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.

Scottish cardinal quits Amnesty over abortion policy

SCOTLAND'S most senior Catholic, Cardinal Keith O'Brien of Edinburgh says he will leave Amnesty International following the organisation's decision to adopt a pro abortion policy.

The cardinal, who has been a member of AI for 40 years, said he was leaving the organisation as a "matter of conscience". He commented: "That basic and most fundamental of all human rights, the right to life is recognised by the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the document upon which Amnesty International was founded. Sadly now Amnesty International seems to be placing itself at the forefront of a campaign for a universal ‘right' to abortion in contravention to that basic right to human life." In contrast to many other countries, the Scottish Catholic hierarchy has been quiet on the issue until now and this is a welcome, though belated, message from the Scottish Catholic church. The full text of Cardinal O'Brien's comments are given below.

"The recent decision by the International Council of Amnesty International to “Support the decriminalisation of abortion and to defend women’s access to abortion” has forced me to reconsider my membership of this noble organisation.

As a matter of conscience and with great sadness I have decided to resign from Amnesty International having first joined as a student and supported it over many decades.

Throughout my priestly ministry and more recently as Archbishop and Cardinal I have shown my desire along with my Church to defend life in all its aspects. Along with the Bishops of Scotland in 2001 in guidance ahead of the Scottish elections we stressed the commitment of the Catholic Church to life but we wanted to be clear what that meant. It was not something narrow but something wide and all encompassing. And we said then that: “We believe in a consistent ethic of life. We are pro-life in the fullest sense of that term”.

In recent years I have spoken out strongly on pro life issues including our necessity to ensure life for the poorest of the poor people of the world and have shown my care and concern by visiting some of those poorest countries especially in Africa and Asia and including also my visit to Darfur. I have also shown my high regard for life in consistently speaking out with members of other Churches here in Scotland against the renewal of the Trident Nuclear Weapon system which is based in Scotland.

Even more recently I have spoken out strongly against abortion when I marked the 40th anniversary of the passing of the Abortion Act in the Westminster in 1967. With regard to abortion I have now had to examine my own conscience, realising that Amnesty International was approving proposals in support of abortion.

I have listened to the teachings of my own Church in recent weeks in the form of a statement from Cardinal Renato Martino the President of the Pontifical Council for Justice & Peace said with regard to Amnesty International that it had “betrayed its mission” by abandoning its traditional neutral policy on abortion. Only a week ago Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone the Secretary of State of Pope Benedict XVI said on Vatican Radio that: “Men and women of the Church throughout the world have already made their stark opposition to this decision clear violence cannot be answered by 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”.

I also realise the anguish suffered by Bishop Michael Evans of East Anglia who has been an active member of Amnesty for 31 years and who has also recently announced his decision to resign. He indicated that the recent decision made it very difficult for Catholics to remain members of Amnesty or to give it any financial support saying: “This regrettable decision will almost certainly divide Amnesty’s membership and thereby undermine its vital work” adding “among all human rights, the right to life is fundamental”.

I am also aware that Amnesty International has previously criticised the Vatican for its stance against abortion and in 2005 described the refusal by America to pay for abortions overseas as “an attempt to stifle the evolution of the human rights framework”.

I hope I act in a manner which is ‘pro-life’ following what I believe is the teaching of Jesus Christ and the teaching of my Church. That basic and most fundamental of all human rights, the right to life is recognised by the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the document upon which Amnesty International was founded. Sadly now Amnesty International seems to be placing itself at the forefront of a campaign for a universal ‘right’ to abortion in contravention to that basic right to human life.

For me it is a matter of conscience that I have decided to resign from Amnesty International.

Others must follow their own consciences. But I would suggest that any who do and who resign from Amnesty International, would put their previous contributions to Amnesty International to agencies which do indeed support the right to life of each and every human being wherever conceived and in whatsoever part of the world, and to help women who have suffered violence at the hands of others, particularly those who have endured rape.

We are all members of the one human family and we must defend unborn children in our family however conceived, they may be seen as unwanted or inconvenient, but they have from moment of conception, been given the gift of life by Almighty God."

Picture: Cardinal Keith O'Brien, Archbishop of St Andrews and Einburgh, from http://www.archdiocese-edinburgh.com/

Amnesty loses friends over abortion policy

The issue as covered by the UK's Tablet magazine. The Tablet is a Catholic magazine read widely around the English speaking world and unfortunately its coverage of the issue to date has been disappointing. Nevertheless, two pieces appear in this week's edition: the one that follows and an article about Bishop Michael Evans resigning from AI.

