Aborted baby dies sobbing in his mother’s arms


Aborted baby dies sobbing in his mother’s arms


Despite making the tough decision to terminate her pregnancy late on, because of congenital birth defects, Sofia Khan gave birth to a live, crying, baby boy. An inquest in Bolton heard how Mrs Khan, a sales assistant from The Haulgh, Bolton, was told at around 21 weeks that her baby had spina bifida.

After talking to her husband, Shakeel Ahmed, and discussing options with clinicians, a decision was made to terminate the pregnancy. Mrs Khan went to St Mary’s Hospital in Manchester for a procedure to end the baby’s life.

This involved a chemical being injected into the umbilical cord and was done on February 16 by Dr Philip Bullen. He told assistant coroner Simon Nelson: “I was extremely shocked to hear what had happened … I was stunned as the procedure had gone exactly how we like the procedure to go, very smoothly.”

Dr Bullen said he had listened for a heartbeat, but could not hear one before he sent Mrs Khan to Royal Bolton Hospital where labour was induced. He added that new guidance has now been drawn up following Mohammed’s death which includes listening for a heartbeat for longer…

After labour was induced Mrs Khan’s began to have contractions late on the Friday night, and baby Mohammed Rehman Ahmed was born early on February 17. Mrs Khan told how she how she heard him cry. “I couldn’t believe it,” she said.

Miss Grundy, who delivered Mohammed, said he had come quickly and described how she was trying to prepare the room, not expecting the baby to be born alive. She added that after Mohammed was born crying and moving she quickly prepared the area for a live birth and called for assistance. Mrs Khan then held Mohammed until he died.

Mr Nelson recorded a conclusion of death by natural causes. He stated that Mohammed’s death was due to extreme prematurity brought about by compassionate termination of pregnancy, with a secondary cause of congenital malformations…

Neonatal consultant Dr Dinakar Seshadri, who had been called in after Mohammed was born said, in view of the serious difficulties the baby had, his parents had been correct to opt for termination. “At the time it was a brave decision and I believe it was the right decision they took,” he told the coroner.

A few things to point out here. First, notice that everyone here seems to think that the tragedy is not that a baby—and everyone is very open about the fact that it is, in fact, a baby—was killed. The tragedy is that the baby did not die early enough, despite attempts to poison him so that he would die in utero. As a result of this inconvenient child’s will to live, his mother was forced to endure the sound of his sobbing before the poison ran its course and did its job. The mother, the experts stated, was very brave to choose have Mohammed killed, considering the fact that he would have had serious difficulties (other than being poisoned at his mother’s request, that is.)

Additionally, the medical professionals here claim that the baby boy died of “natural causes,” because “compassionate termination”—a truly Orwellian phrase—is apparently a “natural” way of being killed. Throughout this entire nightmarish scenario, everybody seems to be perfectly aware that this is a baby, and everybody seems completely comfortable with the fact that this baby had just been poisoned and is dying not of natural causes, but of a carefully planned procedure requested by parents and carried out by hospital staff. Why wouldn’t we kill this baby boy, they seem to suggest—after all, he was defective and had to go.

In the UK, at least, it appears that we’re past debating whether or not abortion kills a baby. It does, the abortion supporters admit, but the fact is that some babies need to be killed. After all, it’s all about compassion.





In Canada, babies who survive abortion and are left to
die are given birth and death certificates

It is a matter of fact that sometimes, babies that are being aborted manage to survive and are born alive—and that when this happens, they are often left to die. I have interviewed both survivors of abortion who are part of a miniscule number of people who survived a procedure specifically designed to kill them, as well as medical professionals who tended to the aborted babies as they fought for each breath before expiring—slightly off-schedule, but dead as planned nonetheless. Earlier this week, I reported on the heartbreaking story of an aborted baby who passed away sobbing in his mother’s arms, and in August I noted my friend Pat Maloney’s discovery that in Canada during a five year period, 766 babies were born alive and left to die.

