Some good and bad pro-life news from the US elections

 

In this week’s US election, citizens voted not only in the presidential and two congressional elections but also in numerous referendums, including several on pro-life issues. In three states, attempts to make abortion laws more liberal were rejected, while seven states passed pro-choice ballot measures.

The most significant pro-life victory occurred in Florida, where an effort to extend the legal abortion limit from 6 to 24 weeks of gestation did not reach the required quota of 60pc of the vote.

Pro-life advocates, led by Governor Ron DeSantis, successfully blocked Amendment 4, a proposed constitutional amendment aimed at establishing a “right” to abortion. The amendment would also have allowed abortions after 24 weeks for “health reasons”, which are always vague, like in Britain.

If passed, Amendment 4 would have nullified Florida’s current six-week abortion limit and potentially override parental consent requirements, threatening parental rights.

Despite over $40 million in support from out-of-state pro-abortion organisations, the amendment fell three short of the 60pc threshold needed to pass constitutional amendments in the state.

Pro-life advocates celebrated significant wins also in Nebraska and South Dakota, as voters rejected proposed constitutional amendments aimed at expanding abortion access.

Nebraska had two papers on the ballot. The current law prohibits abortions after the first trimester (12 weeks), except for medical emergencies or cases related to rape or incest.

An attempt to lift the 12-week limit was rejected by voters, while they approved by 55pc a competing ballot measure to enshrine the current limit not only in legislation but also in the state constitution.

In South Dakota abortion is banned except to save the life of the mother. A constitutional right to abortion was opposed by 58.6pc of voters.

These results are extremely important for the prolife movements. In 2022, the Supreme Court found that there is no right to abortion in the US Constitution, and left every state to regulate this issue in its constitutions or in legislation. In the meantime, the pro-life side has lost one vote after another, until the various referendums this week.

Another important pro-life victory was achieved in West Virginia, where voters approved a constitutional amendment to prohibit assisted suicide and euthanasia. They were already illegal but now the ban is now in the state constitution.

Unfortunately, radical pro-choice amendments passed in seven states.

Colorado voted to create a ‘right’ to abortion in the state constitution and allowing the use of public funds for it. Its law was already one of the most extreme as it does not restrict abortion after a specific point in a pregnancy. Babies can be killed up to birth. In 2020, voters rejected an initiative that would have banned abortions after 22 weeks.

A similarly radical amendment passed with a large support (61.5pc) in the state of New York, where abortion is already allowed up to birth.

In Maryland, Montana and Nevada, where abortion is already legal up to viability (24 weeks), voters added a new article to the Constitution’s Declaration of Rights establishing a “right to reproductive freedom”.

Missouri voters also made abortion ‘a fundamental right’ to its Constitution by a small margin (51.7pc). The pro-choice campaign spent almost $29 million compared to a mere $1.3 million of pro-life side.

In Arizona, where abortion is legal for any reasons up to 15 weeks of gestation, 61pc of voters supported an amendment to the state constitution establishing that the state may not interfere with ‘the fundamental right’ to abortion before the point of foetal viability.

These result show how radical the pro-choice movement has become in the US. They always push the limits and, even when the law has no gestational limits to abortion, they push it to make a ‘fundamental constitutional right’.

These recent pro-life victories are encouraging but the disappointing results in many states show that fight for the right to life is far from over.

Il furto

Candelabri di stelle
sulla piazza remota
come un' immensa basilica vuota 
La croce enorme col Cristo
(unico segno di veglia)
sorveglia
la fontana di Papa Sisto.
Le quattro strade assorte
camminano fin sulle porte
della città sgominata.
Assediata?
Messa a fuoco?
Abbandonata?
Il gobbo - unico cittadino
reperibile
fece dalla soglia capolino
e si avanzò - stampellando
sulle gambe contorte
di contrabbando.
Corsero brividi d'orrore
su tutte le porte ...
bendate
dalle gelide mani della sera ...
Il gobbo raggiunse la croce
nel centro della piazza
e a colpi di zappa la svelse
dalla terra scavata di recente.
Poi se la caricò sulle spalle
con tutto il suo Cristo
sanguinolento
si segnò con l'acqua di Papa Sisto
e disparve
fra i capelli discinti dell'ultima luna.
All'alba gli abitanti
della cittadella risorta
morirono d'orrore sugli sbocchi
della minuscola piazza.
Dalla croce pendeva
incoronato di spine
il piccolo gobbo mago
con un sogghigno di lago
sulle labbra paonazze.

