“reaffirm the principle of the prohibition of eugenics, and the obligation of the Member States to protect the life of every person, including of the disabled before their birth.”
The petition is open to individuals, families, and disabled rights
organisations. People living in EU and Council of Europe countries are
strongly encouraged to sign the petition. The campaign is supported by
pro-life and disability rights organisations such as Fondation Jerome
Lejeune, Down Syndrome Ireland, Down Syndrome Education International,
and the European Down Syndrome Association.
The petition comes in response to the case of Anita KRUZMANE v. Latvia. The statement of facts provided by the European Court of Human Rights says that on 15 January 2002, applicant Anita Kruzmane, during her eighteenth week of pregnancy, had an appointment with doctor L. The doctor suggested that the applicant have a consultation with a specialist and, inter alia, issued a referral for the applicant to undergo an alpha-feto protein (“AFP”) test. The AFP test is used to detect prenatal foetal abnormality. The applicant later alleged that she had not in fact been referred for the AFP test by doctor L. and, consequently, had not taken the test. On 5 June 2002 the applicant gave birth to a daughter with Down’s syndrome. The applicant complains under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights that, owing to the alleged negligence of a doctor, she was denied adequate and timely medical care in the form of an antenatal screening test which she claims would have indicated the chances of her child having a genetic disorder and which would have led her to have an abortion.
The petition comes in response to the case of Anita KRUZMANE v. Latvia. The statement of facts provided by the European Court of Human Rights says that on 15 January 2002, applicant Anita Kruzmane, during her eighteenth week of pregnancy, had an appointment with doctor L. The doctor suggested that the applicant have a consultation with a specialist and, inter alia, issued a referral for the applicant to undergo an alpha-feto protein (“AFP”) test. The AFP test is used to detect prenatal foetal abnormality. The applicant later alleged that she had not in fact been referred for the AFP test by doctor L. and, consequently, had not taken the test. On 5 June 2002 the applicant gave birth to a daughter with Down’s syndrome. The applicant complains under Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights that, owing to the alleged negligence of a doctor, she was denied adequate and timely medical care in the form of an antenatal screening test which she claims would have indicated the chances of her child having a genetic disorder and which would have led her to have an abortion.
This case has come to light weeks after the United Nations established 21 March 2012 the first world Down’s syndrome day. This case now before the ECHR follows several other high-profile cases about abortion, such as Vo v France, Tysiac v Poland, A.B.C v Ireland, and R.R v Poland. This case, like many cases concerning abortion, can be considered another attempt by the pro-abortion culture of death. Most recently Brazil changed its legislation to permit the killing of unborn babies with anencephaly. We have also seen several cases from France and the Netherlands concerning so-called “wrongful births” of children with conditions such as Down’s syndrome. What makes the present case particularly lamentable is the fact that it is disabled babies who are the target of ideologues who jump at the chance of bringing such cases to the courts, disguising their wicked agenda with the rhetoric of choice, rights, health, and equality. The decisions of the courts are then used as a form of soft law to be cited and quoted, included in reports, referenced in future legal submissions, all with the aim of establishing a human right to abortion.
According to the European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ) memorandum:
“This case may provide an opportunity for the Court to clarify its case-law with regard to eugenics and abortion. This is necessary due to some visible confusion in the existing case-law, and this is made possible considering the large number of important cases currently before the Court on this issue.”
Confusion is putting it mildly, when we consider that each ECHR judgment
that fails to recognise and uphold the fundamental and inalienable
right to life from conception is a farce that cannot be fig-leafed with
claims about state sovereignty and lack of consensus on the issue.
Gregor Puppinck of the ECLJ, says that the key question arising from
this case can be summarised as flows:
"Does the Convention guarantee a right to eugenics for parents, and in particular to the procedure of prenatal screening-elimination of sick or disabled fetuses? If so, does the State have a positive obligation in this regard?"
On March 21 2012 we celebrated the first International World Down’s Syndrome Day.
In the UK 92% of babies prenatally diagnosed with Down's syndrome are
killed by abortion. This has remained consistent since 1989 when the
National Down's Syndrome Cytogenetic Register began. Under the UK
Abortion Act, a child with Down's syndrome can be aborted up to birth.
These are sad and utterly unacceptable facts. We continue to live in a
society that has waged a eugenic genocide against unborn disabled
babies. Please sign the petition, encourage others to do so, and think
about supporting SPUC’s No Less Human division and our wider work of campaigning on behalf of people with disabilities and illness born and unborn, their parents, and careers.
Taken from the SPUC Director's blog 27/4/12