Abortion activists rarely make a peep when stories like this surface, because it draws attention to the inconvenient fact that abortion is the act of killing someone, and that occasionally, when that killing is done incompetently or the procedure is bungled in some way, the baby that is being killed shows up just long enough to remind everyone that abortion is barbaric. When Maloney released her findings on the 766 babies that had died of “live birth abortions,” the news came and went without a ripple. But several years ago, the National Post did take the time to research this topic in response to an earlier investigation Maloney had done that revealed 491 babies being born alive and left to die after abortions. They titled their investigation “Birth of a legal quandary: Live-birth abortions a perilous grey zone in Canada’s criminal code.” Some relevant excerpts:

The MPs [requesting an investigation] are right about the fact that between 2000 and 2009, 491 aborted fetuses indeed exhibited “evidence of life” following their removal from the womb — be it a momentary heartbeat, a sudden gasp or, in rare cases, crying. But, while the statistic may speak to one of the most uncomfortable grey areas of Canadian law, doctors say that it is too much to assume that this represents the killing of otherwise healthy babies that the MPs allege.

Take note here of the language being used: There is no denial that babies are being killed here, only that most of these babies were presumably not “otherwise healthy.”

“It’s not 491 babies left screaming in bedpans, trust me,” said a veteran obstetrician who preferred to remain anonymous.…Even a fetus that has “absolutely no chance of survival” — say, because it is aborted too early in the pregnancy, or because of severe developmental or genetic problems — may be deemed as “live-born” if it exhibits a heartbeat or signs of motion, Dr. Douglas Black, president of the Society of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, said in an interview conducted before the MPs’ letter was released. “Then they are subsequently allowed to pass away, depending on what the circumstances are, sometimes in their mom’s arms,” he said.

In one example, a woman undergoes an abortion at 23 weeks after her fetus is diagnosed with fetal anencephaly, a genetic condition in which the fetus fails to develop a brain. “Fetus was born alive and survived for one hour,” reads the description.

In the vast majority of Canadian abortions, the fetus does not receive any documentation, since it is deemed to be bodily discharge. One of the most standard methods, pioneered by Henry Morgentaler, involves using a small medical vacuum to suction out the contents of the uterus. As it is only conducted during the first trimester, it is performed far too early for the fetus to show any vital signs after separation from its mother.

As the pregnancy progresses beyond the first trimester, the procedure becomes more complicated. After a certain period, the fetus becomes too large to be suctioned out and must be removed by inducing labour and extracting it through the birth canal.

In most of these cases, the fetus emerges with no signs of life. And if it’s more than 20 weeks old, Statistics Canada counts it as a stillbirth. Any younger than that and it remains undocumented as bodily discharge. Where the statistic cited by the MPs comes in — the 491 fetuses — is where a fetus shows any “evidence of life,” no matter how briefly, following separation from the mother. In those cases, reporting standards call for medical personnel to report that a “live birth” has occurred and issue the fetus with a birth and death certificate.

Evidence of life can include “beating of the heart, pulsation of the umbilical cord, or definite movement of voluntary muscles,” explains the official Statistics Canada classification. The subjectiveness of the classification is known to cause bedside arguments among medical staff over whether a live birth certificate is necessary…But live-born fetuses can pose a massive legal headache for hospitals, as a fetus is indeed considered a legal human being “when it has completely proceeded, in a living state, from the body of its mother,” according to the criminal code. In those cases, doctors “have a duty to do the best [they] can for what is now a person in the eyes of the law,” said Dr. Eike-Henner Kluge, former director of ethics and legal affairs for the Canadian Medical Association.

In most of the 491 cases, however, this duty would likely extend only to keeping the fetus comfortable and free of pain for the few minutes until it dies…Nevertheless, given the legal complexities surrounding a live birth, Dr. Kluge questioned why any doctor would allow a fetus to emerge alive from the womb, saying it is likely due to “professional failure.”

Requiring medical staff to examine a fetus for vital signs — even when medical intervention could not possibly ensure its survival — is the bizarre consequence of the fact that, ungoverned by a legal framework for abortions, Canadian fetuses exist in a legal no-man’s-land between birth and death.

