On September 30, 1976, an amendment by pro-life Congressman Henry Hyde to prevent federal Medicaid funds from paying for abortions was enacted. Today, 40 years later we celebrate the over 2 million lives that have been saved as a result of the policy.

According to research by Dr. Michael New at the Charlotte Lozier Institute-Hyde @ 40: Analyzing the Impact of the Hyde Amendment-this rider to the annual Health and Human Services (HHS) Labor appropriations sponsored by Henry Hyde was one of the first major pro-life legislative victories in the US as well as a judicial victory when it was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1980.

The Hyde Amendment is widely recognized as having a significant impact on the number of abortions in the United States continuing to help save more than 60,000 lives a year-1 in 9-as reported by New.

One need only look at the actions of pro-abortion activists who seek to end the policy to appreciate its deep pro-life impact along with the fact that the Democratic Party's Platform seeks repeal of the Hyde Amendment along with most Democrats in Congress.

Pro-life advocates are using the anniversary to introduce men and women, girls and boys who are alive today thanks to the Hyde Amendment. The Hello Hyde project highlights the fact that Medicaid saves lives and ensures healthy mothers and babies.

On this day we also we remember with thanksgiving the late Rep. Henry Hyde and his faithful commitment to saving the lives of the "least of these". National Right to Life recalls that when President George W. Bush presented Rep. Hyde with the Presidential Medal of Freedom, he said that Rep. Hyde "was a gallant champion of the weak and forgotten, and a fearless defender of life in all its seasons."

Henry Hyde was a gifted orator who during the House debate on the Partial Birth Abortion Ban Act in 2000 eloquently argued:

"This is not a debate about religious doctrine or even about public policy options. It is a debate about our understanding of human dignity, what it means to be a member of the human family, even though tiny, powerless and unwanted. ... We are knee deep in a culture of death. ... Look, in this advanced democracy, in the year 2000, is it our crowning achievement that we have learned to treat people as things? Our moment in history is marked by a mortal conflict between a culture of life and a culture of death. God put us in the world to do noble things, to love and to cherish our fellow human beings, not to destroy them. Today we must choose sides."

Rep. Chris Smith, Hyde's successor as chair of the House Pro-Life Caucus, reflected on 40 years of the Hyde amendment in congressional remarks:

"I remember the day several years ago when my friend and author of the amendment, Henry Hyde of Illinois, first learned that about one million children were alive because of his amendment. He was overcome with joy knowing that a million mothers were spared the agony of post abortion pain, a million children were alive and well, growing up, going to school, playing sports, dating, marrying and having kids of their own. Today that number is estimated at two million-all because abortion subsidies have been prohibited by law."

Read the latest tweets on the celebration of 40 years of Hyde at #HelloHyde.

A close examination of the noble sounding declaration, however, reveals that one group will not have their lives saved or their rights protected-unborn children.

In a long list of commitments, the Declaration regrettably includes in point #31 a commitment to "provide access to sexual and reproductive health-care services". Abortion is considered by most to be a "reproductive health-care service". 

The following day, the insidious promotion of abortion was confirmed as a draft companion set of principles was released by Kate Gilmore, UN Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights and a former director of Amnesty International. Gilmore explained that the Principles and Guidelines, supported by practical guidance, on the human rights protection of migrants in vulnerable situations within large and/or mixed movements is meant to provide "brave principled leadership" to put the ideals expressed in the Declaration into practice.

One section is especially troubling for its inclusion of abortion. Principle 12: "Right to health" states in Guideline #4:

"Provide access to rights-based, comprehensive and integrated sexual and reproductive health information and services, including, inter alia, safe and effective methods of modern contraception; emergency contraception; maternal health care including emergency obstetric services, pre- and post-natal care; safe abortion care; prevention, treatment, care and support for sexually transmitted infections including HIV, and specialised care for survivors of sexual violence. Provide, as a priority, a minimum initial service package for reproductive health." 

The 20 draft principles are being developed by Global Migration Group's Working Group on Human Rights and Gender which is co-chaired by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) and UN Women, two UN entities known for pro-abortion activism.

The Guidelines reference a statement made by UNFPA and 13 States at the World Humanitarian Summit that it called a "Promising Practice", during which the 14 "committed to intensify support including financing for humanitarian action to ensure universal access to sexual and reproductive health and reproductive rights in crisis settings".

The goal is that the guiding principles and the New York Declaration will together establish a plan for safe migration in 2018.

Such a plan will not be safe for unborn children and may conflict with national laws if abortion remains part of it. 

