Deal W. Hudson

Letter to Yale President Levin regarding Abortion "Art"

Marjorie Campbell, marjorie@marjoriecampbell.com

YOU CAN EMAIL THE PRESIDENT OF YALE AT presidents.office@yale.edu. 

April 17 2008

"The entire project is an art piece, a creative fiction designed to draw attention to the ambiguity surrounding form and function of a woman’s body," Yale said.

Dear President Levin,

I write with regard to today's news story regarding senior Aliza Shvarts that appeared at http://yaledailynews.com/story.html, "For Senior, Abortion a Medium for Art, Political Discourse" and, specifically, that this senior student will shortly display with Yale's sponsorship and approval, "video recordings of . . . forced miscarriages as well as preserved collections of the blood from the process [of sperm insemination and self-induced abortions].  Included in the scheduled presentation by Yale, we were told through the media, will be "layers of . . . the blood from Schvarts' self-induced miscarriages mixed with Vaseline" and  "videos [which] . . . show her experiencing miscarriages in her bathroom tub." 

Today, Yale has further announced that the foregoing statements were "creative fiction" released as truth to the press as part of "performance art" which Ms. Shvarts has a "right to express".

President Levin, when did lying to the press become "performance art?"  No, lying about facts and promising alarming displays of blood and fetal tissue product from self-mutilation is not "an art piece" ~ it is gross fabrication and "fraud" and, importantly, social cruelty.  There are children and teenagers that read this "news".  There are women who cannot conceive children, and have lost much wanted children to miscarriages and violence.  There are men who long to be fathers, and cannot.  There are many of us who have suffered genuine concern and worry about a young woman who would treat herself so violently, risking short term, possibly fatal, consequences and certainly long-term emotional trauma. 

And now Yale claims: Oh, it's all a joke.  It's a creative fiction.  Never mind?

"Had these acts been real, they would have violated basic ethical standards and raised serious mental and physical health concerns," Yale added.

Manipulating the media to publish gross falsehoods, raise concerns for the well-being of this student and, then, excuse the fraud as "art" does not violate any ethical standards or raise concern about the mental health of the people involved?  Surely, the media and news consumers like myself have been treated as emotional, human guinea pigs - at best an "art experiment" to determine how the public and media would react to manipulation by lying, fabrication and promises of bloody body product?  I request an opportunity to file a complaint against those involved for unethical human experimentation upon the public.   

What other sorts of assaults on people's goodwill and concern for each other's well-being will Yale sponsor and excuse as "performance art"?  Yale has put itself in the company of the sensational, the callous and the twisted who laugh at others as they manipulate and deride charitable human emotions.

When I was in law school, a first year student told everyone that her family had been killed in a minivan accident on the way home to Thanksgiving.  The whole school came to a standstill and prayed for her and for her grave loss.  A week later, we learned it was a cruel hoax by a struggling young woman desperate for attention.  University of Virginia called the ploy "sick" and disciplined the student, requiring both a public apology to all of us and counseling for her. 

Ms. Shvarts, on the other hand, has received Yale's full approval and support for her lying and can already boast her own entry in Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aliza_Shvarts - an entry posted as Yale reported Ms. Shvarts' factual allegations and insisted they were not "for shock value," as Yale then admitted the falsity of Ms. Shvarts' factual assertions. 

Yale apparently calls such behavior "art" and defends this hoax on the entire world.   I am truly at a loss to understand why Yale would sponsor this type of anti-social, truly destructive behavior.  My opinion of the university has been radically changed by this shame, a grave shame on the reputation of a previously fine university.   You owe the world a sincere apology ~ and perhaps might follow University of Virginia's good example and get some counseling for all of the parties involved, student, faculty and administrators.

Where can I file my complaint for unethical human experimentation against all those involved?

Marjorie Campbell

San Francisco CA

UPDATE, 4/17/08, 11:27 PM:  STUDENT SVARTS CLAIMS THAT HER INITIAL ASSERTIONS ARE TRUE  "But Shvarts reiterated Thursday that she repeatedly use a needleless syringe to insert semen into herself. At the end of her menstrual cycle, she took abortifacient herbs to induce bleeding . . .   Shvarts showed the News footage from tapes she plans to play at the exhibit. The tapes depict Shvarts — sometimes naked, sometimes clothed — alone in a shower stall bleeding into a cup."

