Care for Europe ceases operations

After more than 20 years of operation, CARE for Europe has closed its doors in Brussels. A financial restructuring in London, has meant that Care for Europe was unable to continue operations, and sadly has ceased all work in the European Parliament, Council of Europe and United Nations.

We would like to thank you for your interest, and support over the years.

If you have further questions, please contact CARE

Posted in Blog

Born babies being dissected by StemExpress

 

A new undercover video has been released by the Center for Medical Progress, showing the fact that for some researchers who use the body parts of aborted babies in their scientific experiments this is all too much.  They often ask StemExpress (one of the biotech firms that purchase aborted babies) to cut off  the hands and feet of the aborted babies so they don’t have to confront the fact that they are killing people for research.

The eighth video shows the CEO of Stem Express admitting that the company gets “a lot” of intact fetuses, suggesting “another 50 livers a week” would not be enough and agreeing abortion clinics should profit from the sale.

On August 22, thousands of pro-lifers across USA gathered at Planned Parenthood centers nationwide to protest the abortion giant’s scandalous trafficking in the body parts of aborted babies.

 

ECPM joins the calls for the European Commission to stop funding Planned Parenthood

CARE for Europe strongly supports the defunding of Planned Parenthood and encourages the European Christian Political Movement (ECPM) to call the European Commission to stop funding the abortion giant. Between 2007 and 2014, PP has received over €10 million from the European Commission. ECPM say that “Pending the results of these investigations, any funding of Planned Parenthood either directly or via participation in projects that are (co-) funded by the Commission should be stopped. ECPM calls on the Commission to take this matter seriously, especially because of the sensitivity of the issue. Besides this, it should be standard procedure that any funding by the European Commission to an organisation that is charged with serious allegations, will be thoroughly reviewed.”

Posted in Blog

No more Sunday in UK?

Ministers in the UK want to relax Sunday trading laws. Arguing that “There is some evidence that transactions for Sunday shopping are actually growing faster than those for Saturday”. Some of them also claimed that “Sunday was the most miserable day of the week” before people were allowed to shop.

Ministers are calling on the Church of England to support plans to relax Sunday trading laws, saying that this would boost the high street and cut shopping bills in British homes. The proposals would delegate the power to determine Sunday trading hours to elected mayors and local authorities.

The Church representatives as well as Christian organisations are against the new proposals, emphasizing the fact that “Any further erosion of shared community life whether that is driven by central or local government will be detrimental to us”. Moreover Nola Leach, the CEO of CARE stated “The idea that extending Sunday-trading laws will improve our country in the long run is extremely short-sighted. . . .If the Government is serious about promoting family values, then it should support the idea that we should all have time off in common. Pursuing economic growth . . . must never be at the expense of undermining the social fabric of our nation.”

Posted in Blog

Why the Marris Bill must be defeated

“Assisted suicide laws generally apply to people with less than six months to live. When I think about the last six months or so of my father’s life, I remember the companionship we shared throughout my pregnancy and labour—my fatigue and impaired mobility mirroring his own. I remember the jokes we made about not having control over our bladders, and the consolation we gave each other over our fears of what lay ahead. But most of all, I remember the way his eyes widened as I placed his first grandchild in his arms, and the tenderness with which he watched her grow as he declined. I know with more certainty than I have ever known anything that if he were still here he would tell you it was worth living every last drop of life for those moments”. (Sophie Caldecott in Verily Magazine – 27 October 2014)

Suffering, particularly struggling towards the end of life is something which many fear and can be intensely painful for both the sufferer and loved ones who feel powerless to act. However any discussion about suffering, life and death should be seen in the context of faith in a sovereign God who is supremely in control, whose love and attention does not waver according to circumstances and whose ways are beyond our understanding. Shouldn’t we journey with the terminally ill for as long as it takes, rather than cutting life short for fear of what is coming?

