From Syndey Trads:
Fourthly, the protests of the feminists forced Law and Justice to convene in a hastily and embarrassing manner an arguably illegal session of a Parliamentary committee and recommend the rejection of the popular initiative to the Sejm (the Lower House). That same day – and this must be especially emphasized – the Polish Episcopal Conference issued a surprising document, in which it opposed the pro-life reform, because it mandated the punishing of all those persons responsible for conducting an abortion, including women who allow their children to be killed.
Fifthly, the Law and Justice government rejected the popular initiative by a crushing majority in the second stage of the legislative process (in the Polish Sejm legislative process is divided into 3 stages) effectively blocking any substantive discussion concerning the Bill and the posing of questions. The authors of the bill (i.e. the Catholics in the aforementioned NGO’s) were informed that a discussion on the bill would take place just a few hours before the committee meeting and before the final vote, despite the fact that the rules of the Sejm require that this happen three days in advance. As a result, some of the representatives of the authors of the Bill did not make on time to the Sejm.
Sixthly, throughout the duration of the controversy, certain Law and Justice politicians would declare their discomfort with the notion of punishing women, which was stipulated under the Bill. Despite having the means to simply expunge this section of the Bill and continue to work on it without the penal consequences for women who decide to kill their children, they refrained from doing this. This reflected the position of the Polish Bishops who on the same day decided to reject the Bill in its entirety. The Sejm rejected the popular initiative. Out of 460 MP’s, barely 50 voted for the bill.
Seventhly, Law and Justice MP’s who all of a sudden changed their position made references to the decision of the Bishops. Krystyna Pawłowicz wrote openly on her Facebook page that “it was the Episcopate that authorized us to do this”.
The Polish Church is one of the more conservative ones, but even for it, the Fifth Commandment (Thou Shalt Not Kill) is trumped by the Zeroth Commandment (Thou Shalt Not Criticize or Punish a Woman for Anything, Not Even for Contracting the Murder of Her Own Child). Human beings will die because of this “women are the second victim” nonsense being propagated by a feminism-corrupted Catholic Church.
Filed under: Uncategorized
Unreal.
[…] the Polish Episcopal Conference issued a surprising document, in which it opposed the pro-life reform, because it mandated the punishing of all those persons […]
I’ve read about this story over and over again, just hoping that the next time it will change. I’m not sure that I’ve ever been so demoralized by a piece of news, so close to an actual, real victory, only to be stabbed in the back by our supposed shepherds.
I know this has happened time and time again, and I know more that we should not expect too much success in this world, but is it too much to ask that once, just once, the leaders of the Church pretend that they believe her teachings? That just once we get an Athanasius instead of yet another Eusebius?
Regardless of the legislation, the fact is that women who procure an abortion will not be prosecuted.
In Scotland, under the old law, prosecutions of abortionists were almost wholly confined to unqualified practitioners. Medical practitioners invariably claimed that they had performed a D & C to remove post-partum placenta after a spontaneous miscarriage and this usually proved impossible to refute.
The rule “testis unus, testis nullus” [One witness is no witness] meant that prosecutors usually had to rely on the Moorov doctrine, under which witnesses to individual episodes of a course of criminal conduct are mutually corroborative. Thus, two women testifying that the panel had performed an abortion on each of them would provide the necessary corroboration against her on both charges, but, as their own admissions were usually uncorroborated, there was insufficient evidence on which to prosecute them and, once having testified, they were immune as socii criminis.
I once spent a day or two checking through the Books of Adjournal and virtually all the cases were of this character.
As for medical practitioners, I found that Alexander Aitken surgeon had been convicted at Perth September 1823, the prosecutor relying heavily on proof of payment of a grossly excessive fee (25/-) and that Dr Roderick Sutherland Ross, General Practitioner, had been convicted at Edinburgh on 24 Jan. 1967 on two charges. Ross gave the women injections, (for which he charged £100), not in a clinical setting, but in a “little bedsitting room acquired by the accused ostensibly for bagpipe practice” (!) Those were the only two instances in 150 years.
A very sad development, especially as the protests surrounding the law were entirely astroturfed by OpenDemocracy (Soros outfit). Regardless however, the government should have passed it anyway. The priesthood has shown time and time again, they will not lead. It is up to the courageous to lead, and Kaczynski really let me down here.
If women are victims of abortion, is Stalin the victim of genocide against Christians?
In most cases girls and women are coerced or outright forced to submit to abortion. The “I have to have an abortion because pregnancy will ruin my bikini figure this summer” excuse appears to be very much the exception.
Considerable success has been obtained where prostitutes are left alone by the criminal process with enforcement concentrated on the pimps, madams and johns. The conventional wisdom is that most prostitutes are coerced through drug addiction or forced by kidnapping pimps and would not voluntarily choose to be prostitutes.
A similar attitude has been shown toward abortion back when the enforcement against abortion was active. Yet the prosecution and conviction of only two abortionists in 150 years demonstrates, I believe, the reluctance of prosecutors to press charges and the reluctance of jurors to convict in the rare instance of prosecution of abortionists.
The US Supreme Court’s research was unable to find any instance of an aborting mother being prosecuted. More common is prosecuting a mother for NOT aborting, prosecuting her for exposing her unborn child to illicit drugs or alcohol. All a drug-addicted or alcoholic mother has to do to evade prosecution is to have her child killed before birth.
In most cases abortion doctors are coerced or outright forced to submit to abortion. The “I have to perform abortion because not doing so will ruin my finsncial situation” excuse appears to be very much the exception.
Considerable success has been obtained where pimps, madams, and johns are left alone by the criminal process with enforcement concentrated on the prostitutes. The conventional wisdom is that most pimps, madams, and johns are coerced through drug addiction or forced by kidnapping prostitutes and would not voluntarily choose to be pimps, madams, and johns.
I struggle to think of any instances where criminally punishing the women who procure abortions has met with considerable success. Even in counter-Reformation Rome, when Sixtus V introduced the death penalty for abortion it was repealed by the succeeding pontiff due to the incredible unpopularity of the law.
El Salvador seems to be doing pretty well.