More comments on AI's pro abortion policy

A few more comments about Amnesty International's decision to adopt a pro-abortion stance. More to come...

“People who support so-called ‘abortion rights’ are probably very pleased and feel they’ve scored another ‘coup'. But I think it is going to leave Amnesty International with a very questionable reputation from now on.” Rev Thomas King, SJ, Professor of Theology, Georgetown University, United States

"AS ABORTION brings about the death of a child before birth, it clearly violates the right of a child to life. What then of the mother and any rights she might claim? The position in relation to children's rights versus adult rights should be clear and is arguably covered by the paramountcy principle which states that: "the welfare of the child is paramount" and this is enshrined in International, European and UK legislative frameworks, hence the Children Act 1989" - Dr Rosemary Keenan, National Board of Catholic Women, England & Wales

"I DO not see how anyone who is committed to equal respect for all human life, whether on religious or philosophical grounds, can remain a member of Amnesty International." Ray Campbell, director of the Queensland Bioethics Centre, Australia

"Advocacy on behalf of both [mother and child] would take action when a policy of genocidal rape is being followed. It would provide help and support to the pregnant women, and community building to help their children find acceptance. In short, true compassion tries to provide healing following the violence, rather than extending the violence to the death of another human being." - Edith OSB,Monastic Musings blog, United States

“ Abortion provides no relief from the realities they [rape vctims] face. It does nothing to alleviate injustice...God is bigger than Amnesty International and his plan for justice will not be thwarted." Deirdre A. McQuade, Director of planning and information for the USCCB Pro-Life Activities Secretariat

“It strikes against the UN Declaration on the Rights of the Child, which states that every child “needs special safeguards and care, including legal protection, before as well as after birth. This is surely a crossing of the Rubicon..." Fr Chris Middleton SJ, principal of St Aloysius’ College, Milsons Point, Australia

Here you can read Fr Middleton's full statement on the decision to stop supporting Amnesty International at his school and instead form a new society to work on human rights: the Benenson Society, named after the late founder of Amnesty International.

US Catholic Bishops accuse Amnesty of false compassion for women's rights

The US Conference of Catholic Bishops has responded to Amnesty International's recently-adopted abortion policy by warning AI that the Bishops would be looking to work with other human rights groups. The Conference also calls for AI to reverse the policy.

The President of the Conference, Bishop William Skylstad of Spokane said in a statement:

"This basic policy change undermines Amnesty's longstanding moral credibility and unnecessarily diverts its mission. In promoting abortion, Amnesty divides its own members (many of whom are Catholics and others who defend the rights of unborn children) and jeopardizes its support by people in many nations, cultures and religions.."

He continues: "To some, the action of Amnesty International may appear to be a compassionate response to women in difficult situations of pregnancy, but this is a false compassion. True commitment to women's rights puts us in solidarity with women and their unborn children. It does not pit one gainst the other but calls us to advocate on behalf of both."

The full text of the Bishops' Statement follows below.

A Statement of the President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops Bishop William S. Skylstad, Bishop of Spokane August 23, 2007

After nearly a year of dialogue with leaders of Amnesty International AI), the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops strongly protests the recent action of AI's International Council to promote worldwide access to abortion. This basic policy change undermines Amnesty's longstanding moral credibility and unnecessarily diverts its mission. In promoting abortion, Amnesty divides its own members (many of whom are Catholics and thers who defend the rights of unborn children) and jeopardizes its support by people in many nations, cultures and religions who share a consistent commitment to all human rights.

Amnesty International's action will lead many people of conscience to seek alternative means to end grave human rights abuses, fight injustice, and promote freedom of conscience and expression. The essential work of protecting human life and promoting human dignity must carry on. We must continue to oppose the use of the death penalty and the crushing effects of dehumanizing poverty. We must continue to stand with prisoners of conscience, refugees and migrants, and other oppressed peoples. But we will seek to do so in authentic ways, working most closely with organizations who do not oppose the fundamental right to life from conception to natural death.

