John Smeaton, SPUC director

Baby-saving pro-life counsellors are under threat, so let's focus on defending them from all quarters

2012-01-27T17:49:00.000Z

Mothers in crisis need pro-life support

Last night on Newsnight Diane Abbott MP and Nadine Dorries MP (two political personalities about whose positions on abortion I have written about previously) were debating Ms Abbott's decision to leave a parliamentary group discussing abortion counselling.

There is a danger that the dust thrown-up by the show-down between these ladies obscures the most important fact in this issue: pro-life counsellors, whose work saves lives, are under threat. The Department of Health, Mrs Dorries, Mrs Abbott and the advertising code-writers are all either considering or have already decided in favour of legal or quasi-legal restrictions on pro-life counsellors.

Last Saturday The Telegraph reported that one of the proposals being considered by the cross-party group set-up by the Department of Health is:

"for a system of 'voluntary registration'. This would would mean any organisation offering counselling to women with a crisis pregnancy would have to meet minimum standards, and only use appropriately-trained counsellors. A cross-party group of 10 MPs which has held secret talks over the proposals has become deeply divided about whether organisations running such services should be required to declare any ethical stance - such as holding pro-life beliefs."

How would such a “system” work in practice?

Firstly, it is likely to be the pro-abortion Department of Health, with advice from pro-abortion advisers, which would decide what constitutes "minimum standards" and who are "appropriately-trained counsellors".

Secondly, last night Mrs Dorries told Newsnight:

"I would like anybody with any kind of interest - whether financial or any other kind of interest - in a woman's decision to abort, to declare that interest."

Kirsty Wark, the presenter, asked Mrs Dorries:

"And if you have independent counselling, do you want people who are independent counsellors to actually have to declare that they are actually against abortion or not?"

Mrs Dorries answered:

"Yes" ... "There should be no-one who is in a room with a woman in a crisis pregnancy who has any agenda whatsoever, be it religious or financial."

Some people think that such statements from Mrs Dorries are just clever tactics. If so, they are also dangerous tactics. With powerful and well-resourced opponents in the pro-abortion lobby, she is liable to be held to account for such statements.

And thirdly on 30 April, the following changes to the advertising code will come into effect:

The UK Code of Broadcast Advertising (rule 11.11.1): "Advertisements for services offering advice on unplanned pregnancy must make clear in the advertisement if the service does not refer women directly for a termination."
The UK Code of Non-broadcast Advertising, Sales Promotion and Direct Marketing Code (rule 12.24): "Marketing communications for services offering advice on unplanned pregnancy must make clear if the service does not refer women directly for a termination."

The requirements supported variously by the Department of Health, by Mrs Dorries and by the advertising code-writers come from the pro-abortion lobby, which wants to deter pregnant mothers undecided about abortion from contacting pro-life counsellors, and which wants pro-life counsellors effectively black-listed and black-balled.

So pro-lifers must not be distracted by the sparring of two headline-catching MPs - both of whom support legal abortion and its expansion. Rather, we must work to save lives by defending pro-life counsellors from the dictatorship of relativism.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Act now to get government to block advertising by commercial abortion centres

2012-01-26T13:13:00.000Z

The government should use its powers to stop TV advertising by commercial abortion centres. The question-and-answer briefing below will give you the information you need to help make this happen.

Q: What has happened?

A: This week the two bodies which draft the advertising code of practice made changes to allow “commercial post-conception advice services” - in reality, abortion clinics which earn income from performing abortions - to advertise on television and radio, in print and elsewhere. Pro-abortion organisations have welcomed the change; pro-life groups, some columnists and many ordinary people (some not pro-life) have objected to it. The change will come into effect on 30 April.

Q: Who exactly has made this decision?

A: Two committees, the Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice (BCAP) and the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP). These are committees of the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). They are not statutory authorities. BCAP draws up the Code of Advertising Practice on behalf of Ofcom.

Q: But aren’t abortion clinics already allowed to advertise? Didn’t Marie Stopes run TV ads a while ago?

A: In early 2010 BCAP decided that there was nothing under existing law or codes to prevent non-commercial abortion centres from advertising on TV and radio, as long as the advertisements didn’t actually offer abortion directly. An advertisement by Marie Stopes International, one of the largest abortion chains in the UK and internationally, was shown shortly afterwards on TV.

The advert cleverly avoided mention of abortion. It was all done by implication. It depicted a young woman worried about her period being late. The advert asked: "Who can help her?" and the answer given was Marie Stopes. Thousands of people complained that advertising abortion in this way was illegal, indecent, dishonest and untruthful, but BCAP approved the adverts anyway. SPUC argued (and still argues) that the decision was wrong, not least because Marie Stopes was (and is) run on a commercial basis, with ‘business development’ managers, millions of pounds put aside for ‘future projects’, lucrative contracts with governments, income from fee-paying clients, and perks for its staff typical of commerce (but rare for charities).

This past week (20 January 2012) BCAP have gone further and actually changed its code to allow commercial abortion centres to advertise on TV and radio. This change gives a clear, added confirmation to so-called charities providing abortion that making money from abortion won’t bar them from advertising on TV and radio. Also, this decision will be useful to Marie Stopes and similar abortion operators if at some point they decide to drop their official status as charities, or decide to split up their operations between registered charities and registered (commercial) companies.

Q: Will abortion centres have to say that they perform abortion or have a financial interest in abortion?

A: No. BCAP considered such a requirement but rejected the need for it.

Q: Will pro-life organisations be allowed to advertise on TV and radio?

A: In principle, yes.

Q: If pro-life organisations are allowed to advertise, what’s wrong with allowing abortion centres to advertise?

A: Commercial abortion providers can afford broadcast advertising; whereas groups which provide objective information about abortion and its impact on women's health will be unlikely to afford to advertise. Most pro-life advice services charge nothing. Abortionists can just add the costs of advertising into their charges. Thus there will be a disproportionate opportunity for abortion providers to advance their cause.

CAP have said that any organisation giving post-conception pregnancy advice must first provide “suitable credentials” before being allowed to advertise. There is a real danger that the credentials of pro-life organisations will not be regarded as “suitable” because they refuse to offer abortion or refer women for abortion, and because they reject “official” guidance, such as the guidance from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG), which was drawn up with the help of abortion providers.

CAP have also said that advertisements by pro-life pregnancy centres must make clear that they do not refer women for abortions. CAP have admitted that they have adopted this requirement based on advice from the pro-abortion Department of Health, the pro-abortion RCOG and a pro-abortion parliamentary committee report.

Q: It’s a free country, with free speech. What’s wrong with abortion centres being allowed to promote what they have to offer?

A: Abortion centres mislead women, by telling them that their unborn babies are just 'products of conception', and that abortion is not killing but simply ending a pregnancy. Allowing commercial abortion centres to advertise on television immediately treats abortion as if it was a service or a desirable product.

Also, this move will increase the number of organisations able to advertise abortion. Marie Stopes and similar organisations have a vested financial interest in abortion, which they can now sustain through broadcast advertising. These organisations offer virtually no practical help to women who keep their babies, yet nowhere does this have to be mentioned.

Q: What should we think about the ASA, BCAP and CAP in the light of this decision?

A: The advertising industry is displaying a bias to support the devious and sleazy agenda of abortion operators, who have ideological and commercial interests in promoting abortion. The ASA already demonstrated a bias against pro-life groups when it attempted to ban advertisements which stated correctly that morning-after pills may cause early abortions. As an industry-based group, it is free to reflect the views of the broadcasters and publishers who want lucrative advertising deals. It is a great shame that it has not acted more impartially.

Q: What should happen now?

A: Jeremy Hunt MP, the cabinet minister with responsibility for media, is reportedly “very unhappy” about the decision but apparently lacks the resolve to act. However, Ed Vaizey MP, his deputy, told Parliament on 2 June 2010 that Mr Hunt has the power to order Ofcom, the statutory regulator, to order TV and radio stations not to broadcast certain advertisements. In contrast, ASA, BCAP and CAP are not statutory bodies. They are not answerable democratically or judicially to anyone, nor do they have power to impose any penalties or hold anyone to account. MPs should remind Mr Hunt of his powers in relation to Ofcom, and urge him to use those powers to rein-in ASA, BCAP and CAP, which have acted irresponsibly.

Q: To whom should I write?

A: Please write to your Member of Parliament (MP), asking him/her to write to Mr Hunt on your behalf, reminding Mr Hunt of his powers in relation to Ofcom, and urging Mr Hunt to use those powers to block all advertisements by abortion centres.

You can write to your MP at the House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA. If you’re not sure of your MP’s name, please visit http://www.spuc.org.uk/mps (where you can also send an electronic message to your MP). Please copy or forward any replies you receive from MPs to SPUC’s political department, either at SPUC HQ or by email to political@spuc.org.uk

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Read this for updated links to Brian Comerford and his pro-life radio drama "TERMINATION"

2012-01-24T18:54:00.000Z

On Friday I blogged that a very brave Irish radio drama producer, Daniel Reardon, made an extraordinary production of TERMINATION - about the unborn child and abortion - by the writer Brian Comerford. Reportedly, Mr Reardon's employers, RTE Radio 1, Ireland, did not share his courage, and I'm told that a scheduled broadcast of Brian Comerford's work was "aborted".

Brian has emailed me and asked me to update readers with the following:

he will be making TERMINATION free for downloads again on Saturday 28 January
the full link to TERMINATION on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Termination-ebook/dp/B006VXNVUQ/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1327263006&sr=1-1
his profile on Amazon - he has TERMINATION exclusively with Amazon for the purpose of the free days.

Brian also wrote:

"As yesterday's news item was about the media being permitted to advertise abortion services, it outrages my sense of fair play that a radio drama that might be seen and heard by many as an inconvenient truth, is suppressed."

Catholic politicians must uphold the right to life, Pope reiterates

2012-01-24T07:46:00.000Z

On Thursday Pope Benedict addressed a group of US Catholic bishops in Rome (pictured). I recommend strongly reading the whole (brief) address, but in particular I wish to highlight this statement:

"...the issues which are determining the future of American society. ... In this regard, I would mention with appreciation your efforts to maintain contacts with Catholics involved in political life and to help them understand their personal responsibility to offer public witness to their faith, especially with regard to the great moral issues of our time: respect for God's gift of life, the protection of human dignity and the promotion of authentic human rights."

In other words, Catholic politicians must vote against and oppose abortion, abusive embryo research, euthanasia and the homosexual agenda, which variously threaten the gift of life, human dignity and authentic human rights. This is because such threats "threaten the future of humanity", as Pope Benedict said earlier this month. Dr Jon Cruddas, the Catholic MP who has voted for or otherwise supported abortion, euthanasia and so-called homosexual rights, should take note, as should Dr Cruddas's supporters at The Tablet and the Las Casas Institute.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Advertising 'watchdog' acting as abortion industry's poodle

2012-01-21T10:47:00.000Z

SPUC has responded to the decision by the Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice (BCAP) and the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP, for non-broadcast advertising) to allow so-called commercial post-conception advice services - in reality abortion businesses - to advertise on television and radio. SPUC has for several years been running a grassroots nationwide campaign against the proposal, inspiring thousands of ordinary people to protest to the government, Ofcom and the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) about such advertising.

Anthony Ozimic, SPUC's communications manager, told the media earlier this morning:

"Today's statement by BCAP's Matt Wilson shows just how much his supposed 'watchdog' is acting as the abortion industry's poodle. Mr Wilson claimed that post-conception advice services 'are not there to promote abortion', yet Marie Stopes and the British Pregnancy Advisory Services (BPAS) are Britain's biggest abortion lobbyists and abortion chain operators. Mr Wilson also claimed that 'commercial pro-life pregnancy services will now be able to advertise too.' Yet there are no commercial pro-life pregnancy services in the UK: all pro-life pregnancy services in the UK are non-commercial and therefore cannot afford broadcast advertising. The massive income Marie Stopes and other abortion providers generate from both private and NHS-contracted abortion means they will dominate such advertising.

The pro-abortion bias of BCAP/CAP is further proved by its requirement that advertisements by pro-life pregnancy centres must make clear that they do not refer women for abortions. BCAP/CAP have admitted that they have imposed this requirement based on advice from the pro-abortion Department of Health, the pro-abortion Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) and a pro-abortion parliamentary committee report. Yet BPAP/CAP have also ruled that Marie Stopes and their ilk will not have to declare that they offer abortion or have a financial interest in abortion. This two-faced decision is blatant discrimination against pro-life centres at the behest of the pro-abortion lobby.

We are disturbed that Jeremy Hunt, the media secretary, has concluded that he has no power to overrule BCAP/CAP despite being reportedly 'very unhappy' about their decision. This contradicts an admission by Mr Hunt's deputy Ed Vaizey that the media secretary does in fact have such a power, as SPUC has said all along.

This decision will only serve the abortion industry's money-spinning trade which hurts women through killing their unborn children."

Powerful abortion radio drama "suppressed"

2012-01-20T18:06:00.000Z

I have heard that a very brave Irish radio drama producer, Daniel Reardon, made an extraordinary production of TERMINATION - about the unborn child and abortion - by the writer Brian Comerford .

Reportedly, Mr Reardon's employers, RTE Radio 1, Ireland, did not share his courage, and I'm told that a scheduled broadcast of Brian Comerford's work was "aborted".

The script of this suppressed abortion drama is available for download on Amazon*: amzn.to/Script-Termination

Downloads will be FREE on Amazon tomorrow, Saturday 21st January.

Fiorella Nash, an author and a member of SPUC's research team, tells me:

"I have just read through Termination. The drama switches between the mother and the baby’s perspectives throughout. It avoids any sentimentality by having the pre-natal development side described as though the womb were a machine (this doesn’t sound very good in the telling, but if you imagine a voice-over describing different parts of the process and also the abortion, culminating in the sound of alarms shrieking, it manages to convey the panic and horror without being ghoulish or maudlin).

"Obviously the radio scripts are meant to be heard not read so one has to allow for the technical language of scriptwriting (off-mic, FX etc) ... Nevertheless, I can imagine some of the scenes being incredibly powerful ... "

'Three-parent' embryo technique is unethical and macabre

2012-01-19T18:01:00.000Z

SPUC has responded to the announcement by the Wellcome Trust that embryo research into mitochondrial disease will start at its £5.8 million new centre at Newcastle University. At the same time the government has launched a public consultation on whether to pass legislation to allow the 'three-parent' embryo technique to be used for medical treatment.

Anthony Ozimic, SPUC's communications manager, told the media earlier today:

"These macabre experiments are both destructive and dangerous and therefore unethical. The vast majority of embryonic children created in the laboratory are killed because they do not meet the 'quality control' requirements dictated by scientists involved in such increasingly macabre experiments.

"It doesn't matter how an embryonic child is created, he or she is still an innocent member of the human family and therefore has the right to life.

“Scientists should abandon the spurious field of destructive embryo experimentation and instead promote the ethical alternative of adult stem cell research, which is already providing cures and treatments for the same conditions".

And as I also told the media earlier today, as with IVF and cloning, this mitochondrial technique may well lead to developmental abnormalities. Creating embryonic children in the laboratory abuses them, by subjecting them to unnatural processes. Human life begins at conception. Any grounds for denying human rights to human embryos are arbitrary and self-serving. Scientists should respect human life and pursue ethical alternatives which are much more likely to be successful in the long term.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Claim of rise in illegal abortions globally is dubious

2012-01-19T11:44:00.000Z

A claim published today in The Lancet that so-called 'unsafe' - usually illegal - abortions worldwide have risen by 5% is dubious.

The claim was made in a report* by researchers from the Guttmacher Institute and the World Health Organsation (WHO). The researchers and other commentators in The Lancet are using the figure to argue that so-called 'safe' abortion should be legalised worldwide.

As I told the media this morning, the WHO routinely makes unsubstantiated claims about so-called 'unsafe' or illegal abortion. WHO is one of the world’s major pro-abortion bodies. The Guttmacher Institute is the research arm of the worldwide pro-abortion lobby. The report is pro-abortion propaganda, and should be dismissed as such.

Promoters of legal abortion have a proven track-record of making wildly exaggerated claims about the number of so-called 'unsafe' or illegal abortions. Such false claims were made in 1967 to lobby for the UK's Abortion Act and in the 1970s to justify the US's Roe v Wade decision. The late Dr Bernard Nathanson, the US abortion pioneer who became pro-life, admitted that he deliberately exaggerated the estimated number of illegal abortions five-fold when campaigning for abortion legalisation.

The truth is that countries with strict laws against abortion have lower maternal death rates than countries which allow abortion widely. Ireland, where abortion is banned, has one of the world's best maternal health records. Legalised abortion does nothing to improve medical care.

