Looking after orphans and widows in their distress

"Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress" James1:27

 


In addition to their regular vigil at Whitfield Street, The Good Counsel Network are now running an additional daily outreach at Mattock Lane in Ealing. Consequently the number of women they are helping to choose life for their unborn babies is greatly increased. The support that they are offering to women is vital and life changing. Their work is a real act of faith as they commit to supporting these women, trusting that God will supply all their needs.

Last year I met "Lina" a young Eastern European woman who had attended a debate on "Anti abortion protestors and freedom of speech" organised by BPAS at the Conway Hall in London. She had been in the audience hoping to contribute her own experience, but had felt daunted and hampered by her poor English, so in the end said nothing but listened with growing frustration to the clever arguments for "choice" which seemed insensible to the situation which women like herself find themselves in.

The baby which she had brought along with her was about 7 months old. She told me that when she had become pregnant her boyfriend had quickly abandoned her. Her employer then let her go and she was left with no means of paying her rent. She wasn't entitled to benefits in this country and while she would have been given an abortion on the NHS, if she went ahead with her pregnancy she would have had to pay for any obstetric care she recieved. She was literally faced with destitution unless she "chose" abortion.

She told me that she went for counselling at the Marie Stopes clinic in Whitfield Street and explained her situation. The counsellor listened and then bluntly asked her " So how are you going to support yourself and a baby?" She explained that she didn't want an abortion and felt that if she could just have some help to get through the next year that she would be able to manage.

The counsellor's response was simply to offer her an abortion. Feeling defeated and believing that she had nowhere else to turn, she made an appointment.

As she left the clinic she bumped into a counsellor from the Good Counsel Network who offered her a leaflet and said that they wanted to help her and her baby. She was amazed that right outside the door had been the help that she had been seeking all along. It would have been so easy for the Marie Stopes counsellor to say " we can't help you with your needs, but see that lady out there? she's standing there waiting to help women like you. Go talk to her and see what she can do for you" But of course that doesn't happen, because " that lady out there" is stealing Marie Stope's business. So much for "choice" from Marie Stopes.

With the help of the Good Counsel Network she continued with her pregnancy and when I met her was back on her feet.

We both became tearful when she told me that she looks at her baby every day and weeps to think how close she came to losing her.

Lina is just one of the many, many mothers supported by the Good Counsel Network. They are invisible to pro choicers who prefer to believe that every woman who crosses the threshold of an abortuary looking for help is fully exercising "choice".

These mothers and their unborn children are the "widows and orphans in their distress" that our culture turns away from. Instead we offer them death. And the crowning insult is that we call it "choice" and expect them to celebrate the privilege.

If you want to help the Good Counsel Network to offer them life, please read this email which I received today and consider what you can do to build a culture of life in our city.

 

 

Please come on Good Counsel’s Annual Wandsworth to Wapping Sponsored Walk.



We are in urgent need of raising funds. Yet again this year we have broken all previous records for the number of pregnant women, planning to have an abortion, that we have counselled. This number has been rapidly increasing every year for a few years now. This means that we have been graced with the opportunity to counsel more Mothers than ever before and with the help of God save a greatly increased number of innocent unborn lives. This is very happy news, but means that our finances are stretched further than ever before.



When we are counselling women in order to help them to choose life for their child we offer them all the emotional, practical and moral support which is necessary for them to have the confidence to continue with their pregnancy. The emotional and moral support can take up hours of our time but in general does not cost very much. The practical support is much harder, and can include accommodation/help with rent, direct financial help to provide essentials such as food and clothes, legal advice, travel assistance to get to doctors/midwives appointment etc. etc. This is a huge burden upon us but it is vital that we are able to continue to offer this to all of the pregnant Mothers we see.



