News Briefs

Revision of Criminal Code could legalize abortion throughout Mexico

January 22, 2020 CNA Daily News 1

Mexico City, Mexico, Jan 22, 2020 / 01:31 pm (CNA).- Pro-life advocates in Mexico are speaking out against a leaked draft copy of Mexico’s revised National Criminal Code, which would legalize abortion throughout the country at all stages of pregnancy.

The draft copy, which was leaked to the press in recent days, is expected to be presented to Mexico’s federal congress in the coming weeks. The new criminal code is one of 14 reforms announced recently by President Andrés Manuel López Obrador.

The document omits the entire section of the current code that criminalizes abortion and establishes the penalties for the practitioner and pregnant woman involved.

The current Federal Criminal Code imposes penalties ranging from one to three years in prison for anyone performing an abortion, although the penalty can be to eight years in prison “if physical or moral violence is involved.” A doctor or midwife who performs an abortion can also lose their medical license from two to five years.

A mother who consents to an abortion, or voluntarily induces an abortion, incurs a maximum penalty of one year in prison, except in cases of rape or when the mother’s life is at risk.

Rodrigo Iván Cortés, president of the National Front for the Family, explained that the creation of the National Criminal Code would eliminate all local criminal codes throughout the country.

As a result, abortion would be eliminated as a category of crime, “which would make this procedure non-punishable throughout the republic and at all stages,” Cortés told ACI Prensa, CNA’s Spanish language partner agency.

“This is extremely worrisome. This would go against more than 20 state constitutions in the republic. And this would be an atrocious attack on human life, the fundamental right to exist,” he warned.

López Obrador, who took office in December 2018, did not campaign on the issues of abortion and gender ideology. However, members of his National Regeneration Movement (Morena) political party who were appointed to key positions in his administration have been swift to make moves in that direction.

The Archdiocese of Xalapa in the state of Veracruz called the draft code “murderous.”

Fr. José Manuel Suazo Reyes, communications director for the archdiocese, warned that “now with the stroke of a pen they seek to do an end run around the sovereignty of the states in the republic in order to impose the culture of death.”

“The National Criminal Code seeks to legalize the murder of innocent and defenseless human beings in all the states of the republic,” he said in a Jan. 19 statement on the archdiocese website. “It seeks to impose an anti-life policy throughout the entire Mexican territory, bypassing the sovereignty of the states and trampling the local constitutions that have protected human life from conception.”

In November 2009, the Veracruz state legislature enshrined the right to life from conception to natural death in the state constitution, although state law still permits abortion in the cases of rape, risk to the life of the mother and congenital deformities.

In July 2018, a federal judge ordered the state legislature to amend its criminal code to allow abortion. The state appealed the decision, which is now pending in the Supreme Court.

Fr. Suazo stressed that “in the Catholic Church we will always be promoters and defenders of respect for human life.”

“[T]hat’s part of our doctrine, the defense of every human life, this is our conviction…” he said. “For all of this, we reject this murderous proposal that would legalize abortion throughout Mexican territory.”
 

 

[…]

Perform euthanasia or lose government funding, Canadian hospice told

January 22, 2020 CNA Daily News 0

Vancouver, Canada, Jan 22, 2020 / 11:00 am (CNA).- A Canadian hospice is at risk of losing its government funding over its refusal to euthanize patients who request an “assisted death.” 

Fraser Health Authority, a publicly-funded organization responsible for administering healthcare for 1.6 million people in the western Canadian province of British Columbia, is ordering the Irene Thomas Hospice, a 10-bed hospice facility, to offer euthanasia to its patients. 

The hospice is operated by the non-profit organization the Delta Hospice Society, which is opposed to Canada’s “Medical Assistance in Dying” (“MAiD”) laws. 

In September 2016, about three months after euthanasia became legal in Canada, Fraser Health introduced a new policy which required all hospices receiving more than 50% of provincial funding for their beds to offer euthanasia to their residents. The hospice receives $1.4 million of its $3 million operating budget from the Fraser Health Authority, and Fraser Health funds all 10 of the beds at Irene Thomas Hospice. 

Faith-based healthcare organizations, as well as medical professionals opposed to MAiD, are not required to euthanize patients in Canada. Doctors, however, must refer patients seeking an “assisted death” to a healthcare provider who is willing to euthanize them. The Delta Hospice Society is not affiliated with a religion, but is opposed to euthanasia as a matter of principle. 

Euthanasia is readily available at Delta Hospital, which is a one-minute drive or four-minute walk away from the Irene Thomas Hospice. 

