’s my way or the high way. In a disturbing display of tyrannical ruling he applied the party whip to an issue as conscientious as abortion, forcing his party colleagues to vote against their conscience or face being thrown out of the parliamentary party and stripped of all their committee and/or ministerial duties.

So let’s get this straight; a candidate tells his or her electorate that they are not going to legislate for abortion if they get elected. They subsequently get elected and are then threatened with expulsion by the party ‘leader’ for doing exactly what they told the electorate they were going to do. What kind of a politics is that? The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines Fascism as “a political philosophy that stands for an autocratic government, headed by a dictatorial leader”. I’ll let you draw the parallels.

Unfortunately however, in reality, these politicians don’t end up doing what they said they were going to do. They crumble under Enda Kenny’s iron fist and, out of for fear of being turfed out into the political wilderness, vote for a flawed and medically unsound abortion bill. This is all after a few drinks in the Dail bar and some ‘horseplay’ in the Dail chambers. (14).

Such is the state of Irish politics. The Dail is a circus full of clowns with one of them holding the ringmasters whip. It all may seem like a joke, but it is now the unborn child who pays the ultimate price for their stupidity, lies, deception, and bullying.

References

1. http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-102332#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-102332%22]}
2. http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/fg-asked-prolife-group-to-spread-election-message-29230068.html
3. http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/creighton-faces-ejection-with-vow-to-follow-conscience-on-abortion-29401260.html
4. http://www.irishtimes.com/news/non-recording-of-maternal-deaths-not-easily-addressed-says-professor-1.1417679
5. http://www.lifenews.com/2012/12/13/since-1992-no-abortions-in-uk-in-irish-women-to-save-their-life/
6. http://www.dublindeclaration.com/signatories/
7. http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/prochoice-activists-got-tipoff-on-tragic-death-28902755.html
8. http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/medical-view-focus-on-basics-of-care-likely-to-help-save-lives-1.1428063
9. http://www.oaa-anaes.ac.uk/assets/_managed/editor/File/Reports/2006-2008%20CEMD.pdf
10. http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/reilly-criticised-for-leaving-hearing-on-abortion-legislation-1.1397223
11. http://www.irishexaminer.com/archives/2013/0608/world/gardai-probe-threats-to-td-from-anti-abortion-pair-233580.html
12. http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/taoiseach-says-he-has-been-branded-a-murderer-for-his-stance-1.1426512
13. http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-tapes-sting-labour-duo-reveal-plan-to-liberalise-law-bit-by-bit-29226554.html
14. http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/horseplay-td-tom-barry-mortified-by-his-actions-29414604.html

1. Get Planned Parenthood to take a dubious court case to Europe and pay for it with Irish taxes.

This is what kicked it all off; ABC v Ireland at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). The court ruled in favour of 'C', a cancer patient who said she was unclear whether she could have an abortion in Ireland if her pregnancy affected her cancer and became life-threatening. Here are some little known facts about that case: C did not have cancer at the time of her abortion; she had completed therapy for a “rare form of cancer” and was in remission.
She decided to have an abortion because she was unsure if and how the pregnancy would affect her on the off-chance that her cancer relapses. She said she was unsure because her GP could not provide her with sufficient information on her condition. Not surprising, this is not a General Practitioners area. No evidence was offered as to whether she sought advice from a gynae-oncologist who specializes in cancer in pregnancy and who would have been able to give her all the info she required for her hypothetical scenario. In fact this case heard no medical evidence whatsoever. (1)
A vague case with a questionable story that heard no medical evidence and was fought by an American Planned Parenthood lawyer. Wait, an American interfering with Irish abortion laws? I thought that wasn’t allowed? Well it happened. And she was paid with your taxes.

