#CoraLies, spectacularly..

NewstalkFM, Segment featuring Cora Sherlock, interviewed by Jonathan Healy with recorded segment from Mika Gissler, Oct 9 2016
http://www.newstalk.com/listen_back/24/30883/09th_October_2016_-_The_Sunday_Show_Part_2/

Twitter is the wrong place for me to put down my thoughts after listening back to Coras segment on this show, so I guess here marks my first blog post.. Wahey, go me.. 

First off.. 

Cora states that the attendees at Pro Life Campaign Annual Meeting at its highest ever. I am not in a position to confirm or deny this statement, but will include this image for reference.

Also according to Cora, there was a large number of young people there.

Here's the Wexford contingent apparently 

Cora says that they represent many more, despite the polls saying they represent 18%, 26% if you include the "don't knows".

Cora immediately sets out to misrepresent the poll. 

Pro life are not in the minority (if you change the question from "do you want to repeal the 8th" to "do you want what is perceived as liberal access to abortion up to week 24", which are two very different questions). 

While yes, not everyone is comfortable with easier access to abortion for what they feel may be frivolous reasons (I will come back to this), the vast majority know that in order to make any changes whatsoever to allow for wider access, the 8th must be repealed (or amended, but how could you word it to allow for say, rape and FFA in constitutional law? Seems like a nightmare) 

It is only after the 8th is repealed (or replaced) that any discussions around the shape of our legislation *can* take place. 

So in wanting to preserve the 8th, and the status quo (some in their ranks would even prefer more restrictions that exist presently) they very much are the minority. 

Next, a pro life gem,"there is no such thing as a little abortion.." 

Allow me to return to the subject of those reasons for abortion deemed "frivolous" by some - that I mentioned earlier.

Specifically, the UK, where the vast majority of abortions are performed under the grounds of "Mental Health". Indeed, these are the grounds permitted in many jurisdictions that are frequently referred to as "on demand".  

This here presents a conundrum for pro life, and is, as far as I can make out, the reason that they choose to refer to abortion "on demand". In the UK, where we are told that it is a free for all, up to 98% of abortions are carried out because the psychological damage arising from being forced to continue to carry and birth a pregnancy against your will is an undeniable harm to womens mental health. Even if you surrender for adoption, this too is a majorly traumatic event which requires counselling.
http://www.originscanada.org/adoption-trauma-2/trauma_to_surrendering_mothers/adoption-trauma-the-damage-to-relinquishing-mothers/
 

So, rather than accept that womens mental health matters, and that damage to mental health is just as important as damage to physical health, the UK laws are presented as "abortion on demand".  

I would hope that I do not need to explain how this is a gross misrepresentation - as there are laws and grounds that must be satisfied - it's only "on demand" if you are insinuating that all of these women are lying to obtain abortion, and that their doctors are all colluding in this lie. 

Now where have we heard that before?

Maybe the Oireachteas hearings, the famous floodgates that were to open when we allowed women to access abortion if they were suicidal? 

No, we can't trust women when they say that continuance of the pregnancy is more than they can take.. They're obviously just giving us a sob story, this is the subtle misogynist implications of referring to the UK, or any other system that permits abortion on mental health grounds as "on demand". 

Back to the interview...

When asked should we not ask the people how they feel about the 8th in a referendum, Cora immediately deflects to her buddies Ann McElhinney and Phelim McAleers Gosnell film and starts with the subtle hints at the descriptions of those gore posters we have all come to associate with prolife. 

I approached one of these film makers on Twitter, who claimed not to have a bias about the claims made that supposedly made the jurors anti choice. 

Phelim McAleer claimed that they (the jurors at the Gosnell trial) were horrified by the details of legal abortion, I asked why, and as you can see he told me that they described the removal process and showed pictures of removed remains. 

This is a classic bait and switch by the pro life side

Abortion is the termination, or ending of a pregnancy, there are three types. Medical, surgical and spontaneous. If you really wanted to be pedantic, birth is also a form of abortion, but not in the colloquial sense. 

Most women seeking abortion want to get it over and done with as soon as possible, this is borne out by statistical data from the world over stating that over 90% of abortions occur before week 13 . 

At these stages, the abortion occurs when the placenta disengages from the uterine wall. This happens as a result of the endometrium thinning and the uterus contracting to expel its contents - exactly how a miscarriage, or even menstruation occurs. The only difference being that this was brought about by the ingestion of the drugs Mifepristone and Misoprostol whereas with a miscarriage the body did it for reasons known only to itself. The ingestion of these drugs is known as a medical abortion, in medical terms, a miscarriage is called a "spontaneous abortion". 

Here was his responses

Sounds quite neutral to me.. 

