Inquest confirms that Savita Halappanavar asked for abortion before her death

Abortion on demand is pretty much what is happening in the US and GB and other western nations, although the words in the abortion acts for those particular may not have stated as much. With 40% of pregnancies in NY being aborted last year and the current abortion rate in the UK touching 200,000 per year, we are definitely seeing abortion without limits.

Amidst this panic about opening the door to "abortion on demand" (hooey! Nowhere on Earth is there abortion on demand), some seem to forget that the Irish government is compelled to write legislation because its Constitution, as written, and its 1861 "Offenses" law DENY the most basic human rights to women. When a member nation of the UN and EU and international treaties fails in its obligation to provide needed medical services for women and girls or, worse, withholds services for religious reasons, it treats females as less than human, lacking in dignity and deprived of free will, coerced in reproduction. The state that does this becomes a "rogue" among the nations of the earth. If your religion does not accommodate the human rights of women and girls, it's time to rethink your religion.

Let's be clear on something first: Today was the opening day of the public inquest, setting the outlines of the in-depth inquest which will start on 8th April next and is expected to run for a week during which over 50 witnesses will give evidence. I urge all to hold tongue (or typing fingers) in check until all evidence is presented and the Coroner issues his findings. (Trusting this gets posted.. I've refrained posting for several days due to ICentral hiccups with multiple posts).

Savita died of underlying conditions which were totally unrelated to the presence of the fetus and these became the direct cause of her death. The causes were " septicaemia ‘documented ante-mortem’ and E.coli ESBL. Some would say that the destruction of the fetus might have saved this lovely young mother but there is no medical evidence to suggest that this would have saved her. The "pro-choice" lobby have used this tragic case as a band-wagon to push their radical agenda for change to Ireland's constitutional guarantee to protect both the life of the mother and baby. They want nothing more than abortion-on-demand under the guise of a "limited" form of it. There remains a deep air of suspicion over the credibility of the story relating to someone telling Savita and her husband Praveen that abortion was not possible because "this is a Catholic Country". This sounds more like a "plant" to gain public sympathy for the push for abortion. It also seems strange that the ultra-liberal newspaper "The Irish Times" should get the scoop concerning statements made to the Inquest into this tragic case. I hope that the Irish electorate reject any insidious attempt to foist the terrible evil of abortion on the country, even in it's "limited" form as it will develop into abortion-on-demand.

Catholic teaching shapes "Directives" in US hospitals also. On 11 Jan 2011, the NWLC published a summary (online) of violations of law by Catholic hospitals that refuse life-saving emergency procedures to pregnant women. The law, which Bsp Olmstead demanded medical workers at a Catholic hospital violate, is the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). Common violations include refusing to treat ectopic pregnancies with Methotrexate, the standard of care for ectopic pregnancy, because this drug causes abortion of the life-threatening tubal pregnancy. Delays in treating this condition result in rupture of the fallopian tube, and surgical treatment damages the system. Other violations include "numerous instances of women who suffered delays in receiving stabilizing care for miscarriages.... A Catholic hospital withheld the uterine evacuation necessary to stabilize a patient having a miscarriage, saying that it would only give her blood transfusions as long as there was still a fetal heartbeat." Catholic hospitals also refuse to inform women that they can transfer to hospitals with abortion facilities rather than continuing to suffer and deteriorate. Accounting for more than 16 percent of hospital care, they follow the USCCB's "Directives" rather than US law in pregnancy emergencies.

Be honest, katiemac! Spsis killed Savita, but lack of abortion allowed that death to happen. Her body had already begun to miscarry -- an irreversible condition that doomed the fetus. When a pregnant body is fighting lethal infection, the duty of doctors is to bring the miscarriage to its inevitable end so that antibiotics and the body's resources can fight the infection that's killing the woman. Instead, the medical staff waited for the fetus to die. It died--there was never any hope of saving it. By that time, however, Savita's body, exhausted with the struggle of miscarrying while fighting sepsis, could no longer fight, and she succumbed. It's possible but unlikely that she would have died even if she'd had a timely abortion. But enough women have survived infections, thanks to timely abortion, for medical associations to designate it the usual procedure in cases of incomplete miscarriage -- and an urgent procedure for potentially lethal infections. Whether she'd asked for abortion or not, it was medically required. If it was not a sufficient condition of saving her life, it was a necessary condition of saving her life. And the Catholic "consultant" refused!

Lack of abortion is not the cause of death, nor even the cause of her illness and would not have solved her medical issues. Asking for termination and medicaly requiring termination are two completely different things.

There is not such thing as "Catholic teaching". What passes for their so called teaching is no more than the twisted dogmatic opinions of a gang of sinister male virgins in the Vatican.

I was one reader who waited patiently for the the inquest results to be heard. I could not believe that the "reason" this dear lady died was because a Catholic hospital could not provide termination of a pregnacy when the mother's life was at risk. In the U.S., it is my understanding that there is indeed provision for what are called "Therapeutic abortions". As one who is staunchly pro-life, and always has been, I still understand and support the need for a termination such as Savita's request in this dire medical emergency. There is no guarantee that Savita would have survived, but still, it seems that this was one avenue for the possible saving of her life. Whether or not a facility or land is "Catholic" should have no bearing on the practice of medical "values". The medical consultant gave Avita a statment, not a "reason" for allowing her to die.

In November, many comments asked people to wait for the results of the inquiry into Savita's death before concluding that Catholic religious teaching played a role. Now the inquest has confirmed that religious teaching ("This is a Catholic country") was the reason for denying Savita a universally prescribed medical procedure for emergencies like hers (universally prescribed except in Catholic hospitals). Separation of church and state admits no halfway measures: either doctors are free to save a woman's life in crisis pregnancy, or church teaching prevails and they must let her die rather than aborting a fetus that their medical skill cannot save. The moral dimension of this choice may be unpleasant, but it is also crystal clear: the right thing to do is always to save the life you can save even if you have an aversion to the life-saving medical procedure.