Rob Marris

Rob Marris MP

The Marris Bill

According to the current law in England suicide is illegal, and a person who “aids, abets, counsels or procures the suicide of another” is committing a serious criminal offence and is liable to a long prison sentence. MP Rob Marris will introduce a Private Members Bill into the House of Commons designed to allow doctors to assist in the suicide of patients with a terminal illness who have less than 6 months to live. Any patient would be assessed to ensure that they had formed a “clear and settled intention” to end their life. The prescription would be subject to the approval of two doctors and a high court judge.

The Marris Bill will be debated at Second Reading on September 11th, which is a Friday (a day when MPs tend to be back in their constituencies). Its content is very similar to Lord Falconer’s Assisted Dying Bill that ran out of time when it was previously debated in the House of Lords before the election.

Those in favour of the Bill use deliberately soft-sounding language such as “assisted dying”, “dignity in dying”, “compassionate care” to make it sound natural and gentle. In reality, what is being proposed is a major change in the law on intentional killing and a major change in medical practice. Doctors will be allowed to select a poison of their choice, ensure that the patient has the drug, advise the patient on how to take the drug for maximum lethal effect and even insert an intravenous line for the drug to be given efficiently. However the doctor must step back from the final act. The patient must take the lethal drug themselves.

What is wrong with the Marris bill and why should we reject it?

The Marris bill works on the principle that some people should be given help to die. This is saying that some lives are worth less than others. Below you will find some arguments against the Marris Bill.

1. If the law changes, people will feel pressurised into ending their life early so as not to be a financial or care burden for their loved ones. This happened in the US where 6 in 10 of those requesting a lethal prescription in Washington State say that one of their reasons is not to be a burden on friends, family or caregivers.
2. Vulnerable people will be at risk of being killed. This has already happened in countries such as Belgium, The Netherlands and Switzerland where assisted dying and euthanasia have been legalised. In some of these countries there has been a spread of the practice to involve people with chronic but not fatal diseases, disabled people, children and those with mental illnesses and dementia.
3. Changing the law will lead to a rising number of deaths. In countries where assisted dying and euthanasia (the doctor/ nurse injects the lethal dose into the patient) have been legalised the number of people killed by these means has risen steadily. For example in Belgium in 2003 there were 235 euthanasia deaths, while in 2013 there were 1807 such deaths. In the Netherlands there were 4829 official cases of euthanasia.
4. Doctors are against assisted dying. Surveys consistently show the majority of doctors oppose a change in the law to permit assisted suicide, as does the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Physicians, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the British Geriatric Society and the Association for Palliative Medicine
5. All major disability rights advocacy groups in Britain oppose a change in the law to permit assisted suicide including Disability Rights UK, SCOPE, UK Disabled Person’s Council and Not Dead Yet UK

Take action today!

If Marris Bill passes it will be only the beginning. Disabled and elderly people will be at risk of being killed if this bill gets through. Parliament in the UK broke up for summer recess and MPs will not be back at Westminster until shortly before the Marris Bill is debated. However, there is still time to take action. How can you do that?

• Write to your MP asking him/her to vote against Rob Marris’s assisted dying bill
• There will be a vote on 11th of September. You must alert your MP to this vote as soon as possible so that they have the date in their diary. He/She has to be in The House of Commons on that Friday.
• You can even give your MP a phone or visit them
• Do not be silent! Encourage your family/friends/community to write to their MPs and spread the news
• Pray that this legislation will be defeated

According to John Wyatt, a Professor of Ethics and Perinatology at University College London, the assisted dying bill “raises important political and theological questions. But behind the politics there is deep human pain. Whenever we discuss these complex and difficult topics, I think our first responsibility as Christians is to enter into the experience of many in our society who feel that life is not worth living. We must try to understand the deep internal agony that drives them to want to end their lives. And we should talk about these issues not with judgement or fear in our voices, but with tears in our eyes.”

Posted in Blog

European Directive on Net Neutrality gives space for UK internet safety model

www.techspot.com

www.techspot.comThis week a trilogue discussion between the European Parliament, Council and Commission on a ‘Connected Europe’ concluded by endorsing the principle of Net Neutrality and the abolition of Roaming charges.
Net Neutrality is one of the core values of the internet, whereby all data traffic is treated alike, and where censorship or priority cannot be given. It seeks to prevent owners of the internet infrastructure from giving preferential treatment to paying content providers. For example, charging Netflix, Youtube or other high data users more for their data passing through the network, would be against net neutrality.