* "Induced abortion: incidence and trends worldwide from 1995 to 2008", The Lancet, Early Online Publication, 19 January 2012 http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2811%2961786-8/abstract

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Martin Luther King's prophetic words are amazingly applicable to the pro-life cause today

2012-01-18T18:22:00.000Z

On Monday the United States celebrated Martin Luther King (MLK) Day. I've blogged before about the link between MLK's fight for civil rights for black people and the pro-life cause today:

However, this is the first time I'm blogging about MLK's famous "Letter from Birmingham Jail". I've reproduced below some extracts from the letter which I believe are amazingly applicable to the pro-life cause today, including in the UK:

"I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states. I cannot sit idly in Atlanta and not be concerned about what happens in Birmingham. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
...
My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent-resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and halftruths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, so must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.
...
My friends, I must say to you that we have not made a single gain in civil rights without determined legal and nonviolent pressure.
...

We have waited for more that 340 years for our constitutional and Godgiven rights ... men are no longer willing to be plunged into the abyss of despair. I hope, sirs, you can understand our legitimate and unavoidable impatience.
...
[T]here are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of Harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.. [and] ends up relegating persons to the status of things.
...
One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.
...
Of course, there is nothing new about this kind of civil disobedience. It was evidenced sublimely in the refusal of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego to obey the laws of Nebuchadnezzar, on the ground that a higher moral law was at stake. It was practiced superbly by the early Christians, who were willing to face hungry lions and the excruciating pain of chopping blocks rather than submit to certain unjust laws of the Roman Empire. To a degree, academic freedom is a reality today because Socrates practiced civil disobedience.
...

I had hoped that the white moderate would understand that the present tension in the South is a necessary phase of the transition from an obnoxious negative peace, in which the Negro passively accepted his unjust plight, to a substantive and positive peace, in which all men will respect the dignity and worth of human personality. Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive. We bring it out in the open, where it can be seen and dealt with. Like a boil that can never be cured so long as it is covered up but must be opened with all it ugliness to the natural medicines of air and light injustice must be exposed with all the tension its exposure creates, to the light of human conscience and the air of national opinion, before it can be cured.
...
More and more I feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than have the people of good will. We will have to repent in the generation not merely for the hateful words and actions of the bad people, but for the appalling silence of the good people ... Now is the time to lift our national policy from the quicksand of racial injustice to the solid rock of human dignity.
...
But though I was initially disappointed at being categorized as an extremist, as I continued to think about the matter I gradually gained a measure of satisfaction from the label. Was not Jesus and extremist for love ... And Abraham Lincoln: "This nation cannot survive half slave and half free." And Thomas Jefferson: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal" [?] . . . So the question is not whether we will be extremists, but what kind of extremists we will be. Will we be extremists for hate or for love? Will we be extremists for the preservation of injustice or for the extension of justice? In that dramatic scene on Calv[a]ry's hill three men were crucified. We must never forget that all three were crucified for the same crime -- the crime of extremism. Two were extremists for immorality, and thus fell below their environment. The other, Jesus Christ, was an extremist for love, truth, and goodness, and thereby rose above his environment. Perhaps the South, the nation, and the world are in dire need of creative extremists.
...
I have been so greatly disappointed with the white church and its leadership ... I felt that the ministers, priests, and rabbis of the South would be among our strongest allies. Instead, some have been outright opponents, refusing to understand the freedom movement and misrepresenting its leaders; all too many others have been more cautious than courageous and have remained silent behind the anesthetizing security of stained-glass windows.
...
In deep disappointment I have wept over the laxity of the church ... There was a time when the church was very powerful -- in the time when the early Christians rejoiced at being deemed worthy to suffer for what they believed. In those days the church was not merely a thermometer that recorded the ideas and principles of popular opinion; it was a thermostat that transformed the mores of society. Whenever the early Christians entered a town, the people in power became disturbed and immediately sought to convict the Christians for being "disturbers of the peace" and "outside agitators." But the Christians pressed on ... Small in number, they were big in commitment ... By their effort and example they brought an end to such ancient evils as infanticide and gladiatorial contests.

Things are different now. So often the contemporary church is a weak, ineffectual voice with an uncertain sound. So often it is an archdefender of the status quo. Far from being disturbed by the presence of the church, the power structure of the average community is consoled by the church's silent -- and often even vocal -- sanction of things as they are. But the judgment of God is upon the church as never before. If today's church does not recapture the sacrificial spirit of the early church, it will lose its authenticity, forfeit the loyalty of millions, and be dismissed as an irrelevant social club with no meaning for the twentieth century. Every day I meet young people whose disappointment with the church has turned into outright disgust.
...
I am thankful to God that some noble souls from the ranks of organized religion have broken loose from the paralyzing chains of conformity ... Some have been dismissed from their churches, have lost the support of their bishops and fellow ministers. But they have acted in the faith that right defeated is stronger than evil triumphant. Their witness has been the spiritual salt that has preserved the true meaning of the gospel in these troubled times. They have carved a tunnel of hope through the dark mountain of disappointment."

Midwives defend right to conscientious objection in Scottish court

2012-01-17T18:37:00.000Z

Two midwives from Southern General Hospital in Glasgow have today challenged the Greater Glasgow and Clyde Health Board over their right not to be involved in abortions in the hospital’s labour ward. The Abortion Act 1967 states that no one with a conscientious objection can be forced to participate in abortions.

The hospital management changed its approach to conscientious objectors when it started allotting more late abortion cases to the labour ward instead of the gynaecology department. The management now says that all sister midwives must oversee midwives performing abortions as well as those delivering babies. This can entail having to assist with the abortion procedure. The petitioners believe this is profoundly wrong and in the past their right to avoid becoming involved had always been respected. They are bringing the case to enforce the protection of conscience afforded to all health care staff in the Abortion Act.

The midwives bringing this case have helped many thousands of mothers to deliver their babies safely over the past 20 years, contributing to the Southern General’s outstanding reputation as a maternity hospital.

The case follows a lengthy grievance procedure that has failed to resolve the matter. Paul Tully, SPUC's general secretary, told the media today:

“SPUC has been in touch with the midwives over the long course of the grievance procedure. We would emphasise that there is no suggestion that these midwives had ever treated any woman unkindly, despite what some pro-abortion groups might say about pro-life health care staff. The petitioners' approach is one of professional and ethical integrity. SPUC Pro-life is supporting the midwives' stance and is underwriting their legal costs."

The solicitors acting for the midwives are Brodies LLP. They are represented in court by David Johnston QC of Axiom Advocates.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Today's must-read pro-life news-stories, Tue 17 Jan

2012-01-17T11:30:00.000Z

Marie Stopes Int'l gets Vietnamese award

Top stories:

Book now for 5th International Youth Pro-Life Conference, 2 - 4 March
Every year since 2008 SPUC has hosted the International Youth Pro-Life Conference. Around 150 delegates join us from colleges and universities from around the world. This year's the conference is on 2-4 March and the theme is 'Human Dignity'. We have a fantastic line-up of speakers who will address a wide variety of pro-life issues. For more information, see "Young people are emerging on the front line of the pro-life movement" [John Smeaton, 16 January]

Abortion giant given award by two-child policy Vietnam
Marie Stopes International, the international abortion provider, has been awarded a certificate of merit by Vietnam's Ministry of Health (pictured) for its so-called family planning work. [MSI via Twitter, 16 January] Vietnam's government operates a coercive two-child population control policy [SPUC, 21 July 2009] Marie Stopes International is also complicit in China's coercive population programme. [Fr Timothy Finigan, 24 May 2010]

Congratulations to the Good Counsel Network, now 15 years old
The Good Counsel Network (GCN) (website and blog) has celebrated its 15th anniversary. Clare and Stuart McCullough (blog) have, through their prayer, fasting, counselling, support and witness, saved countless lives from abortion and served countless women in need. SPUC is proud to support Good Counsel Network. [John Smeaton, 14 January]

Other stories:

Abortion

40 Days for Life London fundraising banquet, 11 February [40 Days for Life London]
Lawyer for 'X' case is member of Irish government's expert group on abortion [Youth Defence, 16 January]
Leading Canadian doctor calls for restrictions on gender tests to deter sex-selective abortions [Mail, 17 January]
SPUC protests outside east London abortion clinic [Newham Recorder, 13 January]
445 babies saved from abortion thanks to free ‘Bella’ movie, says US pro-life group [LifeSiteNews.com, 12 January]
New prime minister surprises Moroccans with support for abortion [New York Times, 11 January]
Post-abortion group releases new song video supporting women [LifeNews.com, 11 January]

Embryology

US sperm donor, father of 14 children, is 36 year-old virgin [Mail, 17 January]
Cambridge team claims stem cell breakthrough in growing blood vessels [Mail, 16 January]

Euthanasia

House of Lords debate on euthanasia [House of Lords, 16 January]
UK government answer regarding Falconer assisted suicide report [House of Lords, 16 January]
UK man, 79, jailed for killing wife who had dementia [This is Devon, 14 January]
Paralysed rugby player defies doctors to walk, wed, conceive [Mail, 14 January]
Interview with former UK schools chief inspector about assisted suicide [Telegraph, 13 January]
House of Commons to debate prosecutor's guidelines on assisted suicide [BBC, 12 January]
UK MEP writes in support of assisted suicide [Freedom Association, 9 January]

Sexual ethics

Large number of Tory MPs predicted to oppose gay marriage proposal [Independent, 17 January]
Sweden blocks plans to overturn sex-change sterilisation law [thejournal.ie, 16 January]
Andrea Leadsom MP attacks BBC sex ed programme video as like porn [Mail, 13 January]
UK island of Jersey gives gay civil partnerships similar rights to heterosexual marriage [BBC, 13 January]
Sexting culture sparks explosion of casual sex among Britain's teenagers [Mail, 13 January]
Belgian minister calls for Brussels archbishop to be replaced over comments re gays [Pink News, 13 January]
US religious leaders issue joint letter against gay marriage [John Smeaton, 13 January]
Explicit sex ed guidelines launched for use across America [LifeSiteNews.com, 12 January]

General

Unborn baby saves father’s life with early morning kick [LifeSiteNews.com, 16 January]
UK mothers bare their baby bumps to raise awareness about stillbirth [Mail, 14 January]
Foetus parties show "commercialisation" of pregnancy, says top midwife [Telegraph, 13 January]

Young people are emerging on the front line of the pro-life movement

2012-01-16T16:28:00.000Z

I have said on many occasions before on this blog that the new generation of young people committed to the defence of vulnerable human life is a reason for great hope for the pro-life movement. Over the past few years these young people have emerged on the front line of the pro-life movement through initiatives such as 40 Days for Life in London and Birmingham. SPUC are proud of our work supporting these initiatives and of the work undertaken by young people within SPUC. Over the past year SPUC provided the first ever pro-life presence at Lewisham People's Day - one of London's biggest local fairs and SPUC's summer youth interns conducted a full scale campaign against the opening of a new abortion facility in Stratford.

Young people are showing a willingness to respond to the numerous threats our society poses to vulnerable human life. We must keep educating them about these realities and inspiring them to take action.

Every year since 2008 SPUC has hosted the International Youth Pro-Life Conference to do just that. Around 150 delegates join us from colleges and universities from around the world: England, Scotland, Ireland, Wales, USA, Australia, Canada, Portugal, Germany, France, and the Congo. Previous speakers have included: Alex Schadenberg, Sr. Roseann Reddy, Brian Kemper, Rev. Dr. John Fleming and Rebecca Kiessling.

This year's the conference is on 2-4 March and the theme is 'Human Dignity'. We have a fantastic line-up of speakers who will address a wide variety of pro-life issues.

Rev. Dr. Andrew Pinsent: Pro-Life Philosophy
Lynette Burrows: Sex Education in Schools
Professor David Paton: Teenage Pregnancy and Abstinence strategies
Dr Ann Carus: Family Planning and IVF
Sr Andrea Fraile: Abortion Counselling
Fiorella Nash: Pro-life Feminism
Rev. Dr. John Fleming: Marriage and pro-life
Dr Philip Howard: End of Life Care
Dr. Jacqueline Laing: Euthanasia and assisted suicide

There will also be workshops looking at the effect of performing abortion on the abortionist, organising pro-life action and how the law treats human life during its earliest stages.

When: Friday, 2 March 2012 at 16:00 until Sunday, 4 March 2012 at 15:30
Where: Park Inn, Rotherham, Express Park, Manvers Way
How much: £90. You can book and pay online via our online shop, or download and fill out the booking form, posting it to us with a cheque.

There is a Facebook event page which you can use to inform others about this conference.

The price is heavily subsidised by SPUC, and includes all talks, workshops, handouts, meals, accommodation, and evening socials.

Delegates enjoying some discussion over lunch with Stephen Barrie of the Anscombe Bioethics centre Oxford, Annie, co-founder of Students for Life Bristol and Alithea and Annette of Cardiff Students for Life.

The conference is a great chance to pick up excellent prolife resources for yourself and your college or university prolife group.

A packed conference talk given by Donna Nicholson, SPUC Scotland director.

Please spread the word about this crucial pro-life event and encourage young people to sign-up today.

Congratulations to the Good Counsel Network, now 15 years old

2012-01-14T19:25:00.000Z

Yesterday the Good Counsel Network (GCN) (website and blog) celebrated its 15th anniversary. Clare and Stuart McCullough (blog) have, through their prayer, fasting, counselling, support and witness, saved countless lives from abortion and served countless women in need. SPUC is proud to support Good Counsel Network and SPUC staff and supporters were well-represented at last night's Mass marking the anniversary.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

US religious leaders issue joint letter against gay marriage

2012-01-13T17:59:00.000Z

Yesterday, religious leaders in the United States issued a joint open letter to all Americans entitled: "Marriage and religious freedom: fundamental goods that stand or fall together". The signatories include:

Cardinal-designate Timothy M. Dolan, archbishop of New York; president, United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
Nathan J. Diament, Executive Director for Public Policy, Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America
Rev. Leith Anderson, President, National Association of Evangelicals
The Most Rev. Robert Duncan, Archbishop, Anglican Church in North America
Dr. Jo Anne Lyon, Chair, Board of General Superintendents, The Wesleyan Church
Commissioner William A. Roberts, National Commander, The Salvation Army
Dr. George O. Wood, General Superintendent, Assemblies of God
Bishop H. David Burton, Presiding Bishop, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

The letter says, among other things:

"The promotion and protection of marriage—the union of one man and one woman as husband and wife—is a matter of the common good and serves the wellbeing of the couple, of children, of civil society and all people. The meaning and value of marriage precedes and transcends any particular society, government, or religious community. It is a universal good and the foundational institution of all societies. It is bound up with the nature of the human person as male and female, and with the essential task of bearing and nurturing children.

As religious leaders across a wide variety of faith communities, we join together to affirm that marriage in its true definition must be protected for its own sake and for the good of society. We also recognize the grave consequences of altering this definition.
...
[W]e believe the most urgent peril is this: forcing or pressuring both individuals and religious organizations—throughout their operations, well beyond religious ceremonies—to treat same-sex sexual conduct as the moral equivalent of marital sexual conduct. There is no doubt that the many people and groups whose moral and religious convictions forbid same-sex sexual conduct will resist the compulsion of the law, and church-state conflicts will result.

These conflicts bear serious consequences. They will arise in a broad range of legal contexts, because altering the civil definition of “marriage” does not change one law, but hundreds, even thousands, at once.
...
Therefore, we encourage all people of good will to protect marriage as the union between one man and one woman... We especially urge those entrusted with the public good to support laws that uphold the time-honored definition of marriage..."

Unfortunately, the joint letter omits to:

say that the signatories actually "will resist the compulsion of the law" if gay marriage is legalised
refer (at least directly) to the "family"
refer to parents as the primary educators of their children.

The letter is, however, a sign that opposition within US faith communities to gay marriage is strong and that different religions can come together to uphold the natural moral law.

Another sign of similar opposition to gay marriage has come in recent months from the Scottish Catholic bishops:

Cardinal Keith O'Brien, archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh, 11 Sept. 2011:

"[R]edefining marriage will have huge implications for what is taught in our schools and for wider society ... This proposal represents a grotesque subversion of a universally accepted human right [to marry] ... [M]arriage has always existed in order to bring men and women together so that the children born of those unions will have a mother and a father ... All children deserve to begin life with a mother and father, the evidence in favour of the stability and well being which this provides is overwhelming and unequivocal ... If the Scottish Government attempt to demolish a universally recognised human right [the right to marry], they will have forfeited the trust which the nation, including people of all faiths and none, have placed in them and their intolerance will shame Scotland in the eyes of the world."