2. Confuse everyone about the results of the ECHR ruling. Or just lie to them. Whatever works

The judges in the ECHR ruled that Ireland should clarify whether, and under which circumstances, an abortion may be performed to save the life of a pregnant woman. CLAR-IF-Y. They said that this clarification can be done by a “legislative or regulatory regime”. Legislation OR regulation. Or do nothing. The ECHR ruling could be ignored altogether if we so wished. Many rulings have been ignored by other Governments. But our Government don’t want you to know that. Instead they have spun the line that they are obliged to legislate because of this ruling and furthermore that they are obliged to legislate for the ruling in the X Case. Rubbish. Firstly the Court said to clarify the situation,which can be done by regulations (if we want) and secondly, the ruling is not binding, so it can be ignored (if we want). Enough of the spin, this ruling did not oblige us in any way to legislate for the X Case.

3. Set up an “Expert Group” to see how the ECHR ruling can be implemented. Be sure to include:

• A doctor who signed a statement supporting abortion legislation 20 years previously
• An associate of the Doctors for Choice group
• A university lecturer who is on record saying the embryo is not a person
• A Senior Counsel who worked on the X Case to establish a legal right to abortion in Ireland

Biased much?

4. Lie to the people to get elected and insult them by breaking the promise you made.

Question: How do you know a politician is lying?
Answer: Their lips are moving.
This is true now more than ever. Let’s be clear about this: In 2011 Fine Gael made a pre-election promise to the Irish electorate that they would not legislate for abortion. (2) They were subsequently elected with a landslide victory. Phil Hogan, the Director of Elections for Fine Gael wrote from the General Election HQ; “Fine Gael is opposed to the legalisation of abortion”. Really Phil. Simon Harris TD sent an “anxious email” to Pro-Life Campaign days before the election; “I am happy and proud to assure you I am pro-life. Please be assured of my support. I need No1 votes on Friday so I can be in a position to support these positions in Dail Eireann”. (3) Really Simon. Last time I checked, voting for a bill that allows abortion through all nine months of pregnancy is not pro-life.
Politicians break promises all the time, nothing new there; however it is a bit more disturbing when a broken promise will cost the life of another human being.

5. Convince people that abortion is medically necessary. Confuse, confuse, confuse.

Convince the people that legalising abortion is all about saving women’s lives. It’s about protecting women. Without abortion women will die and those who are opposed to abortion legislation don’t care if they do. This kind of rhetoric has been spun so much one would be forgiven for thinking abortion is the cure for every illness under the sun.
The facts remain; no pro-life person is against any treatment that is needed to save a woman’s life in pregnancy. We support this treatment even if it risks the life of the baby, and we agree with Dr Sam Coulter Smyth Master of the Rotunda Hospital that these treatments are not considered to be abortions. We support the two patient model whereby a doctor does everything he or she needs to do to preserve the life of the woman while doing everything he or she can do to preserve the life of the baby. And this is what happens in Ireland. Ireland is an extremely safe place for mothers. Our maternal death rate at 8/100,000 (4) is one of the lowest in the world. Lower than the UK, lower than the USA. We also know from UK statistics that women are not leaving Ireland to access life-saving treatment abroad (5).
So what is the problem? At this juncture it would be helpful to note the following statement which originated in Dublin and has been signed by over 200 Obstetricians from Ireland and abroad (6) : “As experienced practitioners and researchers in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, we affirm that direct abortion – the purposeful destruction of the unborn child – is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman. We uphold that there is a fundamental difference between abortion, and necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child. We confirm that the prohibition of abortion does not affect, in any way, the availability of optimal care to pregnant women.”
- See more at: http://www.thelifeinstitute.net/blog/2013/07/20/how-to-legalise-abortion-with-lies-bullying-ignorance-and-stealth/#sthash.v26djlFJ.dpuf