Something So Clear

Marjorie Campbell, marjorie@marjoriecampbell.com

I know many pro-life Catholic Democrats who sincerely gag over their party's abortion platform.  But they puzzle why other Catholics find that "single issue" a deal breaker with a party that prides itself on concern for oppressed and struggling people.  A reader just sent me this Q&A with Father Thomas Williams, LC.  I had to share something so clear:

Q: But is abortion objectively any graver than other social injustices, to which the Church also pays attention? Doesn't a consistent ethic of life go beyond abortion?

Father Williams: The Church's defense of social justice embraces any number of key life issues, and attention to one does not lessen the importance of the others. Abortion, however, stands out among them as a unique case meriting singular attention.

To quickly enumerate the reasons for this singularity, we must look first at the simple magnitude of the problem: some 46 million legal abortions performed every year in the world, which in and of itself makes abortion a social problem of staggering proportions.

Second, it involves the killing of the most innocent and vulnerable members of society.

Third, it perpetrates this evil systemically and legally, thus giving abortion a veneer of moral legitimacy. Since the law informs people's consciences, the legality of abortion perpetuates an anti-life mentality and separates it from other crimes against life such as terrorism, serial killing, human trafficking, and so forth.

Fourth, abortion repeats the historical error of taking an entire class of human beings and devaluing them to a second-class status, deprived of basic human dignity and the rights that flow from it.

Send this to your Loved Ones, PLEASE

Marjorie Campbell, marjorie@marjoriecampbell.com

Here's an article to send to your loved ones, all of them.  A summary can be read at Lifenews.com.   The suppression of information connecting abortion and the use of oral contraceptives with breast cancer is an on-going crime against women - especially our young women who foolishly rely on their Baby Boomer elders.  Last October, I decried the distribution of birth control pills to Middle School girls as a ploy for letting children choose their predators.  As the lethal health implications of oral contraceptives and abortion continue to be withheld, denied and repressed, our sex-is-profitable industry professionals stand idly watching these girls put their health and lives at risk, just as pro-tobacco forces let millions die of lung cancer before aggressive, crusading lawyers and legislators brought them to task.  When will the women who claim to care about women cut their cord to failed social experiments and the lucrative pandering of young girls to the abortion and birth control providers?

Informed patient consent for medical treatment is required by

both law and medical ethics. Yet, both federal agencies and

academicians are participating in the suppression of information

about the heightened risk of breast cancer posed by oral

contraceptives and induced abortion. There is historical

precedent in the long-delayed acknowledgment of the

smoking/lung cancer link.  Read the whole article here.

Walk for Life West Coast 2008

Marjorie Campbell, marjorie@marjoriecampbell.com

On Saturday, January 19, we joined the 4th Annual Walk for Life West Coast, winding by the downtown piers of San Francisco, parading through Fisherman's Wharf, finally cresting at Fort Mason for an easy drop onto Marina Green.  Fair estimates put the crowd this year at 25,000-30,000 - a number hilariously referred to in local media as "at least 10,000 abortion opponents . . .  bused into the city from all over California, and from outside the state."  The Walk's receiving great Internet coverage.  Try Blog-by-the-Sea and A Shepherd's Voice for photos and loads of links, and the entertaining photo essay at PipeLineNews.org. 

Numbers aside, another measure of success impressed my gaggle:  the sad state of the roughly 300 counter-protesters.  These edgy folks, typically anxious to engage the happy, pro-lifers in verbal and even physical confrontations, have lost a lot of ground since their initially organized, aggressions against the then-small crowd have been firmly rolled back by an effective police corps.  In 2006, for example, the aging ladies of Code Pink felt so perky they attempted to block a San Francisco police motorcycle brigade which was clearing the road for the Walk for Life.  This is the same Code Pink, btw, which holds anti-war  wine and cheese parties for peace outside my house, across the street from Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Apparently, the old gals cherish peace and life for all Iraqis - but become hanger toting, police defying advocates of slaughter in the womb when someone mentions abortion.   This, of course, is my generation of radical feminist - and demonstrates the sort of flawed thinking that drove so many of us to recoil and re-evaluate.  It's no wonder that their ranks, and enthusiasm continue to thin.  Here it is, only 2 years later, and the handful of fading pink ladies who showed up for the 2008 Walk for Life seem downright gloomy, comfortably caged behind the police barricade, without enough steam to rattle their bars.