Amnesty loses friends over abortion policy

THE VATICAN this week intensified its call to Catholics to stop supporting Amnesty International following the pressure group's decision to back the legalisation of abortion.

AI affirmed a revised abortion policy at the conclusion of its leadership council meeting in Mexico last week, making official a departure from its longtime neutrality on the issue despite protests from many Catholic leaders.

"With the prevention of violence against women as its major campaigning focus AI's leaders committed themselves anew to work for universal respect for sexual and reproductive rights," the organisation said in a statement released after the meeting.

Under the new policy, the group said, AI would support the decriminalisation of abortion, push for access to health care for women suffering from complications of abortion procedures, and "defend women's access to abortio, within reasonable gestational limits, when their health or human rights are in danger".

In all, the group said, the revisions to its policy aim to emphasise that "women and men must exercise their sexual and reproductive rights free from coercion, discrimination and violence."

The announcement was followed by strongly worded criticism by the Vatican. "One cannot eliminate life as such, even if it is the fruit of violence," said the Secretary of State, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone SDB.

Analysts feared the move would weaken joint efforts between church groups and AI on several other justice issues, including disarmament and the abolition of capital punishment.

Italy's leading Catholic newspaper said the decision to back legalised abortion, even in the case of rape, was a "disturbing precedent" in a "glorious organisation" that had worked so effectively for human rights.

by Timothy Lavin and Robert Mickens, The Tablet 25 August 2007.

Amnesty duped pro-life celebrities

The UK's Sunday Times today reports that Amnesty International has been accused of duping pro life pop stars - including Christina Aguilera (pictured) and Avril Lavigne - by persuading them to record tracks for a CD to raise funds. The article quotes representative from the Rock for Life organisation. The full article appears below. (Note: the headline as it appeared in print is given below, the internet version of the story was headlined "Pro-life rockers clash with Amnesty" on the Times' website.)

Amnesty "duped" pro-life pop stars

By Maurice Chittenden and Dipesh Gadher

Amnesty International risks alienating some of its high-profile rock star backers in the row over its decision to support women’s access to abortion.

The group has been accused of “duping” the singers Christina Aguilera and Avril Lavigne, who have both made statements against abortion and are among

contributors to an Amnesty CD released to raise money for survivors of the atrocities in Darfur.

Two weeks ago, just two months after the album’s release, Amnesty adopted a worldwide policy to back the right of women to abortion in carefully defined circumstances — for example, when their health or life are in danger or when they have been victims of rape in areas of conflict such as Darfur.

The album, which has already sold more than 400,000 copies, features cover versions of hits by John Lennon such as Imagine, and Give Peace a Chance. It was made possible by Lennon’s widow Yoko Ono, who gave the rights to all his solo works to Amnesty in 2003.

The policy on abortion has brought Amnesty into conflict with the Roman Catholic Church, and has shown how new divides have displaced the old left-right geopolitics that gave rise to Amnesty. The group was founded in Britain in 1961 by Peter Benenson, a radical socialist lawyer and a Catholic convert, to campaign for the release of prisoners of conscience.

Now Rock for Life, a collaboration of musicians linked to the antiabortion movement, has accused Amnesty of using the album to promote abortion without making its intentions clear to the singers.

Erik Whittington, director of Rock for Life, said: “The human suffering going on right now in Darfur is horrific. To add insult to injury, however, using this tragic abuse of human rights to raise money for a pro-abortion organisation is hypocritical and beyond belief.

“The manipulation of musicians to fund this hypocrisy is maddening.” He added: “We are writing to all the artists to ask for their views.”

Amnesty, which claims 260,000 members in Britain, more than the Labour party, has been surprised by the ferocity of the reaction to its new policy.

The position has been condemned as support for a “right to kill” never envisaged in the United Nations 1948 declaration of human rights that formed the original bedrock of Amnesty’s focus. The Vatican has called on Catholics to withhold donations and Amnesty’s Irish section has said it will effectively opt out of the policy and not participate in abortion-related campaigns.

Last week Michael Evans, the Catholic bishop of East Anglia, resigned from Amnesty after 31 years as an activist saying it had been “deeply compromised”. Many Christians among Amnesty’s 2m members worldwide are said to be considering following suit, although Amnesty officials in London insisted only “a handful” had done so.