1. Get Planned Parenthood to take a dubious court case to Europe and pay for it with Irish taxes.

This is what kicked it all off; ABC v Ireland at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). The court ruled in favour of 'C', a cancer patient who said she was unclear whether she could have an abortion in Ireland if her pregnancy affected her cancer and became life-threatening. Here are some little known facts about that case: C did not have cancer at the time of her abortion; she had completed therapy for a “rare form of cancer” and was in remission.
She decided to have an abortion because she was unsure if and how the pregnancy would affect her on the off-chance that her cancer relapses. She said she was unsure because her GP could not provide her with sufficient information on her condition. Not surprising, this is not a General Practitioners area. No evidence was offered as to whether she sought advice from a gynae-oncologist who specializes in cancer in pregnancy and who would have been able to give her all the info she required for her hypothetical scenario. In fact this case heard no medical evidence whatsoever. (1)
A vague case with a questionable story that heard no medical evidence and was fought by an American Planned Parenthood lawyer. Wait, an American interfering with Irish abortion laws? I thought that wasn’t allowed? Well it happened. And she was paid with your taxes.

2. Confuse everyone about the results of the ECHR ruling. Or just lie to them. Whatever works

The judges in the ECHR ruled that Ireland should clarify whether, and under which circumstances, an abortion may be performed to save the life of a pregnant woman. CLAR-IF-Y. They said that this clarification can be done by a “legislative or regulatory regime”. Legislation OR regulation. Or do nothing. The ECHR ruling could be ignored altogether if we so wished. Many rulings have been ignored by other Governments. But our Government don’t want you to know that. Instead they have spun the line that they are obliged to legislate because of this ruling and furthermore that they are obliged to legislate for the ruling in the X Case. Rubbish. Firstly the Court said to clarify the situation,which can be done by regulations (if we want) and secondly, the ruling is not binding, so it can be ignored (if we want). Enough of the spin, this ruling did not oblige us in any way to legislate for the X Case.

3. Set up an “Expert Group” to see how the ECHR ruling can be implemented. Be sure to include:

• A doctor who signed a statement supporting abortion legislation 20 years previously
• An associate of the Doctors for Choice group
• A university lecturer who is on record saying the embryo is not a person
• A Senior Counsel who worked on the X Case to establish a legal right to abortion in Ireland

Biased much?

4. Lie to the people to get elected and insult them by breaking the promise you made.

Question: How do you know a politician is lying?
Answer: Their lips are moving.
This is true now more than ever. Let’s be clear about this: In 2011 Fine Gael made a pre-election promise to the Irish electorate that they would not legislate for abortion. (2) They were subsequently elected with a landslide victory. Phil Hogan, the Director of Elections for Fine Gael wrote from the General Election HQ; “Fine Gael is opposed to the legalisation of abortion”. Really Phil. Simon Harris TD sent an “anxious email” to Pro-Life Campaign days before the election; “I am happy and proud to assure you I am pro-life. Please be assured of my support. I need No1 votes on Friday so I can be in a position to support these positions in Dail Eireann”. (3) Really Simon. Last time I checked, voting for a bill that allows abortion through all nine months of pregnancy is not pro-life.
Politicians break promises all the time, nothing new there; however it is a bit more disturbing when a broken promise will cost the life of another human being.

5. Convince people that abortion is medically necessary. Confuse, confuse, confuse.

Convince the people that legalising abortion is all about saving women’s lives. It’s about protecting women. Without abortion women will die and those who are opposed to abortion legislation don’t care if they do. This kind of rhetoric has been spun so much one would be forgiven for thinking abortion is the cure for every illness under the sun.
The facts remain; no pro-life person is against any treatment that is needed to save a woman’s life in pregnancy. We support this treatment even if it risks the life of the baby, and we agree with Dr Sam Coulter Smyth Master of the Rotunda Hospital that these treatments are not considered to be abortions. We support the two patient model whereby a doctor does everything he or she needs to do to preserve the life of the woman while doing everything he or she can do to preserve the life of the baby. And this is what happens in Ireland. Ireland is an extremely safe place for mothers. Our maternal death rate at 8/100,000 (4) is one of the lowest in the world. Lower than the UK, lower than the USA. We also know from UK statistics that women are not leaving Ireland to access life-saving treatment abroad (5).
So what is the problem? At this juncture it would be helpful to note the following statement which originated in Dublin and has been signed by over 200 Obstetricians from Ireland and abroad (6) : “As experienced practitioners and researchers in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, we affirm that direct abortion – the purposeful destruction of the unborn child – is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman. We uphold that there is a fundamental difference between abortion, and necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child. We confirm that the prohibition of abortion does not affect, in any way, the availability of optimal care to pregnant women.”
- See more at: http://www.thelifeinstitute.net/blog/2013/07/20/how-to-legalise-abortion-with-lies-bullying-ignorance-and-stealth/#sthash.v26djlFJ.dpuf

