Today’s press conference on the abortion initiative ‘My Voice, My Choice’, one day before the expected publication by the European Commission, is a particularly disgusting attempt to politically exploit the suffering of a woman who is probably not even aware of how she and her situation are being used. The abortion lobby has once again exposed itself – its inconsistency in argumentation, its cavalier and manipulative approach to facts, its willingness to drag the private lives of others into the public eye whenever it seems politically ‘useful’.
The press conference does not seem to have attracted many journalists, but a video has been put on internet. We put it here because we believe it ultimately will not help the pro-abortion campaign, but instead provides a striking illustration how the abortion lobby routinely seeks to influence public opinion and political decisions through the manipulative use of sensationalist snippets of information.
The dissemination of dramatic scenarios, which often turn out to be misinformation upon careful examination, is a recurring theme throughout the history of the abortion lobby – it is a tried and tested method. In the famous Roe v. Wade case, which led to the legalisation of abortion in the United States in 1973, the woman who brought the case falsely claimed that her pregnancy was the result of rape. She gave birth to a healthy child before the Supreme Court ruling was handed down and gave it up for adoption. That child is now 55 years old.
In 2007, the ECtHR issued a judgment in the case of Alicja Tysiac v. Poland, in which a woman who had not been allowed to have an abortion claimed that her human rights had been violated. She had been suffering from a severe impairment of her eyesight, which she feared might further deteriorate in case of a continuation of her pregnacy. No less than 12 specialist doctors were consulted, all of which concluded that there was no health risk that, under Polish law, would have justified a termination of pregnancy. Only the applicant’s general practitioner, who was neither a specialised cbstetrician nor an ophthalmologist, had a different opinion. Yet the Strasbourg Court found Poland guilty of a human rights violation, on the grounds that there had been no procedure in place to determine whether the applicant was entitled to an abortion on grounds of a risk for her health and life, which caused her “severe distress and anguish”. This reasoning is quite difficut to follow, when in actual fact the opinions of twelve medical specialists stood against the opinion of one general practitioner, and the applicant subsequently, having been denied an abortion, gave birth to a healthy child.
In Ireland, the legalisation of abortion was achieved through a years-long intensive media campaign claiming that a woman named Savita Halappanavar had died because ‘she was denied access to abortion’.The facts of the case were the subject of a comprehensive investigation, which, despite having identified certain errors on the part of the medical staff involved, did not conclude that the failure to perform an abortion was the cause of the patient’s death. Nevertheless, her death was ruthlessly exploited for political ends.
It is therefore hardly surprising that the EBI ‘My Voice, My Choice’, in order to put emotional pressure on the politicians who could block der agenda, is once again urgently searching for a melodrama in which a woman is allegedly in mortal danger because ‘she is being denied access to abortion’. They believe to have found this unwitting heroine in the form of a young woman from Georgia named Lela, who is currently in a hospital in Olsztyn, Poland, suffering from severe complications of her pregnancy.
In the press conference, the representative of ‘My Voice, My Choice’, Nika Kovac, is sitting next to three persons representing the Polish abortionist lobby Federa. All of them say that Lela “is dying” or “might die”, but none of them is offering any detrails as to what precise medical conditio the poor woman is suffering from, or the precise reason why they believe that an abortion is necessary to save her life. Those who, not satisfied with the scarce information provided at the press conference, take the pain of looking at the Federe website, find no detailed information on the case. It is simply affirmed that she “needs an abortion” – but how precisely is Federa able to affirm this? Do they know her medical dossier? Or do they simply believe that for every medical complication during pregnancy abortion is by definition the right solution? Or do they, despite nor really adhering to such a simplistic point of view, just cynically and in bad faith try to exploit the case to push for their political agenda.
The simple truth in this (as before in the Irish case) is: if Lela can be saved only through a medical treatment that will cost the life of her unborn child, she will get that treatment. That is so, because the law provides for it – in Poland, as (already before 2018) in Ireland and every other EU country. It is generally accepted everywhere, even among opponents of abortion, that in cases where a pregnant mother’s life is at stake, a medical treatment that, as a collateral damage, leads to the loss of the child, is allowed, even if that collateral damage is foreseeable. The purpose of the intervention is then to save the mother, not to kill the child. This is the difference to an abortion, in which the purpose is precisely to get rid of an unwanted child.
The doctors in Olsztyn are trying to save both, the mother and the child. If that is not possible, then only the mother will be saved.
Mrs Kovac and her Polish friends lie about the law in Poland.
They do not provide the full information on the case.
They slander the doctors who are currently trying their best to save both mother and child, and who will give up the child only when it is really necessary to do so.
They probably do not care much for Lela, whom they have not asked whether she does not want, if that is possible, to keep her child. They have decided that the child must die, because that is what their anti-life ideology demands..
Most of all, everyone listening to them should understand that this case in Olsztyn is totally irrelevant to the cause that their disgusting initiative is promoting. Lela does not at all need to circumvent the Polish legislation, because the Polish law does not set any obstacles to her life being saved. She is also very obviously not in a state where she could ever benefit from the EU-sponsored funding for abortion tourism that “My Voice, My Choice” is envisioning, because in her state she cannot travel. The case is simply used to infuse emotions and melodrama in the debate – because a calm, objective, and fact-based debate is something that the abortion lobby simply cannot afford to allow taking place.
Lela’s case is a random case of a woman suffering from complications during a pregnancy, with the doctors probably doing all they can to save her life and, if possible, also that of her baby.
Let asq be clear and frank: What “My Voice, My Choice”, in line with feminist ideology, is really promoting is abortion “on demand” – a right for every woman to have her child aborted for the sole reason that she wants to get rid of it. The entire ECI is not about dramatic death-or-life situations which are only exploited for the purpose of emotionalizing and forstalling an honest debate. It is about creating a mechanism to nullify and rendering ineffective the remnant of legal protection that is still afforded to the unborn child in nearly all European jurisdictions.
Poor Lela, you are being shamelessly and cynically abused, like so many women before you, by the abortion lobby!
one-of-us.org 