IRELAND PUSHES FOR MORE EXTREME ABORTION LAWS
Among the many different types or voter in Ireland’s Referendum on the Right to Life in 2018, the least respectable were those who voted in anticipation of a small change in the law that would allow for medical emergencies.
Why were these the least respectable?
Quite simply because they were the most delusional.
It was apparent from the initial stages of George Soros's Repeal the 8th campaign that the story of Savita Halappanavar, who died from sepsis in Ireland's poorly run health system, was going to be used to try to usher in abortion on demand under the cloak of medical necessity.
Since the law was introduced, abortions have skyrocketed. The only thing preventing them from reaching the levels of butchery present in the UK (where one in four pregnancies ends in the destruction of the child before birth) is the fact that the gruesome practice is not yet available in every county in Ireland.
Now, after a ‘public consultation’, the State looks likely to approve more violent laws against the unborn.
The Labour Party, who contributed significantly to Ireland’s depleting birth rates with their anti family policies while in government, have actually had the nerve to call for wider abortion laws due to the same poverty that they created in society, as they call for an end to the three day waiting period as it:
“disproportionately affects abortion access for those who live outside of urban areas, in places where there are limited or no abortion providers, and who are financially or socially vulnerable”.
Controversial media outlet the Irish Times report that Neasa Hourigan from the ruling Green Party, called for the decriminalisation of abortion ‘in all circumstances’. If this statement is correct, that means abortion up until birth.
The only prolife party in the Irish parliament, Aontú, commented on the importance of the three day waiting period, stating:
“Aontú has met with women who regret their abortions, and indeed these women would be happy to meet with or speak to the review team. Given the enormity of the decision to go ahead with an abortion, we believe that the three-day wait period should be extended to five days to allow women the necessary time to make their decision.”
In the same issue, pro regime journoactivist Kitty Holland wrote about the 10th anniversary of the death of Savita.
Interestingly, she quotes a comment from Orla O'Connor, head of the pro regime organisation ‘National Women’s Council of Ireland’. O'Connor is quoted as saying:
“Whether one agrees or disagrees that Savita’s death was caused by Article 40.3.3 of the Constitution, she is linked to the campaign, to the referendum and repeal [of the Eighth Amendment], and will be forever”.
Holland then continues:
“Article 40.3.3, passed in a referendum on September 7th, 1983, by a majority vote of 66.9 per cent, guaranteed the State would “defend and vindicate” the “right to life of the unborn…with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother”. It was repealed, by a majority vote of 66.4 per cent, on May 25th, 2018”.
Unless neither realises the implication of their own words, not an uncommon phenomenon with abortion campaigners, this is a departure from previous claims that the law killed women and that the law was designed to prioritise the unborn over the mother.
Holland then quotes Ailbhe Smyth, who formed a central role in George Soros's propaganda film on the referendum, arriving back from London after Savita's death and saying ‘Right, this is it. This is crunch time’.
Never let a good crisis go to waste.
The way forward for Irish prolife campaigners involves many areas. It must develop better arguments about the right to life, but also about the value of life. It must attain political representation on a significant level in order to counter the anti family policies of Fine Gael, Fianna Fail and the Green Party. It must not be afraid of religious arguments against abortion either, since hatred of Catholicism was a particularly important part of George Soros's Repeal campaign in 2018.
If we could say one thing too, it must be more picky about who it chooses to support. Jack Chambers was every pro abort campaigners dream. Out of touch, arrogant, male, privileged. His opposition to abortion was likely determined more by class morality than by genuine disdain. Chambers, who was made a poster boy of the prolife movement, is now an ardent pro abort who is seeking more extreme abortion laws. By their fruits we shall know them, if a politician is not advocating strongly for financial and social help to those having children, then we are defeating ourselves by promoting them and counting down the days until they announce themselves as pro abortion, as Chambers did.