noworldsystem.com


Free Abortions in Britain

Free Abortions in Britain

Express.co.uk
March 16, 2010


The Polish poster which advises women to travel to Britain for an abortion

They urge women to take advantage of EU rules allowing Poles free medical care in the UK.

And it tells them it is cheaper to fly to the UK to end an unwanted pregnancy than to pay for an illegal ­backstreet ­termination in Poland.

The advert – which borrows tastelessly from a famous “Priceless” credit card campaign – is promoted by a Polish feminist group. It was condemned last night for encouraging “abortion tourism”, and piling pressure on the hard-pressed NHS.

Critics warn that Britain is at risk of becoming the abortion capital of Europe.

A Polish source said yesterday that thousands of Polish women already flee the strict Roman Catholic country’s anti-abortion laws every year to undergo the procedure on the NHS.

Sir Andrew Green, chairman of think tank MigrationWatch, said: “We should insist the Polish government take action to have these posters removed.” He said the NHS was in danger of becoming an “international health service” and called for NHS clinics to make sure that those who turn up for free treatment are entitled to it.

The poster, left, shows a woman dressed in underwear with the words “My Choice” daubed in English across her stomach in large blood-red letters.

The words alongside parody a well-known Mastercard advert, starting: “Plane ticket to England at ­special offer – 300 zloty (£70).

The punchline reads: “Relief after a procedure carried out in decent ­conditions…PRICELESS.”

 

Partial-birth abortion: Cut a hole into the back of a baby’s head and suck out the brains till the skull collapses

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGPEcahjvAo

 



Doctors refuse to save baby because it was born too early

Doctors refuse to save baby because it was born too early

Mail Online

Doctors left a premature baby to die because he was born two days too early, his devastated mother claimed yesterday.

Sarah Capewell begged them to save her tiny son, who was born just 21 weeks and five days into her pregnancy – almost four months early.

They ignored her pleas and allegedly told her they were following national guidelines that babies born before 22 weeks should not be given medical treatment.

Miss Capewell, 23, said doctors refused to even see her son Jayden, who lived for almost two hours without any medical support.

She said he was breathing unaided, had a strong heartbeat and was even moving his arms and legs, but medics refused to admit him to a special care baby unit.

Miss Capewell is now fighting for a review of the medical guidelines.

Medics allegedly told her that they would have tried to save the baby if he had been born two days later, at 22 weeks.

In fact, the medical guidelines for Health Service hospitals state that babies should not be given intensive care if they are born at less than 23 weeks.

The guidance, drawn up by the Nuffield Council, is not compulsory but advises doctors that medical intervention for very premature children is not in the best interests of the baby, and is not ‘standard practice’.

James Paget Hospital in Norfolk refused to comment on the case but said it was not responsible for setting the guidelines relating to premature births.

A trust spokesman said: ‘Like other acute hospitals, we follow national guidance from the British Association of Perinatal Medicine regarding premature births.’

Miss Capewell, who has had five miscarriages, said the guidelines had robbed her son of a chance of life.

She said: ‘When he was born, he put out his arms and legs and pushed himself over.

A midwife said he was breathing and had a strong heartbeat, and described him as a “little fighter”.

I kept asking for the doctors but the midwife said, “They won’t come and help, sweetie. Make the best of the time you have with him”.’

She cuddled her child and took precious photos of him, but he died in her arms less than two hours after his birth.

Miss Capewell, who has a five-year-old daughter Jodie, went into labour in October last year at 21 weeks and four days after suffering problems during her pregnancy.

She said she was told that because she had not reached 22 weeks, she was not allowed injections to try to stop the labour, or a steroid injection to help to strengthen her baby’s lungs.

Instead, doctors told her to treat the labour as a miscarriage, not a birth, and to expect her baby to be born with serious deformities or even to be still-born.

She told how she begged one paediatrician, ‘You have got to help’, only for the man to respond: ‘No we don’t.’

As her contractions continued, a chaplain arrived at her bedside to discuss bereavement and planning a funeral, she claims.

She said: ‘I was sitting there, reading this leaflet about planning a funeral and thinking, this is my baby, he isn’t even born yet, let alone dead.’

After his death she even had to argue with hospital officials for her right to receive birth and death certificates, which meant she could give her son a proper funeral.

She was shocked to discover that another child, born in the U.S. at 21 weeks and six days into her mother’s pregnancy, had survived.

Amillia Taylor was born in Florida in 2006 and celebrated her second birthday last October. She is the youngest premature baby to survive.

Miss Capewell said: ‘I could not believe that one little girl, Amillia Taylor, is perfectly healthy after being born in Florida in 2006 at 21 weeks and six days.

‘Thousands of women have experienced this. The doctors say the babies won’t survive but how do they know if they are not giving them a chance?’

Miss Capewell has won the support of Labour MP Tony Wright, who has backed her call for a review of the medical guidelines. He said: ‘When a woman wants to give the best chance to her baby, they should surely be afforded that opportunity.’

What the medical guidelines say…

Guidance limiting care of the most premature babies provoked outrage when it was published three years ago.

Experts on medical ethics advised doctors not to resuscitate babies born before 23 weeks in the womb, stating that it was not in the child’s ‘best interests’.

The guidelines said: ‘If gestational age is certain and less than 23+0 (i.e at 22 weeks) it would be considered in the best interests of the baby, and standard practice, for resuscitation not to be carried out.’

Medical intervention would be given for a child born between 22 and 23 weeks only if the parents requested it and only after discussion about likely outcomes.

The rules were endorsed by the British Association of Perinatal Medicine and are followed by NHS hospitals.

The association said they were not meant to be a ‘set of instructions’, but doctors regard them as the best available advice on the treatment of premature babies.