1. Get Planned Parenthood to take a dubious court case to Europe and pay for it with Irish taxes.

This is what kicked it all off; ABC v Ireland at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). The court ruled in favour of 'C', a cancer patient who said she was unclear whether she could have an abortion in Ireland if her pregnancy affected her cancer and became life-threatening. Here are some little known facts about that case: C did not have cancer at the time of her abortion; she had completed therapy for a “rare form of cancer” and was in remission.
She decided to have an abortion because she was unsure if and how the pregnancy would affect her on the off-chance that her cancer relapses. She said she was unsure because her GP could not provide her with sufficient information on her condition. Not surprising, this is not a General Practitioners area. No evidence was offered as to whether she sought advice from a gynae-oncologist who specializes in cancer in pregnancy and who would have been able to give her all the info she required for her hypothetical scenario. In fact this case heard no medical evidence whatsoever. (1)
A vague case with a questionable story that heard no medical evidence and was fought by an American Planned Parenthood lawyer. Wait, an American interfering with Irish abortion laws? I thought that wasn’t allowed? Well it happened. And she was paid with your taxes.

2. Confuse everyone about the results of the ECHR ruling. Or just lie to them. Whatever works

The judges in the ECHR ruled that Ireland should clarify whether, and under which circumstances, an abortion may be performed to save the life of a pregnant woman. CLAR-IF-Y. They said that this clarification can be done by a “legislative or regulatory regime”. Legislation OR regulation. Or do nothing. The ECHR ruling could be ignored altogether if we so wished. Many rulings have been ignored by other Governments. But our Government don’t want you to know that. Instead they have spun the line that they are obliged to legislate because of this ruling and furthermore that they are obliged to legislate for the ruling in the X Case. Rubbish. Firstly the Court said to clarify the situation,which can be done by regulations (if we want) and secondly, the ruling is not binding, so it can be ignored (if we want). Enough of the spin, this ruling did not oblige us in any way to legislate for the X Case.

3. Set up an “Expert Group” to see how the ECHR ruling can be implemented. Be sure to include:

• A doctor who signed a statement supporting abortion legislation 20 years previously
• An associate of the Doctors for Choice group
• A university lecturer who is on record saying the embryo is not a person
• A Senior Counsel who worked on the X Case to establish a legal right to abortion in Ireland

Biased much?

4. Lie to the people to get elected and insult them by breaking the promise you made.

Question: How do you know a politician is lying?
Answer: Their lips are moving.
This is true now more than ever. Let’s be clear about this: In 2011 Fine Gael made a pre-election promise to the Irish electorate that they would not legislate for abortion. (2) They were subsequently elected with a landslide victory. Phil Hogan, the Director of Elections for Fine Gael wrote from the General Election HQ; “Fine Gael is opposed to the legalisation of abortion”. Really Phil. Simon Harris TD sent an “anxious email” to Pro-Life Campaign days before the election; “I am happy and proud to assure you I am pro-life. Please be assured of my support. I need No1 votes on Friday so I can be in a position to support these positions in Dail Eireann”. (3) Really Simon. Last time I checked, voting for a bill that allows abortion through all nine months of pregnancy is not pro-life.
Politicians break promises all the time, nothing new there; however it is a bit more disturbing when a broken promise will cost the life of another human being.