Well, the dulled dames were not alone trying to combat the joy, enthusiasm and Truth so vivid in the crowd for life this year.  My marching group made great sport trying to decipher the meaning of some of the opposition.  One man shouted relentlessly "life enslaves women" and another sign read "I am alive thanks to Roe v. Wade".  Hmmmm.  Later down the road, we had a lively debate among ourselves over this fellow's sign:  "Ronald Reagan Died for Your Sins."  Consistent with this confused contrariness, we noted only a few condom-toting, drag-queen Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence showed up this year, seemingly signless and silent.  The cross-dressing, anti-Catholic dears seemed so lethargic I wondered if they were hung-over or simply overwhelmed by the sheer size and joy of the march. 

Here's what we learned from the Walk for Life West Coast 2008:  the youth of the life movement is suffocating the opposition.  Surrounded by lively, happy babies, religious, families, hordes of youth groups, the opposition literally witnesses their own darkness and death.  Margaret Cabaniss hits this point today at the InsideCatholic blog where she quotes a Washington Post article:  ". . . the antiabortion movement is becoming predominantly youthful while the abortion rights movement is aging."    The appeal of truth draws their energy and spirit to the light.  Life can be beautiful and we can save the baby humans.  Thanks be to God.

The Real Face of Choice

Marjorie Campbell, marjorie@marjoriecampbell.com

The following letter puts a real, human face on the fallacy of choice deceivingly lauded by the pro-abortion movement.  It came to me from Feminists for Life whose honorary Chair Patricia Heaton (of Everybody Loves Raymond) likes to proclaim, "Women who are experiencing an unplanned pregnancy also deserve unplanned joy."  But joy for young women is not supported on most college campuses - or for women of college age, who account for half of all abortions.  This woman, Chaunie Saelens, wants you to know the truth about "choice".  Here's the full letter she sent to Feminists for Life.

Dear Serrin,

I left my Feminists for Life internship this summer fired up about helping pregnant students on my campus. I had no idea that in a few short weeks I would be one of them.

Four weeks into my senior year I took a pregnancy test, sure that the result would be negative, that I was just easing my mind. I looked down to find two bright blue lines staring back at me. Frantic and disbelieving, I immediately took another test. Positive again.

In that instant, staring down at the two tiny lines that represented the most dramatic change in my life, I understood how women facing unplanned pregnancies can turn to abortion. In that moment of panic and fear, it does not feel like a new life, but rather the end of life as you know it. A million questions race through your mind—what will people think, what will I do, how can this be happening? You just wish it wasn’t happening, wish you could rewind time, wish it would go away.

It’s easy to understand women in crisis wishing that the baby isn’t real, so they can make it go away.

The next day, still in denial and in a very fragile emotional state, I went to the campus health service for confirmation.

A nurse practitioner called me into her office and gave me the results of my test. There was no doubt about it, I was pregnant.

When she started talking to me about telling my parents, I broke down.

I sat in the chair, crying hysterically while the nurse examined her chart. After a minute or two, she stood up and said “I have other patients to see, you can stay here if you want.”

She left me crying and alone to see the only other patient in the center, a young man with a sore throat.

My struggles continued after my visit to health services. I gathered all the information I could find about student insurance. Not one plan covered pregnancy. In fact, all of them specifically stated that they would not cover pregnancy.

Though the university used to have daycare on campus, I learned the President got rid of it a few years ago. Housing was another disappointment; once again, the university used to have family housing but dissolved those dorms for the better-paying first-year students.

I have to tell you, as president of my college pro-life group and an active advocate for women, it was frightening to see the complete lack of resources and support available for pregnant and parenting students at my school.

I understood how women in such a vulnerable situation could feel they have no choices.

In addition to physical and material resources for myself and my child, I needed emotional support.

My boyfriend was scared and uncertain, like me, but supportive. He could offer no words of wisdom, but took my hand and told me that it would be OK. He offered his love and stood by my side.

I was absolutely terrified to tell my parents. Every day that passed without telling them was even more horrible because I so desperately needed their support too.

When I finally worked up the nerve to tell my parents, their reaction was unbelievable. They offered me nothing but love and support, and they were even happy and excited for me! Word quickly spread in my close-knit family and, incredibly, every single family member was supportive, offering to help in any way they could and reassuring me that it was right to celebrate this new life.

I am now happily engaged, planning a beautiful Christmas wedding and eagerly awaiting my next doctor’s appointment, when my fiancé and I will hear our baby’s heartbeat for the first time.

While I have received so much support and love from all of my family and friends, it has still been a struggle adjusting to my new life. There is no easy way to get through an unplanned pregnancy, but with the support I have received, I am managing, and every day brings me more happiness and excitement. As FFL’s Honorary Chair Patricia Heaton says, “Women who are experiencing an unplanned pregnancy also deserve unplanned joy.”