da Baionette (1915)

Just how many people are really atheists?

 

A recent survey has found that, for the first time, atheists in the UK outnumber those who believe in God. Or do they? Because an awful lot depends on exactly what people are asked.

The “Explaining Atheism” project is a global research initiative led by Queen’s University Belfast and recently released interim findings appearing to show that atheism is now more widespread than theism in the UK.

The study surveyed approximately 25,000 individuals across six countries, including Brazil, China, Denmark, Japan, the UK, and the USA. It draws upon data from the British Social Attitudes Survey, the World Values Survey, and an earlier project by the same team, “Understanding Unbelief” (2017-2021).

According to the British Social Attitudes Survey (BSAS), belief in God in the UK dropped from 41.8 pc in 2008 to 37.4 pc in 2018. During the same period, the percentage of people who say they do not believe in God rose from 35.2 pc to 43pc.

However, a survey conducted by the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) put the number of atheists in Britain at 26pc, not 43pc.

Why the difference? It seems to come down to how the question is asked. The BSAS asked people point-blank whether they believed in God or not. But the ISSP asked a wider range of questions from emphatic atheism to emphatic theism and everything in between.

A similar phenomenon was observed in Ireland, where the wording of the Census 2022 question “What is your religion?” was modified to “What is your religion, if any?” The first response option was “no religion”, whereas this had been the last option in the 2016 Census. This change led to a big increase in “no religion” responses. No surprise there.

Prof. Stephen Bullivant, a sociologist of religion at St Mary’s University in London, noted that in some countries, the term ‘atheist’ carries a degree of stigma, and people may avoid identifying as such, even if they do not believe in God or practice any religion. Conversely, in other cultures, atheism or secularity has become the norm, leading respondents to self-identify as atheists, even if they still hold some belief in God.

Interestingly, the “Explaining Atheism” study also found that “non-belief in God does not necessarily rule out belief in other supernatural phenomena, as most atheists and agnostics express some type of supernatural belief.”

By the way, the findings indicate that belief, or non-belief, in God is predominantly influenced by socialisation, rather than by factors such as education, fear of death, or a need for structure. Parental upbringing and societal expectations about religion were identified as the most significant factors. For instance, those not exposed to religious practise by their parents during childhood were more likely to identify as atheists.

In other words, we are very conventional. If the broad social convention is religious, then we are more likely to be religious, and if the convention is broadly secular, we are more likely to be secular, or even atheistic. We don’t seem to think as much about our beliefs as we might like to imagine.

Extreme euthanasia agenda revealed at Irish conference

Last month, End of Life Ireland hosted the 2024 international conference of the World Federation of Right to Die Societies, which pro-euthanasia campaigners from around the world attended.  Several speakers at the conference made no secret of their wish to see euthanasia and assisted suicide permitted on very broad grounds indeed, far beyond the terminally ill.  They are not even trying to hide the slippery slope.

On 17th October, the Dáil will vote on the Report of the Joint Oireachtas Committee on Assisted Dying, which recommends both euthanasia and assisted suicide for patients with an incurable and irreversible condition. We can already see the ambition of campaigners to go much further than this.

Speakers at the conference included Justin McKenna and Jane Lazer of End of Life Ireland. When they appeared before the Oireachtas Committee, they expressed a wish that euthanasia and assisted suicide be made available on broad grounds. They clearly stated their aim to extend assisted suicide to include patients suffering from conditions such as dementia and multiple sclerosis. Some of what they had to say can be found here.