The views of singers who have contributed to the album - who also include George Harrison’s son Dhani - on Amnesty’s change of heart are not yet clear.

But Aguilera, 26, is a devout American Catholic. She is reportedly expecting her first child and has taken part in a television show in which she interviewed a teenager who had kept her baby rather than have an abortion.

Lavigne, 22, [pictured left] is a French-Canadian from a tight-knit Christian family. Her song Keep Holding On is the backing track to a pro-life video on YouTube that declares “abortion is murder”.

Aguilera and Lavigne were unavailable for comment. An aide to Lavigne said: “I don’t think she would want to comment on this. But what has abortion to do with Amnesty? It’s for a lot of different things such as prisoners of conscience and human rights.”

Rock for Life has drawn up a list of 700 acts, including Bryan Ferry and the rapper MC Hammer, who it says are opposed to abortion.

An Amnesty spokesman said: “We don’t know the personal opinion of the artists on abortion but the CD has been launched to raise awareness of the situation in Darfur.”

Widney Brown, Amnesty’s director of policy, said there had been “overwhelming support” for the policy change at the meeting in Mexico City. Since 2005 72 branches of Amnesty around the world have passed similar motions.

Amnesty’s position now is not for abortion to be a universal right but for it to be decriminalised and for access to abortion to be permitted within its defined circumstances.

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

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.

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.

USA Annual General Meeting - register now

The tagline for this year's AIUSA AGM in Milwaukee, Wisconsin from March 23 - March 25 is "ordinary people extraordinary change" and I am hoping that any extraordinary changes made at the AGM are ones for the good of AI.

The closing date to book a room at the Annual General Meeting is today (Thursday 1 March). You can book through the website here. Don't worry if you miss the deadline, you can still attend, but you will have to find your own accommodation.

On the Saturday morning (the 24th from 9am-1045am) , one of the workshops/discussion panels is entitled " Getting a Handle on AI's Policy and Work on Sexual and Reproductive Rights". Working parties will be set up on the Saturday afternoon to phrase resolutions and votes will be taken the following morning.

AIUK's AGM scheduling

I have my doubts about the probity of the AIUK membership consultation: who can blame me after all, given AIUK's previous attempts to organise an "even-handed" debate on the topic (one of which last year omitted the anti-abortion position at all). So. sadly I suspect that many of the organisation's leaders are doing what they can to sway the vote in favour of advocating abortion. The scheduling of the debates at the conference and AGM has not put my mind at rest. Following this apparent thorough and detailed consultative process AIUK has scheduled exactly 15 minutes to update members attending the AGM on Saturday 24 March about the consultation (yep, Tim Hancock the campaigns director will speak from 10.10 - 10.25 on the euphemistically entitled"Sexual and reproductive rights" consultation). The following day (that's from 9.15 on a Sunday morning for 1hr and 45mins) they'll debate resolutions relating to the issue. Now, with this such a divisive and important issue for AI on a global scale, you would think that they could devote a little more time to this during the course of the three-day event.

By the way, if you are going to go to AIUK's AGM, you have to register by this Friday (2 March). you can do this through the Amnesty UK website.

A reputation too important to lose

AI Secretary General Irene Khan's blog from the World Economic Forum meeting in Davos made interesting reading. Just as you would expect she quite rightly urged world leaders to live up to the promise of human rights. She pondered whether this year's forum was "more cosmetic than substantive" and considered how NGOs like AI seemed to be being sidelined or at least reserved for worthy post-prandial speeches - a worrying observation at a time when the world faces enormous human rights challenges. But there was good news too: she noted how she was recognised in a juice bar by a leading politician and even managed to grab a cappuccino with the Pakistan PM without an apppointment and had a hard talk about human rights.

If, as she says, NGOs are being sidelined it looks as if AI still has some sway and that's because over the years the organisation Ms Khan heads has built up an enviable reputation for morality and championing human rights. If this reputation is ruined - as may well be the case if AI decides to advocate abortion, Ms Khan may find it becoming even more difficult to grab a coffee with world leaders.

One of the latest AI campaigns is Human Rights for All - NO EXCEPTIONS....a sentiment I think all AI supporters would endorse. Even before AI takes a decision about whether or not to promote abortion as a human right in Mexico in August, many find these campaigns a bitter irony. If it is adopted then there is surely an argument that AI is in fact prepared to make exceptions and if AI can do it, how can it object if other organisations, individuals or countries decide to make their own exceptions to who have human rights? It's credibility will have gone and Ms Khan may find herself sitting all alone in the coffee shop of next year's forum.