I am so fortunate to have received love and support. Sadly, this is not the case for many women who face situations like mine.

More than ever, I realize the vital importance of FFL’s work. I not only believe in Feminists for Life’s mission, I am living it.

I am grateful that FFL is changing the way people think about pregnancy, particularly in higher ed.

It is possible for women to continue with their educations, with their career goals, with their dreams. FFL refuses to choose. So do I.

Serrin, I wanted to share my story because I believe that there is a better way for women. There is a better way for me.

How reassuring it would have been for the campus nurse practitioner to talk to me, discuss my options, offer me support and encouragement, and connect me to community resources.

Instead, she left me alone and in tears.

I can’t imagine how a woman unsure about abortion, uninformed about her resources, lacking support from those she counted on the most, feels she has a choice—what hope is there for a good outcome?

Thank you for helping mothers like me. I’m deeply grateful to the many people who support this important work.

I’ll keep you and everyone at FFL posted with photos and updates.

For women,

Chaunie Saelens
Former Feminists for Life Intern
President of campus Students for Life

PS Please feel free to forward this letter to whomever you think needs to know what is really like for pregnant students.

Seeing Mrs. Clinton's Selective Compassion

Marjorie Campbell, marjorie@marjoriecampbell.com

Seeing what we want to see can be a willful trick of the human eye.  Mrs. Clinton's handlers, particularly Burns  Strider, her faith outreach "guru", know this.   From her 2005 assertion that abortion is a "sad, even tragic choice", to her "faith saved my marriage" comments in June, to her recent, personalized email outreach to "people of faith", Mrs. Clinton has mounted an impressive campaign to convince religious, values-voters that she is the "moral conservative" noted in your post, Deal. 

No illusion, however, can conceal the raw fact that Mrs. Clinton's moral concerns extend no concern, no relief, no dignity and no protection to unborn children, regardless their age, health or viability.  Mrs. Clinton recognizes the beating heart of an unborn only as a "reproductive" issue for women, with claim to "reproductive health services" which include killing the unborn life, without restriction and without even the basic human concerns (extended even in administration of the death penalty) for alleviating the pain suffered by the unborn child.   

In an effort to keep the religious eye turned from this glaring gap in compassion, Mr. Strider has launched an email campaign filled with religiously-appealing portrayals of Mrs. Clinton's faith in action.  One recent email, for example, trumped Mrs. Clinton's tenderness for AIDS-HIV victims and the role of the faith community.  She wrote:  "Our churches have a powerful role to play in raising the consciousness of the nation and the world to this pandemic and urge compassion for the sick and the suffering. When we come together, seeking the common good, we can find solutions to our biggest challenges and reinforce our faith that a call to action can change lives."

But even as Mr. Strider builds for her an Internet profile of faith, compassion and religious participation, Mrs. Clinton stumps her liberal, pro-abortion profile for consumption by the secular press anxious not to hear such religious chatter.  On the recent Supreme Court decision in Gonzalez v. Carhart upholding a partial-birth abortion ban, Mrs. Clinton dropped all pretense of compassion, all concern for the common good, all enthusiasm for the role of churches and religion and all interest in the suffering, remarking, "This decision marks a dramatic departure from four decades of Supreme Court rulings that upheld a woman's right to choose and recognized the importance of women's health….  It is precisely this erosion of our constitutional rights that I warned against when I opposed the nominations of Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito."  

Will voters compare the competing profiles of Mrs. Clinton as they weigh the candidate?  Will the email readers see a face of uncompromised compassion or hear a voice of fraud?  Will the seculars ignore the Burns Strider compassionately religious Mrs. Clinton and cling to NARAL's darling child?  Can we see Mrs. Clinton's selective compassion - her religious profile being cleverly overlaid upon her liberal, secular agenda, confusing . . . like the two images in this picture I have posted.  Can you see both images? - a face and a word . . . that begins with "l"? 

Abortion, Communion, Canon Law & Bent Arrows

Marjorie Campbell, marjorie@marjoriecampbell.com

What is missing, Deal, from the laudable statement issued by Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good ("Statement") is the 1983 Code of Canon Law.  Many Catholics don't realize the Church has a legal code, much less think to consult it before pronouncing rights and obligations of members of the Church.  But on one point that deeply concerned the signatories to this undoubtedly well-intentioned Statement, well, they missed a major point - and their target of promoting civility.