To give you an example of the work we are doing, this very morning we have seen two couples who were both definite in their decision to have an abortion. Both of these couples have left having changed their mind completely... One of these couples was a young married couple from Hertfordshire. They have very little money, and have to live in a very small studio with no kitchen and a bathroom which is shared with the restaurant which is beneath their home. They hadn’t intended to have a baby yet and were really worried about the future. They also knew their current accommodation was was not at all suitable for a child. They met one of our counsellors who was able to show them God’s plan for this child and convince them that Abortion is not a good choice for their child and also for their own future. They then visited our centre where we were able to give them a safety net for when the baby is born in case they are not able to afford better accommodation or provide the basic necessities for their child. This safety net, which we have committed to, is what gave them the confidence to continue with their pregnancy, and they left happy in their choice to choose life for their baby. As she left she said “This morning I was going to kill my baby but now I really hope it is a girl, do you think God will think I am asking too much?”


As you can see it is vital that we can raise the funds necessary to continue to offer this “safety net”. Our next big fundraising effort is our Annual WANDSWORTH TO WAPPING SPONSORED WALK which is approx. 13 Miles long and is on Saturday July 20th (starting with Mass at 10am and finishing at approximately 4pm with drinks and refreshments) and we want to get as many people as possible to join us and raise sponsorship for our lifesaving work. For more details please see our website



For our Facebook event page click here



To let us know you want to come and to get your fundraising pack please reply to this email with your contact details and we will send a fundraising pack with all the important details to you and keep in touch between now and the big day.



Thank you in advance for your support.



God bless



Conor Carroll

Good Counsel Network

www.goodcounselnetwork.com

02077231740









 

Posted with Blogsy

A question about believers baptism

Blogger Comments: Apologies due!

I've just published a bunch of comments that had slipped under the radar. I can only assume that they fell  into spam and I happened across them just now when I was tinkering with my Blogger settings.
Sincere apologies to those of you whose comments were so belatedly published. Like most bloggers, I LOVE getting comments and  feel awful that I left some lingering in comment limbo.
I'll try to be more vigilant in future!

"Edith's catsitting instrucions"

We had planned to spend Easter weekend at Ampleforth where the community of St Aeldred were running a family retreat. I spent most of Thursday packing and preparing and then, when Pat got home, we realised there was a problem with the car. the rear lights weren't working. We didn't feel safe driving all the way up to Yorkshire sans rear lights so we decided to postpone our departure until the following morning, hoping that we could sort it out before we left.

There were other complicating factors too. We don't have enough room in the car for all our family and so my oldest son was going to take the train. Son no.2 needed to come back early because he was catching a flight to Denver on Monday for the first leg of his Big Gap Year Adventure. By Friday morning we realised that the cost of the trains for the boys, coupled with the urgent car issues, and the necessity of truncating our weekend in order to get back in time for Dominic to pack for his travels were presenting obstacles insuperable and we decided to cancel Ampleforth and plan for Easter at home. It was more than a little disappointing.

Our luggage stayed in the car for almost the entire weekend before we got around to unpacking again. I felt so disheartened. The younger children had been really excited about the prospect of a weekend away.

In all my preoccupation and busyness I hadn't noticed that Colmcille had prepared a little info pack for our friend Edith who was going to be staying in the house during our absence and taking care of our cat Brian. All neatly presented in a folder complete with helpful pictures of cats and Easter bunnies. Colmcille is full of sweetness and optimism and it does my heart good to stumble across these little things he busies himself with when I'm not looking. I especially love the little tip he leaves for Edith as a "token of thanks".

Sometimes my children make my heart hurt with love and happiness. I wish I could bottle these days and keep them forever. Everything passes. He'll be a man soon like his older brothers and all these things will be a sweet memory. This is why I want to blog. To capture the moments that make my heart sing with gladness and gratitude for my darlings. The sweet pulse of my heart.

Packing list ( with Sniffers)

Posted with Blogsy

A letter to my MP regarding same sex marriage

Following the request of Archbishop Vincent Nichols that we should make our objections to these proposals known to our MP, I have sent the email below to Angie Bray MP for Acton/Ealing. I was spurred into action last night when a friend forwarded to me her own email on this matter. So I thought that maybe some of you would also be inspired to do likewise.