URGENT...time's running out

AIt's been a while, but there is a deadline approaching at the end of this week for responding to an AIUK online feedback. Please take a couple of minutes now to send your thoughts to AIUK. Link is here

US legislators appeal to AI not to condone abortion

Seventy-three US lawmakers have sent a letter to Amnesty International USA calling on the organization to reject any moves to advocate abortion.

Publishing the letter, U.S. Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ), Co-Chairman of the Bipartisan Congressional Pro Life Caucus, said:

“The killing of an unborn child by abortion can never be construed to be a human right. Therefore, taking a position that supports violence against children is antithetical to everything Amnesty International stands for. It is not possible for Amnesty to justify any position that condones abortion based on international human rights law while at the same time remain true to their principles.”

Read the full text of the letter below.

Mr. Larry Cox

Executive Director

Amnesty International USA 5 Penn Plaza New York, NY 10001 fax: (212) 627-1451

Dear Mr. Cox:

As lawmakers, we believe we have a compelling individual and collective duty to protect the weak, disenfranchised, unwanted and vulnerable from violence and abuse.

The principles long held by Amnesty International embody values supported by persons from a broad spectrum of ideological, political and religious beliefs. That’s why we are proud to have made common cause with Amnesty International in promoting key human rights such as the rule of just law, respect for religious liberty, an end to torture, enhanced efforts to combat human trafficking, the protection for freedom of association and of the press, and the release of political prisoners.

Since 1961, you have made a difference for the good in the lives of many and in building a more just society. We write today, however, with great concern and alarm that the mission and reputation of Amnesty International is at risk. We are deeply concerned that Amnesty International may soon embrace a mandate regarding abortion that is antithetical to your—our—shared duty to protect. We respectfully ask that at a minimum you remain neutral on the issue of abortion. Better, of course, would be for you to join us in defending unborn children who we believe deserve better than abortion. The most elemental human right of all—the right to life for all includes unborn babies.

To in any way condone or support abortion which many of your supporters believe is actually a human rights abuse, would significantly undermine Amnesty’s reputation and effectiveness.

The issue of abortion incites strong convictions and any explicit or implied position in favor of abortion will thrust the organization into the heated debate on this topic. As you know, abortion has long divided our country, and current attempts by certain Western groups to introduce abortion as a legal right in the developing world are giving rise to justifiable indignation and resentment by the majority of the populations who live there and value the life of the unborn.

Amnesty International’s vision is one of a “world in which every person enjoys all of the human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights standards.” It is not possible for Amnesty to justify any position that condones abortion based on international human rights law while at the same time objectively adhering to legal instruments and processes. No United Nations human rights treaty or convention recognizes a so-called right to – or even addresses the issue of – abortion.

We believe that the killing of an unborn child by abortion can never be construed to be a human right. Every child—born or unborn—deserves protection and to have his or her human rights secured and protected.

In recent years, modern medicine and scientific breakthroughs have shattered the myth that unborn children are not human persons or alive. Today, as you know, ultrasound technologies and other diagnostic tools have helped doctors to diagnose illness and disability before birth. New and exciting breakthrough health care interventions for the unborn—from intrauterine blood transfusions to microsurgeries—are leading to an ever expanding array of successful treatments and cures of sick or disabled unborn babies in need of help, rather than being subjected to painful administration of deadly chemicals or dismemberment.

Abortion methods either rip, tear and dismember or chemically poison the fragile bodies of unborn children to death. There is nothing whatsoever benign, compassionate or just about an act that utterly destroys the life of a baby. Attempts to justify abortion when a child is “unwanted” turns that baby into an object. No one’s life should be contingent on wantedness. Surely, Amnesty International—more than most—understands and is sensitive to the fact that violence is often given sanction by either demonizing or redefining the victim as a throwaway.

Abortion is both violence against children and the exploitation of women. We strongly believe women deserve better than abortion. Nonviolent, humane solutions need to be found for mothers in crisis or sexual abuse victims. Abortion solves nothing for them—it only adds another victim.

Consider the deleterious effects on women’s psychological and emotional health from abortions. A study in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry just this year demonstrated once again the devastating effect of abortion on women. According to researchers, Fergusson, Horwood and Ridder, women who had an “abortion had elevated rates of subsequent mental health problems including depression, anxiety, suicidal behaviours and substance use disorders.”