The signatories, concerned by "public embarrassment of politicians whose public positions differ with Church teachings through the public refusal of the sacrament of Holy Communion or public admonition by the Bishops" (a preoccupation with forum-over-substance?), suggest that proper politeness among Catholics would respect that "An individual’s fitness to receive communion is his or her personal responsibility." 

As an exclusive, canonical proposition, this is simply wrong as canonist Archbishop Burke of St. Louis recently detailed in a wonderful article only canon lawyers can love.  (A prominent canon lawyer calls the article "cool".)  Cutting to the bone:  a plain reading of Canon 915 imposes upon clerics administering Communion a responsibility - bounded by what they know to be fact - to determine entrance to the sacrament.

Can. 915   Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion. 

Our ministers are legally obligated to enforce this law, like the civil authorities restrict threatening, inflammatory speech to incite lawless action.   Public statements by a public politician who publicly identifies him/herself as a member of the Roman Catholic Church dissenting from core Catholic teaching - as protecting unborn life is - bring factual information to the attention of news-reading ministers of the Eucharistic sacrament.  This information is surely worthy of note and further inquiry. 

I agree fully with the Statement's suggestion that such reports do not provide (in most circumstances) sufficient reliable evidence to exercise the directive of Canon 915.  More, I agree that the Church's response to such information (or call to consider such information) should not be used as a political hockey puck by non-Catholics, lay Catholics or any minister of the Church.  But there is minimal any of us Catholics can do to muzzle media anxious to mix our religious affairs with print-worthy news concerning politicians, celebrities, sports figures or other prominent people whose names sell copy.

So, I conclude, like the far worthier canonist Dr. Peters, "that the CACG [Statement] is firmly supporting one side in a crucial "partisan" debate (the wrong side, at that)."  It's a shame that a good effort, like the Statement, misses the target of civility by, sadly, aiming bent arrows.

The Abortion Thread: Ellen Burstyn

Marjorie Campbell, marjorie@marjoriecampbell.com

Bella's indisputably "simple" - a tender story of tragedy, conflict and survival, touched with tears and humor.  The plot neither confuses nor obfuscates; it has, as Roger Ebert says, "charm," as the "not profound" story of an unborn child unfolds.  Mr. Ebert calls the characters "lovable people having important conversations"; the movie, "the best-liked film at the 2006 festival, and I can understand that." 

So how can such a guileless, award-winning, popular movie provoke passionately negative reviews?  Take, for example, Stephen Holden NYT review today.  He calls it "a mediocre cup of mush and a saccharine trifle" whose success with audiences "suggests how desperate some people are for an urban fairy tale with a happy ending, no matter how ludicrous."  New York magazine calls the characters so "relentlessly thoughtful and attractive that it’s hard to worry about their problems."

The dichotomy, of course, swings on the "abortion thread", a term offered by 74-year-old Ellen Burstyn (of The Exorcist and Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore fame), during a radio interview when she described her own "wrong, young and dumb" choice to abort.  That "choice" - made at 18 years old - was "the lowest moment in her life."  Understandably curious how a decision made over 56 years ago could still deeply trouble Ms. Burstyn, the antsy male interviewer then asked, "Do you ever get over that?"

No, cautioned the accomplished Ms. Burstyn, gracefully, elegantly explaining that the choice to abort has "ramifications for the rest of our lives" - it becomes a "dark thread" in our tapestry.  Such stories of pain and regret abound these days.  Listen to the voices at www.abortionchangesyou.com.   

With current abortion statistics reporting an estimated "43% of all women will have at least 1 abortion by the time they are 45 years old", a veritable web of dark threads capture and filter how we view movies like Bella.  Detractors like Mr. Holden, no doubt, have their own "dark thread" that hurts, perhaps even haunts, their thinking. 

Such reviewers betray their pain, expressing hope to "forget you’ve seen [Bella] before it’s even over".  We should include all these people in our prayers for the born and unborn harmed by abortion.

"Just Tissue" on Monday, "Baby Parts" on Tuesday

Marjorie Campbell, marjorie@marjoriecampbell.com

Deal, Is Sen. Casey really posing as a pro-life abortion funder?  Is it any wonder women are confused? 

Here's another example how abortion doublespeak wrecks women's lives.