Those of you who would like some further reading on why this issue is so enormously critical and how the equality argument is a fallacious red herring may want to read this Catholoc Voices Briefing paper:

http://www.catholicvoices.org.uk/sites/default/files/InDefenceOfConjugalityCVBriefPaperMarch2012.pdf

I emailed our MP at this address:
angie.bray.mp@parliament.uk
Her website is here:
http://www.angiebray.org.uk/contact/
For those of you elsewhere you can find your MP's contact details here:
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/

I encourage any of you who haven't done so yet to make your feelings known to your MP.

I don't think it needs to be a long letter, in fact shorter letters are probably much better. No doubt our MP's hardly have time to be reading through multiple explanations of the ins and outs of this issue.

If you don't have the time yourself, a simple letter asking them to defend the current definition of marriage would suffice.

I am posting my letter here, not because I think it's in any way a model letter. There are so many things to say about this issue and I decided to just stick to a couple of points. But I'm hoping that it might galvanise some readers to do likewise.

Lets send a message to our parliamentary representatives that we are taking note of where they stand on this issue.


Dear Ms Bray

I am an Acton mother of six children whose ages range from three to twenty two years old.

I am a life long Labour voter who voted Conservative at the last election on account of Labour policies which I felt were harming the family and as a natural consequence of that, harming children and young people, upon whom the future of our society depends.

I am now realising that the party I thought would work to restore the respect and support which is owed to the most fundamental and critical cell of society is, in actual fact, now deepening the harm that has been done to it.

The fact that this is being imposed upon us with no mandate whatsoever, without any prior manifesto commitment, and without heeding the numerous petitioners against is beginning to feel as though we have a government which believes itself to be ruling by divine right.

Since when has any government had an interest in formally ratifying romantic love between persons?


Marriage has been properly understood to be uniquely deserving of societal recognition precisely because it is the union of a man and a woman which is apt to result in the next generation.

And we know that growing up within the stable bond of marriage between its mother and father provides the best possible environment for any child.

Redefining marriage weakens societal respect for the family because redefinition hinges solely on romantic love between persons and disregards the prime needs of children to be raised with both their parents.


Marriage is hard, and our divorce rate more than attests to this. I believe that over romanticising marriage and overlooking its conjugal nature is a terrible mistake and a symptom of a rather infantile generation that has failed to grow up.


Past generations understood that marriage was about more than themselves. This generation is in danger of losing sight of this.

The government appears to be compounding the error.

I hope, for the sake of future generations, you will defend marriage and resist attempts to redefine it.

Yours sincerely

 

Posted with Blogsy

An update to my last post on Maternal death.

UPDATE:

Since posting this on the death of Savita Halapannavar, a few more things came to my attention which add more context to this story. Initially I added them at the bottom of my original post, but Mac at Mulier Fortis pointed out that it wouldn't be picked up by RSS readers and so it might be worth putting the update in a separate post. Seems like a good idea, so here it is:

This article in the Hindu Times quotes the president elect of the Federation of obstetric and Gynaecological Societies of India, Dr. Hema Divakar defending the decision of the Irish doctors as being reasonable:

 Cause of death
 Delay or refusal to terminate the pregnancy does not in itself seem to be the cause of death. Even if the law permitted it, it is not as if her life would have been saved because of termination,” she said. “Severe septicaemia with disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC), a life-threatening bleeding disorder which is a complication of sepsis, major organ damage and loss of the mother’s blood due to severe infection, is the cause of death in Savita’s case. This is what seems to have happened and this is a sequence which cannot be reversed just by terminating the pregnancy.”