Another speaker was Colin Brewer. He is worth noting because he was struck off the medical register in Britain in 2006 for serious professional misconduct. According to The Guardian, he had provided “patients with a lethal cocktail of drugs that led to the death of one and the development of further addictions in several others”.

Later, Brewer revealed that between 2013 and 2016 he had helped six British patients with dementia to end their lives at assisted suicide clinics in Switzerland, despite none of these patients being terminally ill. Although Brewer was no longer licensed to practise in Britain, he nonetheless assessed these patients’ mental capacity to choose death before their trips abroad.

Why did the Irish speakers seem happy to share a platform with him?

Brewer is an advocate for euthanasia not only for those suffering from dementia but also for “patients with motor neurone disease, stroke and other intractable and/or progressive conditions don’t want to face years of intolerable quality of life.”

At the Dublin conference, Brewer’s presentation was titled: “Most people considering MAID (medically assisted death) for early dementia aren’t ‘depressed’, they are understandably unhappy.” His panel also featured a presentation titled “Dementia as part of the end of life conversation,” and on the same day, two Canadian activists spoke about “Glimpses into dementia and assisted dying”.

Five of the six patients assessed by Brewer ended their lives at the Dignitas clinic in Zurich.

Silvan Luley, a representative of Dignitas, also spoke at the conference. His talk, “Assistance for the right to choose the time and manner of one’s end of life – Beyond terminal”, underscored that Dignitas offers assisted suicide not only for terminally ill patients but also for those with “unbearable pain”, which is defined entirely at the discretion of the person seeking to die.

When Luley presented at the Joint Oireachtas Committee, last year, he noted that less than half of those who die at Dignitas are terminally ill.

Luley also revealed that 12 Irish residents have died at Dignitas since 2003, while approximately 100 Irish people are currently members of the organisation. The membership fee for “accompanied suicide” is 2,500 Swiss Francs (around 2,600 euro), but the full service, including funeral and administrative arrangements, costs more than 11,500 euro plus VAT.

During his address to the Joint Oireachtas Committee, Luley emphasised Dignitas’ philosophy: “The core thing really is to install a system of maximum freedom of choice and at the same time education for the public and education for the healthcare system and healthcare professionals so they learn how to deal with and how to listen to wishes of people who say "I do not want to continue living". We must change the culture via education in the direction of making the base layer so that people can come forward and whatever the reason may be for them to say "I want to end my own life, I want to die and I want to use suicide", they are being met at eye level and from there on, there is discussion around what is there in terms of solutions towards reinstalling quality of life, to bring them back on track to enjoy life and have a good quality of life, and if that is not possible to make it possible that these people can have a professional way out of their suffering, which is assisted dying.” TDs who will vote on the above-mentioned Report next month should make themselves aware of what was said at last week’s conference and recognise that once assisted suicide or euthanasia are legalised, the pressure will be on to expand the grounds far beyond the terminally ill.

Members of the Dáil who will vote on the Report next month must recognise that once assisted suicide or euthanasia is legalised, it becomes difficult to maintain strict limitations. The experiences of other countries, along with discussions at the recent international conference, demonstrate that there will be continual pressure to further liberalise these laws. To prevent such escalation, the Report must be firmly rejected.

 

P. S.

A prominent pro-euthanasia campaigner in Ireland is Tom Curran from Exit International. Exit International was previously a member of the World Federation of Right to Die Societies but left in 2021. While the Federation prefers a medical model regulated by legislation, Exit International believes euthanasia and assisted suicide are fundamental human rights. They argue that any mentally competent adult should have access to these options without needing to meet any medical criteria, and that healthcare professionals should not be required to participate.

The controversial content of an SPHE textbook for young teenagers

Last week, a publisher issued an apology for the stereotypical portrayal of an Irish family in a textbook. The volume, which was withdrawn following public outrage, was produced for the new Junior Cycle course on Social, Personal, and Health Education (SPHE) introduced last year by the Department of Education.