To some, the action of Amnesty International may appear to be a compassionate response to women in difficult situations of pregnancy, but this is a false compassion. True commitment to women's rights puts us in solidarity with women and their unborn children. It does not pit one against the other but calls us to advocate on behalf of both. As our Conference has argued, a far more compassionate response is to provide support and services for pregnant women, advance their educational and economic standing in society, and resist all forms of violence and stigmatization against women. The Catholic Church provides these services to many women around the world and will continue to do so.

We call upon Amnesty International once again to act in accord with its noblest principles, reconsider its error, and reverse its policy on abortion.

Picture: The photograph is of Bishop William Skylstad from www.dioceseofspokane.org

Comments from around the web

Below are some of the views being posted around the web on Amnesty International's decision on abortion. More will follow. Also see Consistent Life's page for more links.

“Violence cannot be answered with further violence; murder with murder; for even if the child is unborn, it is still a human person. It has a right to dignity as a human being.” Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone as reported by Spero News

"If Amnesty International becomes an organisation which affirms the right to abortion, even under certain circumstances, it is free democratically to do so. But it cannot expect those of us who are just as passionate about the human rights of the unborn child to feel at ease being part of such an organisation." - Rt Rev Michael Evans as reported in the Times of London

"By its actions Amnesty International has shown that in today’s world what determines a “human right” is based on ideology rather than human dignity." - John Mallon, Human Right International

"It is a tragedy that AI has adopted abortion as a human right. It has now placed in jeopardy the wonderful work that it has performed."- Right to Life, New Zealand

"I think it sad that Amnesty should get involved with something that simply isn't in its remit; it will inevitably compromise the good work it does." - Nova et Vetera blog

"To claim the right to abortion and to recognize that right in law, means to attribute to human freedom a perverse and evil significance: that of an absolute power over others and against others. This is the death of true freedom." - Paul Kokoski,

Caribbean Net News

Amnesty International, the world's largest human rights organization, definitively threw away its last chance to rescind its recent abortion advocacy policy at the International Council meeting in Mexico City last weekend. - Elizabeth O'Brien, Lifesite

"Don't let the media fool you - opposition and outrage to AI's sharp break with its history on this issue is not limited to the "Church" or "Christians"" - Marjorie Campbell, Deal W. Hudson blog

"Amnesty offers no comment on the murder of innocent pre-born babies in light of their right to continue living. I’m not overlooking the terrible act of rape which does sometimes result in pregnancy. I’m recognizing the inescapable fact that abortion is the murder of an innocent to punish the sin of someone else entirely or to try and escape the natural consequence of one’s own sin." - Marklaroi, Pieces of a Whole blog

"I support the work you do, but I can not support you if you support abortion, a betrayal of human rights, as a human right." - John-Paul C. Deddens, Students for Life of Illinois

"The Jesuit headmaster of Sydney's St Aloysius' College has confirmed that his school will sever its ties with Amnesty International." - CathNews

"We can work with groups and people with whom we do not agree with on every issue on common interests," Mr. [Stephen] Colecchi [director of the Office of International Peace and Justice at the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops] said. "But it's a different moral issue for people of conscience to contribute directly to an organization whose work now will include the decriminalization of abortion." - The Washington Times

"Amnesty International was founded to protect human rights, yet it now treads upon the most fundamental human right, the right to life." - Fr Frank Pavone, Priests for Life

"Amnesty has ignored the views of its own membership and the very aims for which it was constituted. It has treated the views of church-goes (its best supporters) with contempt. Pro-lifers will now be looking very seriously at initiating an immediate and complete boycott of Amnesty." - LifeLeague

"It’s not only Catholics therefore, but those of all faiths and none, who are in favour of the human rights of all, especially the most vulnerable in our society, who will now boycott this organisation and divert their time, money and resources to other causes. "

- Damian Rhodes, South Wales Echo

"..it seems like another example of an organisation succumbing to "mission creep", involving itself in matters which have nothing to do with the reason it was set up.." - Indigo Jo blog