Pain and infection

Analysing the situation, Dr. Divakar said: “Based on available information, Savita would have reported pain and infection and doctors would have indicated a miscarriage as the 17-week foetus may not have grown as expected. Its growth would have been deteriorating because of the infection. Having understood that the baby was not going to make it, the couple would have asked for termination. But as Savita’s infection may have required aggressive treatment at that stage, doctors must have felt the need to prevent complications. The usual [practice] is to meddle the least till the mother is stable.”

Asserting that it is wise to wait in cases with such complications at 17 weeks, Dr. Divakar said: “As per reports, the baby’s heartbeat stopped after three days. But that was expected.” 

The blogger Thirsty Gargoyle points out significant discrepancies in the various timelines of events which are being quoted in the press.

How has the Irish Times ran two conflicting versions -- one written, one aural -- of the same story, and not noticed that they contradict each other? Did Kitty Holland not notice, the second time she interviewed Praveen, that his sequence of events had changed?

How has nobody picked up on the fact that the sequence of events as described by the Irish Times, with Praveen as a source, and RTE, dependent on the hospital's viewpoint, are completely at odds with each other?

He also posts the timeline of events from Galway University Hospital which RTE reports on here.

Sunday 21 October:

Patient presents to hospital complaining of backpain.

Patient is admitted with a threatened miscarriage to the Obstetrics and Gynaecology Unit.

Monday 22 October:

After 24 hours of admission, antibiotics are given.

Tuesday 23 October:

Patient transferred to theatre.

Spontaneous miscarriage occurs.

Wednesday 24 October: 

Post-theatre patient is transferred to Intensive Care Unit.

Patient remains unwell.

Thursday-Saturday 25-27 October:

Patient continues to deteriorate.

Sunday 28 October:

Patient dies in ICU.

Post mortem examination ordered by coroner.

One of the commenters on my last post, Katie, asked about normal management of pre term premature rupture of membranes (PPROM).
With the important caveat that I am not an expert and I don't wish to add to the speculation before the facts, here is the answer I gave Katie according to my understanding:

 The central issue here appears to be whether or not the patient was showing signs of infection. If not then it is quite typical, as I understand it, for management to be expectant. That is, to wait for labour to start, but usually within a given time frame and with close monitoring for signs of chorioamnionitis.

If infection is present, there seems to be agreement in most places that induction would be normal management. However, as the article in the Hindu Times I linked to above says, it could be that inducing a woman already in septic shock may dramatically worsen her condition.

This is why I say that crises such as these are managed on a case by case basis, taking a number of other clinical factors into account.

Here's one article I found which explains management quite clearly..

 This quote refers to PPROM in the second trimester, which was the stage of pregnancy that Savita was at. It explains that, in the absence of infection, such patients may even be managed at home ( actually, in some ways this may be safer, from an infection control point of view, because hospital environments are full of foreign pathogens):

"Chorioamnionitis occurs in 30-60% of patients with second trimester PPROM. The risk of infection increases with duration of ROM and an AFI less than 2.0 cm. Frequent exams are necessary to ensure maternal safety. Patients need to be educated about the warning signs of intraamniotic infection and need to take their temperature 3 times a day at home. These patients do not need to be cared for in the hospital if no evidence of vaginal bleeding or infection exists. They may consider admission for inpatient management at 24 weeks, which currently is considered the point of viability at most institutions."

A couple of other things. There have been frequent references to the open cervix being akin to "an open head wound". The state of the cervix is more significant in terms of the inevitability of miscarriage. It is the torn membranes that pose a risk of infection.

Secondly, many commenters have said that the doctors ought to have agreed to termination of the pregnancy because the patient asked for it. But patient request, particularly in extremis, is not always good grounds for making important decisions about clinical management.