Mario Conti, archbishop of Glasgow, 9 Oct. 2011:

"Those in Government need to be respectfully reminded that a mandate to govern does not include a mandate to reconstruct society on ideological grounds, nor to undermine the very institution which, from the beginning, has been universally acknowledged as of the natural order and the bedrock of society, namely marriage and the family. In terms of law, its support and defence have been on a par with the defence of life itself. We weaken it at our peril."

Philip Tartaglia, Bishop of Paisley, 12 Sept. 2011:

"Governments do not have the authority to say what marriage is or to change its nature or to decree that people of the same sex can marry ... Marriage has always existed in order to bring men and women together so that the children born of those unions will have a mother and a father. For that reason, same sex unions cannot fulfil the nature and purpose of marriage ... A Government which favours and allows for same sex ‘marriage’...commits an act of cultural vandalism. Such a government does not deserve the trust which the nation, and including many in the Catholic community, has shown in it ...[W]ith the introduction a few years ago of civil partnerships for same sex unions, people of the same sex do not need marriage to live as civilly recognised couples who enjoy the same legal protections as married couples."

Such arguments and strength of opposition (including from Pope Benedict, who this week warned that gay marriage" inter alia "threatens the future of humanity") gives SPUC inspiration in our campaign against the Westminster government's proposals for gay marriage - see SPUC's position paper and background paper.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Today's must-read pro-life news-stories, Thu 12 Jan

2012-01-12T11:56:00.001Z

Eugenics victim

Top stories:

Please pray for SPUC on our 45th anniversary
45 years ago yesterday (11 January), the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) was established at a meeting in central London. The meeting was held at the Wig and Pen Club in the Strand. Alan Smith, who remains a member of SPUC's executive committee and on its national council, was elected joint honorary secretary of the Society at that meeting in the Strand. Alan said: "It's an important landmark in the pro-life movement of which I'm pleased to be part." [John Smeaton, 11 January]

Hundreds of forcibly-sterilised North Carolina women set to receive $50k compensation
Hundreds of women (one pictured) forcibly sterilised under a now-defunct North Carolina eugenics programme are set to receive US$50,000 each in compensation. The state task-force which determined the sum said it was not seeking to place a value on people's lives. [Mail, 10 January] Such programmes were promoted by Margaret Sanger, the founder of the worldwide abortion movement.

Jersey's health minister against assisted suicide
Anne Pryke, the health minister of the UK island of Jersey, says she will not support the legalisation of assisted suicide. The BBC reported that Mrs Pryke said that life was a privilege and should be protected. Her comments come after a widely-publicised report by a pro-suicide lobbying group. [BBC, 8 January]

Other stories:

Abortions

Profile of sex-selective abortions in Taiwan [Independent, 10 January]
Tablet editor jettisons the truth about pro-abortion MP Jon Cruddas [John Smeaton, 9 January]

Embryology

NHS cutting back on IVF to save money, stats suggest [Telegraph, 12 January]
UK researchers claim two is best number of embryos to implant in IVF [Telegraph, 12 January]
UK study claims IVF babies born from frozen embryos are "healthier" than those from fresh ones [Mail, 6 January]
'Chimeric' monkeys made from cells of six different 'parents' [Mail, 6 January]

Euthanasia

Irish high court rules that disabled boy should not be resuscitated if condition worsens [Irish Independent, 11 January]
Anglican bishop writes against Falconer assisted suicide report [Conservative Home, 7 January]
Leicester Mercury leader column against assisted suicide [This is Leicestershire, 7 January]

Population

Profile of China's "Precious Snowflakes", 2nd generation of one-child policy children [Telegraph, 8 January]

Sexual ethics

Pope's speech sparks Philippines bishops' strategy meeting against gay marriage [CathNews Philippines, 12 January]
Australian tennis legend stands up against gay marriage [Reuters via Guardian, 11 January]
Education for Choice fails to debunk pro-life campaign against gay marriage [John Smeaton, 10 January]
SPUC right to campaign against gay marriage, as Pope says threats to the family "threaten the future of humanity" [John Smeaton, 10 January]
BBC criticised over irresponsible documentary on teen sex [Mail, 9 January]
Soho Mass organiser claims gay unions are already being blessed in Catholic churches [John Smeaton, 7 January]

General

Alice Glenn, defender of life and family, RIP [Pat Buckley, 9 January]
Report of SPUC director's talk to Catholic knightly order [Militiae Sanctae Mariae, 4 January]

Please pray for SPUC on our 45th anniversary

2012-01-11T16:08:00.000Z

45 years ago today, the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) was established at a meeting in central London. The meeting was held at the Wig and Pen Club (pictured) in the Strand.

Alan Smith, who remains a member of SPUC's executive committee and on its national council, was elected joint honorary secretary of the Society at that meeting in the Strand. Speaking to me about today's anniversary, Alan said:

"It's an important landmark in the pro-life movement of which I'm pleased to be part."

According to the faded, yellowing, copy of the minutes on my desk those present were (in the chair) The Rt. Hon. the Viscount Barrington, Miss Phyllis Court (my predecessor as SPUC national director, Phyllis Bowman), Miss E. Rhys-Williams (now Mrs Elspeth Chowdharay-Best), Professor J.S. Scott and Mr Alan Smith.

Alan Smith and Elspeth Chowdharay-Best first discussed the formation of SPUC, he tells me, in July 1966. Elspeth had suggested that Alan Smith write to The Spectator opposing the passage of the Termination of Pregnancy Bill (later the Abortion Act 1967) which was then going through Parliament. When The Spectator failed to publish his letter, they felt "something more formal should be done" so he and Elspeth Rhys-Williams wrote round to academics, political and religious leaders with a view to forming an organization which became the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children. Phyllis Bowman played a major role in the Society's successful launch. She and Elspeth knew each other through their work for the National Birthday Trust.

It was the first specifically pro-life group to be formed in the world, said Alan.

One of the fifteen people elected on that occasion to serve on the executive committee was Mr Aleck Bourne.

In 1938, Dr. Alec Bourne had performed an abortion on a 14-year-old girl who claimed to have been raped by soldiers. He gave himself up to the police, was charged with performing an illegal abortion, put on trial and acquitted on the grounds that the girl would have become 'a mental wreck' if she had not had the abortion. As a result of the Bourne case, more and more abortions began to be practised in Britain in cases where the woman's physical or mental health was thought to be in danger, a loophole in the law that was interpreted increasingly loosely. Dr Bourne became so concerned about the results of his action that he became a founder member of the SPUC.

Those also elected were The Rt. Rev. the Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells, Mr Owen Barfield, Professor Sir Andrew Claye, Mrs Christopher Davson, Professor Ian Donald (who pioneered the use of diagnostic ultrasound in medicine), Lady Glyn, Dr C.B. Goodhart, Mr Joseph Hiley MP, Professor Peter Huntingford (who sadly went on to join the pro-abortion lobby), Mrs K Irvine, Mr Alasdair MacKenzie MP, Professor J.C. McClure Browne, Dr. R.A. Newton, Mr Gordon Oakes MP.

Please pray for SPUC on our 45th anniversary.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Education for Choice fails to debunk pro-life campaign against gay marriage

2012-01-10T17:50:00.000Z

Education For Choice, a pro-abortion propaganda outfit, has today tried (but failed) to debunk SPUC's campaign against so-called gay marriage, a campaign launched in the context of protecting unborn children. EFC deny that there is any particular link between abortion rates and the marital status of women.

Here's a response from Anthony McCarthy, SPUC's education and publications manager:

"If younger women are more likely to have abortions, that is at least partly because they're less likely to have the protective effect of marriage. This effect is not 'magical' but very practical: lack of male support is cited as a reason by so many women wanting abortions. Men who won’t commit publicly to the mothers of their unborn children are likely to be less supportive towards them when they find themselves unexpectedly pregnant. Our society constantly tells women that conceiving a child does not make you morally responsible for that child - and all too many men sadly take that attitude too.

Yes, older married women do have abortions (though still not as often as unmarried women) - sometimes because of marital problems, or worries about foetal disability. Women in this situation need real, life-affirming support - not the 'quick fix' of abortion which does not heal but destroys. At the same time, we need to protect and strengthen marriage in the interests of children and their natural parents - not dilute and distort marriage in the supposed interests of freewheeling adults. When people get the message that it doesn't matter what they choose - providing only that they choose it - everyone suffers, beginning with the vulnerable offspring marriage exists to serve.

Those interested in comparisons between cohabiters and married couples should look at the paper "Unintended pregnancy in the United States: incidence and disparities" by Finer and Zolna (in the journal Contraception, funded by the very anti-life Guttmacher Institute), which clearly shows a big disparity in abortion between cohabiting couples and married ones (almost twice as likely).

The relation between same-sex marriage and the abolition of conjugal marriage (and the need for conjugal marriage to protect children born and unborn) is clear to anyone able to understand simple logic - readers can examine it here: http://www.spuc.org.uk/documents/papers/ssmbackground20120103

EFC's new relationship with Brook is unsurprising, considering that both EFC and Brook (in common with the rest of the pro-abortion lobby) have signally failed to reduce unintended conceptions and sexually-transmitted infections among the young people they falsely claim to serve."

SPUC right to campaign against gay marriage, as Pope says threats to the family "threaten the future of humanity"

2012-01-10T16:04:00.000Z

Pope Benedict XVI, in an address to the world's ambassadors to the Holy See, said:

"In addition to a clear goal, that of leading young people to a full knowledge of reality and thus of truth, education needs settings. Among these, pride of place goes to the family, based on the marriage of a man and a woman. This is not a simple social convention, but rather the fundamental cell of every society. Consequently, policies which undermine the family threaten human dignity and the future of humanity itself. The family unit is fundamental for the educational process and for the development both of individuals and States; hence there is a need for policies which promote the family and aid social cohesion and dialogue. It is in the family that we become open to the world and to life..."

Within this quotation I wish to emphasise the phrases:

"the family, based on the marriage of a man and a woman"
"policies which undermine the family threaten...the future of humanity itself."
"It is in the family that we become open to...life".

This complements what the late Pope John Paul II, the great pro-life champion, taught in his 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae:

[responsibility for abortion, among others] "lies...with those who should have ensured — but did not — effective family and social policies in support of families"
"The underlying causes of attacks on life have to be eliminated, especially by ensuring proper support for families and motherhood."
"Within the 'people of life and the people for life', the family has a decisive responsibility ... the role of the family in building a culture of life is decisive and irreplaceable."
"Only a true love is able to protect life."

Pope Benedict's teaching is also complemented by Cardinal Burke, who gave it a concrete form when he said in September 2009:

"The respect for the integrity of the conjugal act is essential to the context for the advancement of the culture of life". [my emphasis]

And As Dale O'Leary, an expert on the gay agenda, has written:

“Purposefully conceiving a permanently fatherless or motherless child is an act of violence against the child ... Opposition to ‘gay rights’ is rooted in a deep understanding of the truth about the human person, and cannot therefore be cast aside without undermining the very concept of human rights. The promotion of fake ‘rights’ will necessarily undermine support for real human rights.” [my emphasis]

Marriage is a fundamental good of human beings and a natural institution. While different religions honour marriage and some raise it to a sacrament, they do not thereby deny that it is an institution natural to human beings – a basic human good. People of faith and those of no faith can and do agree on this.

The necessity of the family based on marriage, the wrongness of so-called gay marriage and the close link between pro-life and pro-family issues are not only Catholic/Christian/religious beliefs, accessible only to theists and only of concern to them. These beliefs are immutable truths of the natural moral law, accessible by the light of reason to all and of concern to all. As Pope Benedict said in September 2010:

"Marriage is the lasting union of love between a man and a woman, which is always open to the transmission of human life ... the success of marriages depends upon us all and on the personal culture of each individual citizen. In this sense, the Church cannot approve legislative initiatives that involve a re-evaluation of alternative models of marriage and family life. They contribute to a weakening of the principles of natural law, and thus to the relativisation of all legislation and confusion about values in society." [my emphasis]

To defend the nature of marriage is also to re-emphasise the evil of abortion, by grounding our morality in the idea that human persons are essentially bodily beings, whose flourishing has an objective bodily dimension. Sex, procreation, marriage and human life itself are all cheapened by ignoring or downplaying this basic fact. It is for these reasons that it is necessary to speak out on issues surrounding same-sex marriage and civil unions.

SPUC cannot stand by as marriage, which exists precisely because new life stands in need of parental love and nurture, is radically undermined by political bodies which should instead defend this natural institution.

Gay marriage is a pro-family issue and therefore a pro-life issue, squarely within SPUC's constitution and democratically-decided remit. SPUC, for the sake of the future of humanity and the protection of all children, born and unborn, will continue to campaign against gay marriage - see SPUC's position paper and background paper.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Tablet editor jettisons the truth about pro-abortion MP Jon Cruddas

2012-01-09T17:15:00.001Z

Catherine Pepinster, editor of The Tablet (the anti-life and anti-family house-journal of British Catholic dissent), has written a column (second page; requires signing-in) in this week's edition about relations between the Labour party and Christianity. She writes, among other things:

"The suspicion [within the Labour party] of Catholic MPs and their agenda has also not been helped by pro-life groups who were vociferous in criticising the placing of an intern within Jon Cruddas' office because the MP in their eyes had failed to speak out on abortion."

Mrs Pepinster is referring to a move by the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales to reverse a decision to provide Dr Cruddas with an intern, as part of its parliamentary internship scheme. The move followed criticism by myself and other pro-lifers of invitations to Dr Cruddas to speak at two Catholic conferences (National Justice & Peace Network and Blackfriars).

Mrs Pepinster takes no account of the truth about Dr Cruddas's record on abortion. Dr Cruddas has not merely "failed to speak out on abortion", and not merely "in [the] eyes" of pro-lifers - Dr Cruddas is on record defending legal abortion, thus:

"[Abortion] should be safe, legal and rare"

and

“I'm perfectly happy with the current situation”. [My comment: i.e. a situation which provides legal sanction for the killing of 550 unborn babies daily.]

Futhermore, since 2000, Dr Cruddas voted 18 times with the anti-life lobby, for example voting in favour of the anti-life Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act at second reading (which denotes approval for the bill's principles) - a law designed to kill millions of innocent human beings deliberately created never to be born. He also voted for the pro-euthanasia Mental Capacity Bill (now Act) at second reading and third reading (which denotes approval of the bill as a whole). Also, Dr Cruddas has expressed his pride in his voting record in support of the homosexual agenda.

Mrs Pepinster's evasion and obscuring of the truth is typical of The Tablet's narrative about life and family issues, which attempts to provide cover for its dissenting ideological allies. Tabula delenda est.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Soho Mass organiser claims gay unions are already being blessed in Catholic churches

2012-01-07T12:00:00.000Z

Martin Pendergast is a leading figure behind the Soho Masses organised by and for Catholics who dissent from the Church's teaching on homosexuality (see my blog-post of 25 Aug. 2010 for background information about Mr Pendergast; and my posts of 9 Sep. 2010 and 13 Dec. 2010 about the Soho Masses) * **. I've just been sent a video (below) of Mr Pendergast being interviewed outside one of the Masses, posted on YouTube in November, in which he says (at 3 minutes 55 seconds into the recording):

"A lot of us who are in civil unions have had services of blessings in Catholic churches afterwards, and here at these Masses [at Our Lady of the Assumption and St Gregory Catholic church, Soho] on every third Sunday, if we are asked by people, we pray for people who have entered civil partnerships or whose anniversaries happen at that time."

&lt;p&gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;p&amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;p&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;br&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/p&amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&amp;amp;amp;amp;lt;/p&amp;amp;amp;amp;gt;&lt;/p&gt;

Mr Pendergast doesn't specify in which Catholic churches these services have been conducted, or give further details about the prayers at the Soho church. If, however, Mr Pendergast's claims are true - and they complement the publicly-available evidence of the general nature of the Soho Masses - what is Vincent Nichols, archbishop of Westminster, going to do about it? Bishops are ultimately responsible for the services and public prayers in Catholic churches and/or led by Catholic clergy of their dioceses. Will Archbishop Nichols finally oppose the homosexual agenda infiltrating the Catholic Church? Or will he once again give succour to that agenda - as Mr Pendergast has praised him for only this week:

"[S]ome good news from within communities of faith: ...a Catholic archbishop can publicly recognise the value of civil partnerships in building up the common good"

*SPUC's national council, which is SPUC's policy-making body, elected by its grassroots volunteers, last month passed the following resolution to defend marriage:

"That the Council of SPUC, noting the various proposals currently being made by the present Government and others in regard to the status and standing of marriage and its consequent effect upon family life; and further noting the higher proportionate incidence of abortion in unmarried women compared to married women, resolves to do its utmost to fight for the retention of the traditional understanding of marriage in the history, culture and law of the United Kingdom, namely the exclusive union of one man with one woman for life; and accordingly instructs its officers and executive committee to conduct a major campaign to this end, to co-operate with other persons and societies in so doing and specifically to target the Government's consultation period starting in March, 2012, in regard to (so-called) same sex marriage."