However, this censorship ban also goes against the filtering which the UK has had in place since 2006, whereby adults and children are protected from seeing inappropriate content. UK’s largest internet service providers (ISPs) have had a policy that filters are always on, unless an adult asks for them to be switched off.

The original Commission proposal would have allowed the UK system to be applied all across Europe. However amendments introduced during the negotiations mean the principle can now only be applied if each member state passes a specific law asking for it. Currently Italy is the only country with this law obliging all European ISPs to have a default adult content filter in place. It is disappointing that good practice from the UK has been ‘fudged’ in the name of the freedom of the internet, and what could have been achieved across the European Union as a whole, must be specifically mandated in each nation.

A transition period until December 2016 was introduced specifically for the UK to make sure that the current system can be maintained until new national law is passed.

Vicky Ford, the British Conservative MEP was present in Tuesday night’s negotiations for the European Parliament and played a key role in achieving this transition period. She said she was happy to see that roaming charges will be phased out by 2017, but disappointed that others had put the net neutrality principle ahead of the rights of protection for children. Speaking after the negotiations she said:

“Making sure children can use the Internet safely is vital. It was therefore crucial that parental controls such as those used in the UK can continue. Last-minute changes to the agreement will not exempt parental controls and spam blockers from the law at EU level, we have negotiated a position that should allow the British government to pass its own law to maintain parental controls,… but some of the last-minute fudges in the legislation have left some question marks hanging over how this will be implemented.”

Care for Europe is grateful that parental controls are not being outlawed, but must now pray that all member states would pass their own legislation that would have a default opt-in to filtering, thereby protecting 30% of internet users, those under 18.

Posted in Blog

Noichl report on equality promotes abortion, gender mainstreaming and the breakdown of the family

Destroying European Family life

Destroying European Family lifeThe European parliament will vote tomorrow (Tuesday 9th June) on German MEP Maria Noichl’s misdirected report on how to ensure gender equality in the years ahead. It is a litany of demands for European intervention into national businesses (board room and political involvement quotas), education (indoctrination of teachers into the new gender ideology and training of young children to be sexual confused), and corrupting genuine health provision with comprehensive access (obligation) to abortion, sexual training, artificial fertility treatments and contraception for all.

It is as if the FEMM committee have proposed an anti-sovereignty ‘progressive’ wish list containing every item the authors have dreamt of for a new European family order. Gone would be the right of parents to raise their children in their own values; gone would be the right of member states to hold to cultural norms; gone would be healthcare best practices promoting genuine female health, replaced by abortion pushing – funded by EU budgets.

No Scientific basis

What is noticeably lacking in the report is any genuine research to show the benefits of practices being advocated. If gender identity disorders should be removed from the WHO and Commission lists of disorders, shouldn’t it be on the basis of scientific research, not lobbying pressure? (paragraph 55). In this same place Noichl urges “that gender diversity in childhood is not pathologised”! Let’s be clear that this is encouraging our children to experiment with different roles from their natural sex. Throughout the report are clear calls for the destruction of ‘gender stereotyping’ ie not letting boys be boys, and girls be girls. At a time when children need good role models Ms Noichl would have us forbid such guidance; nevermind that they are the fruit of the bonding of a man and a woman, this is to be seen as a harmful ‘social construct’.

noichl list

No right to abortion or sexualising our children

Lacking too is the backing of these so-called fundamental rights. For example, there is no fundamental right to abortion – no matter how many times that ‘fact’ is repeated. In many member states it remains a criminal offence, unpunished only under specific conditions. The prosecution of a London licensed abortion team, last week, for the manslaughter of another woman dying on the way home from the clinic, bears tragic witness to the harm being done to women and children (and their families) by medical practices with no demonstrable benefits.  Promoting abortion is anti-women, and contributes to division between the sexes, not harmony.
On the one hand a worthy appeal is made to the media to cease objectifying women, but on the other our children would be encouraged to be sexually active, trying to avoid sexually transmitted diseases, equipped with contraceptives and knowing their route to the abortion clinic.