A personal anecdote here:
In September 2007  I was in labour with twins. I had been told that Olivia, "twin one", was dead.
Because we didn't know what had killed her and whether twin two might be next, I elected to have an emergency caesarean section. The prospect of labouring naturally, knowing that I would have to birth my stilborn baby first and that the living one might be at risk, was too frightening.
Traumatised and in shock, I'm ashamed to say that at this point I begged the registrar to sterilise me.
She refused saying that I wasn't in a fit state to know my own mind on the matter..
I insisted that I did and pleaded with her again, saying that I knew for a certainty that I couldn't go through this again.
She firmly refused.
Days later I was longing with all my heart to be pregnant again and grateful beyond words for her "no".

Maternal Death: When fools rush in. (UPDATED)

The desperately sad death of Savita Halapannaver along with her unborn daughter at only 17 weeks gestation is a grim blow to her poor husband and a salutory reminder to the rest of us that life, even with all the technological and medical advantages that our generation enjoys, is still fragile.

There will be an enquiry and an inquest and until then, the staff involved will not be able to speak about what happened. All we have to go on by way of information is the account of her devastated husband.

One can only imagine how dazed, confused and angry he must be. How does the human heart begin to absorb such a thing? To lose one's young wife just as she was looking forward to motherhood is a shattering reversal of fortune. It is completely understandable that he should be angry. Necessary even. Everyone's heart is moved to pity for the man who has had his life, his hopes and his love ripped away from him.

But as a midwife, my thoughts are also with the staff at the hospital where she died. I know that they will be in shock and grief. Maternity care is wonderfully fulfilling and challenging, it is also hugely demanding, physically, mentally and emotionally. No crisis is straightforward, even with the best clinical protocols in place, critical issues are dealt with on a case by case basis. Sometimes mistakes are made. Genuine errors, with catastrophic consequences.

What happens when you make a mistake at work? All responsibilities are stressful and burdensome at times, but imagine if your mistake potentially cost the life of two people who depended upon you for their well being?

I still recall with a chill the time when, as a student midwife, I infiltrated a perineum with lignocaine, anticipating the need for an episiotomy. We had learned how important it was to draw back the plunger to make sure the needle hadn't entered a blood vessel since, we were told, should lignocaine enter the bloodstream it could bind irreversibly to cardiac muscle and cause the heart to arrest. For some reason, amongst all the other dire warnings and 'thou shalt nots' my imagination was particularly seized by this picture. I turned over in my mind the horror of such a calamity happening in so banal a way.

So when, just after depressing the plunger, the labouring mother gasped weakly that she felt odd, that she couldn't see properly and was finding it hard to breathe, I was stricken with the thought that I had failed to do that vital check. I felt as though my brain was on fire and the joints in my knees literally began to give way. All I could think was that I had killed a mother just as her baby was entering the world.

Happily, it soon became apparent that I had done no such thing. The mother had merely been hyper ventilating and had become light headed. But I couldn't speak for fright. I handed over the scissors to the midwife who was with me. She took one look at my ashen face and understood that I had lost my nerve, but she didn't realise why until afterwards in the staff room when I told her how the bottom had fallen out of my world in that moment.

A friend of mine, tired towards the morning, having spent the entire night shift with a labouring woman, made an error that could very nearly have been fatal for the baby. A shot of pethidine for a multiparous woman in transition, very nearly fully dilated and ready to push her baby out, having laboured with no pain relief was now asking for something to get her over the final hump. After delivering the shot, he double checked the syringe and realised that instead of pethidine he had given her syntometrine. A drug which is given just as the baby is emerging, the effect of which is to cause the uterus to clamp down and cause the placenta to detach from its wall. A potentially catastrophic error of enormous magnitude. Obviously, until the baby is actually born, the last thing you want is the placenta to detach itself from the uterine wall.

Happily, unlike me with the lignocaine, he kept an extremely clear head. He quickly examined the woman, "encouraging" the cervix, now almost fully dilated, to open up all the way, and encouraged the mother to give a big push. This being her third or fourth labour a few pushes were all it took to get the baby out and everything ended well.

On another occasion I attended one of the monthly meetings held on labour ward where obstetricians highlighted some of that months difficult cases and peer reviewed the clinical management decisions. What went well, what some would have done differently etc.