**Why is homosexuality (and sexual ethics generally) important specifically for the pro-life movement? The late Pope John Paul II, the great pro-life champion, taught in no. 97 of his 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae that it is an illusion to think that we can build a true culture of human life if we do not offer adolescents and young adults an authentic education in sexuality, and in love, and the whole of life according to their true meaning and in their close interconnection.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Today's must-read pro-life news-stories, Thu 5 Jan

2012-01-05T18:45:00.000Z

Lord Falconer

Top stories:

Assisted suicide report from Falconer's stacked commission is worthless says SPUC
The report by Lord Falconer's self-styled commission on assisted suicide, funded by pro-death activists, amounts to a renewed attack on the legal status of disabled and elderly people. The commission has been widely discredited as stacked with supporters of assisted suicide. Paul Tully of SPUC Pro-Life said: "Lord Falconer's cooking-up of a dodgy dossier via a stacked panel shows the lengths to which the assisted suicide lobby will go. They seek to create a two-tier system: people who deserve a right to life, and those who maybe don't." [SPUC, 4 January]

SPUC launches campaign against gay marriage
SPUC has launched a campaign against the Westminster government's proposals for same-sex marriage. SPUC has published a position paper on same-sex marriage following a resolution by SPUC's Council last month. SPUC has also made available a background paper to be read in conjunction with the position paper and which provides some additional references and reflections. Same-sex marriage represents an attempt to redefine marriage, thus undermining marriage. This undermining lessens the protection for unborn children which true marriage provides. [SPUC, 3 January]

UK abortions to reduce multiple births on the rise
Abortions of twins in the UK have risen since 2006, official statistics show. In 2010, 85 women aborted at least one unborn child while going on give birth to another baby, up from 59 in 2006. [Telegraph, 28 December] Anthony Ozimic of SPUC commented: “There are a number of factors which may be responsible for this rise. There may be pressure from doctors on women to abort babies deemed as ‘surplus’, whether conceived through IVF or naturally following fertility treatment. Doctors may also be influencing women to abort with the reason that disability in a child or complications for the mother are more likely in multiple pregnancies than in single pregnancies. Another reason may be the practice of sex-selective abortion among some ethnic groups. Whatever the causes of the rise, it nonetheless reveals the reality of eugenics in modern British medicine, in which some innocent human beings are deemed too inconvenient to be allowed to live.”

Other stories:

Embryology

US researchers explore link between stem cells and ageing [Mail, 4 January]
Stem cell research on donor eggs often not disclosed [Reuters, 3 January]
Scientists grow sperm in laboratory dish [Telegraph, 2 January]

Euthanasia

Elderly 'robbed of dignity' by failing social services, say charities [Independent Catholic News, 3 January]
Catholic archbishop of Cardiff opposes presumed consent for organ donation [Wales Online, 2 January]

Sexual ethics

Senior UK judge launches pro-marriage campaign [Mail, 4 January]
European Catholic bishops urge defence of family [CNA, 4 January]
Boys raised by traditional families 'do better at school' [Telegraph, 3 January]
US lesbian couple in custody battle following donor child [Mail, 3 January]
Gay activist praises Westminster archbishop for "recognis[ing] the value of civil partnerships" [Guardian, 3 January]
Polish MEPs resign from group over its support for gay marriage [Bloggers4UKIP, 3 January]
UK doctors warn alcohol is fuelling sexual health crisis among teens [Mail, 31 December]

General

A celebration of motherhood [Pat Buckley, 2 January]

Assisted suicide report from Falconer's stacked commission is worthless

2012-01-04T17:54:00.000Z

The report by Lord Falconer's self-styled commission on assisted suicide, funded by pro-death activists and due to be published in full tomorrow, amounts to a renewed attack on the legal status of disabled and elderly people. The report's conclusions were summarised earlier this week by Lord Falconer in the Telegraph newspaper.

The commission has been widely discredited as stacked with supporters of assisted suicide. Over 40 organisations, including the British Medical Association (BMA), refused to give evidence to Lord Falconer's "death-for-the-disabled" group.

Paul Tully, SPUC Pro-Life's general secretary, told the media earlier today:

"Predictably, Lord Falconer's report calls for Parliament to change the law to allow assisted suicide. His group was set up following Parliament's repeated rejections of attempts by Lord Falconer and his ilk to change the law. This is part of a thoroughly nasty strategy to convince the public that many disabled people want to die - and that they are sensible to want to die. Lord Falconer's cooking-up of a dodgy dossier via a stacked panel shows the lengths to which the assisted suicide lobby will go. They seek to create a two-tier system: people who deserve a right to life, and those who maybe don't. In fact, this shabby exercise was bankrolled by Sir Terry Pratchett, a patron of Dignity in Dying, formerly the Voluntary Euthanasia Society.

Disabled people are justifiably frightened when the protection the law gives them against pressure to end their lives is attacked like this. The moves to undermine their right to life are often accentuated by fawning, uncritical media coverage. The assisted suicide lobby represents a mentality of aversion to people who suffer, and it represents celebrities who have more money than sensitivity. We encourage people to show solidarity with disabled people by dismissing out-of-hand Lord Falconer's thinly-disguised propaganda."

SPUC Pro-Life has played a leading role in resisting the assisted suicide movement in the courts.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

SPUC launches campaign against gay marriage

2012-01-03T17:37:00.000Z

SPUC has launched a campaign against the Westminster government's proposals for same-sex marriage. We have published today a position paper on same-sex marriage following a resolution by SPUC's Council last month. SPUC has also made available today a background paper to be read in conjunction with the position paper and which provides some additional references and reflections.

We state that:

Marriage - the permanent, exclusive union of one man and one woman - is the basis of the family, the fundamental group unit of society. Upholding marriage is therefore in everyone’s interests.
Marriage as an institution protects children, both born and unborn. Statistics show that unborn children are much safer within marriage than outside marriage.
Same-sex marriage lacks basic elements of true marriage e.g. the complementary sexual difference between spouses necessary for the procreation and healthy upbringing of children.
Same-sex marriage represents an attempt to redefine marriage, thus undermining marriage. This undermining lessens the protection for unborn children which true marriage provides.

We can't build a true culture of life if we don't defend the truths which connect sexuality to human life. Homosexual unions, whether the existing civil partnerships or the proposed gay marriages, are radically disconnected from those truths. SPUC's Council, elected by SPUC's grassroots volunteers, has therefore resolved to defend human life by defending marriage from the government's proposed redefinition to include homosexual couples.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

"I begged and danced for the approval of my mother who tried to abort me"

2011-12-30T16:32:00.000Z

On Wednesday I had the privilege of speaking at a pro-life march in Budapest, the capital of Hungary. Over recent decades, anti-life policies have resulted in the killing by abortion of more than 6 million Hungarians, and thus deeply damaged many millions of families. Pro-lifers in Hungary chose the feast-day of the Holy Innocents to name the children lost and toll bells in their memory.

At least one Hungarian, by the grace of God and by the strong intervention of his father, survived the abortion intended for him. He is my host, Dr Imre Taglasy, the director of Human Life International (Hungary) who took such good care of me when a bone got stuck in my throat on my first day in Budapest. He and I are pictured above in Budapest, after the march.

Here, in his own words, is his deeply moving story:

I begin my story with my family, and especially with my father, who was a major in Hungary till the end of the Second World War. As a professional soldier with his religious conviction (he was born in a Catholic family of eight children) he was declared a class-enemy of the new Communist regime and was sacked at once and removed with his wife and two sons from Budapest to the Great Hungarian Plain (puszta). They were ordered not to leave their dwelling place. He could hardly find the most basic job ... he and his family were starving.

In this sad plight my father's wife realized she was pregnant. My father tried to protect me, but my mother did not want to carry me to term. But it was not so simple to get rid of an unborn baby in the early '50s ... so she asked my grandfather staying in the capital to get a doctor who would be willing to perform the abortion. He found such a doctor in Budapest but class enemies were not allowed to leave the plain (puszta), so while my father was absent she tried to cause an abortion by jumping down from a kitchen table; when that failed she took very hot baths in a tub but they were not successful either. Then she got a lot of quinine pills from her brother. She took them but they were not sufficient to cause a miscarriage so I was born.

I heard the story of my birth accidentally when I was 11 years old and when my father and I were staying in Yugoslavia with relatives. It was late at night and I had gone to bed in the room in which my father and my relatives were talking.

At that time my parents had already divorced and one of my relatives asked my father why. Thinking I was asleep, my father told him the story.

As I lay there in bed, neither a small child nor an adult, I cried, speechlessly, all night long into my pillow. I experienced an emotional earthquake. I felt good myself and I did not know why my mother had tried to kill me at all.

I am still looking for the answer which is perhaps blowing with the wind, since she died some years ago.

There are two different expressions in our Hungarian language concerning "mother". One of them ("edesanya") is connected with "sweetness" meaning that the sweetness of a loving mother has a connection to the milk you get from her bosom. The other word ("anya") simply means that somebody has a mother but this term is very formal and has no special content of sentiment so one uses this term in every official form requiring the name of your parent. In fact my mother tried to kill me, terrorised by the economical pressure of the regime and when it was not successful she didn't give me suck, so I was neither able to enjoy her milk nor her love.

Later when I was two years old I was found by a very nice young lady who lifted me up to her heart from under the kitchen table. She bought me new clothes, shoes, brought me to the opera-house for performances (since she was a ballet-dancer) and to the photographer since she was proud of "her" nice godson ... my relatives told me that I had usually called her with this word: "mother" (edesanya).

My biological mother could not love me although I was begging or dancing for her approval and acceptance. I studied well, become a well-known writer by publishing several books, carried out scientific research and won academic honours but everything seemed to be in vain since I was not able to win her love. In my twenties I published a book of poems and one of these works reflects on my life story using the ancient Greek myth of Penelope. In this poem you can analyse the confused bonding of an abortion-survivor with his parent or with the abuser of her child.

PENELOPE, MY MOTHER

you sit on the stigma of silence
with averted eyes
you would draw my face
onto your withered lap
spin it over weave it through
with sea-blue veins
with scarlet reed
spin me over weave me through
with snake
with strand of hair
unravel me by night
give birth to me by day
only kill me by night

you would piece together my bones
a stripped-down image
for the walls of your palace
bind my skin and gut
as strings onto your harp

is it an axe that I am
propped up in a corner
is it a prince
sewn inside a frog's skin

(Translated by Eva Kovacs-Hicks, Toronto)

It took 50 years of pain and sorrow to overcome the situation of a deeply damaged (unborn) child and that of a post-abortive mother ... I always tried to love my mother ... meanwhile I realized that I hated those foods (cheese, beer, etc) which she liked whilst, on the contrary, I liked the kind of women who have black hair and eyes, slight face which reminded me of my god-mother. So many times I asked myself: where is my mother, how can I love her?

Before her death the Lord gave me the answer by His merciful forgiveness. After so many years of struggling, begging and dancing for her love I finally was able to reconcile with her before her death. It happened by not accepting but rather understanding some of the elements of the kind of "internal" terrorism which pushed and pressured her to kill me. And finally I am going to die too and I badly need this forgiveness of the Lord for my own sins as well.

There is a picture in my bedroom above my bed. This photo was taken by the sculpture of the Pieta carved by Michelangelo in the middle of 16th century. The picture illustrates the Blessed Virgin who is a Patron Saint of Hungary and now she is perhaps my mother and hope and trust as well.

Against the civilisation of death I am now working for the culture of life full time. From the special grace offered me by Almighty God, the Creator, I have a large family ... The smiles of my children and wife are my strongest weapon in doing my duty to protect life! Thanks to the Lord!

Please attend SPUC's conference on women's rights

2011-12-28T11:48:00.001Z

Each year an estimated 350,000 mothers die from pregnancy related causes. This is a tragedy that must come to an end. The 2015 deadline for achieving millennium development goal 5 (maternal health) is fast approaching, yet mothers are still dying. What is happening, and how can you and I help bring it to an end?

Join us on 20th March 2012 for an international day conference in London that will address the UK's policy on maternal health and mortality in the developing world. The scandal of the UK exporting abortion around the world will be challenged at a day conference entitled "Abortion or Maternal Health: What should we be funding in developing countries?" This will take place on Tuesday 20 March 2012, at the Regent Hall, 275 Oxford Street, London W1C 2DJ, from 9.30am to 5pm.

Please encourage your friends and contacts, especially medics, students, clergy, lawyers, developing world charity promoters, teachers and advocates of women's rights to attend the conference.

The coalition government continues to promote abortion intensively in poorer countries of the world – on the false pretext of reducing maternal deaths. We cannot ignore how our country is working to export the culture of death around the world.

A detailed briefing and presentation are available to prepare participants for the conference and future educational and lobbying efforts. The briefing includes suggestions for straightforward action to challenge the government.

Internationally renowned experts speaking on the day include lawyer Roger Kiska of the Alliance Defence Fund, consultant obstetrician Dr. Obielumani Ideh from Nigeria, and maternal health campaigner Fiorella Nash.

Our headline speaker is Professor Robert Walley. Dr. Walley is the founder and executive director of MaterCare International (MCI), and Fellow of the Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists of England. He has visited Africa regularly since 1981, and for seven years he directed a maternal health project in Nigeria. MCI has worked in Ghana, Kenya, Haiti, East Timor, Rwanda, and Sierra Leone.

Entrance to this important conference can be purchased online via our website shop or by filling in and returning a booking form. Tickets cost £55 or £35. Lunch can be added for £10.

Official flyer for the conference

Downloadable booking form

You can also use the conference's Facebook page to invite others to attend.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

A bone stuck in my throat in Budapest leads me to witness a sign of hope

2011-12-28T11:17:00.001Z

Yesterday I arrived in Budapest to particiapte in and to speak at the "Peace in the Womb" march for the abolition of legalised genocide in Hungary, which takes place today.

I spent much of my time yesterday at St John's hospital in Budapest (pictured) where, with great kindness and professionalism, the medical staff succeeded in removing a duck bone stuck in my throat.

Dr Imre Téglásy, my host in Hungary, was also very kind. Imre, an abortion survivor and the father of ten children, is president of Alpha Alliance, Human Life International, Hungary. He is organising today's march, which finishes at the palace of the Hungarian state president. In spite of the great pressures on Imre on the eve of such a big event, he stayed with me throughout my mercifully short but painful ordeal, joking "a prophet cannot ignore someone in need of help because he's so busy prohesying".

So my adventure in Hungary has begun with an impressive experience of the kindness of Hungarians - a kindness also in evidence at the old people's retirement home where I am staying and where the residents are clearly being treated by the staff with great love and respect. That kindness is a sign of hope for Hungary and for Europe. That kindness is the legacy of a largely Catholic culture which clearly still survives in spite of the numerous disastrous historical events, which have afflicted Hungary in the twentieth century and into the twenty-first century...including the killing by abortion of (at least) six million unborn children since abortion was legalised here in June 1956.

As long as the milk of human kindness continues to flowthere's hope that abortion can bedefeated and a civilisation of life and love established.

Pro-life movement continues to flourish in Belarus

2011-12-26T16:54:00.000Z

At the start of 2011 LifeSiteNews.com described the Open Hearts Foundation, an education focused pro-life group in Belarus, as a ray of hope in Eastern Europe. Hilary White reported:

In 1994, four years after Belarus declared independence from the Soviet Union, the abortion rate in the country had reached an unimaginable high of 65.8 percent of all pregnancies. Since then it has fallen steadily to 28.2 per cent in 2008, according to figures issued by the Ministry of Statistics and Analysis and the Ministry of Health.

Some of this success may be attributable to a growing pro-life movement, which is doing everything it can to make sure that those numbers continue to drop. According to the pro-life education group, The Open Hearts Foundation, the Belarus pro-life movement had a very busy year last year.

Their recent newsletter indicates that pro-life work is continuing to flourish in Belarus. Their recent newsletter reports plans to open crisis several crisis pregnancy centres, pro-life motor-rallies (pictured) in three cities (Vitebsk, Mogilev and Brest), participation at the World Demographical Summit in Moscow (at which SPUC were represented by Dr Tom Ward) and the hosting of pro-life seminars for families.

