Read my article on The Fight to Eliminate Down Syndrome

Yesterday, I posted about the New York Times' fair to favorable coverage of life with a loved one with Down syndrome.
But there is no paper like the National Catholic Register who is an open advocate for the Culture of Life, in all aspects. Thanks to their commitment to the life issues, I have published no less than four articles about Down syndrome and abortion. Down not Out,     Down, Hero Dad and Palin,  and Remembering Jerome Lejeune,
Three of four of them mention the French pro-life hero and geneticist,  Dr Jerome Lejeune, who I believe will be canonized and serve as the patron saint of those with Down syndrome. He was declared Servant of God on June 28, 2007 (what a great birthday gift for me!)


Here is my latest article The Fight to Eliminate Down Syndrome; Eugenics at Work?
Go on over, and leave a comment!

Thousands of babies with Down syndrome aborted in UK

I knew this. Not the numbers, but the percentage. If over 90% of babies diagnosed with Down syndrome are aborted in all western nations, of course it adds up to thousands. Of course they are being aborted way after viability which is 22 weeks.

Shocking new statistics have been produced in England after a pro-life organization won its bid to make some abortion numbers public that the government had failed to disclose concerning abortions on disabled babies.The numbers reveal, thousands of babies victimized by abortion merely because they were mentally or physically disabled — including 500 abortions done on unborn children who have Down syndrome. In total, 2,290 abortions were done on disabled babies with 147 done after 24 weeks of pregnancy.

  The saddest part if how few knew this despite my efforts for the last five years to make this known. God bless the Pro-life Alliance  in the UK who fought for five years to have these tragic stats see the light of day.

“The ProLife Alliance is opposed to all abortion at any stage in pregnancy, but terminating the lives of babies at gestational ages when they could survive is always particularly horrifying,” Millington told the newspaper. “We have always argued that if these abortions are permitted under law, there should be no attempt whatsoever to hide details of the numbers or justifications.”

Do what you can to spread  society's knowledge of this evil, its the beginning of reform. Just as William Wilberforce had to hammer away at the British public for two decades about the evils of slavery, so pro-lifers have to tell the tales of horror endlessly until they awaken the consciences of their countrymen.
All life is sacred or no life is safe.

Read the article here. 

AP video on new Down syndrome tests

Erin Witkowski is worried that the new non-invasive pre-natal tests will mean that there are no babies left like her son. See her comments in the AP Video here. 

Down syndrome parents to take screening complaint to the International Criminal Court.

 Following TV3's 60 Minutes(on New Zealand television) documentary on June 12 “Down but not out'', parents of children with Down syndrome announced they will lodge a complaint with the International Criminal Court against the Governments screening programme for Down syndrome.

The basis of the parents' complaint is that the Government's antenatal screening programme specifically targets foetuses with Down syndrome and other rare genetic conditions, through the prevention of their births.

 The 60 Minutes documentary was introduced with the statement “people with Down syndrome may soon disappear from the face of the earth.'' 60 Minutes revealed the new screening programme was introduced without public consultation and the Ministry of Health “did not bother'' asking the opinion of anyone who has Down syndrome, about the programme.

Mike Sullivan, father of three-year-old Rebecca Sullivan who has Down syndrome, featured in the 60 Minutes documentary. He said people with Down syndrome and other disabilities are human beings who live full and rewarding lives. “They must be treated on an equal basis with other members of our society, without any form of discrimination.''

De-Anne Jensen, mother of three with her oldest son having Down syndrome also featured on 60 Minutes. “Government documents say it costs less not to have children with Down syndrome around, so it looks like they are working to do away with Down syndrome. It's cheaper; you don't have to pay for the special needs things. The Government and medical experts are putting a monetary value on our baby's lives,'' Mrs Jensen said.

 The parents' complaint references Government Cabinet papers obtained under the Official Information Act stating the outcomes of the programme will be a reduction in the number of births of
people with Down syndrome, with around 90% of unborn children diagnosed with the condition being terminated. The persecution of an identifiable group of the civilian population through the prevention of births is specifically prohibited under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, to which New Zealand is signatory.

The group is supported by parents with other disabilities that are being similarly targeted and other organisations who support their concerns.

The groups position statement is that genetic screening must not be used to prevent the birth of unborn children with Down syndrome, or cause harm to any unborn child.

The group recognises genetic testing may help some parents prepare for the birth of a child with Down syndrome. Any testing must respect the life and integrity of the unborn child, cause no harm, be only directed towards safeguarding or healing the unborn child and be presented in a way that does not discriminate against people with Down syndrome or any disability. Any testing must be developed in full engagement with those with Down syndrome.
See Mike Sullivan interviewed in the 60 Minutes video, "Down not Out". 

For further
information contact:

Mike Sullivan, 09
436 1498 0r 021 406 266 mike.b.sullivan@xtra.co.nz

AP takes up debate over new Down syndrome screening test

The best part about the bad news that a non-invasive maternal blood test which can predict with nearly 100% accuracy whether a baby has Down syndrome, is the discussion it is generating in the media.
Dr Brian Skotko was interviewed in a two part article in the Associated Press on whether this was a good thing.
He says,

 "the vast majority of people with Down syndrome and families affirm that their contributions to their communities are significant, and their lives are very valuable."