One of the team put a picture on the overhead projector of a chubby stillborn infant. I stared at the greatly enlarged picture on the wall waiting for the awful account of whatever obstetric disaster had led to this. I remember the silence in the room as he paused before saying "This, is a healthy term infant, delivered by forceps at 40 weeks and 3 days. The only thing wrong with him...is that he is dead."

The senior registrar who had delivered the baby was in the room, with this evidence of her catastrophic failure before her, and us. And I felt the crushing weight, the awfulness of that. It seems that she had been called out in the night to this woman who had failed to progress in labour, attempted a somewhat difficult rotational forceps delivery, and in doing so ruptured the woman's uterus. The baby died and the woman had a life saving hysterectomy. Left with a dead baby and no hope of getting another one.

I don't know the extent of the senior registrars responsibility. But I shudder when I imagine how she must have felt.

So when the news of the hapless Savita's death emerged, my thoughts, as well as being naturally with her husband were also with the team of people who had been caring for her. No doubt they are shocked and traumatised too and many will be reproaching themselves for failures, real or imagined.

Despite the fact that actual hard information about this case is very thin on the ground, the story was quickly spun into a narrative in which she died because she was denied an abortion by staff so blinkered and hamstrung by religious dogma that they refused to act to save her life.

That she died owing to the denial of abortion on the grounds that Ireland "is a Catholic country" has been uncritically accepted and enthusiastically exploited by pro choice groups apparently seeking to make political capital out of this human tragedy. With the facts still far from clear, there has been an unseemly rush to appropriate the deceased young mother as an abortion rights martyr who died at the hands of Catholic doctors claiming that they couldn't help her because this was a "catholic country"

There are far more questions than answers at this stage, and no doubt there will be a proper enquiry which will thoroughly scrutinise the clinical judgements made in the management of this case. It is beyond grotesque however to witness the exploitation of such a desperately tragic circumstance by those who are evidently much more interested in abortion rights than sound maternity care.

A few sound bites from the subsequent feeding frenzy among the clear eyed apostles of evidence and reason:

Richard Dawkins tweets that " Irish Catholic bigotry kills woman"

Another shrieks that " Ireland's Roman Catholic Church murders Savita"

Yet another announces that a " European hospital tortures a woman to death over ideology. And adds for good rhetorical measure: "this is gender based violence"

The inflammatory and irresponsible title of this post "Woman dies in hospital because of catholic dogma" ( by a blogger whose stated aim is to promote reason, critical thinking and ethical atheism ) set the tone for the  hysteria which played out in the comments.

I weighed in with the caveat that all the information was not available. No one can assume to know all the facts in advance of an enquiry.

At this point it isn't at all clear whether Savita's E.coli infection had even been identified until it was already a galloping sepsis. In one of the audio interviews with the husband he seems to say that infection was initially ruled out and that she was given prophylactic antibiotics when she was admitted on Sunday.

That night she was told that she would lose the baby. On Monday she asked for an abortion because she found it distressing listening to the heartbeat and "just couldn't take it". Mr. Halapannaver doesn't say that she or anyone felt, at this stage that her life was at risk if management continued expectantly, it seems here as though her request for an abortion was in order to bring her distressing circumstance to a close.

Her husband Praveen describes her as being 'fine', albeit distressed, until Tuesday evening when she started to feel ill. The following day she is taken to theatre, and after that her condition rapidly deteriorates. He describes her as being critically ill on Thursday and on Friday Praveen is told she has an E.coli infection and she is put on dialysis. By Saturday she is in multi organ failure and on Sunday she dies.

In interviews elsewhere it appears that she didn't start antibiotics till Tuesday. Who knows what that means. Perhaps by Tuesday the lab report had come back and shown that she had an E.coli infection which was resistant to the antibiotics she was already on and her presription was changed?