Alveda King, niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., has joined the coalition of women who regret their abortions and are “Silent No More.” They are speaking out against abortion as a the terrible injustice to women as well as children. In her words, “How can the ‘Dream’ survive if we murder the children?” Abortion is truly not a human right, but rather a terrible injustice against the weakest individuals.

With deep respect we ask that you in no way embrace or enable the demise of even one child. Retain your neutrality or join us in defending the most discriminated class of human beings on earth—unborn babies.

Sincerely,

Online petition

Thanks to Ed for pointing out there's a new online petition urging Amnesty International to retain a neutral stance on abortion. There are several petitions out there at the moment; this one is aimed mainly at members of the US section and also calls for AIUSA to reverse a decision taken at this year's AGM.

Among some well-made points, the wording notes that it is not just people who would describe themselves as anti-abortion who object to the proposed moves, but people who support abortion also object because of the damaging consequences to AI as an organisation. You can sign the petition below:

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/amnestyabortionrights/

Dates for UK members

AIUK has announced some details of its consultation period. A somewhat biased explanatory paper was sent out with the latest edition of the organisation's magazine; in an apparent attempt to appear impartial the paper gave details of links to a couple of anti-abortion websites, but that was pretty much the extent of any concession towards even-handedness. (Interestingly, the main picture on the cover of the magazine was for the current, and now quite ironic, "Save the Human" campaign.)

There will be a questionnaire for members to complete, but that will apparently not be ready until the end of this month. In the meantime, the following dates have been given for regional consultation meetings, you have to book and some of them charge £5 or so. But if at all possible, please do attend. Anyone with any information about the consultation process in other sections, let me know and I'll post them here.

• 30 September Northern Ireland Clanmil Housing, Northern Whig House, Waring Street, Belfast
• 21 October London The Human Rights Action Centre 17 - 25 New Inn Yard, London EC2A 3EA
• 28 October East Anglia, Sudbury Sudbury Scout Hall Quay Lane, Sudbury CO10 2AN
• 28 October South West England The University of Exeter The Queens Drive, Exeter EX4 4QJ
• 4 November North West England The Quaker Tapestry Friends Meeting House Stramongate Kendal Cumbria LA9 4BH
• 4 November Scotland Glasgow
• 11 November South England Highfield Church Centre Highfield Lane, Southampton
• 25 November West Midlands Millennium Point Curzon Street Birmingham B4 7XG
• 9 December North East England Leeds
• 27 January 2007 South East Trinity Methodist Centre Lingfield Road East Grinstead West Sussex RH19 2HA
• 27 January 07 South Midlands Aylesbury Vale Multicultural Centre, Friarscroft Way, Aylesbury, Bucks, HP20 2TE.

US bishops warn against tragic mistake

CATHOLIC Bishops in the US have become the latest group of bishops to come out and condemn proposals to advocate abortion.

The bishops have written to AI warning the organisation against making a "tragic mistake" by advocating abortion.

In a letter that pulls few punches (see full text given below), Bishop William Skylstad, the president of the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, writes:

"To abandon this long held position would be a tragic mistake, dividing human rights advocates and diverting Amnesty International from its central and urgent mission of defending human rights as outlined in the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights."

The bishops point out that abortion is not considered a right under International Law and that if AI made any moves to advocate abortion the organisation "would risk diminishing its own well-deserved moral credibility." They also warn that by engaging in the debate, AI places in jeopardy the rights of many other people by diverting people's attention away from other issues. They go on to say that "it would be ironic for Amnesty International, as an advocate for human rights, to now deny what various international bodies have supported—namely two parties with rights when it comes to birth and abortion."

Last month the Bishops of England and Wales also urged AI against reconsidering the current neutral position on abortion and Canadian bishops have also voiced their concerns (see previous posts).

All have warned that if the proposals are approved many Catholics would find it difficult to support the organisation in future.

FULL TEXT OF THE LETTER:

September 12, 2006

Ms. Irene Khan Secretary General International Secretariat Amnesty International 1 Easton Street London WCIX ODW, United Kingdom

Dear Ms. Khan:

It is with a sense of great alarm that I write to you about the proposal by some within Amnesty International to abandon the organization’s traditional neutral stance on abortion, replacing it with an assertive policy of advocating abortion on demand as a “human right.” The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops believes a change in policy will erode the human rights of the most vulnerable members of the human family: unborn children. It will also jeopardize Amnesty International’s excellent record as a champion of human rights. To abandon this long held position would be a tragic mistake, dividing human rights advocates and diverting Amnesty International from its central and urgent mission of defending human rights as outlined in the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights.