Dr. Leonie Herx, a palliative physician and the president of the Canadian Society of Palliative Care Physicians, told CNA that less than 30% of Canadians have access to palliative care. 

Unlike other healthcare services, including MAiD, which are fully funded and accessible to all by the Canada Health Act, disability care, palliative care, and homecare services are not guaranteed or accessible everywhere. 

“So while MAiD needs to be funded provincially and accessible to all Canadians, the same does not apply to palliative care,” said Herx. 

“The rights of individuals to autonomy and their ‘right to die’ therefore seems to trump the right to assistance in living,” she added.

Herx said that presently, palliative care organizations throughout Canada are pushing for more funding for palliative care, to better assist patients in need. 

“MAiD was legalized before we had broad uptake of and access to palliative care,” she said. 

“The government missed an opportunity when crafting the Canadian MAiD legislation and could have made these important safeguards of ‘care’ (which we know mitigates desire for hastened death in many cases) also part of the Canada Health Act.” 

In Canada, unlike assisted suicide laws in the United States, those who opt for an “assisted death” are not required to self-administer the lethal medication. The vast majority of Canadians who have an “assisted death” do so by euthanasia and do not self-administer. 

Herx said that misconceptions about the purpose of palliative care can push people away from pursuing hospice care. The addition of MAiD into hospice settings makes the confusion worse. 

“Some patients are already afraid that palliative care will shorten their life and these worries can be intensified when MAiD is provided in that same palliative care centre,” she said. Considering that less than 2% of deaths in Canada each year are from MAiD, the “vast majority” of the remaining, “natural” deaths could serve to benefit from palliative care. 

The number of Canadians who chose MAiD during the first 10 months of 2018–2,613 people–is four times the total number of homicides in Canada in 2018. That year, 651 people were the victims of homicide.

Herx told CNA that “the healthcare authority in British Columbia is not recognizing the unique approach to care that is at the core of hospice palliative care.”

Speeding up death, she said, is never the aim of palliative care. Herx said there was “no reason” to mandate that hospices perform euthanasia, as it is already widely available at hospitals and in patient homes. 

Herx pointed to “strong lobbies” which are backing this new effort to expand MAiD into additional institutions which receive provincial funding, including faith-based hospitals or hospices. She warned that the pressure on all such institutions to offer assisted dying would continue.

“This current case in Delta Hospice may set the precedent for other non-religious hospices,” said Herx. 

“But then, faith-based institutions may be next.”

[…]

Trump administration considers travel bans on up to seven more countries

January 21, 2020 CNA Daily News 0

Washington D.C., Jan 21, 2020 / 07:01 pm (CNA).- More travel bans and restrictions could be coming from the Trump administration, with up to seven countries targeted.

Citizens of Belarus, Burma, Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan, Nigeria, Sudan, and Tanzania could face more travel restrictions, as initially reported by the news site Politico. The restrictions could be announced Jan. 27, the third anniversary of the administration’s first travel bans.

The restrictions under consideration are not finalized and might not necessarily be a complete ban, but rather could apply only to certain government officials or certain types of visas, like business or visitor visas.

Some countries the Trump administration is considering for new travel restrictions have had good relations with the U.S. or have been the subjects of U.S. efforts to improve relations, Politico reports.

The administration has justified travel restrictions as an anti-terrorism measure, saying the travelers are not adequately vetted.

The original executive order was issued Jan. 27, 2017, prompting hundreds of demonstrators to gather at airports. The first order denied visas to citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries.

The order was modified and went through several court challenges. In its current form it restricts entry of some citizens of Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria, Yemen, Venezuela, and North Korea. Chad was on the original list, but was removed.

Lawyers, advocates for Muslim immigrants, and other critics said the administration’s travel ban still constituted a “Muslim ban” since most of the countries under the ban are Muslim-majority.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the travel ban in June 2018, ruling that President Donald Trump was acting within the limits of his authority when he enacted the travel ban on nationals from seven countries.

At the time of the ruling, leaders of the U.S. bishops’ migration committee and religious freedom committee said the travel ban “targets Muslims for exclusion, which goes against our country’s core principle of neutrality when it comes to people of faith.” The Supreme Court “failed to take into account the clear and unlawful targeting of a specific religious group by the government,” the bishops said.
 
Most possible additions to the list do not have travel restrictions. The Wall Street Journal said people from Eritrea, Nigeria, and Sudan on business or visitor visas appeared much more likely to overstay their permits.

This week White House spokesman Hogan Gidley did not confirm to Politico any details about expanded ban or travel restrictions, but said the original order “has been profoundly successful in protecting our country and raising the security baseline around the world.”