"The point I am making is about Amnesty International, an organization that uses its credibility to intervene in political processes and discussions. That credibility has long ago been squandered." - Helen Szamuely, Eureferendum blog

"AI’s position on abortion appears inconsistent with its larger purpose of securing the rights and dignity of all people — unless the humanity of unborn babies is denied. This change takes the organization another step away from its original charter, and weakens its alliances with other groups..." - cehwiedel, Blogger News Network

Independent looks at the issue at last

The UK newspaper the Independent has covered the issue in today's paper; hardly in the most impartial way, as it attempts to suggest that the Catholic Church's opposition to this issue is an attack on the victims of rape - of course it is not. Nevertheless, today's front page splash highlights the issue more than any other mainstream paper has done so far.

The opposition to AI's policy is well rehearsed in this blog and on other sites. AI is now feeling a little worried about the backlash of the decision that they tried so hard to cover up.

AI on abortion policy - we "sort of felt like" addressing it

Sometimes it is in the throw-away lines that you can learn much more about what's really going on without the spin. So it is with Widney Brown's interview as reported by the Reuters press agency.

To be honest, Amnesty International has not been very good about putting a spin on its decision to adopt a policy on abortion and subsequently to hush up the decision: all attempts up until now make the organization's leaders look disingenuous and have damaged the reputation and integrity of a great organization.

Nevertheless, the Senior Director of International Law, Policy and Campaigns at AI’s International Secretariat made an interesting remark: "We sort of felt like if we're going to work on stopping violence against women we have to address (abortion),"

We sort of felt like it! Who is "we" Ms Brown? It was not the members.

AI says it takes no view on whether abortion is good or bad or when life begins . But Ms Brown's casual comment shows that this is not the case: AI must have taken a view on where life begins or else its abortion policy is deliberately campaigning against the rights of unborn humans; surely that can't be fitting for such a venerable human rights organization? Why has Ms Brown decided this is not an issue that AI should be concerned with?

Amnesty International: no cover up, we just didn't need to tell

It would appear there was no press officer sitting in on the conversation between a Reuters' interviewer and Widney Brown, Senior Director of International Law, Policy and Campaigns at Amnesty International’s International Secretariat. For surely, if there had been, Ms Brown would not have made some of her absurd claims.

According to Reuters she told the agency that Amnesty was not deliberately trying to suppress the fact that the decision to support abortion had been made (even although allowing your staff to state that the policy had not been made and marking documents "for internal distribution only" looks pretty like such an attempt in my eyes). Instead Ms Brown told Reuters: "There's simply no reason for us to 'publicize' policy issues."

Now Ms Brown has only recently joined AI from Human Rights Watch, and to be charitable maybe someone has not told her yet that AI is a campaigning organization and should be doing all it can to publicize policy issues.

In her interview Ms Brown labored the point that AI had gone through a consultation process among its members (although she forgot to mention that the UK membership actually opposed the move and that we await the result of the AIUSA membership vote to be made public)...so, a reasonable person might ask why she assumed that AI members (and indeed AI staff) might not be interested in finding out that a policy had been adopted.

Amnesty cover-up: did AI mislead staff as well as members?

If the scandal of Amnesty International ignoring the most basic rights to unborn children wasn't bad enough, the powers that be at AI have caused further outrage by attempting to cover up their decision - even trying to keep it from their staff.

As late as Tuesday afternoon, workers at Amnesty International UK's headquarters claimed that they believed a decision on the abortion policy had not been taken and would not be taken until later this summer, and indeed were reassuring members of this, apparently blissfully unaware that Amnesty was in fact trying to cover up the fact that it had already made its decision.

So their gas was put at the proverbial peep when it was pointed out to the benighted AIUK employees that documents on Amnesty International USA's site, uncovered by Consistent Life, completely contradicted what they were saying (see previous post) and these documents made them look, at the very best, sadly uninformed.

