RTÉ - Scannal Programme Pro-Abortion Promo

Mícothrom agus claonta i ngaeilge agus i mbéarla araon.

It's no secret that RTÉ the tax-funded State broadcaster is openly hostile to the pro-life position. The station doesn’t even bother anymore to create the pretence of balance when covering life issues. The latest manifestation of this was on Scannal, broadcast on RTÉ 1 last Monday, 22nd February at 7.30pm. You can watch it on the RTÉ player if you care to.

Even the description of the programme on the RTÉ website lets the cat out of the bag. It states: “Scannal looks back at a story that gripped the nation and raised the issue of abortion once again, an issue subsequent Governments have failed to fully deal with through legislation”

The so-called failure to deal with the issue through legislation might have something to do with the fact that the majority of Irish people are opposed to abortion and that the controversial X case decision by the Supreme Court in 1992 failed to set any time limits for abortion and if legislated for would have to allow abortion up to birth.

Were the producers of Scannal remotely interested in balance they could have invited reasoned pro-life voices to make these and other points in defence of the right to life.

RTÉ insists on turning a blind eye to the compelling arguments against abortion. Whilst we heard about the difficult circumstances surrounding the X case and the injunction sought by the Attorney General at the time - and nobody belittles the emotional difficulties that faced Miss X and her family - we heard nothing on Scannal about the fact that the X case judges heard no medical evidence to justify the Supreme Court decision.

Similarly, we heard nothing about the health of women in the wider context of the abortion issue. For example in recent years, several studies have been published, and in particular a study from Finland in 2005, showing that women are more likely to commit suicide after having an abortion than whilst pregnant. One horrifying case that illustrates this is that of Emma Beck, a 31 year old English artist who committed suicide in 2007 after aborting her twins. Emma's suicide note read: "I told everyone I didn't want to do it, even at the hospital. I was frightened, now it is too late. I died when my babies died. I want to be with my babies: they need me, no-one else does."

In fact the link between abortion and negative mental health consequences has become so clear that the British Royal College of Psychiatrists recommended that abortion counselling leaflets be updated to include information about the latest studies showing the negative effects of abortion on women. Separately, research published in the British Journal of Psychiatry in 2008, concluded that induced abortion is linked to an increased risk of mental illness in later life.

Importantly, the fact that Irish women receive all necessary medical treatments during pregnancy here - even if it unintentionally results in the loss of the unborn - was not highlighted on Scannal. Nor was the fact that despite having no abortion in this country, Ireland is rated number one in the world in protecting women’s lives during pregnancy, according to the latest UN/WHO report on maternal mortality. Ireland, for example, is a much safer country in which to be pregnant than say Britain or Holland, where unrestricted abortion regimes exist.

But RTÉ didn't see fit to take on board any of that. Why? Because it wouldn't have helped the agenda that RTÉ constantly pushes in favour of abortion.

RTÉ never reports on the brutality of what abortion regimes entail in other countries, like for example the fact that abortion is legal up to birth in Britain. Do we want to follow England's abortion regime - one of the most liberal in the world - where babies are aborted simply because they have 'disabilities' like hare lips and cleft palates? RTÉ seems to think we should considering the open way it promotes abortion without limits.

RTÉ has never once presented a programme that set out to challenge abortion advocates who believe that unborn children are deserving of absolutely no protection throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy. Surely there is something very suspect here?

On every occasion without exception RTÉ builds it coverage of the issue around challenging the pro-life side to justify its position. This is a genuine scandal that the programme Scannal, if it was doing its job would investigate!

The way RTÉ treats the pro-life issue is becoming a major story in itself. If the station continues along the path of openly promoting abortion, pro-life activists will have no choice but to devote all their energies into making the public aware of the culture of ideological bias in RTÉ in favour of abortion.

You can view the Public Service Broadcasting Charter which contains a statement of principles that clarifies what is expected of RTÉ as the national public service broadcaster, including accountability to its audience here

Minister Harney should learn from California's experience - Money spent on embryonic stem cell research is money wasted

There are three billion reasons not to allow the Supreme Court ruling in R v. R to be used as a cover to legalise research here involving human embryo destruction.