The editorial of the newsletter concludes by saying:

our mission on this earth is to create the civilization of love and life round us

We at SPUC wish the Open Hearts Foundation and all their pro-life colleagues in Belarus every success in doing just that.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Abortion survivor produces award winning documentary in defence of life

2011-12-24T16:41:00.001Z

I was very pleased to read on Patrick Buckley's blog that Melissa Ohden has released a new hour long documentary, called A Voice for Life. Melissa's mother underwent a saline abortion when she was six months pregnant with Melissa. Here is a brief description of a saline abortion, taken from SPUC's 2002 document A Way of Life

The use of prostaglandins is the most common form of late abortion in Britain. Prostaglandins are hormone-like substances which are administered to the pregnant woman either by a drip into a vein or directly into the womb. After a period of between 12 and 24 hours, prostaglandins cause the womb to contract, causing the baby to be delivered prematurely. In order to prevent the baby from being born alive, abortionists may inject urea or saline into the amniotic sac or potassium chloride into the baby.

Melissa, like Gianna Jessen who survived the same procedure, is now a powerful defender of the unborn. You can watch a summary of her story in the youtube video below.

It seems that Melissa's new documentary is set to be a great tool for the pro-life movement to help defend the lives of unborn children and their mothers. Patrick says

A Voice for Life continues to garner awards on an international level, including the Transforming Stories International Film Festival in South Africa, and the Redemptive Film Festival in Virginia Beach, where it received the highest honor. More importantly, to the creative team of A Voice for Life, Steve Feazel, Gunther Meisse, and Melissa Ohden, the pro-life film is making an impact in the world, touching hearts changing minds, and bringing hope and healing to individuals who have been devastated by abortion.
...
In addition to the 58 minute documentary, a short, 9 minute film, featuring Melissa as narrator, has also been released for pregnancy centers and other organizations that minister to abortion vulnerable women to utilize as a resource in their life-saving, life-transforming work. Melissa's powerful message to women in this video as both a survivor and a mother, herself, is beyond description. To view the trailer of the short resource video, visit www.avoiceforlife.com/trailer.html.

Any readers in the UK suffering after an abortion should contact ARCH (Abortion Recovery Care and Helpline) runs a helpline: 0845 603 8501 and which can be telephoned from within the UK (calls charged at local rates). There is also an ARCH website.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Catholic Voices rush to defend episcopal obfuscation on homosexual unions

2011-12-23T09:43:00.000Z

In recent days and weeks "Catholic Voices" have been rushing to defend comments by Vincent Nichols, Catholic archbishop of Westminster, on homosexual unions.* ** Yesterday the Catholic Voices blog claimed that:

"Archbishop Nichols's position on civil partnerships is consistent with church teaching"

and:

"As the law continues to treat homosexual behaviour as a private phenomenon, it is entirely consistent with church teaching for Archbishop Nichols to support the civil partnership scheme as an existing and legitimate mechanism to help give stability to committed couples of the same sex, while strenously resisting any attempt by the state to redefine marriage."

Part of Catholic Voices's defence of Archbishop Nichols' position is that the civil partnership legislation:

"does not undermine the unique position of marriage in British law as it does not presuppose that a civil partnership is a homosexual relationship."

Yet as Jacqueline Humphreys, an Anglican barrister, has said:

"[T]here can be no ambiguity that [UK civil partnerships] are intended to be sexual ... [T]he fact that some people do not engage in genital sexual activity within their marriage does not prevent marriage from being the legal regulation of an essentially sexual relationship. The same applies to civil partnerships ... [C]ivil partnerships are in all important respects the same as marriage in terms of practical legal effect. Civil partnerships also share the overwhelming majority of the conceptual understandings of marriage that exist within English law".

In fact, Ms Humphreys, who supports homosexual unions, argues that UK civil partnerships can't undermine marriage - because (she argues) they are marriages! (However, I can't emphasise strongly enough how important it is to campaign against the government's proposals for same-sex marriage, as such explicit and total legal equality with true, i.e. heterosexual, marriage would further enshrine homosexual unions in UK law as well as undermine marriage by redefining it.)

Ms Humphreys has explained in detail how the Civil Partnerships Act has numerous aspects which mirror UK marriage law. There are so many of these aspects, so I won't list them all here, but here are some of the main ones [my emphases in bold]:

"Like marriage, a civil partnership ends only on death, dissolution or annulment"
"[C]ivil partners are to be treated by law in the same way as married couples in respect to property disputes" etc.
"Civil partnerships are also designed to be monogamous ... This mutual exclusivity of marriage and civil partnership has the effect of putting civil partnerships firmly in a position equivalent to marriage."
"[T]he range of persons within prohibited degrees of relationship with whom it is not possible to enter a civil partnership...is the equivalent to that for marriage ... If civil partnerships are not assumed to be sexual, there can be no reason to restrict close family members from entering them. But because they are presumed to be sexual, it would not be appropriate for the law to legitimise 'incestuous' relationships."
"[T]he term 'in-law' where it appears in legislation also includes relationship by reason of civil partnership in addition to relationship by marriage and that `step-parent' and 'stepchild' relationships are also recognised for civil partners as they would be for spouses."
"A civil partnership is voidable on the ground that at the time of its formation the respondent was pregnant by some person other than the applicant."
"[M]any of the details of the 2004 Act anticipate that children will be a feature of the family life of some civil partnerships"
[T]he Act recognises same-sex marriages in other countries as civil partnerships.

Ms Humphreys explains that it is for technical legal reasons that adultery is absent as a ground for dissolution, and not because civil partnerships are not intended to be sexual. She concludes that the only significant difference between UK civil partnerships and UK marriages is the obvious - the former are same-sex only, the latter opposite-sex only.

Even Archbishop Nichols's spokesman admitted [my emphasis in bold] that:

"the archbishop acknowledged the existence of 'civil partnership' between persons of the same sex that already offer the same legal framework of marriage".

So it is absurd for Catholic Voices to claim that the Civil Partnerships Act 2004:

"denies homosexual unions a parliamentary imprimatur and does not enshrine them as institutions within the legal structure of the United Kingdom."

Catholic Voices did state correctly that:

"Civil partnerships...come into effect through the signing of a civil partnership document rather than via publicly-made promises in a civil ceremony, as...with marriage."

Yet everyone knows that civil partnerships are in practice celebrated like civil marriages:

conducted at registry offices, witnessed and registered by the same government officials who witness and register marriages
celebrated with much of the traditional panoply of weddings (rings, kisses, formal attire, receptions etc)
referred to in common parlance as "weddings" and the partners referred to as "husbands" or "wives".

Here are Elton John and David Furnish in wedding attire as they celebrate their civil partnership at Windsor Guildhall, famous for the civil marriage of HRH the Prince of Wales, on the first day that the civil partnership legislation came into effect:

Also on the first day of civil partnership legislation, here are two lesbians in (modern) wedding attire at their civil partnership ceremony at Brighton Town Hall:

And again on the same day, two homosexual actors proudly display their exchange of rings - the most traditional, public and permanent of material symbols of marital fidelity - at their civil partnership ceremony at Islington Town Hall:

Catholic Voices' scramble to defend Archbishop Nichols is the latest evidence confirming that Catholic Voices has been established to defend the Catholic bishops of England & Wales against accusations of dissent from Catholic pro-life/pro-family teaching. For example:

its selection criteria explicitly bars anyone who is "angry or upset with...the bishops of England and Wales"
it not only "has the blessing of the Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales", but it is "accountable to the bishops"
it perpetuated the myth that the Soho Masses for homosexuals, established and protected by the bishops, are perfectly proper within the context of Catholic teaching and discipline, when in fact there is solid and mounting evidence that the Masses are organised by and for homosexuals who explicitly dissent from the Church's teaching
it opposed parents trying to protect the Catholic (i.e. pro-life, pro-family) ethos of their schools from bullying by bishops and their dissenting bureaucrats (book, p.150-151).

What we need are real voices of Catholics as distinct from the highly-compromised establishment mouthpieces called "Catholic Voices".

*SPUC's national council, which is SPUC's policy-making body, elected by its grassroots volunteers, last month passed the following resolution to defend marriage:

"That the Council of SPUC, noting the various proposals currently being made by the present Government and others in regard to the status and standing of marriage and its consequent effect upon family life; and further noting the higher proportionate incidence of abortion in unmarried women compared to married women, resolves to do its utmost to fight for the retention of the traditional understanding of marriage in the history, culture and law of the United Kingdom, namely the exclusive union of one man with one woman for life; and accordingly instructs its officers and executive committee to conduct a major campaign to this end, to co-operate with other persons and societies in so doing and specifically to target the Government's consultation period starting in March, 2012, in regard to (so-called) same sex marriage."

**Why is marriage (and sexual ethics generally) important specifically for the pro-life movement? The late Pope John Paul II, the great pro-life champion, taught in no. 97 of his 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae that it is an illusion to think that we can build a true culture of human life if we do not offer adolescents and young adults an authentic education in sexuality, and in love, and the whole of life according to their true meaning and in their close interconnection.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

This Christmas, help free Chen Guangcheng, persecuted opponent of China's one-child policy

2011-12-22T16:52:00.000Z

As we in the UK start our Christmas celebrations, we are safe in the knowledge that our family lives will not be interrupted by arbitrary imprisonment or torture. We can (at least for now) speak out freely against pressure upon women to end the lives of their children through abortion. Chen Guangcheng has no such safety or freedom. Since speaking out against forced abortions and sterilisations in Linyi in 2005, the Chinese Communist authorities have subjected him to years of imprisonment, torture, neglect and harrassment. He is currently under house arrest. Christian Bale, the Hollywood actor, tried recently to visit him but was roughed up by officials instead.

Chen, who is blind, has become a icon for freedom, instantly recognisable in his dark glasses. Chen's supporters have started a Dark Glasses campaign to pressure the Communist government to release him. Anyone can join this campaign - simply take a photo of yourself wearing dark glasses, with a message of support for Chen, and email it to Women's Rights Without Frontiers - full details are available on their website. Here is the photo I'll be sending:

Today's must-read pro-life news-stories, Tue 20 Dec

2011-12-20T17:07:00.000Z

Garik Hayrapetyan, UNFPA Armenia

Top stories:

Selective abortion of girls increases in Armenia, says UN Population Fund
The Armenian representative of the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) has warned of a rise in unborn girls being aborted in Armenia. Garik Hayrapetyan (pictured) told a news conference that: "In ten to 20 years, we will face a deficit of women -- that means, of potential mothers". [AFP via Yahoo!, 19 December] Anthony Ozimic of SPUC commented: "UNFPA's words of concern about sex-selective abortion are empty, considering that UNFPA has for decades been complicit in China's forced abortion programme, which is largely responsible for China's massive gender imbalance."

Other stories:

Embryology

IVF industry booming in Ireland [Irish Independent, 19 December]
British Heart Foundation funds destructive embryo research [John Smeaton, 19 December]

Sexual ethics

Mother conceives 6 times in 5 years despite contraception [Mail, 20 December]
Sociologist slams UK deputy PM's dismissal of marriage [Mail, 19 December]
Group sex is latest trend for teen girls, suggests US report [Mail, 19 December]
A book to help parents fulfil their role as the primary educators of their children in sexual matters [John Smeaton, 19 December]

British Heart Foundation funds destructive embryo research

2011-12-19T17:37:00.000Z

SPUC has re-launched its information on charities as an online index, with new entries and updated information added as and when new information is received. Today's charity is the British Heart Foundation (BHF).

In a letter SPUC dated 22 October 2010, Betty McBride, BHF's director of policy and communications, said that the BHF:

currently funds more than £12 million of stem cell research using both embryonic and adult stem cells. SPUC comment: Human embryos are human beings from the moment of their conception (fertilisation or an analogous form of creation such as cloning). Removing stem cells from them abuses and usually kills them.
does not have a policy on pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) but added that the more "...we learn about the genetic causes of cardiovascular disease, it may become possible for PGD to be used."
does not fund research into prenatal diagnosis of disability or provide advice on where such tests can be obtained
funds training for ultrasonographers who undertake foetal scans in early pregnancy to identify congenital heart disease. SPUC comment: One possible purpose of discovering heart disease in the unborn is to enable parents to choose to abort their affected child.

A book to help parents fulfil their role as the primary educators of their children in sexual matters

2011-12-19T17:01:00.000Z

Edmund Adamus, the director of pastoral affairs in the Catholic archdiocese of Westminster, has written an inspiring article on sex education which has just been published in L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican newspaper. Edmund's article promotes a new book entitled "As I Have Loved You" by Dr Gerard O'Shea of the John Paul II Institute for Marriage and Family in Melbourne, Australia. The book provides a programme and materials which help parents fulfil their role as the primary educators of their children in sexual matters. It would be wrong, however, to think that the book pits parents against schools: in fact, the work was produced after a long period of "careful consultation with teachers, parents and experts in the field". Edmund writes:

"Conscientious Catholic teachers and educators [all too often unduly burdened with the increasingly aggressive civil demands for explicit sex education, even at primary age-levels] know just how the more intimate aspects of the topic are best handled through a personalised one-to-one dialogue.

They also know [as they are often parents themselves] that those best placed to deliver this kind of one-to-one formation, are in fact parents. For countless decades, Catholic parents have appropriated the habit of delegating their unrenounceable and irreplaceable educative role in this arena to the Catholic school, and then largely forgetting about it. Now they need to be formed as moral educators of their children."

An aim of SPUC's Safe at School campaign is also to remove a source of conflict between schools and parents, by stopping the intrusion of pornographic sex education programmes into schools.

"As I Have Loved You" is published by Gracewing Publishing in Great Britain and Connor Court in Australia.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Today's must-read pro-life news-stories, Mon 19 Dec

2011-12-19T14:11:00.000Z

Christian Bale: tried to visit Chen Guangcheng

Top stories:

UK prime minister says UK should return to Christian moral values
David Cameron, the British prime minister, has called for British society to return to traditional Christian moral values. In a speech to mark the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible, Mr Cameron said: "moral neutrality is not going to cut it any more". [Telegraph, 17 December] John Smeaton, SPUC director said: "It is hypocritical for Mr Cameron to promote traditional morality when his government is bank-rolling abortion, contraception and homosexuality at home and abroad."

Dutch pro-lifers say: campaign for abortion abolition, not stricter rules
The annual Dutch March for Life took place on Saturday 10 December. It is estimated that 1,400 people took part in the march, which is almost double last year's attendance. Dr Bert P. Dorenbos, President of Cry for Life and the chief organiser of the march, said: "We're not going for stricter rules, but we are called to advocate the abolition of abortion." John Smeaton, SPUC director, commented: "Dr Dorenbos’s comment is particularly applicable to the UK and misguided parliamentary moves, e.g. trying to lower the 24-week upper time-limit on most social abortions." [John Smeaton, 15 December]

Other stories:

Abortion

One in five sexually-active women aged 16 to 24 has taken morning-after pills in past year [Mail, 17 December]
MEPs issue death penalty for unborn babies with HIV [John Smeaton, 16 December]
Morning-after pill use in Spain soars 83% after sales allowed in pharmacies [ANSA, 14 December]
SPUC supporters use Christmas celebrations to reach out to those hurt by abortion [John Smeaton, 14 December]

Euthanasia

UK hospital accused of leaving patients to starve [Telegraph, 17 December]
UK General Medical Council drawing up guidelines on assisted suicide [Mail, 16 December]

Population

Hollywood star (pictured) assaulted in bid to visit Chinese forced abortion opponent [Reuters, 16 December]

MEPs issue death penalty for unborn babies with HIV

2011-12-16T15:20:00.000Z

SPUC supporters and regular readers of this blog will remember that we recently urged our supporters to contact their MEPs and ask them to vote against the motion in the European Parliament on abortion and HIV/AIDS. The motion was riddled with anti-life and anti-family content.

Daniel Blackman, who researches international affairs for SPUC, has written a report on the outcome of the vote on the motion.

EU passes motion promoting abortion under the banner of HIV/AIDS prevention, by Daniel Blackman

On 1 December 2011 MEPs debated and voted on the controversial motion entitled “on the EU response to HIV/AIDS in the EU and neighbouring countries.” The motion was put forward by Françoise Grossetête on behalf of the PPE Group; Nessa Childers on behalf of the S&D Group; Antonyia Parvanova on behalf of the ALDE Group; Satu Hassi on behalf of the Verts/ALE Group; Marina Yannakoudakis on behalf of the ECR Group; Marisa Matias on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group; and Oreste Rossi on behalf of the EFD Group. The date selected for the final vote was strategic, 1 December being world AIDS day.