So the AIUK staff went off to find out more. At the time of writing this, they still had not managed to give a response to the member in question - that's almost 48 hours later, but we can assume that there has been some frantic activity, in fact there have been quite a few hits on this blog and its mirror sites from Amnesty International IP addresses over the last 24 hours (perhaps AIUK staff are trying to find out what their bosses have apparently been keeping from them).

Of course, AI didn't want to tell its members the unpalatable news until it had worked out how it was going to spin it to members who had vigorously opposed the proposals so it was quite useful to keep their staff in the dark so that they could answer in all honesty that the matter was still to be decided if they had to deal with troublesome member or press enquiries. And, as Jen R points out , this would not be the first time that such a tactic has been employed.

At the same time AIUK were preparing their response to this embarrassing incident, Widney Brown, Senior Director of International Law, Policy and Campaigns at Amnesty International's International Secretariat - and a former advocate on the women's rights program of Human Rights Watch (which also happens to have adopted a policy on abortion) - was forced into giving an interview to Reuters press agency, apparently confirming the decision that Amnesty was supporting abortions.

Reuters reports that she told its interviewer "that Amnesty also viewed abortion as a right for women whose health was threatened by a pregnancy and that the group would call for the procedure to be decriminalized globally. She said the board of the London-based group agreed the policy last month after two-years of consultations -- with experts and the group's more than 2.2 million members -- that has spurred much discussion on anti-abortion blogs."

Amnesty International USA or UK - who's right?

One of the contributors to the blog has just contacted Amnesty International UK to ask them about their position on the abortion question. The contributor was asking as a private AI member, so was not speaking to a press officer or spokesperson. Anyway the AIUK rep was quite clear about the situation: AIUK had passed two “conflicting” resolutions at its AGM in March; one to develop a policy and one to remain neutral. (I have my doubts about this). Absolutely no decision had yet been made, she said, and AIUK could not adopt policy by itself, but would take its recommendations to the International meeting later this summer. She said there was a statement prepared and she would send it over (we’ll publish it here when we get it). But what about the documents in the members only section of the AIUSA website, dated April 2007 and declaring that a policy had been adopted? The AIUK representative was puzzled (no wonder: the documents completely contradict what she had been saying). So puzzled was she, that our contributor offered to email her over a copy of the documents and she could respond once she had a chance to see them. He did this earlier this afternoon and awaits the result. No doubt there will be some frantic conversation between Amnesty International press officers before he gets a response. If a decision has already been made, there is another question for AI bosses: is Amnesty putting its front line staff in the unenviable position of misleading members, by not giving their own staff the full facts to respond to queries correctly? We’ll have to wait and see.

Women urge AI not to set genocide precedent

Women for Life International has become the latest group to oppose Amnesty International's proposals to advocate abortion as a human right and warned that, if passed, the proposals would set a precedent for unfettered "fetal genocide" and exploit women worldwide.

Molly White, co-founder of the North American based group, said: "The proposed policy is not only in direct conflict with the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights … but adoption of such a policy would set a precedent for worldwide, unfettered fetal genocide; worldwide exploitation of pregnant women, especially poor women; and a worldwide epidemic of violence against women and the girl child.”

Women for Life International said it was "looking to AI to protect all women and children, born and pre-born, from the violence and exploitation of legal abortion." Many nations are now facing a substantial gender imbalance due to forced abortion and gender-selected abortion, the group added.

"Where is amnesty for these women and their pre-born children? This proposed policy will be seen as an endorsement of the inhumane treatment of pregnant women who are forced to abort their children," added Denise Mountenay, co-founder of Women for Life International and founder of Canada Silent No More. The group said it was also concerned with the potential backlash on women, particularly in China. Recently, The China Aid Association reported that a total of 61 women and their unborn children became victims of a recent campaign of forced abortion in Guangxi province.

“If AI supports legal abortion in certain circumstances it undermines opposition in other circumstances,” the pro-life group said.

AI warned it risks abandoning principles to abuse human rights

Amnesty International risks becoming complicit in one of civilization's greatest human rights abuses and taking the side of some of history's tyrants, according to the world's largest pro-life movement.