In 2004, Californian taxpayers agreed to fund embryo stem cell research to the tune of $3 billion in the hope of finding cures for chronic diseases and disabilities. But since then, not a single breakthrough has taken place.

Now the Los Angeles-based Investor’s Business Daily magazine is reporting that the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine set up to administer the $3b has started diverting the funds earmarked for embryo research into the ethically non-controversial adult stem cell research.

Minster for Health Mary Harney may well try to rush through a regulatory framework allowing embryo destruction to meet the interests of the IVF and embryo research industries. She is on record as saying she has asked her officials to prepare heads of legislation and it is expected the proposed legislation will follow the recommendations of the Commission on Assisted Human Reproduction’s 2005 Report. The membership of this Commission was outrageously biased in favour of allowing embryo destruction – they voted 24 to 1 for it, only Professor Gerard Whyte of TCD dissenting, click here to see his closely reasoned dissent.


Clearly the recommendations of such a biased body are not a fitting basis for legislation in a democracy, all the more so when such run contrary to the balance of opinion among the general public, measured time and again in professionally carried out opinion polls every year since the biased Report was issued, which have found a majority of around 70% support the Dáil passing legislation protecting embryos against destruction in clinics and laboratories.

But Minister Mary Harney may also defend legislation allowing the destruction of human embryos in vitro on the grounds that embryo destruction is needed to provide embryonic stem cells for research to produce new medical treatments.

This argument, however, has turned out to be as flawed as an appeal to the biased Commission on Assisted Human Reproduction Report. For years we have been bombarded by propaganda saying killing human embryos has to be allowed so research using stem cells got by that way may lead to new medical treatments. But now we are finding out this simply ain’t so. It’s been all promise, but no product.

In 2004 California approved Proposition 71, a ballot measure allowing the State to borrow US $3 billion to fund stem cell research using stem cells obtained by destroying human embryos. The money was to be used, its proponents said, to develop new treatments based on embryonic stem cell research. The State agency set up to manage this was the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine.

On 12th January this year, the Los Angeles-based Investor’s Business Daily magazine reported that because the research using stem cells obtained by killing human embryos has not produced any breakthroughs in medical treatments, the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine ‘is diverting funds’ to the research approach that ‘has produced actual therapies and treatments : adult stem cell research.’

Adult stem cell research, the Investor’s Business Daily comments, ‘not only has treated real people with real results it also does not come with the moral baggage embryonic stem cell research does.

It goes on to comment that advocates of embryonic stem cell research have engaged in a sort of three card trick:

To us this is a classic bait and switch, an attempt to snatch success from the jaws of failure and take credit for discoveries and advances achieved by research (which) Proposition 71 supporters once cavalierly dismissed. We have noted how over the years that when funding was needed, the phrase “embryonic stem cells” was used. When actual progress was discussed, the word “embryonic” was dropped because embryonic stem cell research never got out of the lab. You can read the Investor’s Business Daily magazine article in full here

So if Minister Mary Harney or the voices of the IVF and embryo research industries in Ireland start arguing that we need a regulatory framework allowing embryo destruction in order to open the door for research promising breakthroughs in medical treatment, the answer is we already know what lies down that path. California three US $ 3 billion at it and there were no results and now the agency set up to get results is diverting the money into adult stem cell research so it will have some results to show.

The real message of the Californian experience, then is that Ireland has a golden opportunity to put substantial resources into adult stem cell research to make Ireland an international centre of excellence in this field of research which is actually producing the goods.

In the wake of the Supreme Court ruling in Ireland stripping Constitutional protection from human embryos in vitro, the latest developments from California take on a significant added meaning.

With her experience in other ministries, Minister Harney is in a position to appreciate the economic as well as the medical knock-on effects of making Ireland an international centre of excellence for the ethically non-controversial adult stem cell research.

A Storm in a Superbowl!

If you haven't been following the controversy that has blown up in the US recently over a pro-life ad aired during the US Superbowl, the premier sporting event on US television, it's definitely worth a look as a classic example of abortion advocates shooting themselves in the foot.

The ad, sponsored by Focus on the Family, highlighted the circumstances surrounding the birth of US football star, Tim Tebow. Tim's mother was advised to have an abortion on the grounds that her baby could be born with a severe disability. However, she continued with her pregnancy and gave birth to one of the most gifted football players in US history.