No help to European women

The only genuinely helpful suggestions the report offers, is the need to tackle female genital mutilation and human trafficking. Were those the sole subjects, with practical investment and measures to unite against these evils, we would wholeheartedly support it. But the other 95% is harmful to European citizens, our families, schools, community groups and sovereign states. Instead of promoting equality, it creates divisions between men and women, worsening the problems.

Alternative Motion for a Resolution

An alternative motion for resolution has been proposed by EPP, straining the sizeable gnats from the wine, and leaving a healthy call for equality between men and women. It recognises the national sovereignty issues, need to improve access to genuine health services, and tackle domestic violence and media objectification of women. We trust that thinking MEPs will vote for this alternative.

 

#NoichlNo #NoichlReport #Subsidiarity

Posted in Blog

A ‘No’ in Ireland would be positive for the family

family of 3 silhouetteOn 22nd May the Irish people are going to vote in a referendum on the statement: “Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.”
Proponents like the Irish prime minister Enda Kenny believe that ‘marriage equality’ “will not diminish church or faith-based unions”.
Such misleading statements make a nonsense over the effort of both campaigns, who all recognise what is at stake. The millions that have flowed in to the ‘yes’ campaign bear witness to how important this ideological change is for those in the LGBTi lobby.
Only nine European countries make provision for so called same sex ‘marriage’, while others are strengthening their constitutions to say that marriage is between one man and one woman. Campaigners for the ‘Yes’ vote argue that “the referendum asks if two people should enter into marriage regardless of their sex. It has nothing to do with surrogacy or adoption or gay families.”
But does this really make sense? Why go to the extent of changing the constitution when gay partnership arrangements have been available since 2010?
It would mean however that two straight men or two heterosexual women could get married since consummation would not required – something which traditionally was grounds for annulment of a marriage.
And if recognition brings tax and inheritance benefits, why should this be denied the elderly sisters committed to one another for life, loving and caring for each other? Most same sex partnerships do just that.
It is clear that this is less about the equality, than about radically altering the meaning of marriage, and hence the family unit, the bedrock of every society in the world.
Proponents should be expected to show why this change would be better for everyone, and not just shout about special rights they desire.
What should be the topic of this debate:
• Do same sex couples live longer, happier and more productive, healthy and fulfilled lives?
• Do children adopted or contracted through surrogacy arrangements into these unions flourish better than children raised by their father and mother?
• Are same sex couples more faithful or less faithful than married couples? And how does that effect the economy, the divorce courts, the children involved?
• Where are the children going to come from? Are adoption agencies full of children awaiting placement in same sex homes? Or will this promote the anti-women surrogacy industry currently charging around $130,000 per child?
• What are the health consequences of endorsing homosexual sexual activity in this official way? Are men aware of the inherent risks of anal cancer, HIV/AIDS, (because of the fragility of the epithelium lining of the anus), oral (and even ocular) cancer as well as other STDs?

Sadly the evidence shows that the homosexual lifestyle is anything other than gay. Children raised will not have the benefit of knowing their father & mother – surely a most basic human right. Depression and suicide, promiscuity and disease, violence and drug-abuse, are sad indictments of homosexual practices. The scientific evidence speaks for itself.
Marriage is not for us to redefine. It has always been a lifelong, faithful, publicly acknowledged and sexually united (usually with the potential for conceiving children), union of one man and one woman. Same sex ‘marriage’ is something else altogether. When the proportion of the population identifying as gay is only 2%, and less than 1% are exclusively homosexual in practice, the rest of the population should not be forced to change the stabilising, child-rearing foundation, without any evidence to prove that the new version is better.

Posted in Blog

‘Human rights for some, but not all'; as European parliament passes another flawed report

For the second time in a week, an important report to promote human rights was adopted by the European Parliament; but as with the Tarabella report, Mr Panzeri’s contribution denied the most basic of human rights to millions; the right to life.