Also featured in this powerful article is Erin Witkowski of Port Jervis, NY who says,

 "When they first gave him to me," Witkowski said, "I saw tiny little hands, and he had the most beautiful eyes... He didn't have `Down syndrome' stamped on his forehead. He cried and he peed and he pooped. He was a baby."

So, like the partial-birth abortion ban debate, which changed American public opinion against abortion forever, public awareness is being raised on this issue which has been sidelined for far too long. And those of us who stand with the right of those with Down syndrome to be born, are happy to engage in the discussion.
Its about time, since national health care programs in nations such as France and New Zealand are considering instituting universal pre-natal screening for Down syndrome, regardless of age.
Mike Sullivan a member of the International Down Syndrome Coaltion for Life is featured in this short documentary about pre-natal testing for New Zealand television. entitled,
Down but Not Out. 
Lets make enough noise to awaken the consciences of the good people out there who have no idea of the 90% abortion rate, so that the cry of "eugenics" can reach the ears of the powerful.

Universal Pre-natal testing considered in France

My friends at the Lejeune Foundation in France are calling for all those who oppose the eugenic abortion of babies with trisomy 21 and live in France to sign a petition opposing this practice. France already has an abortion rate of 96% once Down syndrome is detected through pre-natal testing, universal testing would be catastrophic to this population and to human rights in general, setting off a possible chain reaction throughout Europe. Below is a translation of the original letter from the Foundation Lejeune.

On May 25 and 26 of this year, the National Assembly [the lower house in the French Parliament] will resume its debates and votes concerning the proposed bioethics law.  

If the deputies follow the recommendations of the Senate and the Special Committee on Bioethics, the pendulum will swing, in the next few days, and France will implement a policy of eugenics with regard to infants with Trisomy 21 (Down syndrome.  

Because all of us are vulnerable and called to show solidarity with those who are a little more so, we cannot accept this or let it happen.  

Please act today by signing the petition that we will send to the legislators and by sending this message to everyone on your e-mail address list.

We thank every one of you for your irreplaceable support of this petition drive.  

 The Staff of the Jérôme Lejeune Foundation

WHY A PETITION AGAINST EUGENICS?

 -

Because the legislators in both Houses of the French Parliament are currently debating the contents of the forthcoming bioethics law and are preparing to legalize systematic screening for Trisomy 21.  

-

Because 96% of the babies diagnosed before birth as having Trisomy 21 are eliminated, some of them as late as the ninth month of pregnancy.  Instead of expanding this search-and-destroy mission aimed at infants with Trisomy 21, we should instead take advantage of the future bioethics law to put a stop to the current trends!  

-

Because obliging the doctor to propose prenatal diagnosis to all expectant mothers would lead us from a de facto situation of eugenics to a legal system of eugenics that completely contradicts the Civil Code (art. 16-4).   

-

Because infants with Trisomy 21, like all of us, want to live, to love and to be loved.  

-

Because the degree to which a society is civilized is measured by its ability to protect its weakest members.

-

Because all of us are vulnerable and called to show solidarity with those who are a little more so.  

-

Because, with technological advances, it will very soon be possible to detect many other disorders or predispositions to diseases. The logic of search-and-destroy will be extended to an ever-increasing number of babies.  

-

Because by choosing to eliminate the sick instead of trying to cure their illnesses, science and medicine abandon their purpose and deny themselves.  

The purpose of this petition is to denounce the eugenicist ideology informing the bioethics law, which is clearly expressed by its intention to screen systematically for Trisomy 21, and to challenge our legislators concerning the blatant contradiction between the Civil Code and current eugenics practices.  

If your share our concern and our willingness to fight for greater respect for the lives of the most vulnerable, then sign this petition, which we will forward to the members of Parliament and to the French government.  

Life is the most important political issue for Man:  the members of Parliament, like the future candidates for the Presidency of the French Republic, cannot ignore this.  They must recognize the determination of the French electorate on this subject [and also realize that people of good will in other countries will be watching carefully how they deal with this latest threat to fundamental human rights].  

SIGN THE PETITION HERE. 

Eliminating the word 'retarded' is not enough

The battle against using the so-called "R-word" has occupied my friends. in the Down syndrome advocacy community. I could never get fully engaged, because of the elephant in the room: the 90% abortion rate of our children. Read more at Renew America.

The truth about Peter Singer

Some anonymous commenter said I was not truthful about Princeton ethicist Peter Singer, so I did some research.
He was right, I was being too kind. The truth is even uglier than I had imagined.He's a monstrous human being.Read this discussion of his views with quotes below and make up your own mind.