The ad begins with Pam Tebow holding a baby picture of Tim with a football and doesn't even mention the word abortion. It didn't need to. In the weeks leading up to the Super Bowl, pro-abortion campaigners created such a stir trying to have the ad banned that most Americans were already familiar with the details of the Tebow family's life-affirming story.

The ad has been described as 'folksy, funny, and fabulously effective' and gently but effectively conveyed a pro-life message to the over 106 million people who viewed it.

The entire episode shows how much the pro-life movement in the US has developed in terms of media savvy and its ability to generate weeks of positive publicity leading up to the Super Bowl. In contrast, the pro-choice movement looked hysterical and reactionary in trying to censor a genuinely inoffensive ad from US citizens. It bodes well for the future.

Watch the ad for yourself here

Why Minister Harney shouldn't follow unbalanced CAHR recommendations.

Minister Mary Harney is expected to publish proposals allowing destruction of human embryos in vitro following the Supreme Court decision (R -v- R) before Christmas that they are not protected under Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution. She will consider the recommendations of the Commission on Assisted Human Reproduction (CAHR), set up by the Government. It issued its report in 2005. The Commission had 25 members. The recommendations included proposals involving the deliberate destruction of human embryos in vivo.

The question may be asked 'Why not just implement the recommendations of the CAHR Report? Here's the answer.

It would be undemocratic for four reasons:

(i) The make-up of the Commission was unbalanced. Only one out of 25 members opposed the deliberate destruction of human embryos. The composition of the Commission decided on by the government guaranteed a majority proposal supporting embryo destruction.

(ii) Professional opinion polls carried out for the Pro-Life Campaign show a majority year after year favouring legislation protecting embryos. So the recommendations of the stacked Commission do not reflect the balance of opinion in the general public. Already some of its arguments claiming deliberate embryo destruction was needed are being overtaken by scientific developments.

(iii) The Commission advertised in 2001 for submissions from the public and received 'over 1700 responses' (p.38) but the Report didn't reveal how many opposed embryo destruction and how many supported it. Why not?

(iv) Only one member of the Commission disagreed with its recommendations, Professor Gerry Whyte, Associate Law Professor in the Law School, Trinity College Dublin. To read his carefully thought out case rejecting the proposals allowing for the deliberate destruction of human embryos, click here

USA : Massive turnout of young people march against abortion at March For Life in Washington DC

Thirty seven years ago, the US Supreme Court legalised abortion in every state in Roe v. Wade. The pro-life community immediately responded and has gone from strength to strength, year by year. On 22nd January last, an immense crowd, at least 200,000 strong, filled four blocks of the National Mall in Washington D. C. for the annual March for Life.

Observers were struck by how young most of the participants were. Self-confessed abortion supporter, Robert McCartney writing in the Washington Post (24th January) went to the March ‘expecting to write about its irrelevance’, but goes on, ‘How wrong I was. The anti-abortion movement feels like its gaining strength … and Roe supporters (including me) are justifiably nervous.’

He continues, ‘I was especially struck by the large number of young people among the tens of thousands at the march. It suggests that the battle over abortion will endure for a long time to come.’

He points to recent political pro-life successes in the US, the insertion of ‘a remarkably strong anti-abortion provision’ in the health care bill in the House of Representatives, and the election of pro-life candidates in the November governor polls in Virginia and New Jersey.

He adds that ‘fewer than 100 abortion-rights supporters’ turned up for a demo supporting Roe outside the Supreme Court. One of them, Erin Maston, of the National Organization for Women said ‘the current political climate is “terrifically hostile” to abortion rights’. She obviously means among the people, because President Obama is vehemently pro-abortion and the Democrats have a substantial majority in Congress. Another abortion rights activist at the 200-weak demo was Amanda Pelletier, a 20 year old from a university abortion rights group who said ‘Unfortunately, I feel my generation is a little complacent. … It just doesn’t seem to be a very hip issue.’

The persistence and growth of the pro-life community over the past 37 years should serve as a huge inspiration to us here in Ireland.

You can read the full text of Robert McCartney's article here

Who's behind the push for Abortion in Ireland?