Meant as an annual overview of human rights and democracy (this time for 2013) it contained many good encouragements to improve the situation for victims of slavery, violence, war, religious persecution; children in the workplace, prisoners facing the death sentence, and those seeking asylum in Europe (amongst many others).

But the more than 200 paragraphs were blighted by seeking to make abortion a universal right, and condemning the family policy decisions of sovereign states, both within and outside the EU.  On Monday the parliament affirmed that the issue of sexual reproductive health and rights (including abortion) is an issue to be decided by each member state, and the EU has no place in imposing its will on them.  But inconsistency reigned in that vote on Tarabella’s report, as in today’s on Panzeri’s report, as commercial abortion promoters called for abortion for all.

Care for Europe will continue to campaign to show that making abortion the only choice i) is not something the EU can impose on its members ii) fundamentally contravenes the EU’s own charter of fundamental rights by denying the most vulnerable their right to life and iii) is bad medicine (there are no known benefits for either patient ).

Moldova was singled out for condemnation regarding its constitutional reinforcement of marriage; with mention of other countries who have made constitutional changes emphasising the unique nature of marriage (Croatia, Slovakia, FYRO Macedonia) being voted out of the final report.

Despite the fact that this is a review of 2013, an oral amendment was accepted referencing Iraq & Syria today, which called to have the “intentional destruction of cultural and artistic heritage” to be “prosecuted as war crimes and crimes against humanity“.  We are living in a dehumanized Europe where artworks are valued more highly than people; we call people war criminals for destroying statues but not babies in the womb.

Posted in Blog

Adopted Tarabella report contradicts itself, as it tries to force abortion onto all EU member states

CARE for Europe is sad to report the adoption today of a report we had been working hard to see significantly amended.  Socialist MEP Marc Tarabella’s report on gender equality was adopted by the EU Parliament at its plenary session in Strasbourg, by 441 votes to 205 (52 abstained).

This annual report is supposed to report on the state of equal pay, equal rights and specific rights violations which need the EU to intervene in promoting  women’s interests.  But among the hopeful and helpful considerations about sexualisation of women, exploitation through trafficking and female genital mutilation, came the familiar Trojan agenda of seeking to push sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) as a fundamental right.

In yesterday’s debate liberal and socialist voices called for ‘the right of a woman to choose what happens to her body’, access to ‘safe abortion’ and the danger of returning  to conservative values where women were imprisoned in a ‘virtual burqa’.  Equally outspoken MEPs on the other side saw the abortion agenda as being an attack on Europe and its aging population, and an attempt to promote a ‘misshaped view of the family’.  Jadwiga Wisniewska MEP of Poland affirmed that ‘Abortion is an evil.  Violence against women does not come from a gender struggle [she and her husband share housework duties].. but from the misuse of alcohol, drugs and the sexualisation of women”.  She went on to say that this ‘progressive’ agenda is “destroying Christianity”.  German MEP Angelika Niebler, along with many others, also spoke up for the defense of the ‘unborn child’, saying that the EU should preserve the first fundamental right, that of the right to life.

When it came to the vote, most of the liberal texts were affirmed, with a specific mention of universal access to abortion, passing by 440 to 200 votes.  On cases where subsidiarity arguments could be applied (it is a competence of the member state not the EU), CARE for Europe saw some success, as it was affirmed that SRHR is not a matter for the EU, but for each national government.

The adopted report is now an inconsistent document, calling the EU to  get involved in people’s homes and family life, and also recognising the EU should not be making laws about  health for all member states.  It wants to promote women as entrepreneurs in the market place, chastising governments who put in place favourable tax regimes encouraging one parent to stay at home. In this way it takes away the choice for a woman to raise her children, instead insisting she be part of the paid workforce.

The report represents ‘soft law’, merely offering the opinion of the European Parliament, and not forcing any further legislation into place.  However it will be one that our opponents will use regularly to seek employment quotas, equality in the home (a vast majority affirmed that by 2054 men will share equally in the housework!), but of most concern is the ongoing push of the abortion lobby, destroying lives and harming women and their families.