For many years, the Catholic community here in the United States and elsewhere has admired and worked with Amnesty International in its efforts to advance the cause of universal human rights. Greater respect for human rights is one of the hard won achievements of humanity since World War II. Founded by a Catholic layman, Peter Benenson, Amnesty International has been a beacon of hope to thousands of prisoners of conscience, of abuse and torture and a source of inspiration to millions of supporters, including many Catholics who are Amnesty members. Much more urgent work remains, work which we believe will be harmed by this unprecedented and unnecessary involvement in the abortion debate.

We share Amnesty’s vision of a “world in which every person enjoys all of the human rights enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other international human rights standards.” Amnesty International and the Catholic Church have both been in the forefront of the struggle to promote the dignity of the human person and basic human rights. The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has worked with Amnesty International over many years on a range of human rights concerns in our own nation, most recently in our common efforts to end the use of the death penalty in the United States. We have also taken up many issues of common concern internationally, ranging from anti-apartheid efforts in South Africa to opposition to the government-sanctioned death squads in Central America to more recent efforts to end the practice of torture by anyone under any circumstances in the struggle against terrorism.

Amnesty International should continue its tradition of focusing on often neglected human rights issues – issues that lack the visibility and advocacy which surround the abortion issue, but are widely acknowledged as legitimate human rights concerns among people of good will. As you know, abortion is not considered a human right in international law. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and the recently adopted United Nations Declaration on Human Cloning uphold the principle of the dignity of the unborn child and the need for special protection for the unborn in the context of a concern for advancing human rights. It would be ironic for Amnesty International, as an advocate for human rights, to now deny what various international bodies have supported—namely two parties with rights when it comes to birth and abortion.

While the proposed action by Amnesty International may appear to some to support women’s freedom or provide a compassionate response to women who are in difficult situations of pregnancy, abortion injures the health and dignity of women at the same time that it ends the life of the unborn child. In the United States, our experience is that women oppose unrestricted abortion as strongly as men or more. These views are sometimes strongest of all among women who have undergone an abortion.

Violence to correct situations, even unjust ones, diminishes human dignity and the fabric of society. When the Second Vatican Council condemned violations of the dignity of the human person such as mutilation, torture and coercion of conscience, it began its list of human rights abuses with actions “opposed to life itself” such as abortion and euthanasia. The right to life itself is fundamental – it is “the right to have rights,” and its integrity depends on being

acknowledged in absolutely every member of the human family regardless of race, age or condition. This is no peculiarity of Catholic teaching, but an insight of the “natural law” tradition of human rights that has produced so many advances in upholding human dignity. Many of the great figures of our time in advancing human rights and compassion for the destitute – Susan B. Anthony, Mohandas Gandhi, Mother Teresa, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Archbishop Oscar Romero, Dorothy Day, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Fannie Lou Hamer – also spoke out against abortion. Many will find it incomprehensible that these giants of human progress must now be seen as enemies of human rights.

A far more compassionate response is to provide support and services for pregnant women and to advance their educational and economic standing in society. The Catholic Church provides these services to many women around the world and commits itself to continuing to do so. The Catholic Church will also continue to advocate greater attention to these needs in all relevant international assemblies.

If Amnesty International were to advocate for abortion as a human right, it would risk diminishing its own well-deserved moral credibility. It certainly would most likely divide its own members, many of whom are Catholic, and others who defend the rights of unborn children. It could jeopardize Amnesty’s support by people in many nations, cultures and religions. The core values, commitments and leadership of Amnesty International for the protection of human rights are still greatly needed. We urge you to maintain the focus of Amnesty International’s work on behalf of human rights. Please do not dilute or divert its mission by adopting a position that many see as fundamentally incompatible with a full commitment to human rights and that will deeply divide those working to defend human rights.

Thank you for your attention to our perspective and concerns.

Sincerely yours,

Most Reverend William S. Skylstad Bishop of Spokane President

cc Rick Halperin, Chair, Board of Directors, AIUSA Larry Cox, Executive Director, AIUSA Curt Goering, Senior Deputy Executive Director, Policy and Programs, AIUSA Julie Hertzog, Senior Deputy Executive Director, Operations, AIUSA

Bishop blasts AI for "gross betrayal" and "height of stupidity"

A CANADIAN BISHOP has said that plans for AI to advocate abortion is "an ill-conceived proposal and a gross betrayal of Amnesty's mission to campaign for human rights."