The original motion was itself harmful for people already living with HIV/AIDS, and for those whose lifestyles put them in the high risk group for contracting HIV. Amongst other things, the motion strongly favoured the “condom first” approach of the UN, EU, and WHO. Some of the worst sections included:

AA. whereas it is crucial to advocate strengthening and expanding policy and programming in the area of links between sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) and HIV so that HIV/AIDS prevention programmes are integrated into SRHR programmes and HIV/AIDS prevention becomes an integral part of sexual and reproductive health care.

14. Calls upon the Member States to ensure that all National AIDS programs and strategies develop strong linkages between sexual and reproductive health and HIV services.
15. Notes that prevention measures should explicitly include adequate information and sex education, access to protection means, such as male and female condoms, and strengthening the rights and autonomy of women in sexual relationships.

22. Calls on the Commission and Council to ensure access to quality comprehensive sexual and reproductive health services, information, and supplies. This should consist of, among others, confidential and voluntary counselling, testing and treatment for HIV and all sexually transmitted infections; prevention of unintended pregnancies; equitable and affordable access to contraceptives, including access to emergency contraception; safe and legal abortion, including post-abortion care; care and treatment to prevent vertical transmission of HIV, including of partners and children.

It is clear that the scientific evidence, the epidemiological studies and the voices of experts like Dr. Edward C. Green and Professor David Paton on the ineffectiveness of current condom-first anti-life approaches, really don’t matter in the face of political expediency and aggressive anti-life ideology. The motion became much worse following the submission and acceptance of amendments to the motion. These motions were put forward by many of the original proposers of the motion listed above, and other MEPs like Sophia in't Veld, Michael Cashman, and Corinne Lepage, well-known for their aggressive promotion of contraception, abortion, and destructive behaviours and lifestyles.

Prolife MEPs and NGOs worked together, calling for split and separate votes on some of the most controversial sections, hoping that they would be exposed and voted out of the motion. However, even without the most anti-life amendments, the document as a whole would have remained unacceptable. SPUC encouraged constituents to contact their MEPs about the most dangerous sections and the harmful content likely to remain, which meant that a clear vote against the motion as a whole was required. People living with HIV/AIDS do need particular medical and pastoral support, but this motion fails these people and acts as a Trojan horse for the agendas of pro-abortion MEPs and lobby groups.

On the day, all of the anti-life pro-abortion sections received overwhelming support from MEPs, including the vast majority of the PPE (Christian Democrat) MEPs. Every vote on anti-life sections was lost by a wide margin. Section 22, which includes an explicit promotion of abortion, received 6 separate roll-call votes. Every single one was sadly lost. The fifth roll-call vote dealt specifically with the reference to abortion. Only 206 MEPs voted against abortion i.e. they used their vote to defend unborn babies. They were:

ALDE: Aylward, Gallagher, Harkin, Takkula
ECR: Bielan, Cymański, Czarnecki, Deva, Helmer, Kamiński, Karim, Kirkhope, Kowal, Kurski, Legutko, McClarkin, Migalski, Piotrowski, Poręba, Szymański, Tannock, Wojciechowski, Włosowicz, Ziobro
EFD: Belder, Borghezio, Fontana, Morganti, Rossi, Scottà, Speroni, Terho, Tzavela, Vanhecke
NI: Claeys, Dodds, Gollnisch, Hartong, Kovács, Le Pen Marine, Madlener, Mölzer, Obermayr, Stassen, Stoyanov Dimitar, Zijlstra
PPE: Abad, Allam, Andrikienė, Angelilli, Antonescu, Antoniozzi, Arias Echeverría, Ayuso, Baldassarre, Balz, Bartolozzi, Bastos, Bauer, Becker, Belet, Berlato, Bodu, Bonsignore, Borys, Brok, Busuttil, Böge, Băsescu, Březina, Cancian, Carvalho, Casa, Casini, Caspary, Coelho, Comi, Daul, De Mita, Delvaux, Deutsch, Deß, Dorfmann, Díaz de Mera García Consuegra, Estaràs Ferragut, Feio, Ferber, Fernandes, Fidanza, Fraga Estévez, Gahler, García-Margallo y Marfil, Gardini, Gauzès, Glattfelder, Grzyb, Gyürk, Gál, Gáll-Pelcz, Handzlik, Hankiss, Herranz García, Hibner, Higgins, Hohlmeier, Iacolino, Jahr, Jazłowiecka, Jeggle, Jędrzejewska, Kalinowski, Karas, Kasoulides, Kastler, Kelam, Kelly, Klaß, Koch, Kozłowski, Kuhn, Köstinger, La Via, Landsbergis, Langen, Lehne, Liese, Lisek, Lope Fontagné, Mann, Matera, Mato Adrover, Matula, Mauro, Mayer, Mayor Oreja, McGuinness, Melo, Mikolášik, Millán Mon, Mitchell, Morkūnaitė-Mikulėnienė, Mészáros, Neynsky, Niculescu, Niebler, Olbrycht, Oomen-Ruijten, Pack, Pallone, Papastamkos, Patrão Neves, Pieper, Pirker, Posselt, Protasiewicz, Proust, Pöttering, Quisthoudt-Rowohl, Rangel, Reul, Rivellini, Roithová, Rübig, Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra, Saryusz-Wolski, Saudargas, Schnellhardt, Schnieber-Jastram, Schwab, Scurria, Seeber, Siekierski, Silvestris, Sommer, Sonik, Stolojan, Stoyanov Emil, Surján, Szájer, Sógor, Teixeira, Thun und Hohenstein, Thyssen, Tőkés, Ulmer, Ungureanu, Vaidere, Verheyen, Vidal-Quadras, Weber Manfred, Weisgerber, Wieland, Winkler Hermann, Wortmann-Kool, Zalewski, Zanicchi, Zeller, Zwiefka, de Grandes Pascual, de Lange, del Castillo Vera, van de Camp, Áder, Őry, Šťastný
S&D: Prodi

Section 22 makes the link between pregnant mothers with HIV/AIDS, their babies, and the “solution” to mother-child HIV transmission by killing the child before he or she is born. The majority of MEPs are clearly not content with killing the disabled; they are now seeking out sick babies.

In the final vote, 454 MEPs voted in favour of this barbaric resolution, a small but stalwart 86 voted against it, and 44 abstained. The MEPs who voted against were:

ALDE: Aylward, Gallagher
ECR: Bielan, Cymański, Czarnecki, Deva, Helmer, Kamiński, Kowal, Kurski, Legutko, Migalski, Piotrowski, Poręba, Szymański, Tomaševski, Wojciechowski, Ziobro
EFD: Agnew, Andreasen, Belder, Bufton, Clark, Fontana, Speroni
GUE/NGL: Angourakis, Toussas
NI: Claeys, Gollnisch, Hartong, Kovács, Madlener, Mölzer, Obermayr, Zijlstra
PPE: Allam, Antoniozzi, Arias Echeverría, Ayuso, Bartolozzi, Borys, Brok, Busuttil, Březina, Cancian, Casa, Casini, Deß, Díaz de Mera García Consuegra, Ferber, Fidanza, Fraga Estévez, Gardini, Grzyb, Handzlik, Hibner, Kalinowski, Kastler, Kelam, Kelly, Klaß, Koch, Kozłowski, Mato Adrover, Mauro, Mayor Oreja, Millán Mon, Olbrycht, Pieper, Posselt, Protasiewicz, Pöttering, Roithová, Salafranca Sánchez-Neyra, Saryusz-Wolski, Saudargas, Sommer, Sonik, Surján, Vidal-Quadras, Zalewski, Zeller, Zwiefka, de Grandes Pascual, del Castillo Vera, Šťastný

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Dutch pro-lifers say: campaign for abortion abolition, not stricter rules

2011-12-15T16:30:00.000Z

The annual Dutch March for Life took place on Saturday 10 December to commemorate the passing of the Pregnancy Termination Law, passed on 18 December 1980, which allows for abortion on demand in Holland up to the 24th week of pregnancy.

It is estimated that 1,400 people took part in the march, which is almost double last year's attendance.

The event was organised by the pro-life group Cry for Life. Dr Bert P. Dorenbos, President of Cry for Life and the chief organiser of the march, said:

"We're not going for stricter rules, but we are called to advocate the abolition of abortion."

Dr Dorenbos’s comment is particularly applicable to the UK and misguided parliamentary moves, e.g. trying to lower the 24-week upper time-limit on most social abortions.

It is greatly encouraging to see the development of a vibrant and active movement for life in the Netherlands.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

SPUC supporters use Christmas celebrations to reach out to those hurt by abortion

2011-12-14T17:02:00.000Z

The tree "Have a Heart for unborn babies". The model of an unborn child can be seen in the middle of the red floral heart.

I often receive emails from supporters doing fantastic work in defence of life. I am always greatly encouraged when visiting SPUC branches in various parts of the country. I thought I would share an a message I received from Frances Levett, of SPUC Melton Mowbray.

Dear John,

I'm forwarding the photo of our Christmas tree which we entered in this year's Christmas Tree Festival at St. Mary's C of E church, Melton Mowbray. We always enter a decorated tree in this large festival which is attended by several thousand people. This year we chose the theme "Have a Heart for Unborn Babies" and decorated it by hanging hearts on it: some bauble hearts and some red card ones with facts about an unborn baby's heart written on them. We put a poinsettia floral heart at the base, with a model of an unborn baby lying among the flowers. We also invited people who had lost a baby to abortion to write a message to their child on a blank card heart and hang it on the tree.

We found 24 messages on the tree at the end of the festival, most of them addressed to the baby by name, showing the pain and suffering caused by abortion. "4th Christmas without you. Still miss you", and the heartbreaking "I'm sorry. Lots of love, Mummy." We have received several comments to the effect that this was the best tree we have ever submitted. A social worker from Leicester who works with adoption let us know she thought it was very moving and helpful to people. I must give thanks to Rachel and John Cousen, Isobel Steele, Alastair Street and Frances Levett for their ideas and work.

It strikes me that this is a simple and thought provoking initiative which could easily be replicated in other parts of the country.

It also strikes me that this extraordinary response in one English town to the simple Christmas tree initiative of our local branch gives the lie to the recent study purporting to show that abortion doesn't harm mental health.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Today's must-read pro-life news-stories, Wed 14 Dec

2011-12-14T15:39:00.000Z

Vince Cable: Malthus was wrong

Top stories:

Sing for the unborn this December
The Good Counsel Network, a pro-life organisation which assists women in crisis pregnancies, are carol singing at London tube stations next week (19, 21 and 22 December) to raise money for their life-saving work. Please go along and join them one evening if you can. If you're not comfortable singing then they always need help collecting money too. For more information and to let them know if you plan to join them please contact Conor on 0207 723 1740. [John Smeaton, 11 December]

SPUC Council passes resolution to defend marriage
SPUC's national council, which is SPUC's policy-making body, elected by its grassroots volunteers, last month passed the following resolution to defend marriage: "That the Council of SPUC, noting the various proposals currently being made by the present Government and others in regard to the status and standing of marriage and its consequent effect upon family life; and further noting the higher proportionate incidence of abortion in unmarried women compared to married women, resolves to do its utmost to fight for the retention of the traditional understanding of marriage in the history, culture and law of the United Kingdom, namely the exclusive union of one man with one woman for life; and accordingly instructs its officers and executive committee to conduct a major campaign to this end, to co-operate with other persons and societies in so doing and specifically to target the Government's consultation period starting in March, 2012, in regard to (so-called) same sex marriage." [John Smeaton, 8 December]

Other stories:

Abortion

UK pro-abortion lobbyist celebrates Christmas morning-after pill promotion as "Jingle Pills indeed"! [BMJ, 12 December] SPUC slams it as "sick trivialisation" [Twitter, 13 December] Lobbyist also claimed: "[I]t's sex [pro-lifers are] against". SPUC comment: What an absurd claim, when in fact many pro-lifers have large families. [Twitter, 13 December]
UK pro-abortion group holds Christmas carols concert in Anglican church [FPA, 13 December] SPUC comment: Did they dare to sing the famous Coventry Carol with its line: "children young, to slay"? [Twitter, 13 December]
SPUC challenges review which denies abortions harms mental health [Guardian, 9 November] Detailed SPUC comment [SPUC, 9 November]

Euthanasia

Doctors wanted to starve disabled son of Irish pro-life politician [John Smeaton, 13 December]
Read this letter on the Liverpool Care Pathway [John Smeaton, 13 December]

Population

UK cabinet minister says Malthus population theory was generally wrong [Mynewsdesk.com, 13 December]

Sexual ethics

Swiss Catholic bishops argue over school sex ed [LifeSiteNews.com, 13 December]
The worst sexualisation of children is happening in schools [John Smeaton, 10 December]
Same sex marriage is opposed by SPUC Scotland [John Smeaton, 9 December]
English Catholic bishops using wrong strategy in marriage battle, says papal biographer [CNA, 9 December]

General

March for Life to be held in Budapest, Hungary, 28 December [Pat Buckley, 13 December]
Pope at Guadalupe Mass: Defend life from conception to natural end, protect family in its genuine form [VIS, 13 December]
Holy See praises bilateral relations with Chile including pro-life & pro-family mutual interests [VIS, 13 December]

Doctors wanted to starve disabled son of Irish pro-life politician

2011-12-13T19:30:00.000Z

On 30 November Anthony Ozimic, SPUC's communications manager, took part in a debate at University College Cork (UCC), Ireland, on assisted suicide (slides from Anthony's speech), organised by the UCC Law Society. Anthony was quoted in The Irish Times report on the debate:

"[E]uthanasia [i]s underpinned by a pessimism about the value of life and the ability of society to respond adequately to the sick and the vulnerable."

Speaking (pictured) alongside Anthony was Kathy Sinnott, the Irish disability rights campaigner, SPUC supporter and former member of the European Parliament (MEP). Anthony and Kathy have spoken together before at UCC, to Students for Life there.

Also featuring in the debate were:

Tom Curran, European coordinator of Exit International, the pro-euthanasia and suicide organisation headed by Dr Philip Nitschke;
Dr. Kieran Doran, senior lecturer in healthcare ethics, UCC;
Dr. Adam McAuley, senior lecturer in medical and international human rights law, University College Dublin (UCD).

The debate was chaired by Dr Deirdre Madden, senior lecturer in law, UCC.

Mrs Sinnott began her speech (full text) by challenging the students to confront the fundamental questions of what it means to be a human person and what is the true nature of death:

"I would suggest to you that before approaching the question of natural death or euthanasia it is important to find out the truth about ourselves as the human person.

In doing so you will go a long way to answering another question important to this discussion: what is death?"

Mrs Sinnott spoke powerfully on a number of issues, including the attempts of hospital staff in Dublin to deprive her son Jamie of a feeding programme, based on their assessment of his quality of life:

"My first [experience of euthanasia and it's advocates] was a personal encounter which concerned my son Jamie, who is profoundly disabled. Following a severe reaction to a flu jab, his health seriously deteriorated. By the time he, a young man taller than I, had been reduced to 65lbs, he was spending a lot of time in hospital in Dublin.

However he was not being treated. I knew that he needed to be fully scoped and put on a feeding program; both were standard procedures that would have been performed on someone without a disability long before they got to this stage.

Through persistence, I got half the test done and based on this the consultant told me and repeated three times that if we did not get Jamie on a feeding program that he would die. I thanked him and said that we would do whatever it took to make a success of the feeding program. I was delighted that at long last, Jamie could start to get well.

But a half hour later, the consultant, two younger doctors and a nurse, came to the ward where I was waiting for Jamie to come back from the test. They sat down around me with an atmosphere of concern and told me that they had been talking and that they had decided not to put Jamie on a feeding program. They said his quality of life was poor.

I got Jamie out of there as fast as I could and brought him back to Cork, where he was fully tested and put on a program of elemental feeding. Today Jamie weighs 8 stone, he no longer needs a wheelchair instead he walks the country roads every day. He is not longer miserable he takes an active part in his life and sometimes even smiles.

Thank you Cork University Hospital Prof Quigley and team. And an Irish Constitution and High Court that recognized his worth and therefore his rights."

This is yet another example of the success of the euthanasia lobby in exporting the practice of euthanasia by neglect - see my blog-posts earlier today and on 2 December about this practice in the UK.