“While there are no new announcements at this time, common sense and national security both dictate that if a country wants to fully participate in U.S. immigration programs, they should also comply with all security and counter-terrorism measures — because we do not want to import terrorism or any other national security threat into the United States,” Gidley said.

Trump first proposed a ban on Muslims entering the U.S. after a string of terrorist attacks, including a December 2015 shooting in San Bernardino, California that left 14 dead and 22 injured. The shooters were a married couple who had pledged allegiance to the Islamic State group shortly before the attack. One was a U.S. citizen and the other was a Pakistani national who moved to the U.S. on a fiancée visa.

His comments drew condemnation and concern from many who worried explicitly targeting migrants based on religion was wrong in itself and would enable U.S. laws and policies targeting other religious groups.

[…]

Don’t call a pro-life midwife, UK university said

January 21, 2020 CNA Daily News 2

London, England, Jan 21, 2020 / 05:00 pm (CNA).- An undergraduate student in a midwife program was barred from placement in a hospital, reportedly due to her pro-life beliefs. The decision was overturned last week, but free speech advocates say the case is troubling.

According to The Telegraph, Julia Rynkiewicz, a 24-year-old student at the University of Nottingham in the U.K., was blocked from entering her program’s hospital placement phase, after the university learned of her pro-life beliefs and her leadership in a pro-life student group.

Rynkiewicz underwent a “fitness to practice” hearing by the school last Monday.

While the university overturned its decision and will allow Rynkiewicz to continue as a midwife student, the investigation and temporary ban from the placement set her back a year in her studies.

Concerns were raised by school officials about Rynkiewicz’s fitness to practice as a midwife after they saw her tending a booth at a school fair in her position as president for Nottingham Students for Life (NSFL), an approved pro-life student group that supports life from conception to natural death.

Just days after the fair last September, Rynkiewicz said she received a letter from officials at her Midwifery School saying that a formal complaint had been filed against her due to her pro-life activities.

The complaint alleged that she had “provided reproductive health advice without the support of a registered midwife and…expressed personal beliefs regarding reproductive sexual health in the public domain (including the press and social media) to the effect that it may create the perception of an impact on patient care,” The Telegraph reported.

“I think it’s important to remember that being pro-life isn’t incompatible with being a midwife,” Rynkiewicz, who is a Catholic, told The Telegraph.

The Abortion Act of 1967 in the UK allows for conscientious objection to abortions for healthcare providers.

Rynkiewicz said she is concerned about what her case could mean for freedom of speech on university campuses. “But (universities) should be a place where we can speak up about your beliefs and debate with people in a civilized way so I’m shocked that this happened,” she told The Telegraph.

Pro-life advocacy and legal groups spoke out on behalf of Rynkiewicz, arguing for her freedom of speech and right to conscientious objection.

“What has happened to Ms. Rynkiewicz is a flagrant violation of her moral and legal right to freedom of expression,” Mark Bhagwandin, senior education and media officer at pro-life group Life Charity, told The Telegraph.

Laurence Wilkinson, legal counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom International, told The Telegraph that this case “represents a very chilling prospect for freedom of speech on campus.”

“Despite the allegations being dismissed, the practical effect of this investigation is that Julia is now forced to graduate one year later than her classmates. It is to Julia’s credit that she remains absolutely committed to completing her training, caring for women and bringing life into the world,” he added.

“She is now considering her options, as no student should have to go through this kind of daunting process in the absence of clear and compelling reasons.”

Rynkiewicz told The Telegraph that she is demanding an apology from the school, and that she has filed a formal complaint about her case against the school. She added that she is seeking compensation for the stress and inconvenience caused to her, and that she is willing to take her case to court if necessary.

“It all felt a bit ridiculous and I have had to put my life on hold for a year and that’s been frustrating.  I have been suspended for almost four months as a result of not being able to attend my placement and been forced to take year-long interruption to my studies. I won’t be back until September and will now be graduating a year later than I wanted to,” she told The Telegraph.

“I would quite like an apology for everything they have put me through. I feel fine about it all now but I would still like them to apologize as a matter of justice. I suppose that they have realized they have done wrong and (I hope they) will change it so no one else has to go through what I have,” she said.

A spokesperson for the University of Nottingham told The Telegraph that it takes fitness to practice investigations seriously, “to ensure they can provide appropriate and professional advice and care to patients.”

The university added that it would be considering ways to help Rynkiewicz reconvene her studies without further delay.

“The student’s complaint will be carefully considered while their School is actively considering how they can recommence their studies without delay,” the school said.

 

[…]