In the absence of evidence of infection, abortion is not a typical treatment for pre term labour with ruptured membranes. Antibiotic prophylaxis is, as is very close monitoring ( bloods, temp, physical signs etc) . There is no real evidence yet that abortion would have made one bit of difference to the sad outcome in this case. It seemed to me as though pro choicers had seized upon this story to dishonestly claim that abortion would have certainly saved her life and that the decision of the team managing her care had been skewed by blind adherence to religious dogma.



I said that such a scenario as Savita presented with is not completely unusual and whether she aborted or not, what she most needed was presumably close monitoring and timely, effective prophylactic antibiotics. There are a number of similar cases of women who have also died of septicaemia following legal abortion. Had this unfortunate woman aborted, precisely the same risks of infection would likely have remained.

Here are some of the responses. I put them here because I think it is instructive how quickly the debate moved to personal attack. It demonstates the ugly tendency among those with political agendas, to cynically exploit a terrible human tragedy, beefing up the facts in order to score goals and, in this case, fashion a stick with which to beat pro life Ireland.

"I will never understand why is it so easy for christians to kill a full grown woman, with life, relationships, dreams, future"

"Claire, It worries me that you are a midwife. That actually proves how much an ideology can even blind a supposedly “knowledgeable” person. it’s quite telling that you insist on calling the fetus “baby”." ( Um, what kind of weirdo thinks that it's sinister to refer to a woman's unborn baby as a baby? Can you imagine your midwife or doctor referring to your 'fetus'?)

"Ahhh, a wonderful, pro-life troll with nothing better to do with their life than to verbally admonish a) a dead woman for even DARING to ask for the help denied to save her life and b) spout out more pro life rubbish that caused her death in the first place?"

"Be honest, Clare, you don’t care about the women, all you care about are the fetuses. You don’t care that what happened here stopped Savita’s beating heart. And, to be blunt, you are cruel and heartless."

"Everybody who treated her should be thrown in prison for murder. They knew exactly what would happen."

"Clare’s internalized misogyny is sad. Her gleefull recitation of misogynistic talking points designed to obscure the fact that catholic dogma straight up murdered this woman is expected."

"Clare’s obvious joy at the death of an innocent woman is sickening."

This gem stood out:

"Clare When you die the world will become a slightly more caring, humane place. Please hurry."

Humanity and kindness abounds among the hysterical Apostles of Tolerance! Wishing for the early death of a mother of six children is a strange way to demonstrate concern for the early death of the mother in question here.

That Savita has been claimed as an abortion rights martyr by pro choicers eager to make inroads into Ireland's abortion laws is simply repulsive to me. The protest they held outside the Irish embassy in London would have looked a damned sight more sincere were it not for their deafening silence over the death by post abortion sepsis of Jessie Maye Barlow . Or that of 18 year old Manon Jones.

In London alone, more than 100 mothers have died in childbirth over the last five years. That's more than 100 mothers who died in our capital city, none of whom were honoured by a single candle lit vigil outside an embassy, or Parliament, or the Department of Health as far as I'm aware.

While the UK trails at a pitiful 23rd in the global ranking league tables for maternal mortality, Ireland sits way above us in 6th place. Giving them ample reason to justifiably say that they are one of the safest countries in the world for a pregnant mother.

Hello abortion rights campaigners angrily denouncing Ireland's religiously motivated "killing" of women. Can you see perhaps why your sudden interest in Savita alone seems more than a little disingenuous to me?

Sepsis is now the leading cause of maternal mortality in the UK. So it's more than a bit rich when Brits congregate outside the Irish embassy in London to lament neglect of women in Irish hospitals.

It would be nice to see an outbreak of reason among the soi disant "Brights" such as Richard Dawkins and co. How about they wait for the results of the enquiry and set about getting our own house in order before lighting the torches and galvanising the mob for a lynching?

UPDATE:

I have moved the update to a new post here.

Posted with Blogsy