More than 80,000 babies are born prematurely in Britain every year, and of those some 40,000 need to be treated in intensive care.

The NHS spends an estimated £1 billion a year on their care.

But while survival rates for those born after 24 weeks in the womb have risen significantly, the rates for those born earlier have barely changed, despite advances in medicine and technology.

Medical experts say babies born before 23 weeks are simply too under-developed to survive, and that to use aggressive treatment methods would only prolong their suffering, or inflict pain.

The guidelines were drawn up by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics after a two-year inquiry which took evidence from doctors, nurses and religious leaders.

But weeks before they were published in 2006, a child was born in the U.S. which proved a baby could survive at earlier than 22 weeks if it was given medical treatment.

Amillia Taylor was born in Florida on October 24, 2006, after just 21 weeks and six days in the womb. She celebrated her second birthday last year.

Doctors believed she was a week older and so gave her intensive care, but later admitted she would not have received treatment if they had known her true age.

Her birth also coincided with the debate in Britain over whether the abortion limit should be reduced.

Some argued that if a baby could survive at 22 weeks then the time limit on abortions should be reduced.

The argument, which was lost in Parliament, followed a cut to the time limit in 1990 when politicians reduced it from 28 weeks to 24 weeks, in line with scientific evidence that foetuses could survive outside the womb at a younger age.

However, experts say cases like Amillia Taylor’s are rare, and can raise false expectations about survival rates.

Studies show that only 1 per cent of babies born before 23 weeks survive, and many suffer serious disabilities.

 



Nationwide Revolt Against Mass Swine Flu Vaccination Accelerates

Nationwide Revolt Against Mass Swine Flu Vaccination Accelerates
One third of NHS nurses in UK refuse to take shot, citing safety fears over vaccine’s link with Guillain-Barre Syndrome, autism and neurological disorders

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
August 18, 2009

The nationwide revolt against government plans to implement a mass swine flu vaccination program in the United Kingdom has picked up steam, with a poll revealing that a third of NHS nurses will refuse to take the shot.

Despite nurses and frontline health workers being the primary target group to take the vaccine, just 37 per cent of them said they would take the swine flu vaccine in a survey conducted by Nursing Times magazine. 30 per cent said they would not be immunized and 33 per cent said they were unsure.

Of the 30 per cent who said they would refuse to be vaccinated, 60 per cent said the reason was due to fears about the safety of the vaccine, following revelations that the shots will contain mercury and squalene and have also been linked with the killer nerve disease Guillain-Barre Syndrome. Another 31 per cent said they would refuse the vaccine because they did not consider the risk from swine flu to be great enough.

The government responded to the poll by claiming that nurses have a duty not to infect their patients and urged them to take the vaccine, but it seems that many fear the health consequences of taking the vaccine will be worse than catching the virus itself.

Interestingly, a London Times article on the story reveals that fewer than one in seven nurses in the UK receives the annual flu shot, highlighting the fact that health workers, who would be in a position to be well educated on the issue, are already fully aware of the dangers associated with vaccines in general.

The swine flu vaccine is being rushed through safety procedures while the government has provided pharmaceutical companies with blanket immunity from lawsuits arriving out of the vaccine causing deaths and injuries.

It was previously revealed that some batches of the vaccine will contain mercury, a toxin linked with autism and neurological disorders. The vaccine will also contain the dangerous ingredient squalene, which has been directly linked with cases of Gulf War Syndrome and a host of other debilitating diseases.

It was also recently reported that the UK government sent a confidential letter to senior neurologists telling them to be on the alert for cases of a brain disorder called Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS), which could be triggered by the vaccine.

Following the leak of the letter a senior neurologist told the Daily Mail, “I would not have the swine
flu jab because of the GBS risk.”

The last attempt to mass vaccinate the public against swine flu, during the 1976 outbreak in the United States, killed more people than the virus itself.

The vast majority of respondents to the London Times article about the nurses’ refusal to take the shot commented that they too would refuse to take the vaccine, mirroring sentiment across the country.

At this stage only a deadlier return of the virus backed by a massive government fearmongering campaign is going to make anything like a majority of the population take the swine flu shot.

Since the majority of the population will refuse to take the vaccine, the government’s only option will be to institute a mandatory program backed by force, or to drop plans for mass vaccination altogether.

Swine Flu Vaccines Can Cause Infertility and Autoimmune Disease

Corporate Media in U.S. Ignores Report N1H1 Vaccine Link to Guillain-Barré Syndrome

Pregnant women worry over vaccine

12,000 Oklahoma children to be tested with new H1N1 flu vaccine to see any side effects

Children’s Mercy will test swine flu vaccine on 120 kids

 



UK: Smoking Licenses Proposed

£10 government permit plan to deter smokers

Guardian
February 15, 2008

A ban on the sale of cigarettes to anyone who does not pay for a government smoking permit has been proposed by Health England, a ministerial advisory board.

The idea is the brainchild of the board’s chairman, Julian Le Grand, who is a professor at the London School of Economics and was Tony Blair’s senior health adviser. In a paper being studied by Lord Darzi, the health minister appointed to oversee NHS reform, he says many smokers would be helped to break the habit if they had to make a decision whether to “opt in”.

The permit might cost as little as £10, but acquiring it could be made difficult if the forms were sufficiently complex, Le Grand said last night.

His paper says: “Suppose every individual who wanted to buy tobacco had to purchase a permit. And suppose further they had to do this every year. To get a permit would involve filling out a form and supplying a photograph, as well as paying the fee. Permits would only be issued to those over 18 and evidence of age would have to be provided. The money raised would go to the NHS.”

Read Full Article Here