Speaking just days after Amnesty International UK's vote to support advocating abortion as a human right, Human Life International's president Father Thomas Euteneuer warned the organization that if it dropped its neutral stance on abortion it would become its "own enemy, and become complicit in one of the greatest human rights abuses of all time: abortion on demand."

He continued: “It was bad enough they were neutral on the crime of abortion in the first place, but if they drop even that they switch sides to stand on the side of tyrants and genocide.

"The failure to see the plight of the unborn for the injustice that it is represents a grave moral blindness, not a sensitivity to the oppressed.”

Fr Euteneuer believes the international pro-abortion lobby has been attempting to have abortion declared a human right by manipulating United Nations' conferences and international treaty instruments, but the attempts have so far been unsuccessful. “If AI caves to this pressure, it would represent not principle, but abandonment of principle to ugly, bald-faced ideology," he said. "It would render every unborn child—especially in the developing world—a political prisoner in the womb.”

Photograph: Human Life International (www.hli.org)

International Women's Day

The 8th March is the annual International Women's Day. This is an important day to celebrate a movement that has done an enormous amount of good work over the years to protect women and help women across the globe secure opportunities to achieve their full potential, without discrimination because of their sex.

There is, of course, still much work to be done, which is why many local Amnesty International groups will hold special events this week to celebrate IWD, and some will even link it to the ongoing campaign to stop violence against women. Now, no right thinking person would condone violence against anyone; woman, child or man. But on International Women's Day we should take a moment to think about the violence that is being inflicted on females in the womb.

The danger with some of the local campaigns is that the rights of women get confused; I have seen a local AI campaign (I stress this is at a local level, not a national level) that is already suggesting that a women should be allowed an abortion as a human right if they have become pregnant after a rape, an emotive and sensitive set of circumstances, but nonetheless AI currently remains neutral on this position and any decision taken by the membership and organization this year should certainly not be preempted.

All too often people who oppose abortions are accused of denying women their rights, in the case of rape anti-abortion campaigners are slated as being uncaring, brutal and accused of taking a choices away from women; it is even claimed that this stance is somehow complicit on the violence that is perpetrated on women. In fact, those against abortion want to ensure that all women receive all their rights, including the most important: that unborn baby girls (and, of course, boys) get their right to life; with that right comes a lifetime of choices: where and how to live, for example. The so-called pro-choice lobby, campaigns for only one choice for women - a choice of whether or not to end the life of another person - a position that is not logical or moral. It is ironic that on the very day pro-abortion campaigners celebrate equal opportunities for all on IWD, they also seek to deny the opportunity of life for thousands of children. Those opposing abortion, defend a women's right to live and make a lifetime of choices: what could be more "pro-choice"?

It is imperative that AI continues to campaign for human rights for all individuals, regardless of their sex and of their stage in life. Please continue to make representations to your local Amnesty section objecting to any moves that would change the organization's current position on abortion.

Opposition to AI's move could unite Muslims and Christians

Conservative writer and former Reagan administration policy analyst Dinesh D'Souza is receiving criticism from both right and left for his new book The Enemy at Home: The Cultural Left and Its Responsibility for 9/11. No surprise really as he blames a litany of organizations that he believes supports the liberal lefts (notably some members of Congress, Hollywood, the media and the universities) for 911. Strong stuff, indeed. And while I disagree with many of the sentiments, there is an interesting proposition from Mr D'Souza makes in one of his promotional interviews with the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review and that is that the opposition to moves to make abortion a human right as advocated by Human Right Watch (and what AI is attempting to do) could actually bring together Muslims and Christians. If successful a worthy double-whammy; imagine: stopping the illogical (and I believe immoral) prospect of a human rights organization advocating abortion AND bringing together the Muslim and Christian worlds.

I have said in previous posts that this is not just a Catholic issue, nor a Christian issue; nor even an Islamic issue; the issue of advocating abortion as a human right is one that people of all faiths and none should be concerned with. Even if you disagree with the morality-based arguments, no compelling argument has been put presented that counteracts the illogicality of the proposal.