The D&E process (Dilation and Evacuation) is indeed not a pleasant thought, this is what is known as a surgical abortion. This is not to say that it is the primary procedure, the medical abortion is administered first. The "surgery" involves a vacuum being inserted into the uterus to suck out whatever is left after the abortion has occured*. In fact, sometimes women need to have this done after a miscarriage. Several of those close to me have had them in this circumstance in Holles St. They are performing this procedure in Irish maternal units every single day, why? 

Because to leave the remains in there is an infection risk, the D&E a safety procedure. This was why I wanted to make clear the distinction. I am sure that these people would not in fact be opposed to a procedure that a) does not happen with all abortions and b) is performed for safety reasons, even with miscarriages. Phelim ignored this point, stated that they swore under oath that they were of abortions - but they were of removed abortions. You cannot photograph the abortion from outside of the uterus, only the aftermath of the removal process. 

And before anyone tries to tell you about D&C, the World Health Organisation has deemed this practice to be "obsolete". 

Yes, the aftermath of a D&E looks nasty, I won't put a picture here. But we all know them, disassembled tiny body parts spread out, perhaps with a coin for size reference, but this process happens *after* the abortion, it is not the abortion itself, and failing to mention this is grossly disingenuous. 

It's like complaining that we cut people open to take out their organs for donation but leaving out that we wait until they are dead first. 

Because even if you consider the embryo / foetus to be alive, it is already dead before the vacuum gets near it.

Once the Mifepristone and Misoprostol have brought on the physiological and hormonal response within the womans body that caused the placenta to disengage, the embryo / foetus is "dead". That's it. Heartbeat has stopped (because it was the blood supply coming through the placenta that was causing it to pump to begin with), there was no EEG at that stage of pregnancy anyway - it is most definitely legally, medically, scientifically and observably dead before the vacuum is used. This is more an argument about respect for the dead in their removal than an argument against abortion. 

Gosnell on the other hand, as rightly pointed out to Cora, was a monster, acting well outside of the law - he was committing infanticide, using methods of his own creation that all of us - pro choice and pro life alike - recoiled with horror at their description, the difference being that most of us recognise that these were not legal methods by any stretch of imagination, and do not try to hold them up as such. Much like how we realise that Harold Shipman is not representative of your average GP.

Cora definitely used the slippery slope of "who's next?" referring to fatal anomalies, subtly trying to argue that we are paving the way for eugenics, another favourite tactic of the pro life side, ignoring all the obstacles between here and there.. 

I notice Cora has backed down on her claims of doctors pressuring women, she seems now to be saying that this pressure is not actionable because she was challenged on this claim on a previous show with Pat Kenny on Newstalk FM by Roisin Shortall, Colm O Gorman and Regina O Doherty, and found wanting.. I have been tweeting her daily about this, but I guess now I have one answer:

#haveyoureportedthemCora - answer = NO, and I won't be, because it is perceived pressure and not actual pressure. So even the mention of abortion or the word travel is pressure, we get it.. 

But as we are on the subject of pressure, what about the pressure exerted upon women by law in this country to continue their pregnancy after such a tragic diagnosis? Not all of us see the progression to natural birth and the child's inevitable death as such a beautiful thing, @anyciar poured out her heart and soul about the loss of her daughter Aisling, and how it was heartwrenching and torturous to watch her daughter die, only to be attacked by the pro life side, and have her story grossly misrepresented by @LifeNewsHQ

a publication that Cora Sherlock proudly contributes to. 

Jonathan kept asking Cora, "is it right to dictate?", fair play to him. But Cora kept deflecting away from her true answer which was, yes, in this case dictating is just fine. 

She references an actuarial report that as released, appears to have no appendix..

So no references, perhaps due to David Robert Grimes refutation of it,  which she refused to take on board because of him stating the obvious before reading it. 

Next up, right on cue, the tactic of bringing Downs Syndrome into a debate about fatal anomalies. To be fair to Jonathan he tried to point out how disingenuous this is, but no, we are not allowed to make a distinction here, because to do so erases the entire prolife argument against termination for medical reasons! (and loses them the middle ground entirely, funny we still aren't seeing articles about the #prolifetone in the media). 

Let's ignore the facts around Downs Syndrome and how they contribute to the high rates of termination we see where screening occurs.  

There's a major lack of support, coupled with a major lack of information, this leads to fear, fear of what extra challenges there may be, such as care for your children in your absence (when you die), whether they will need special assistance, etc - in a lot of cases, this is meedless fear, countless parents of children with DS will tell you that raising them isn't necessarily the scary thing it is often portrayed as. However, the fear still exists nonetheless. I don't think I have ever seen pro life campaigning for the quality of people who were <i>born</i> with DS lives to be improved. Or advocating better adoption services for children with disabilities, who are frequently rejected and left to live their lives in care, denied the love and affection that - if anything - these kids need even more. Left more vulnerable to abuse and rape. 