In his own speech Anthony Ozimic highlighted the comment made in 1984 by Helga Kuhse, the international euthanasia advocate and leader, which perhaps most concisely encapsulates the widespread radicalism of the euthanasia movement:

"If we can get people to accept the removal of all treatment and care, especially the removal of food and fluids they will see what a painful way this is to die and then, in the patient's best interests, they will accept the lethal injection "

Mrs Sinnott said in her speech that her time working in the European Parliament revealed the truth behind the myth that there are 'extreme' and 'mainstream' branches of the euthanasia lobby. I made this very point recently when pointing out that Dr Philip Nitschke is not the extreme wing of the pro-death lobby, but rather the unacceptable face of a lobby wishing to appear moderate in the promotion of their radical pro-death agenda. Mrs Sinnott explained that she had attended a conference organised by the liberal democrat group at the European Parliament, in which the organisers made clear that their objective was free, easy and open access to euthanasia, voluntary and involuntary - although they cautioned that it is important in the beginning to always talk of assisted suicide and to downplay euthanasia.

Mrs Sinnott also relayed the experiences of a friend of hers with ten years' experience confronting death as a hospice nurse. Her friend informed her that her experience suggests that an initial fear or rejection of death, the desire to confess and the desire to travel are so common as to be almost universal traits among dying patients.

Mrs Sinnott's speech concluded with her own reflections on death:

"What I have discovered from those who know death well, those who have had a personal encounter and those who are facing into it convinces me that death is both a unique and very important personal event and a stage, a normal developmental stage of human life."

Dying is a natural, normal part of life which comes to us all. Assisted suicide and euthanasia are violations of that natural process, which should be respected as an integral part of our lives.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Read this letter on the Liverpool Care Pathway

2011-12-13T14:48:00.000Z

On 2 December I blogged about a Telegraph report on the Liverpool Care Pathway. In response to that report, Veronica Stabbins, a lady from Windsor, has given powerful testimony to the pro-euthanasia reality of the Pathway in a letter published yesterday - please read it below (you will need to scroll down the page, as it's about one-third down down the page). As I said on 2 December, I urge readers to check whether the Pathway is being operated in hospitals, hospices or care homes where you live. If so, please write to the management there and draw their attention courteously to the concerns which continue to be expressed about the Pathway.

Telegraph, letters, 12 December 2011

One-way path to death

SIR – My family had some experience of the Liverpool Care Pathway (report December 1) last year.
My mother, aged 99 and living in a nursing home, was taken as an emergency to a hospital A & E department with acute respiratory distress. My brother and I arrived soon after. The doctor told us there was no help for her and that she would probably only live for about two hours.

Obviously unwell, but responsive, she was transferred to a stark room and her saline drip taken down. A nurse wanted to remove her oxygen mask, but she insisted on keeping it, as it helped her breathing.

Another nurse was about to give her an injection of morphine, but I challenged this as my mother was not complaining of pain. The nurse said it was normal protocol.

In answer to our questions, we were told that Mother had been placed on the “care pathway of the dying” and that she would not be given any food or water but would have regular sedation.

We asked if she could be transferred to a private ward to be more comfortable in her final hours. This was arranged promptly. Her physician confirmed she was indeed terminally ill and no medication would be appropriate, only care. To everyone’s surprise, she began to improve and after a week could take sips of water and food.

Mother lived for a year, visited daily by family and friends. The highlight of her “extra” year was her 100th birthday, when she entertained 40 people to a tea party.

She would not have lived that extra year, had she been denied water and sedated in hospital last year.

Veronica Stabbins
Windsor, Berkshire

Sing for the unborn this December

2011-12-11T09:39:00.000Z

The Good Counsel Network, a fantastic pro-life organisation which assists women in crisis pregnancies, are carol singing to raise money for their life-saving work. They say:

The Good Counsel Network organise Carol singing in Tube stations in Central London every year to raise money to help save more childrens lives, and to bring Jesus to people in the streets. This is always very popular with all of the commuters and lots of fun for all who come and sing or rattle a bucket if you are not able to sing . This years dates are:

Singing starts at 4.30pm and finishes approx 8pm on all dates and we go for a drink in local pub or restaurant afterwards.

Monday 19th December at Piccadilly Circus Tube Station (Meet at main ticket office

Wednesday 21st December at Green Park Tube Station (Meet inside the barriers of the main ticket hall)

Thursday 22nd December at Waterloo Tube Station (Details of where to meet coming soon)

Please go along and join them one evening if you can. If you're not comfortable singing then they always need help collecting money too. For more information and to let them know if you plan to join them please contact Conor on 0207 723 1740

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

The worst sexualisation of children is happening in schools

2011-12-10T06:16:00.000Z

Lynette Burrows(pictured), an author on children’s rights, family campaigner and mother of six children said in October this year on the BBC's Sunday Morning Live show:

“I think parents have the absolute right to protect their children from this sort of education which is so unhelpfully obsessed with destroying childhood innocence, in a way that's reminiscent of paedophilia. To me, anyone who wants to talk dirty to little children is a danger to them."

Last week Mrs Burrows spoke at SPUC's Safe at School "Sex education as sexual sabotage" meeting in Westminster, after which our 47,000 strong petition against explicit sex DVDs in primary schools was presented to Michael Gove and the Department for Education by parents joined by Jonathan Evans, MP for Cardiff North, and Andrea Leadsom, MP for South Northamptonshire.

I am delighted that Mrs Burrows has allowed me to publish her talk, in full, on this blog.

Talk for SPUC on 1st December 2011 by Lynette Burrows

First of all, I want to say what a pleasure and a privilege it is to speak on the same platform as Dr. Reisman; a person that I have long admired – and quoted from, on innumerable occasions. Her courage in saying what she has – and being damned by the pundits for saying it, is a useful lesson to us all, in how any individual speaking the truth these days, and sticking to their guns, can expect to be treated. There is nobody more bigoted and hostile than a liberal whose method or opinion is questioned, and one has to be prepared to stand up to all the misrepresentation and insults they throw.

The British, though not a cowardly people, are very easy to embarrass and we often flinch from confrontation rather than ‘speaking the truth and shaming the Devil’ as the nuns who taught me used to say. I was invited to be on the panel to assess the Sex Education forum hosted by ITV in 2008 where, I think, the current crop of horribly unsuitable films were previewed to a warmly appreciative audience of teachers, educationalists, social workers etc, etc. They were graphic and ugly and the only thing that saved them being the sort of material shown by fundamentalist religious groups depicting sex as the work of the Devil was the relentlessly jokey tone and the way deeply shocking images were shown as being perfectly normal and commonplace. This is quite a marketing device actually – to normalize the circumstances surrounding what you want to sell, however counter-cultural and offensive they are to what are essentially community and family values.

I was the last of the panel to give my opinion of the films and said, in my usual kindly and inoffensive way that it reminded me of the policy of the Nigerian govt 30 years ago, when they gave out bomb-proof pills to protect the army in their civil war. ‘They didn’t work of course but hey, who cares, they were a good idea and people bought them! Not everybody died anyway. ‘Wear a condom and you’ll be safe’ – that’s all. Never mind the casualties!’ It didn’t go down well, and even worse, my opinion that the material was put together by crazed paedophiles, drunk with the freedom to talk dirty to young people.

Really, there was pandemonium – and a man stood up and said that I was a dinosaur who thought all sex was dirty even though it was perfectly normal and decent and no-one should have any inhibitions about the body because it was natural and lovely. ‘OK, I said, show us your willy then’! If it’s so normal and as un-shocking as a tattoo or a scar, show us what you are so happy to show crowds of strangers without embarrassment. You show us yours – just to demonstrate that, used as a teaching aid, it is as easy and without implication as you claim. ‘Disgraceful’, he thundered, and sat down whereupon a teacher who, she said, had brought her six-form with her, announced that she was leaving because she didn’t want her pupils to listen to such ignorant, backward rubbish. Alas for her, a tall black girl, who seemed typical of the rest of the class, said that she had never heard any other opinion upon the subject and she wanted to hear more – so she stayed and so did the class, leaving the teacher to stalk out alone with something less than authority.

These films were designed for teenagers and what was unacceptable about them as a means of instructing the young was principally their crudity, insensitivity and assumption of a hard-boiled, quasi- medical approach to human relations but, more importantly, their glossing over important facts such as the failure-rate of all contraceptives, particularly among the young, but also with adult, married couples and the risk involved in promiscuous sex for young people. Sexually transmitted infections (STIs) were always referred to as being ‘treatable’ despite many of them being, in fact, incurable – an old trick that is invariably used by the media particularly the BBC.

The reality of treatment that goes on for years, or all your life, is never spelled out for them; nor the fact that even the Romans had treatment, in the form of herbs, potions and carrying a rabbit’s foot in your pocket – but the disease itself was not cured. It’s true they now have a vaccine that targets two of the most common forms of HPV – but there are other strains of the disease which it doesn’t touch. What about if you encounter one of those?

I cannot see the current sex education programme as being anything but ‘marketing’. Never mind the pious talk of ‘only if you want to do it’, the reality is that they fixate on sex as a way of selling it and grooming young people to be sexually active from as early as possible. As long ago as 1975 the Monopolies Commission reported that the Family Planning Assocation's (FPA) educational activities had ‘widened the market for contraceptives’. You bet they have – otherwise they would have been abandoned long ago.

They are still involved in probably most of the sex-education in schools and have managed to put up the number of illegitimate children born to young mothers enormously. In the reign of Elizabeth I in the sixteenth century until the accession of Elizabeth XI in the twentieth century the illegitimacy rate was more or less stable at 10%. Once the FPA got access to young people, that changed and we now have an illegitimacy rate that is not far off 50% and still rising.

The rather remarkable thing is that all their tendentious advice is given with the one prescriptive proviso that, should they catch an STI, they must not sleep with anyone else until they are considered safe. This is the first and only mention of the fact that it is possible to be abstinent when it comes to sex. Apart from this one instant, young people are supposed to be like rabbits, instinctively programmed to copulate most of the time.
It seems a bit strange to me that they should consider young people altruistic enough to abstain only for the sake of protecting others and not themselves! Talk about shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted.

The subject of sex education for primary schools is another ball-game, as they say. I do believe that all ‘sex-education’ as practiced today is wicked because it has, in terms of human misery, an unacceptable number of casualties. All of which can be re- used as further propaganda for the necessity of their product.

With little children, however, we are on holy ground and Christ Himself warned that those who lead children astray would deserve hideous punishment. ‘Better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck and he were drowned in the depth of the sea’. We often refer to protecting their innocence – but what do we mean by it? Is innocence simply the absence of useful information; is it simply not knowing something or other?

I don’t think so. I think it is something much more vital and akin to a mental immune system that operates in young children for as long as they need it for their growth and development and for the protection of their mental well-being. I don’t believe they can grow up healthily without certain areas that they have not got the emotional maturity to understand or deal with, being veiled from them.

In fact, the filtering out of pre-mature information is intrinsic to the child and does not have to be enforced. Children just don’t notice things that they don’t understand; it doesn’t register with them - as has often been noted in the millions of children that used to share a bedroom with their parents when there was no other space available or, as in the Old Testament, they were all tent dwellers. Children made their own privacy around them that mere events couldn’t penetrate.

To force sex-ed on to them, before they are ready is therefore to enact mental violence on them for some theoretical reason that is far closer to paedophilia than anything else. We see the beginning of the theory, I think, in the 1970 booklet, recommended by the FPA, Boy, Girl, Man, Woman in which paedophiles were described as ‘enticers’. Here is the quote: ‘Enticers are kindly people who treat children tenderly and affectionately’. The writer went on to suggest the ‘the child’s natural sexual curiosity may find an outlet in the company of paedophiles’.

So here we have the theory laid out for public approval. Since sexual curiosity is natural to a child therefore it is alright to allow adults, who have another agenda entirely, to have sexual access to educate them in it. They say, and they are experts, that children need a ‘sexual outlet’ and they are the people to facilitate satisfying this ‘natural’ need. Most people recoil in horror from such a suggestion – and they are right. But the fact is that the material produced now for the innocent eyes of young children is doing just that.

Of course all parents know the fascination that the body holds for little children. The fact that not only rude noises, but pee and poo is produced from within themselves and without their direct control, is very fascinating to them and the source of much innocent humour. But this is a healthy interest in their bodily functions which is not coprophilia, or any other perversion, and any attempt to emphasize and educate a child in it, would rightly be considered child-abuse.

So, I stand by my original opinion that the increase in talking graphically about sex to young children is essentially paedophilic in nature. It is increasing the number of people who are allowed to ‘talk dirty’ to children, and so to breach the protective armour of their innocence. Thus it is widening the scope for paedophiles to target children. Warning children with slimy, disclaimers about ‘inappropriate touching’, is simply token and meaningless to a child. How can they recognize the danger signals from those who wish to exploit them if such a large number of adults are implicated in the same ‘dirty talk’’?

To me, the shamelessness of showing children graphic sex should act as a warning signal to us to beware of the adults who provide it. They are either a danger to children themselves or, more likely, are too stupid to see the danger inherent in demolishing the taboo that protects children from predators.

We now know, how the attitude of the FPA in 1970 helped to make respectable the whole idea of paedophile ‘enticers’ that culminated in the National Council for Civil Liberties, with two later cabinet Ministers in the Labour Government on the board, inviting two openly paedophile groups to affiliate to them later in the 1970s as examples of minority rights. We also know that it gave rise to what a police chief described as the ‘staggering scale’ of paedophilia in children’s homes in the 1970s where, according to the North Wales Tribunal of Enquiry in 1997, twelve boys had committed suicide over a twenty two year period, in order to escape their paedophile tormentors.

Schools and churches of many different faiths produced far fewer numbers of men who acted upon this theory of benign enticers, but they have got all the publicity in the last few years. The scandal of the previous two decades have been expunged from the public mind. Once homosexuals had set their sights on gaining full equality in civil society - even subverting the institution of marriage itself - those in the media would never permit any hint of this dark history to appear in any programmes or discussions.

That vile theory has now gone, buried so deep that no-one ever refers to it or the reason why so much of the ‘child abuse’ now featured in our newspapers, occurred during the 1970’s, even though it definitely calls for explanation or, at least, comment. But, the Devil never sleeps and this latest manifestation of a cruel desire to deprive children of something natural and wholesome has reappeared in another form.

Fortunately, this government has re-stated parents’ right to withdraw their children from sex-education but many schools are used to by-passing or ignoring pesky parents. Parents have every right to know what material the school proposes to use and to watch it in advance. They must exercise their rights and churches, of every denomination, should act themselves to view the material, to warn parents and inform them of their rights. Personally, I would withdraw my children from any class described as being about ‘sex-education’. They don’t need it and parents can supply all they need to know from their knowledge of the child, from their own instincts and in the context of their family.

I have never believed the oft-repeated propaganda from the ‘sexualizers’ that ordinary families are incapable of talking to their children about the facts of life. They have managed it alright throughout all the ages - long before the Family Planning Association appeared as a tool for selling something they could simultaneously make both irresistible and beneficial. The increase in everything sexually damaging to young people can be fairly placed at their door and not at the doors of ordinary people; who though aware of the danger to their children of drug-pushers, pimps and crooks, do not expect harm to come to them via the classroom. The so-called sexualization of children is a modish, current cause for concern, deplored by many, including in government – they should face the reality that by far the worst aspect of it begins and is continued under our noses in our schools.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Same sex marriage is opposed by SPUC Scotland

2011-12-09T17:24:00.001Z

Yesterday I reported that SPUC's Council, the Society's policy-making body(elected by its grassroots volunteers), passed a resolution last month defending marriage.*

Today, SPUC Scotland told the Scottish government that allowing same sex marriage would damage society and would put the unborn child at a far higher risk of being aborted. The following statement was issued:

SPUC Scotland, responding to the Scottish government’s consultation on the registration of civil partnership and same sex marriage, has said that allowing civil partnerships to be registered through religious ceremonies would give the false impression that such unions are marriages, be damaging to society and ultimately increase the threat to unborn children.

SPUC Scotland said that same sex marriage is also damaging to society, promoting the false view that the complementary sexual difference of men and women with its natural link to procreation is irrelevant to the idea of marriage. A marriage is not a ‘mere’ deep friendship (which the State does not regulate, and which need not be permanent or exclusive) but is something more. It does not merely concern the sexual choices or emotions of adults, but concerns children and society. Marriage as an institution exists to protect the identity of children and their right to know and be nurtured by both their mother and their father. There is no direct relationship between any same sex union and a child – any more than between a non-sexual union (for example, a union of friends or siblings) and a child. Necessarily, one or both parents will come from outside the union.