Writing in the Calgary Sun and posting on the Western Catholic Reporter's website, Bishop Fred Henry of Calgary also said that the argument being proposed that a pro-abortion stance would go some way to stopping violence against women is the "height of stupidity".

In his article Bishop Henry rehearses many of the arguments already outlined in previous posts, notably that the move would contravene Article 3 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and that any move would severely damage the reputation and standing of AI.

In July the Canadian bishops condemned AI's proposals and warned that "it would be a step backwards for an organization that has done such outstanding work in defending human life and the rights of the most vulnerable."

Bishop Henry was one of the first bishops in Canada to speak out against AI's proposals.

AI's real thoughts?

It doesn't take a great deal of political nouse or religious savvy to predict that many religious organisations that believe the right to life is the human right will oppose the current moves within AI, so the the statement issued this week by the Catholic Bishops' Conference in England and Wales, although welcome, is unsurprising. What is far more interesting is AI's response to the media reports of this statement.

Now AIUK has not been particularly forthcoming with its views in public; hiding behind the excuse that there is an ongoing consultation among members (the details of which haven't been revealed to the general membership yet), they have apparently refused to field spokesmen on the media and AI UK's comments to the press have been bland and uninformative. So any comments made by AI are read with interest, particularly the comments made to the Universe newspaper.

In response to the statement from the Bishops' Conference, a spokesman for AI said the human rights landscape had changed dramatically since it was founded:

“Back then it was more to do with civil and political rights but now there are other issues concerning economic, cultural and social rights,” [the spokesman] said.

“Our biggest campaign at the moment is about women’s rights and in particular stopping violence towards women.

“It would be difficult for us to have a campaign about women which did not also include sexual and reproductive rights as well.”

This is worrying because it could quite legitimately be inferred that this spokesman, whom we assume speaks for the organisation, has taken the stance that abortion plays some part in economic, cultural or social rights. Where is the logical argument to support this, let alone the moral argument?

We sincerely hope this is not the view currently held by AI or else the consultation process would be a sham. Sadly, AIUK's track record is very poor on this: it had to apologise for not allowing people who opposed abortion to speak at a members' meeting when all the speakers AI had lined up were in favour of changing the position on abortion.

Coming back to the spokesman's comments: no-one is suggesting that there should not be a campaign to stop violence against women; that campaign is to be applauded. No-one is suggesting that there should not be a campaign that included sexual and reproductive rights: rape is wrong: period.

What many people point out is the inconsistency that AI faces if it adopts a position that would advocate abortion and still pretend to be a human rights organisation. For example:

• • Enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the right to life, not the right to have an abortion
  • An abortion is violence towards both male and female unborn babies
  • An abortion completely removes the choices of an aborted child

We will continue to work on the premise that the consultation amongst members will be real and urge members to contact their local AI branch by letter and email to protest about any change to the current AI position. AIUK members and members of the public can send their comments to National Director Kate Allen, either by post to Amnesty International UK, The Human Rights Action Centre, 17-25 New Inn Yard, London, EC2A 3EA, or by email to kate.allen@amnesty.org.uk.

Outside the UK contact your nearest AI branch - check here to find out

English & Welsh bishops warn AI

Catholic bishops in England and Wales have issued a statement expressing its concern about any plans to change AI's stance and called for the organisation to retain a neutral position on abortion. The Bishop of East Anglia Michael Evans, a long time supporter of AI, has been leading the calls and spoken out in the media recently (see previous post). Bishop Evans (pictured) has warned AI that he belived that many Catholic supporters of the organisation could not remain members if AI was to change its stance.

In the statement the bishops say "The Catholic Church shares Amnesty’s concern for the most vulnerable, but does not believe that removing the rights of the unborn child is consistent with Amnesty’s core values. "

Don't divide your membership says English Bishop

The Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales says Amnesty International risks compromising its values if it declares that abortion is a “human right”. The Bishop of East Anglia, Michael Evans, is a member of Amnesty International. In an interview with Vatican Radio the Bishop said the proposal would move the organisation further from its roots, and divide its membership. You can hear the clip here for a limited period of time (requires Real Audio player).