Posted in Blog

3 parent children: Breaching a safety and bioethical boundary

The chase to be at the forefront of the biotech industry’s genetic therapies could be the key reason the UK government is seeking to rush through proposals that would allow therapies using DNA from three parents.

The UK government is the only government on the verge of accepting this controversial technique.  While traditionally conservative Britain is pushing for immediate approval of this controversial technique, a role reversal has taken place with dynamic USA, whose head of food safety urging caution.  Prof Evan Snyder has written to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) warning them not proceed.

The aim is elimination not cure

Women carrying faulty mitochondrial DNA are between 1 in 500 (Turnbull 2014) with 1 in 6500 children being born with mitochondrial diseases each year (CARE 2014) in the UK population.   The effects of these diseases vary, but can be expected to be noticed from childhood & early adolescence.  Whilst some treatment of symptoms such as epilepsy is possible, the actual condition is currently untreatable, and can lead to premature death.

But what is being proposed is not a cure for Mitochondrial diseases, but rather a risky IVF procedure which could mean a carrying mother might be able to carry a child with reduced chances of having the disease.  This seems to offer great promise to those women effected, that they could have healthy babies, but no-one knows the impact of these genetic changes as the three groups of DNA interact.

Method

What is being proposed is pronuclear transfer; to take a donor egg, remove the nucleus, and replace it with the nucleus from the mothers egg.  Then the father’s sperm would fertilize this blended cell.

Worldwide ban – Safety

The significant ethical and safety concerns have meant that this technique has been specifically banned by the Council of Europe, and the European Union, by stating that no germline alteration should take place in clinical trials.  The UK government’s proposed solution is not to do trials at all.  In answer to parliamentary questions the department of health were not explicit about whether any such trials had already taken place.  This is deeply concerning, given that MPs are uninformed and yet being asked to endorse the crossing of a major bioethical boundary.

One trial on human embryos in China in 2003 resulted in two babies who died before birth, at 24 and 29 weeks, prompting indignation from the scientific community (http://www.nature.com/news/2003/031014/full/news031013-4.html)

Proponents have downplayed the risk of not having all the faulty mitochondria removed from the mother’s egg, thus still having a baby with mitochondrial disease.  They also dismissed the evidence that mitochondria play a more important role in the overall function of the cell through interaction with the other DNA, rather than the simple ‘change of batteries’ metaphor the biotech lobby peddle.  Their conclusion that this procedure, in their opinion ‘should not be unsafe’, should assure no-one.

The only assurance the HFEA propose is that children born of this technique would be closely monitored, and their children too.  But this is a worthless safeguard, as by then it is too late.  The people born from this technique could not be ‘recalled’ if found ‘faulty’, nor could they be forced to not reproduce because the risks were too high.  Approval would be tantamount to giving the green light to Eugenics.

It is clear that licensing this procedure would not only contradict the spirit and letter of global medical law, but it is not what the public want.  In a poll commissioned by Christian charity CARE, only 20% of respondents approved of this legislation, with 41% against.

CARE’s Director of Parliamentary Affairs Dr Dan Boucher said:

“From the outset we have been arguing that the regulations should not be put to the Parliament until all of the advised pre-clinical safety tests have been concluded.

“The Department of Health has not listened and these figures clearly reveal the majority of people think they are wrong to try to push the regulations through without waiting for the conclusion of the preclinical safety tests.”

45 members of the European parliament have voiced their strong opposition to the health secretary Jeremy Hunt, in an open letter sent today.  Miroslav Mikolášik, chairman of the European People´s Party Working Group on Bioethics and Human Dignity warned that approval of this technique would be in contradiction with European clinical trials directive explicitly stating that “no gene therapy trials may be carried out which result in modifications to the subject´s germ line genetic identity”. Therefore, infringment procedure against UK could be brought in case this law passes, concludes the letter

No-one questions the difficulty for families with children affected by this disease.  But licensing a dangerous, unethical and untested procedure which does not cure, should never be brought before parliament.

Posted in Blog