Throughout the Post investigation, language is used to hide what is actually taking place. “Fetus” is used to make it seem as if the baby is some creature of another species, which is why the baby is also referred to as an “it.” In reality, of course, we are speaking of an unwanted son or daughter killed by a medical professional—the word “fetus” itself is simply Latin for “young one.” A photo of one of these children would immediately dispel any notion that these practices are sane, civilized, or moral.

Babies who survive the initial abortion attempt and are left to die are the abortion industry’s dirty little secret. They constitute a “complication” to the abortion procedure because they live too long. Their little spasms of life that show us that we have become a cruel society, and challenge us to remember their humanity—and to try and recover our own.





Did Trudeau just create an ‘ambassador for abortion’?

September 28, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – Shortly after forming government, Justin Trudeau’s Liberals announced that the Office of Religious Freedom, set up by the Harper Government to defend religious liberty around the world, would be closed down. It was an unnecessary project, they contended—and their contempt for freedom of conscience over the next several years would illustrate precisely why they felt it so unnecessary.

But the Liberals did find it necessary invent a different ambassadorship—and one that very much sounds like the “Ambassador of International Abortions.” From CTV News:

Canada will create a new ambassador position dedicated to women, peace and
security, Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland said Saturday.

Freeland made the announcement at a meeting of female foreign affairs ministers
in Montreal that she co-hosted with Federica Mogherini, the high representative
for the European Union.

Freeland did not offer many details but said the new ambassador would help
champion feminist-based aid programs and advocate for more female participation
in peacekeeping and conflict resolution.

“International and domestic civil society committed to feminism has been telling us
that Canada needs to be even more ambitious, and one way to do that is to have a
high-level champion for these issues,” she said during her closing remarks.

“Feminist-based aid programs,” in case you were wondering, is generally Liberal-speak for “funding abortions around the world”—and pushing for the legalization of abortion in countries that still protect pre-born human rights. To cite one example, Justin Trudeau pushed Leo Varadkar on Ireland’s pro-life 8th Amendment prior to the referendum that brought abortion to the Emerald Isle—and enthusiastically congratulated him on the results.

Freeland has stated explicitly in the past that the promotion of abortion is a fundamental part of the Trudeau government’s foreign policy, even asserting that this “value” was one of the reasons that the Liberals were pushing so hard to gain a seat on the United Nations’ Security Council. And when the United States reinstated the Mexico City Policy, which ensures that no foreign aid money will go towards funding abortions, the Trudeau government donated $20 million dollars of Canadian taxpayers’ hard-earned money to a “global abortion fund” to help make up any shortfall.

It now appears that not only is Canada going to be known for having abortion as one of the “core values” of our foreign policy and being a major funder of feticide for Third World babies, but we are also going to have a special ambassador with the specific task of pushing abortion globally, just in case Chrystia Freeland gets too busy botching the NAFTA negotiations in Washington, D.C. As Nigerian pro-life activist Obianuju Ekeocha stated on Parliament Hill, women in developing countries are not asking for abortion—they are asking for education and access to real healthcare. But as always, Justin thinks he knows best.

It is sickening to consider that the physical destruction of tiny human beings developing in the womb has become such a core part of Canada’s international identity under this government. It is apparently not enough that Canada must stand as a global disgrace as the only democracy with no restrictions on abortion whatsoever. No, Canada’s treasury must also be pillaged for cash to be sent overseas to fund abortions—perhaps even in countries where abortion is illegal. When pressed on this point by MP Garnett Genuis, Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland smugly refused to answer.

In her entire history, Canada has never had a government so resolutely committed to abortion, both at home and abroad. Pro-lifers are not welcome in Justin Trudeau’s Liberal Party, and have been excluded from federal programs. Trudeau passionately defends a radical abortion regime that would be unthinkable even in liberal Europe, and sends our money off to abortion peddlers like Marie Stopes International. Abortion is a core Liberal value, and will be a key part of the Liberal legacy. And unless Trudeau is shown the door, it will soon be a word synonymous with Canada itself.