Mayor of London uses Trump visit as occasion to push extreme abortion agenda


In a two minute video for ELLE UK, Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, has used Donald Trump’s visit to the UK as an opportunity to promote his own radical abortion agenda.

In relation to recent moves in Alabama and Georgia to implement strong pro-life laws which grant legal protection to unborn children, Khan laments the alleged “rolling back of the reproductive rights of women” as “some states [make] it almost impossible for women to have the right to have an abortion.”

However, there is no “right to have an abortion” at the federal level in the US and neither is there a right to an abortion in the state of Alabama. In fact, the state of Alabama has had a long standing legal precedent supporting the right to life of the unborn child, but has been unable to implement this law due to federal restrictions.

Khan goes on to mention the “consequences of women not having the right to [have an abortion]”. He does not however, mention that since abortion was made legal in the USA in 1973, over 60 million unborn US citizens have lost their lives to abortion nor does he mention the almost 9 million abortions that have taken place in the UK.

Sadiq Khan is known for his extremist abortion views through his support for the pro-abortion group Abortion Rights – a group which not only supports abortion without limit throughout all nine months of pregnancy but also organised a protest against the March for Life singing “We need abortions” drowning out Melissa Ohden, an abortion survivor, who was speaking on stage:

The Mayor of London finds himself entirely out of step with the views of those he is supposed to represent given a recent Onward poll showing that London is the most pro-life region of the country. More broadly only 1% of the population want abortion to be available up to birth and over 70% of women want the abortion limit to be reduced to 20 weeks or lower.

In response to the video, many on twitter have criticised Sadiq Kahn for claiming that his wide reaching statements on abortion represent the views and “values” of all Londoners.

Trauma of sexual abuse leads Dutch girl, 17, to be euthanised


UPDATE: 06/05/2019 Dutch Newspapers are now reporting that Noa was not euthanised but stopped taking nutrition and hydration which resulted in her death.

Noa Pothoven, a 17-year-old girl who was raped as a young child ended her life at a euthanasia clinic in the Netherlands last Sunday. She said her ‘suffering was unbearable’ and under Dutch law, was permitted to be euthanised in her living room in Arnhem.

Dutch law permits minors from 15-17 years old to be euthanised without any consent from the family. Noa spoke about her battles with mental illness after being raped and molested at a young age in her autobiography Winning or Learning. As a result of these experiences, she suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression and anorexia.

She said that the Netherlands does not have specialised institutions or clinics where teens can go for psychological or physical aid.

In a social media post one day before her death, she wrote: “I will get straight to the point: within a maximum of 10 days I will die. After years of battling and fighting, I am drained. I have quit eating and drinking for a while now, and after many discussions and evaluations, it was decided to let me go because my suffering is unbearable.”

Noa added that she never felt as though she was “alive”, rather surviving, writing: “I breathe, but I no longer live.”

According to Dutch law, euthanasia is legal under the ‘Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide (Review Procedures) Act’. It became law in 2002. With the agreement of a doctor, children as young as 12 can be euthanised if they desire it.

In 2017, 6,585 people chose euthanasia to end their own lives in the Netherlands, about 4.4 per cent of the total number of more than 150,000 registered deaths in the country, according to the Regional Euthanasia Review Committee which monitors all cases.

This tragic case is likely to be relevant in New Zealand where the End of Life Choice Bill is currently being debated.