In a statement that uses identical words and false arguments as used in the NGO materials advancing the day, the four pro-abortion activists take it upon themselves to call for countries to overturn pro-life laws and policies. The four "urge States to repeal restrictive laws and policies in relation to abortion, which do not meet the international human rights law requirements and that have discriminatory and public health impacts, and to eliminate all punitive measures and discriminatory barriers to access safe reproductive health services. These laws and policies violate women's human right to health and negate their autonomy in decision-making about their own bodies."

Ignored is the fact that there is no consensus at the United Nations supporting abortion and that UN Member States have different positions on abortion with 68 countries banning abortion or allowing for a life of the mother only exception. Instead the four berate sovereign laws that protect women and their children from the violence of abortion charging: "While slavery has now been abolished, there is still a long way to go before the bodies and wombs of women around the world will stop being instrumentalised in the name of patriarchal morals or traditions and for political, economic or cultural purposes."

The four are Alda Facio, Chair-Rapporteur of the Working Group on the issue of discrimination against women in law and in practice; Dubravka Simonović, Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences; Dainius Puras, Special Rapporteur on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health; and Juan E. Méndez, Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

It is shocking that given their respective areas of expertise, these four cannot see that abortion discriminates against the youngest and most vulnerable human beings, especially against girls in the case of sex selection abortion.

That abortion inflicts deadly violence against children and can cause physical, emotional, psychological, and spiritual damage to the woman.

That abortion impacts the physical health of the child who is denied life itself and can impact the mental health of post-abortive women who come to regret their abortion and may be driven to self-destructive actions.

That abortion renders the most cruel and inhuman punishment to the innocent child-death-with some abortion methods inflicting horrific torture on a pain-capable child.

PNCI believes that the four UN rapporteurs render a disservice to the United Nations, to Member States, and to the Office of the UN High Commissioner of Human Rights for allowing themselves to act as puppets of pro-abortion NGOs. Their words disrespect and discount sovereign national laws while they use their positions to advance the destruction of preborn children in conflict with the Convention on the Rights of the Child which states in the Preamble, "...the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth".

We have to ask: Do these four really think their credibility remains intact after such an agenda-driven action?

However, since Misoprostol has other uses, including maternal life-saving use for the prevention and treatment of post partum hemorrhage, countries most often register the drug and include it on the country's essential medicines list for this purpose. Once the drug is in the country, pro-abortion NGOs then work to inform women on use of the drug for self-induced abortion via abortion hotlines or by direct distribution of the pills, including in countries where abortion is illegal.

The evaluation uses the words "discreet leadership" to explain UNFPA's efforts: "International stakeholders have also recognised the discreet leadership that UNFPA has played in getting Misoprostol on the essential medicines list in many countries, which has revolutionised access to safe abortion."

One has to wonder why UNFPA would have to be discreet about seeking inclusion of Misoprostol on the essential medicines lists and whether or not it promotes use of the drug for abortion in settings where abortion is illegal.

Pro-abortion agitators are again using September 28 as the so-called Global Day of Access for Safe & Legal Abortion promoting access to abortion with staged activities in select cities around the world and online, #Sept28. Organized by the International Campaign for Women's Right to Safe Abortion, affiliated NGOs have planned events to influence policy makers and as they call for "universal access to safe abortion" and for "the decriminalization of abortion around the world" with a "moratorium on prosecutions of women who have had abortions and safe abortion providers."

The Campaign Statement in Celebration of International Safe Abortion Day, 28 September 2016 begins by equating legal protections against abortion with slavery stating, "To force women to have children they do not wish to have, however, is a form of slavery and of violence against women".

Read more here.

Members of the lower chamber of the Polish Parliament, the Sejm, voted yesterday on two competing citizens' initiatives on abortion with the pro-life measure receiving the support necessary to proceed to a legislative committee.

The vote and support for protecting life is viewed as a welcome step toward maintaining Polish sovereignty on abortion and other issues as the country faces continued pressure from pro-abortion elites at the European Union and the United Nations following the change in political power resulting from last year's election in which the conservative Law and Justice (PiS) party won control of both the government and parliament. The initiative will next proceed through the legislative process for two additional readings which may include amendments and changes by members of the legislative committee.

In discussing the path of dialogue, Pope Francis affirmed the sacredness of human life from its very beginning to natural end and called for the defense of fundamental freedoms stating, "...we are witnessing the goodness of God who has given us life; this is sacred and must be respected, not belittled. The believer is an advocate of creation and life, cannot remain silent or passive in the face so many rights destroyed with impunity... men and women of faith are called to defend life in all its stages, physical integrity and fundamental freedoms, such as freedom of conscience, thought, expression and religion."

Pope Francis appeared to coyly raise concern about population control measures that impact the very existence of future generations by cryptically asking if present efforts to leave a better world for our children will ensure that there will be children to enjoy that world, "Y ¿habrá hijos para eso?" (And there will be children for that?)

Read more here.