5. Convince people that abortion is medically necessary. Confuse, confuse, confuse.

Convince the people that legalising abortion is all about saving women’s lives. It’s about protecting women. Without abortion women will die and those who are opposed to abortion legislation don’t care if they do. This kind of rhetoric has been spun so much one would be forgiven for thinking abortion is the cure for every illness under the sun.
The facts remain; no pro-life person is against any treatment that is needed to save a woman’s life in pregnancy. We support this treatment even if it risks the life of the baby, and we agree with Dr Sam Coulter Smyth Master of the Rotunda Hospital that these treatments are not considered to be abortions. We support the two patient model whereby a doctor does everything he or she needs to do to preserve the life of the woman while doing everything he or she can do to preserve the life of the baby. And this is what happens in Ireland. Ireland is an extremely safe place for mothers. Our maternal death rate at 8/100,000 (4) is one of the lowest in the world. Lower than the UK, lower than the USA. We also know from UK statistics that women are not leaving Ireland to access life-saving treatment abroad (5).
So what is the problem? At this juncture it would be helpful to note the following statement which originated in Dublin and has been signed by over 200 Obstetricians from Ireland and abroad (6) : “As experienced practitioners and researchers in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, we affirm that direct abortion – the purposeful destruction of the unborn child – is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman. We uphold that there is a fundamental difference between abortion, and necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child. We confirm that the prohibition of abortion does not affect, in any way, the availability of optimal care to pregnant women.”
- See more at: http://www.thelifeinstitute.net/blog/2013/07/20/how-to-legalise-abortion-with-lies-bullying-ignorance-and-stealth/#sthash.v26djlFJ.dpuf

1. Get Planned Parenthood to take a dubious court case to Europe and pay for it with Irish taxes.

This is what kicked it all off; ABC v Ireland at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). The court ruled in favour of 'C', a cancer patient who said she was unclear whether she could have an abortion in Ireland if her pregnancy affected her cancer and became life-threatening. Here are some little known facts about that case: C did not have cancer at the time of her abortion; she had completed therapy for a “rare form of cancer” and was in remission.
She decided to have an abortion because she was unsure if and how the pregnancy would affect her on the off-chance that her cancer relapses. She said she was unsure because her GP could not provide her with sufficient information on her condition. Not surprising, this is not a General Practitioners area. No evidence was offered as to whether she sought advice from a gynae-oncologist who specializes in cancer in pregnancy and who would have been able to give her all the info she required for her hypothetical scenario. In fact this case heard no medical evidence whatsoever. (1)
A vague case with a questionable story that heard no medical evidence and was fought by an American Planned Parenthood lawyer. Wait, an American interfering with Irish abortion laws? I thought that wasn’t allowed? Well it happened. And she was paid with your taxes.

2. Confuse everyone about the results of the ECHR ruling. Or just lie to them. Whatever works

The judges in the ECHR ruled that Ireland should clarify whether, and under which circumstances, an abortion may be performed to save the life of a pregnant woman. CLAR-IF-Y. They said that this clarification can be done by a “legislative or regulatory regime”. Legislation OR regulation. Or do nothing. The ECHR ruling could be ignored altogether if we so wished. Many rulings have been ignored by other Governments. But our Government don’t want you to know that. Instead they have spun the line that they are obliged to legislate because of this ruling and furthermore that they are obliged to legislate for the ruling in the X Case. Rubbish. Firstly the Court said to clarify the situation,which can be done by regulations (if we want) and secondly, the ruling is not binding, so it can be ignored (if we want). Enough of the spin, this ruling did not oblige us in any way to legislate for the X Case.

3. Set up an “Expert Group” to see how the ECHR ruling can be implemented. Be sure to include:

• A doctor who signed a statement supporting abortion legislation 20 years previously
• An associate of the Doctors for Choice group
• A university lecturer who is on record saying the embryo is not a person
• A Senior Counsel who worked on the X Case to establish a legal right to abortion in Ireland

Biased much?