A closer examination of these SPHE textbooks reveals even more serious concerns. One such example is “My Wellbeing Journey”, a text from a major publisher, authored by prominent SPHE teachers.

One of the authors is Eoghan Cleary, Assistant Principal at Templecarrig Secondary School, Co. Wicklow, who is often invited to comment on sex education on radio and television.

The second volume of “My Wellbeing Journey”, aimed at students aged 13–14, includes a lesson dedicated entirely to masturbation. In one of the exercises, labelled a "pairs activity", students are presented with images of eleven animals and asked to guess, together with their classmates, how many of these animals engage in masturbation. This activity is undeniably shocking, yet the book is freely available online for anyone to verify: https://online.flippingbook.com/view/814709122/128/#zoom=true

Is animal behaviour really a good guide to human behaviour? Humans have reason and a moral sense. Animals do not.

Young students are also told that “Even babies and young children know it feels good to touch their own genitals.” This appears to be presenting babies and toddlers as sexual beings.

Another author of “My Wellbeing Journey” is Pam O’Leary, an SPHE teacher at Cork Educate Together secondary school.

In an interview about sex education some years back, Pam O’Leary stated: “I’m interested in teaching students about safety and health. Morality shouldn’t come into Relationship and Sex Education. It’s not about what students should do in any moral sense”. Would most parents agree with this view?

Accordingly, the “My Wellbeing Journey” textbook makes no direct reference to moral values, focusing instead on the concepts of ‘healthy boundaries’ and ‘safe spaces’. It suggests that choices and behaviours are acceptable as long as they are deemed "healthy and safe". However, it is impossible to teach human relationships and sexuality without referencing ethical principles. Human beings inherently base their decisions on values and principles.

Even more perplexing is the attempt to use animal behaviour as evidence that certain actions are normal or natural. Animals are driven by biological imperatives and instinct, whereas humans are free to act according to what they believe is right and just. Forced copulation or aggressive mating, for example, is not uncommon in the animal kingdom but the authors, obviously, do not mention this in their chapter about consent because we are more than animals, we are moral beings. So why do they cover masturbation among animals in a textbook for young teenagers?

The textbook also makes no mention of marriage, which is perhaps unsurprising given that the National Council for Curriculum and Assessment, with the blessing of the Department of Education, removed references to marriage and parenting from the SPHE curriculum.  

Textbooks and teachers are granted a certain degree of flexibility in covering topics outlined in the NCCA curriculum, nonetheless, there is no promotion of commitment or long-term relationships. These concepts are never presented as preferable to casual or short-term relationships. Instead, the message remains: it is all acceptable if it is "healthy and safe". Again, what do parents think?

Unsurprisingly, the curriculum includes lessons on "gender identity", which is presented as fact rather than as a contested ideology that separates being male or female from biological reality. The volume is so steeped in gender ideology that some of the expressions used sound ridiculous.

For example, in the section on puberty in Volume 3, the authors say: “Most typically, people with female-typical anatomy generally begin puberty at 11 years of age, and those with male-typical anatomy begin at 12 years of age”.

Girls are thus referred to as “people with female-typical anatomy”, and boys, of course, as “those with male-typical anatomy”. These convoluted expressions are used in the name of ‘inclusivity’, as, according to gender ideology, not all individuals with female-typical anatomy are women.

They are whatever ‘gender’ they identify as and remember, nobody knows how many genders exist.

Many parents likely disagree with this gender ideology. Are they aware that it is now the dominant philosophy framework taught in SPHE classes?

Are they aware of what else is in these SPHE textbooks, and also the key aspects of life that are missing?

Città di vita

Negli ultimi anni della sua esistenza Auro D'Alba scrisse per la rivista bimestrale "Città di Vita", pubblicata dalla Basilica di Santa Croce in Firenze.