IFPA and Irish Examiner helps Human Rights Watch push for abortion in Ireland

Human Rights Watch is a renowned abortion advocacy group so the news that it recently issued another document giving out about another country not having introduced a liberal abortion regime is yawnfully predictable.

This time it’s Ireland’s turn. Imagine the surprise on reading that a pro-abortion lobby group thinks it’s awful we don’t have abortion!

It does, however, have one interesting fact. A note on page 53 states, ‘Human Rights Watch is particularly grateful for the information, support, expertise and feedback provided by many staff members of the Irish Family Planning Association.’

Another disappointment and something which must be addressed is the way the Irish Examiner newspaper gave the story top billing two days running and failed to report a single word from the Pro Life Campaign taking issue with the report. The decision of the Irish Examiner to give the story such prominence lacks all credibility and highlights its strong ideological bias in favour of a pro-abortion position.

Honest debate necessary to address real issues sorrounding Abortion in Ireland

The way in which the Irish Examiner presented the result of a RED C online survey on abortion published on 21st January was misleading and did not make an honest contribution to the debate on abortion in Ireland.

The poll claiming that 60% of 18-35 year olds support legalised abortion in Ireland was presented by the Irish Examiner in a misleading way on its front page on

Given the question posed, the results were not at all surprising. The survey made no distinction between necessary medical treatments in pregnancy and induced abortion, (where the life of the unborn child is directly targeted). This in effect renders the findings meaningless and sheds no new light on public attitudes to abortion.

Polls, including one in 2009, that distinguish between standard medical treatments and induced abortion consistently show majority opposition to legal abortion according to Millward Brown IMS market research 2005-2009. and 2009

The Red C survey confined its interviews to 18-35 year olds. Clearly then the findings are not representative of the general population. Also, only 36% of the 18-35 year olds interviewed 'strongly' approve of legal abortion and not 60% as the Irish Examiner claimed.

The report also failed to draw attention to the known fact that 18-35 year olds start to increasingly identify with the pro-life position as they get older. This is borne out in all surveys on the issue.

All things considered, it was extremely misleading for the paper to run with today's front page headline declaring: 60% In Favour of Legal Abortion

The abortion debate is a very serious one and deserves more objective treatment than it received in the Irish Examiner.

Human Rights Watch Ireland Abortion Report Ridiculous

The New York based advocacy group Human Rights Watch released a document on 28th January entitled 'A State of Isolation: Access to Abortion for Women in Ireland'.

Among other things, it claims that Ireland is in breach of its international human rights obligations for not allowing legalised abortion in this country.
Human Rights Watch cannot credibly claim to be a human rights organisation while at the same time denying the rights of unborn children throughout the entire nine months of pregnancy. Any authentic vision of human rights has to include the right to life. Otherwise it is meaningless.

Human Rights Watch may talk a lot about the issue but it does not have a monopoly on concern for women's health. Ireland without abortion is a recognised world leader in providing medical care for women during pregnancy. Human Rights Watch and likeminded abortion advocacy groups need to reflect on this reality instead of creating unnecessary fears about women's health simply to have abortion imposed on Ireland.

Human Rights Watch is also in complete denial regarding the latest peer reviewed studies showing the extremely damaging psychological effects of abortion on women. Women deserve better from an organisation claiming to serve its best interests.

It is ridiculous to claim that Ireland is in breach of its international human rights obligations because it respects the right to life of unborn children. It is embarrassingly obvious from today's publication that Human Rights Watch has little or no knowledge of the situation in Ireland. As an abortion advocacy group, it may see a political value in using over the top terms to describe Ireland's abortion laws but this approach does nothing to serve the cause of informed and reasoned debate.

Seeking to protect both mother and baby during pregnancy is not a violation of any human right. In fact it is the complete opposite. Abortion is legal up to birth in some countries. Human Rights Watch supports these barbaric laws. As a group, it even opposes laws prohibiting sex-selection abortions, specifically targeting female unborn children. This alone completely undermines its claim to be a defender of women's rights.

Rather than discriminating against certain categories of human beings, we need to work together to build a more welcoming society where the value and dignity of every human life, born and unborn, is respected