Down syndrome is usually characterized by short stature, distinctive facial features, and, as my dictionary puts it, “mild to moderate mental retardation”. Singer himself describes the condition as involving “some physical abnormalities” as well as “mild to moderate intellectual disability” (Rethinking Life & Death p. 106). There is no mention here of “severe disabilities”; Singer notes that “People at the upper end of this range [of Down-related intellectual disability] can live independently with little supervision. Others need help with managing their financial affairs, and need to be supervised when shopping, cooking or travelling outside the home.” (ibid.) Unlike migraines or arthritis, Down syndrome is not a painful condition, and people who have it do not “suffer” from it in any conventional sense.


Why, then, does Singer argue that infants born with this condition can justly be killed? Because they are “abnormal” and do not have “good prospects” (Rethinking p. 214). This notion of “prospects” runs like a mantra through Singer’s discussion of Down syndrome children: “the future prospects of life may be so bleak” (211), “the prospects are clouded” (213), and so forth. But what sort of prospects does he have in mind? On p. 213 of Rethinking he lists several activities which a person with Down syndrome will supposedly never be capable of: “to play the guitar, to develop an appreciation of science fiction, to learn a foreign language, to chat with us about the latest Woody Allen movie, or to be a respectable athlete, basketballer or tennis player.” This list reads like a parody of bourgeois myths of achievement, success, and respectability. To Singer, however, these are legitimate reasons for killing a newborn. After all, if you can’t do your own financial planning, why should you be allowed to live?

Read more at the Institute for Social Ecology website.
Apparently Singer didn't read the news story about the man with Ds that scored the game clinching touchdown. 

Search add Destroy abortion of babies with Down syndrome is from Nazi era

THE "warped practice of eugenics is rising from its Nazi tomb" in Australia, a senior Catholic bishop says.

Bishop Peter Elliott, head of Melbourne's John Paul II Institute for Marriage and the Family told mass-goers in Bendigo Cathedral on Sunday: "A seek-and-destroy policy kills little human beings in the womb because they are 'guilty' of Down Syndrome, dwarfism or other imperfection.

"They are deemed to be unfit to live for they do not come up to the standard of the 'designer baby' and a healthy, sport-loving race.

"It is no surprise that euthanasia is being strongly promoted today. Nor should it be a surprise that this is the policy of a political and ideological force that puts more value on wattle and wombats than people.

"Resurgent aggressive secularism resorts to killing as it strives to engineer, direct and control not only society, but your life and mine."

Good for Bishop Elliot, who is under fire for his bold comments at the end of this article. 


He underscores the relationship between the eugenics of the Nazi T4 program where the handicapped were taken from their homes, institutionalized and later bussed to Hartheim Castle where they were gassed to death. The search and destroy efforts of medicine are just as coolly efficient and coldly insensitive to the cries of the victims who are still considered, "life unworthy of life". 

The murder of the handicapped was a precursor to the Holocaust. The killing centres to which the handicapped were transported were the antecedents of the extermination camps, and their organized transportation foreshadowed mass deportation. Some of the physicians who became specialists in the technology of cold-blooded murder in the late 1930s later staffed the death camps. They had long since lost all their moral, professional, and ethical inhibitions.

Read more about the T4 Program here. 
Read the entire story here. 

Eugencist Peter Singer at abortion debate at Princeton

The headline panel featured two heavyweight Australian philosophers – Singer, a bioethics professor at Princeton, and John Finnis, a professor emeritus of philosophy in the University of Oxford.  The two debated the “Moral Status of the Fetus."

Singer defended his support for infanticide, stating that self-awareness confers moral status, and not species membership.  Abortion is the killing of a human being, but is not immoral because the child does not meet the self-awareness test, said Singer. 

In his utilitarian view, Singer believes that there can even be a moral duty to kill humans lacking self-awareness, including the disabled, which he has been criticized for not following in the case of his mother.

Singer's stance is absolutely terrifying, considering that he is considered an intellectual,  mainstream 'ethicist'.
The fact that "Catholics for Choice"leader Frances Kissling is a 'visiting ethics scholar'at University of Pennsylvania when she is niether ethical nor a scholar is also disturbing.
These monsters will be the ones who determine who lives or dies in this nation, if Obamacare is not overturned. These are the people whom Obama considers his peers and advisors.
VOTE pro-life. 
Read the entire article here. 

Ironside says "I'd put a pillow over its head, as any good mother would"

Now you can see the natural outgrowth of four decades of eugenic abortion on demand. If you can abort a baby with Down syndrome at 35 weeks, or smother him at 40, after birth, is there any reason for the apparent horror at Ms Ironside's remarks? No one was stunned when she called the abortion of a disabled child an act of kindness.

"Virginia Ironside, an advice columnist in England (where they are also dubbed “agony aunts”) as well as a mother and grandmother, appeared on the show and shared her view that “a loving mother” would in fact abort a baby if she believed the child would be born with severe disabilities. In fact, Ironside went as far as to label the act of abortion in such a case as “a moral and unselfish act.”

Yet look at the reaction from the Anglican minister and the show host when she mentions infanticide. Pure hypocrisy.It's a good thing this has stirred up controversy, maybe people will realize you can't advocate eugenic abortion and then be horrified when Peter Singer or Virginia Ironside take it to the next step.
This remark launched a firestorm in British society.


Read here.and on Life Site News.