Within the body of a single opinion, the New Jersey Supreme Court acknowledged last week that what's "just tissue" to the botched-abortion abortionist on Monday can be "parts of a baby" in the clean-up procedure on Tuesday.  The court, nevertheless, ruled that no one in the medical community has a legal obligation in the state of New Jersey to warn women of this schizophrenic state of the womb. 

Acuna v. Turkish reversed a lower court ruling allowing Ms. Acuna to proceed to a jury on the abortionist's alleged nondisclosure of medical information:  in response to Ms. Acuna's simple, pre-abortion inquiry, "Is there a baby already there?", Dr. Turkish allegedly replied "Don't be stupid.  It's only blood."  Dr. Turkish denied this response, saying he more likely responded, "a seven-week pregnancy is not a living human being.  It is just tissue at this time."  (Acuna v. Turkish, pp. 6-7, 16).  Subsequently, when Ms. Acuna was hospitalized for persistent bleeding, a nurse advised her that Dr. Turkish had performed an "incomplete abortion" leaving behind "parts of the baby inside of you" which had to be removed.  (Acuna v. Turkish, p. 8.)

Now, in New Jersey, we learn there is no remedy for Ms. Acuna - a woman who claimed she would not have aborted her 6-8 week fetus if told it was a living, human being.  Ms. Acuna - like so many women mistakenly and reluctantly misled into destroying their young - is abandoned by the government, the courts, the abortion industry, the medical "caring" community to the grief and shock of having torn to shreds "just tissue" that turns out to be comprised of "baby parts".  That, the court admits, imposes on women the painful consequences of allowing each of us, in our individual god-like way, to determine "when life begins."  People like Ms. Acuna, who rely on their abortionist's "opinion" which fails to disclose the living, beating heart and baby parts of that "just tissue", get .. well, sympathy.   "We are sympathetic to the deep pain plaintiff has suffered in the aftermath of the termination of her pregnancy.  However, the common law doctrine of informed consent requires doctors to provide their pregnant patients seeking an abortion only with material medical information, including gestational stage and medical risks involved in the procedure. Under that doctrine of informed consent, the knowledge that plaintiff sought from defendant cannot be compelled from a doctor who may have a different scientific, moral, or philosophical viewpoint on the issue of when life begins."   (Acuna v. Turkish, p. 29).

Too bad Dr. Turkish wasn't around to help Ms. Acuna with the aftermath of his "viewpoint".  But, no doubt, that's not his job either.

Amnesty International: Death for the Unborn

Marjorie Campbell, marjorie@marjoriecampbell.com

Amnesty International determined on Friday at its international meeting in Mexico to elevate access to abortion in cases of danger to health and rape to a "human right" which it will now proceed to promote, ending a long-held position of neutrality and its credibility as a consistent defender of human rights. 

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".  As David Quinn explained in the Irish Independent,

More importantly, in deciding to back abortion Amnesty has “dedicated” itself . . . not to a “specific” theology but to a specific view of human rights. The organisation could as easily have decided to defend the right to life instead of the right to an abortion. It could have cited the mass aborting of female foetuses in such places as India and China as a justification for opposing abortion. That is every bit as emotive an issue as the use of rape of as a weapon of war.

What is happening to Amnesty is that it is allowing itself to be captured by a “specific” ideology. To be even more specific, it has allowed itself to be captured by a left-wing ideology that,more generally, is trying to make human rights its own and is therefore giving human rights a bad name.

Its decision to back abortion is simply further proof of its drift into a particular ideological camp and it will cause it to lose the respect of countless people who would otherwise have gladly supported it, including those who are oppose American foreign policy but pro-life, and there are far more in this category than you think. What has happened is needless, unjustifiable and tragic.

Reactions to AI's denial of human rights for unborn children include an announcement by the Irish AI affiliate that it will not promote AI's new abortion policy and the resignation from AI of Bishop Michael Evans of East Anglia, England after 31 years of participation in the organization.  Bishop Evan's remarks unmask AI's foolish attempt to justify its policy change as limited to "selected aspects of abortion":

But there is no human right to access to abortion, and Amnesty should not involve itself even in such extreme cases. Amnesty opposes torture and the death penalty under all circumstances, however dire the situation; the same should be true for Amnesty’s mandate to ‘Protect the Human’ -  before as well as after birth. To allow for the use of torture in just one extreme situation (e.g. a terrorist threat) would compromise Amnesty’s absolute rejection of torture. To support access to abortion even in dire situations compromises Amnesty’s mandate to ‘Protect the Human’. 

How, I wonder, can AI's new ideologues respond to that clear logic?  I doubt they will even try.