4. Lie to the people to get elected and insult them by breaking the promise you made.

Question: How do you know a politician is lying?
Answer: Their lips are moving.
This is true now more than ever. Let’s be clear about this: In 2011 Fine Gael made a pre-election promise to the Irish electorate that they would not legislate for abortion. (2) They were subsequently elected with a landslide victory. Phil Hogan, the Director of Elections for Fine Gael wrote from the General Election HQ; “Fine Gael is opposed to the legalisation of abortion”. Really Phil. Simon Harris TD sent an “anxious email” to Pro-Life Campaign days before the election; “I am happy and proud to assure you I am pro-life. Please be assured of my support. I need No1 votes on Friday so I can be in a position to support these positions in Dail Eireann”. (3) Really Simon. Last time I checked, voting for a bill that allows abortion through all nine months of pregnancy is not pro-life.
Politicians break promises all the time, nothing new there; however it is a bit more disturbing when a broken promise will cost the life of another human being.

5. Convince people that abortion is medically necessary. Confuse, confuse, confuse.

Convince the people that legalising abortion is all about saving women’s lives. It’s about protecting women. Without abortion women will die and those who are opposed to abortion legislation don’t care if they do. This kind of rhetoric has been spun so much one would be forgiven for thinking abortion is the cure for every illness under the sun.
The facts remain; no pro-life person is against any treatment that is needed to save a woman’s life in pregnancy. We support this treatment even if it risks the life of the baby, and we agree with Dr Sam Coulter Smyth Master of the Rotunda Hospital that these treatments are not considered to be abortions. We support the two patient model whereby a doctor does everything he or she needs to do to preserve the life of the woman while doing everything he or she can do to preserve the life of the baby. And this is what happens in Ireland. Ireland is an extremely safe place for mothers. Our maternal death rate at 8/100,000 (4) is one of the lowest in the world. Lower than the UK, lower than the USA. We also know from UK statistics that women are not leaving Ireland to access life-saving treatment abroad (5).
So what is the problem? At this juncture it would be helpful to note the following statement which originated in Dublin and has been signed by over 200 Obstetricians from Ireland and abroad (6) : “As experienced practitioners and researchers in Obstetrics and Gynaecology, we affirm that direct abortion – the purposeful destruction of the unborn child – is not medically necessary to save the life of a woman. We uphold that there is a fundamental difference between abortion, and necessary medical treatments that are carried out to save the life of the mother, even if such treatment results in the loss of life of her unborn child. We confirm that the prohibition of abortion does not affect, in any way, the availability of optimal care to pregnant women.”
- See more at: http://www.thelifeinstitute.net/blog/2013/07/20/how-to-legalise-abortion-with-lies-bullying-ignorance-and-stealth/#sthash.v26djlFJ.dpuf

8. Talk about everything else except what’s in the Bill.

Whatever you do, do not talk about Bill. In fact do not even talk about abortion. Give the bill a very nice name like “Protection of Life in Pregnancy Bill”. Don’t mention abortion! Talk about everything else except abortion; the Catholic Church, abuse scandals, rosaries, gay rights, nasty emails, crazy pro-lifers. Tell the world about every negative comment you receive about your legalisation of abortion but don’t produce any evidence (Regina Doherty) (11).
Tell the world about these horrible people tormenting you with holy medals and brown scapulars (Enda Kenny) (12).
Talk about anything else under the sun so you won’t have to talk about what’s in the Bill. So you won’t have to talk about the fact that it allows abortion throughout all nine months of pregnancy. So you won’t have to acknowledge that abortion is not a treatment of suicidal ideation. So you won’t have to be reminded that you are openly breaking your pre-election promise to the electorate.
So you won’t have to talk about the fact that you propose forced premature delivery of a healthy baby, subjecting them to all complications of prematurity which they must then live with in state custody. Say anything to deflect the attention away from the bill and towards the horrible pro-lifers who are exposing what you are really doing. And remember to keep insisting you are 100% pro-life while you legislate for abortion. You couldn't make this stuff up!