Ho aggiunto i dettagli di questi articoli di Auro D'Alba alla pagina dedicata alla sua bibliografia.

La Notte dei Serpenti - Canti e tradizioni popolari d'Abruzzo (2024) 2° edizione

Strade dei villini

Pel dolce sole, per le bianche stelle
si piacque la dolente anima mia
ritornare a l'ignota nostalgia,
sorella triste fra le tue sorelle;

ed ascoltò la semplice elegia
d'una volta, fra i chiostri di mortelle
vide ancora sorridere a le celle
di Sant'Agnese l'umil litania:

Ma l'ospedale mi cantò nel cuore
il miserere delle sue corsie,
eco dei gravi passi della morte,

e risvegliate dall'antico orrore.
l'ombre imminenti per le bianche vie'
dischiusero i battenti delle porte'

The newspaper that stood up for freedom of worship during the pandemic

 

During the Covid-19 pandemic, the Irish Government imposed the longest ban on public worship in Europe, while in Northern Ireland restrictions were less drastic. A new academic study says that religious institutions and media outlets largely supported these measures, with the main exception of the Irish Catholic newspaper.

The study, by Gladys Ganiel and Caoimhe Ní Dhónaill from Queen’s University Belfast, analyses the response from the main Churches, and also religious publication to the very restrictive approach by the authorities.

The two authors noticed that “strict restrictions in other countries prompted religious leaders to criticise the government or to seek redress in the courts on grounds of religious freedom. But such discourses were almost absent on the island of Ireland.”

Religious institutions, including the Catholic Church and Protestant denominations, largely supported the government-imposed restrictions, despite their often very heavy-handed nature. The churches justified their stance by appealing to the broader common good and the need to protect the most vulnerable members of society from the virus.

“No churches, church leaders, or church groups brought religious freedom cases to the courts”, (unlike in various other countries) observed the study. The only exception was Declan Ganley, a prominent Catholic businessman, who contended that the government’s ban on public worship was unjust and violated the fundamental rights of believers. The case was ultimately dropped when restrictions were eased.

Ganiel and Ní Dhónaill noticed that in Northern Ireland, religious leaders were more actively consulted by the government than in the South. This consultation led to a generally cooperative stance by religious institutions in the region. The Protestant churches, for example, continued to encourage adherence to the restrictions while also acknowledging the emotional and psychological toll the pandemic was taking on individuals, particularly due to isolation and the inability to gather for worship.

In the Republic, however, “the government’s approach to restrictions revealed a lack of trust in religion: piety could be perceived as dangerous; or, alternatively, the rights of the pious were deemed less important than those of others”, says the study.

While the Catholic hierarchy accepted the State’s top-down approach and officially supported the government’s measures, there was a notable voice of dissent within the religious media. The Irish Catholic newspaper emerged as a critic of the measures, particularly concerning the ongoing closure of churches.

The paper voiced frustrations over the exclusion of religious services from essential activities, contrasting Ireland’s severe restrictions with more lenient approaches in other European countries.

Quite a few of the articles in that newspaper which questioned the ban on public worship were written by the head of the Iona Institute, David Quinn.

Initially supportive of the government’s efforts, the Irish Catholic‘s tone shifted as the pandemic progressed. The paper highlighted the prolonged closure of churches even as other parts of society began to reopen, questioning why religious gatherings were considered less essential than other activities. This position reflected a broader concern within the publication that Ireland’s secularising public sphere was increasingly marginalising religious expression.

Even the Catholic Church leadership was criticised for not doing enough to defend the rights of the faithful. The paper argued that the government’s approach represented a form of modern-day persecution, likening it to historical anti-Catholic measures.

In contrast, the Protestant media in Northern Ireland, where there was more dialogue between church leaders and the government, largely supported the restrictions and praised political leaders for their decisions.

John Henry Newman: Education, Wisdom and the Gentleman

 

A talk by Dr Angelo Bottone. Universidad CEU San Pablo Madrid, 28 February 2020