I'm a little more concerned with the quality of life than the concept of it, this is clearly where mine and the pro life sides opinions diverge. And we are failing people with disabilities every single day. Yet, somehow bringing more into this already flawed and undesirable system is the right thing to do apparently, who am I to argue? 

What if the girl seeking an abortion has down syndrome herself.. Do you want to deny her the choice and force her to birth a baby against her will? What if she is a rape victim? 

Sadly, as much as I wish this wasn't possible, it very much is, and for those who will live their entire lives in care that risk is elevated. But hey, in the ideal world pro life wish to inhabit, these things don't happen (sure those cute kids with DS we use as poster children for our views, they'll never have sex, sure they remain children forever don't they!)

I find the following statement from Cora most interesting, Ireland didn't create the unborn right to life, we just acknowledged it.. 

Out of nowhere apparently, because Nigel Rodley of the UN said this about the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. 

He, like most other human rights advocates realise that in order to grant rights to a foetus, you are in effect stripping them away from the woman. It is because of this conflict of rights that the UDHR specifically states as the first article that we are all "Born free and equal in dignity and rights", the right to life? That's in article 3, and is accompanied by the right to liberty and security of person - if you don't get a say in how your body is used, that doesn't sound like liberty or security of person to me.. 

Cora then goes on to claim that the electorate of 1983 were a very modern, forward thinking society.. 

This is utterly flabbergasting..

In 1983 women were still being sent to Magdalene Laundries and having their children trafficked without consent by the Nuns. The sexual abuse of children by the clergy was ongoing, indeed it was still being covered up by the church, who advocated strongly for the 8th amendment while they still held an air of moral superiority, however false it may have been. Contraception was still not widely available, abstinence only sex education was as close to sex ed as was permitted. Homosexuality was essentially outlawed.. 

I would have called this the opposite of a forward thinking and forward thinking, and I honestly believe that I am not alone in this thinking. 

Cora is then given an opportunity to clarify her statements regarding some research conducted in Finland, and goes on to do so quite firmly, stating that the Pro Life Campaign never misrepresent research, and that if they get it wrong they will always correct themselves. 

A little strange that they didn't correct this then, http://www.thejournal.ie/hse-guidelines-maternal-bereavement-abortion-pro-life-campaign-factcheck-2947615-Aug2016/ despite being given ample opportunity to. 

But apparently there is more pro choice articles (I have a sneaking suspicion that any article which mentions abortion but doesn't take a specific pro life stance against it is considered "pro choice" but no one seems to be able to access the research they're quoting so I can neither confirm nor deny this) versus more scrutiny aimed at the pro life side. Maybe if the pro life side weren't telling such whoppers there would be less to be called out on? On the contrary, I am seeing all sorts of tone policing articles going out against the pro choice side and it's not all that often that a representative of the Abortion Rights Campaign is asked to comment, usually when it comes to "balance" in our media, a pro life representative is used to balance a doctor on the subject, that doctor doesn't necessarily represent the pro choice side, even if their arguments are in favour of repeal, and as such - our actual representatives are left out completely. 

I cannot believe (well, in a sense I can, I just can't believe she did it on air) that following the studies author, Mika Gisslers, comment being aired, clearly stating that the study is a correlation and not causation, and that there are other concurrent factors such as poverty and previous mental health problems, Cora insists that she is merely repeating the "take away message" from the research, ignoring all context - sure is it even a lie if it's done by omission at all? See how weasly this woman is with her words? I'm sure it was her take away message, because it sounded good to throw into debates without context. Well, in my humble opinion, the take away message from this portion of the interview is that the pro life campaign will lie through their teeth to get what they want. 
http://www.businesspost.ie/the-eighth-amendment-a-nation-divided-once-again/

She pretty much tried to say that the author of the research categorically stating that she was misrepresenting it, is wrong.

.

She's not claiming that this study says abortion leads to suicide apparently.
She then had the gall to try and insinuate that it is the pro choice side who are misrepresenting facts.Cora actually stated on air that she has been quoting that research for years, this is *after* the segment in which the author, Mika Gissler, stated that he had tried to contact them to clarify that they had misrepresented his research and got nowhere. As though she was oblivious to the implications of this statement to what she said earlier about always correcting themselves if they were mistaken. And continued to claim that her claims, presented above, were not misrepresentative. 

Make of that what you will. It simply reconfirms all of my interactions with the pro life campaign and its representatives.