9. Repeat yourself ad nauseum about the ‘restrictive’ nature of the bill. Be careful not to let anything else slip!

If we’ve heard it once we’ve heard it a thousand times. “This is a very restrictive piece of legislation”. “This bill won’t open the floodgates for abortion”. “This bill only clarifies what is already existing law”. “This isn’t about taking the first step towards more liberal abortion”. Really? Not according to to Aodhan O’Riordan TD and Anne Ferris TD who were more a lot more truthful about what’s really involved, albeit not realizing that they were blowing the lid on the Government. (13)
In secretly taped conversations that were published in the Sunday Independent, we get to hear what’s really going on with the abortion bill: this is a “starting point” says O’Riordan but admits he wouldn’t state this publicly. Ferris said “we get the first part done and we move on to the next bit”. But careful not to say this in public! Be sure to go along with what Enda Kenny and Eamon Gilmore are saying that the bill is very restrictive. O’Riordan explains how to do this: “I’m on the radio and somebody says to me ‘it’s a starting point for abortion on demand’ I’m gonna say ‘No of course it isn’t – it is what it is”. Wow Aodhan, thanks for the lesson in how to be deceiving liar.

10. Don’t be a leader; be an autocratic ruler who won’t take NO for an answer

Whether Eamon Gilmore has him on a leash or whether he’s on his own personal abortion crusade Enda Kenny has shown just what kind of a leader he really is. He isn’t one. He is an autocratic ruler who dictates to his party colleagues – it’s my way or the high way. In a disturbing display of tyrannical ruling he applied the party whip to an issue as conscientious as abortion, forcing his party colleagues to vote against their conscience or face being thrown out of the parliamentary party and stripped of all their committee and/or ministerial duties.
So let’s get this straight; a candidate tells his or her electorate that they are not going to legislate for abortion if they get elected. They subsequently get elected and are then threatened with expulsion by the party ‘leader’ for doing exactly what they told the electorate they were going to do. What kind of a politics is that? The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines Fascism as “a political philosophy that stands for an autocratic government, headed by a dictatorial leader”. I’ll let you draw the parallels.
Unfortunately however, in reality, these politicians don’t end up doing what they said they were going to do. They crumble under Enda Kenny’s iron fist and, out of for fear of being turfed out into the political wilderness, vote for a flawed and medically unsound abortion bill. This is all after a few drinks in the Dail bar and some ‘horseplay’ in the Dail chambers. (14).
Such is the state of Irish politics. The Dail is a circus full of clowns with one of them holding the ringmasters whip. It all may seem like a joke, but it is now the unborn child who pays the ultimate price for their stupidity, lies, deception, and bullying.

References

1. http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.aspx?i=001-102332#{%22itemid%22:[%22001-102332%22]}
2. http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/fg-asked-prolife-group-to-spread-election-message-29230068.html
3. http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/creighton-faces-ejection-with-vow-to-follow-conscience-on-abortion-29401260.html
4. http://www.irishtimes.com/news/non-recording-of-maternal-deaths-not-easily-addressed-says-professor-1.1417679
5. http://www.lifenews.com/2012/12/13/since-1992-no-abortions-in-uk-in-irish-women-to-save-their-life/
6. http://www.dublindeclaration.com/signatories/
7. http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/prochoice-activists-got-tipoff-on-tragic-death-28902755.html
8. http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/medical-view-focus-on-basics-of-care-likely-to-help-save-lives-1.1428063
9. http://www.oaa-anaes.ac.uk/assets/_managed/editor/File/Reports/2006-2008%20CEMD.pdf
10. http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/reilly-criticised-for-leaving-hearing-on-abortion-legislation-1.1397223
11. http://www.irishexaminer.com/archives/2013/0608/world/gardai-probe-threats-to-td-from-anti-abortion-pair-233580.html
12. http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/oireachtas/taoiseach-says-he-has-been-branded-a-murderer-for-his-stance-1.1426512
13. http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/abortion-tapes-sting-labour-duo-reveal-plan-to-liberalise-law-bit-by-bit-29226554.html
14. http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/horseplay-td-tom-barry-mortified-by-his-actions-29414604.html
- See more at: http://www.thelifeinstitute.net/blog/2013/07/20/how-to-legalise-abortion-with-lies-bullying-ignorance-and-stealth/#sthash.v26djlFJ.dpuf