Societies throughout history have recognised the importance of traditional marriage and understood it as a unique bond between man and woman. To recognise the unique nature of marriage and treat it accordingly does no injustice to anyone, whereas redefining marriage by fiat would radically alter the nature and meaning of a fundamental institution – an institution which, by any measure, has been proven to provide the best environment for the rearing of children.

SPUC Scotland has a particular interest in moves that dilute or weaken the meaning and social status of traditional marriage, not least because it is demonstrable that an unborn child has a far higher risk of being aborted when in the womb of an unmarried mother than a married one. To move ahead in the face of this fact and allow same sex partnerships to be effected by religious ceremonies would be to worsen a situation in regard to abortion which many accept is already very grave.

* Why is marriage (and sexual ethics generally) important specifically for the pro-life movement? The late Pope John Paul II, the great pro-life champion, taught in no. 97 of his 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae that it is an illusion to think that we can build a true culture of human life if we do not offer adolescents and young adults an authentic education in sexuality, and in love, and the whole of life according to their true meaning and in their close interconnection.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Pray for the unborn on Monday evening in Harrow

2011-12-09T07:20:00.000Z

Next Monday 12th December I will be speaking at St. Joseph's Catholic Church in Harrow Weald (pictured), at An Evening with Our Lady organised by some local parishioners to celebrate the feast of Our Lady of Gaudalupe, patroness of the unborn.

The evening will be led by Fr Pat Foley, parish priest at St. Helen's, Watford. It starts with the Rosary, followed by Mass. I speak after Mass and after my talk there will a recitation of the the Divine Mercy chaplet and Eucharistic Adoration. T

The evening begins at 6.45pm and finishes at 9.30 pm. For further details contact Ian Walker on 020 8863 3635.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Claim that abortion doesn't harm mental health is predictable

2011-12-09T00:00:00.000Z

SPUC has dismissed as "predictable" a review denying the negative effect of abortion on mental health.

The review was commissioned by the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges (AOMRC) and carried out by the National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health (NCCMH) at the Royal College of Psychiatrists. Dr Roch Cantwell, chairman of the review's steering group, has claimed that the review

"shows that abortion is not associated with an increase in mental health problems."

Anthony Ozimic, SPUC's communications manager, told the media:

"The NCCMH's assertions are predictable - the NCCMH's draft review document published in April ignored many important studies and thus failed to treat the problem with the seriousness it deserves. Clinical case studies* and stories written and told by many women confirm empirical findings of the psychological harms of abortion. Prior mental health may influence mental health after abortion, but does not begin to account for all of the effect. Abortion is associated with severe negative psychological complications for some women. SPUC will, of course, continue scrupulously to review the data in this area, firmly keeping in mind the difference between the violent intrusion of abortion and the fulfilment of a woman’s fertile capacity in childbirth."

* See list of studies in notes below.

SPUC's quotable notes on abortion and mental health:

Stories written and told by many women confirm that abortion can be very damaging to their emotional health. Also, there are studies with empirical findings of the psychological harms of abortion:

Women experience a range of negative emotions after abortion including sadness, loneliness, shame, guilt, grief, doubt and regret. Even women who are initially relieved after their abortions may well go on to experience these emotions.
Abortion may trigger post-traumatic stress disorder in some women.
Many more women experience emotional distress immediately after the abortion and in the months and years following.
Prior mental health may influence mental health after abortion, but does not begin to account for all of the effect.
Risk factors for psychological harm from abortion include a lack of emotional and social support, ambivalence and difficulty making the decision to abort, relationship violence, and a history of psychiatric illness.
Abortion is associated with severe negative psychological complications for some women, including an increased risk of depression, anxiety, bipolar disorder, neurotic depression, depressive psychosis and schizophrenia
Women who have experienced abortion also have an increased risk of substance abuse and self-harm. This is particularly true during a subsequent pregnancy.
Abortion for foetal disability is particularly traumatic and can be psychologically damaging for women.

Studies which suggest these findings include:

Casey PR (2010) Abortion among young women and subsequent life outcomes. Best Practice & Research Clinical Obstetrics and Gynaecology 24:491-502.
Coleman PK & Nelson ES (1998) The quality of abortion decisions and college students’ reports of post-abortion emotional sequelae and abortion attitudes. J Social and Clinical Psychology 17(4):425-442.
Coleman PK, Reardon DC, Rue V & Cougle J (2002) State-funded abortions vs deliveries: a comparison of outpatient mental health claims over four years. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry 72:141-152 Coleman PK, Reardon DC, Rue VM & Cougle JR (2002) A history of induced abortion in relation to substance use during subsequent pregnancies carried to term. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 187:1673-8.
Coleman PK (2005) Induced abortion and increased risk of substance abuse: a review of the evidence. Current Women’s Health Review 1(1):21-34.
Coleman PK, Reardon DC & Cougle JR (2005) Substance use among pregnant women in the context of previous reproductive loss and desire for current pregnancy. British Journal of Health Psychology 10:255-268.
Coleman PK, Reardon DC, Strahan T & Cougle JR (2005) The psychology of abortion: a review and suggestions for future research. Psychology and Health 20(2):237-271.
Coleman PK, Maxey CD, Spence M & Nixon CL (2009) Predictors and Correlates of Abortion in the Fragile Families and Well-Being Study: Paternal Behavior, Substance Use, and Partner Violence. Int J Health Addiction 7:405-422.
Coleman PK, Rue VM & Coyle CT (2009) Induced abortion and intimate relationship quality in the Chicago Health and Social Life Survey. Public Health 123:331-338.
Coleman PK, Coyle CT, Shuping M & Rue VM (2009) Induced abortion and anxiety, mood, and substance abuse disorders: Isolating the effects of abortion in the national comorbidity survey. Journal of Psychiatric Research 43:770-776.
Coleman PK, Coyle CT & Rue VM (2010) Late-Term Elective Abortion and Susceptibility to Posttraumatic Stress Symptoms. Journal of Pregnancy 2010:1-10 Coleman PK (2011) Abortion and mental health: quantitative synthesis and analysis of research published 1995-2009. The British Journal of Psychiatry 199(03):180-186.
Fergusson DM, Horwood LJ & Ridder EM (2006) Abortion in young women and subsequent mental health. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 47(1):16-24.
Fergusson DM, Horwood LJ & Boden JM (2008) Abortion and mental health disorders: evidence from a 30-year longitudinal study. British Journal of Psychiatry 193(6):444-451.
Fergusson DM, Horwood LJ & Boden JM (2009) Reactions to abortion and subsequent mental health. The British Journal of Psychiatry 195:420-426.
Fergusson DM, Horwood LJ & Boden JM (2011) A further meta-analysis. British Journal of Psychiatry 199 doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.110.077230Fischer M (2005) Fatal toxic shock syndrome associated with Clostridium sordellii after medical abortion. N Engl J Med 353:2352–60.
Gissler M, Berg C, Bouvier-Colle MH & Buekens P (2004) Pregnancy-associated mortality after birth, spontaneous abortion, or induced abortion in Finland, 1987-2000. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 190(2):422-7.
Gissler M, Hemminki E & Lönnqvist J (1996) Suicides after pregnancy in Finland, 1987-94: register linkage study. British Medical Journal 313:1431-4.
Gissler M, Kaupplia R, Merilainen J, Toukomaa H & Hemminki E (1997) Pregnancy-associated deaths in Finland 1987-1994 – definition problems and benefits of record linkage. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand 76:91-97 Gissler M, Artama M, Ritvanen A & Wahlbeck K (2010) Use of psychotropic drugs before pregnancy and the risk for induced abortion: population-based register-data from Finland 1996-2006. BMC Public Health 383:1-10.
Reardon D, Makimaa J & Sobie A (eds) (2000) Victims and Victors: Speaking Out About their Pregnancies, Abortions and Children Resulting from Sexual Assault. Acorn Books.
Reardon D (2005) Study fails to address our previous findings and subject to misleading interpretations. British Medical Journal Rapid Responses, 1 November.
Reardon DC & Coleman PK (2005) Relative treatment rates for sleep disorders and sleep disturbances following abortion and childbirth: a prospective record-based study. Sleep 28(12):1293-1294.
Reardon DC & Cougle JR (2002) Depression and unintended pregnancy in the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth: a cohort study. British Medical Journal 324:151-2.
Reardon DC, Coleman PK & Cougle JR (2004) Substance use associated with unintended pregnancy outcomes in the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth. American Journal of Drug and Alcohol Abuse 30(2):369-83.
Reardon DC, Cougle JR, Rue VM, Shuping MW, Coleman PK & Ney PG (2003) Psychiatric admissions of low-income women following abortion and childbirth. Canadian Medical Association Journal 168(10):1253-6.
Reardon DC, Ney PG, Scheuren F, Cougle J, Coleman PK & Strahan TW (2002) Deaths associated with pregnancy outcome: a record linkage study of low income women. Southern Medical Journal August 95(8):834-841 Rue VM, Coleman PK, Rue JJ & Reardon DC (2004) Induced abortion and traumatic stress: a preliminary comparison of American and Russian women. Medical Science Monitor 10(10):SR5-16.
Tankard Reist M (2000) Giving Sorrow Words: Women’s stories of grief after abortion. Duffy & Snellgrove, Sydney.

SPUC Council passes resolution to defend marriage

2011-12-08T14:59:00.001Z

SPUC's national council, which is SPUC's policy-making body, elected by its grassroots volunteers, last month passed the following resolution to defend marriage*:

"That the Council of SPUC, noting the various proposals currently being made by the present Government and others in regard to the status and standing of marriage and its consequent effect upon family life; and further noting the higher proportionate incidence of abortion in unmarried women compared to married women, resolves to do its utmost to fight for the retention of the traditional understanding of marriage in the history, culture and law of the United Kingdom, namely the exclusive union of one man with one woman for life; and accordingly instructs its officers and executive committee to conduct a major campaign to this end, to co-operate with other persons and societies in so doing and specifically to target the Government's consultation period starting in March, 2012, in regard to (so-called) same sex marriage."

* Why is marriage (and sexual ethics generally) important specifically for the pro-life movement? The late Pope John Paul II, the great pro-life champion, taught in no. 97 of his 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae that it is an illusion to think that we can build a true culture of human life if we do not offer adolescents and young adults an authentic education in sexuality, and in love, and the whole of life according to their true meaning and in their close interconnection.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Today's must-read pro-life news-stories, Wed 7 Dec

2011-12-07T17:23:00.001Z

Phanuel Dartey

Morning-after pill scheme is gift of death for Christmas, says SPUC
A Christmas promotion to supply morning-after pills following telephone consultations has been condemned as "the gift of death" by SPUC. The British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), one of the UK's main abortion providers, has launched the scheme, which it is promoting with offensive advertisements which read: "Sex: getting 'turned on' this Christmas?" Paul Tully, SPUC general secretary, commented: "Christmas is about the gift of life, yet BPAS are offering instead the gift of death. According to the manufacturers, morning-after pills can kill newly-conceived human embryos". [SPUC, 6 December] http://goo.gl/2rPjV

MPs support parents in fight against pornographic sex education
Members of Parliament joined parents and experts at Westminster to support a campaign against pornographic sex education programmes in schools. SPUC's Safe at School campaign organised a packed meeting entitled “Sex education as sexual sabotage”. Jacob Rees-Mogg MP said that the meeting was “terrifically important. SPUC’s work is of overwhelming importance for our society.” Dr Judith Reisman, the global expert on sexology pioneer Dr Alfred Kinsey, took delegates back in time to explain why sex education in schools is so explicit today. Mrs Lynette Burrows, a leading commentator on the family and a mother of six children, said: “Sex education has an unaaceptable number of casualties”. Emma Clarke, a Northampton mother of three, said that her son’s behaviour changed radically for the worse after he was exposed to sex education at school. After the meeting, Jonathan Evans MP and Andrea Leadsom MP joined parents in delivering to the Department of Education a 47,000-signature petition to Michael Gove, the education secretary, calling for sex DVDs to be banned from UK primary schools. [SPUC, 1 December] http://goo.gl/dwnFI
Related stories:

SPUC's Antonia Tully on English regional radio [96.4 Eagle, 5 December] http://goo.gl/mfpLG
SPUC campaign supported by Andrea Leadsom MP [Andrea Leadsom, 1 December] http://goo.gl/vtvF5
SPUC's Safe at School addressed meeting at Parliament 24 November [Steve Brine MP, 24 November] http://goo.gl/zo9PA

Other stories:

Abortion

Reflections on the latest 4thought.tv series on abortion [John Smeaton, 7 December] http://goo.gl/U3aD7
US pro-abortion groups oppose sex-selection abortion ban [LifeNews.com, 6 December] http://goo.gl/AkybG
UK Marie Stopes doctor (pictured) loses license, almost killed woman in abortion [LifeNews.com, 5 December] http://goo.gl/lktxW
US gynaecologists' groups stopping doctors objecting to abortion [LifeNews.com, 6 December] http://goo.gl/qK2dQ

Embryology

IVF patient's frozen embryos 'lost by clinic' [BBC, 5 December] http://goo.gl/5k7Kd
Dolly the sheep scientist says abandon embryonic stem cell research [LifeNews.com, 5 December] http://goo.gl/kTt4P
Adult stem cell advance as UK patients set to undergo clinical trial [This is Bristol, 3 December] http://goo.gl/3MW2S

Euthanasia

Editor of left-wing UK magazine argues people should be free to condemn acts of suicide [Telegraph, 6 December] http://goo.gl/fxwWp
List of public meetings in Wales consulting re opt-out organ donation [Wales Online, 5 December] http://goo.gl/c2vfh
Massachusetts Medical Association overwhelmingly opposes assisted suicide [Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, 3 December] http://goo.gl/txFwF
UK families paying for private nurses to save loved ones on NHS wards [Mail, 2 December] http://goo.gl/Y54fJ
All should check if the Liverpool Care Pathway is operating in their area [John Smeaton, 2 December] http://goo.gl/JRlGX
SPUC's Anthony Ozimic opposes euthanasia at Irish university debate [Irish Times, 1 December] http://goo.gl/vJI6b

Sexual ethics

UK government to spend £5 million on female condoms for developing countries [Pharmaceutical International, 6 December] http://goo.gl/TX14C
Ex-SNP leader warns gay marriage could alienate people [PinkPaper.com, 2 December] http://goo.gl/CzzxV

General

Tough, loving, health-care professionals need support [John Smeaton, 3 December] http://goo.gl/Axqk3

Reflections on the latest 4thought.tv series on abortion

2011-12-07T11:39:00.000Z

4Thought.tv, a moral and ethical opinions production of Channel 4, has recently focused on the theme "Should abortion clinics be stopped from providing counselling". You can view all of the episodes focusing on this theme on the 4Thought.tv website. Each episode of 4Thought.tv shows one person offering their view on a particular moral issue. That person is asked numerous questions and filmed for over an hour and the production team then produce a show of approximately ninety seconds. In November 2010 I spoke on the theme "Is abortion ever justified?" and earlier this year Anthony Ozimic, SPUC's communications manager, spoke about the dangers of opt-out organ donation systems. Our experience is that the 4Thought.tv team is fair and impartial.

Paul Smeaton, my son, has sent me the following observations on the series:

4Thought.tv ask "Should abortion providers be stopped from providing counselling?" ~ Analysis by Paul Smeaton

Seven people were interviewed on the theme "Should abortion providers be stopped from providing counselling?" They were

Tanya Ray - a woman who says she regrets the abortion she had at fifteen
Kate Cooper - mother of four living children, who had an abortion twenty years ago which she says she doesn't regret
Mara Clarke - employee of the Abortion Support Network, which assists women in The Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland to travel overseas to procure abortions. She describes herself as "a mum and an abortion activist"
Dr. Evan Harris - radically pro-abortion former Liberal Democrat MP who lost his seat at the last general election and is now an unelected health adviser to the coalition government
Edward Rennie - clerk to the All-Party Parliamentary Pro-Life Group and member of "Catholic Voices"
Matt O'Connor - founder of Fathers 4 Justice
Obadah Ghannam - a Muslim and fifth year medical student.

Tanya Ray's interview is very moving. Tanya was 15 when she had a late-term abortion and painfully describes sitting on the toilet surrounded by abortion professionals as she delivered her dead child.

The short biography given on the 4Thought.tv website says that:

"Tanya now works educating girls on the seriousness of contraception and believes that abortion clinics put women under unfair pressure to have an abortion".

I was unable to ascertain whether or not Tanya works for the sort of organisation that promotes contraception in schools, or whether she is aware of the intimate link between contraception and abortion. As those doing the former are more numerous than the latter it seems likely that, unfortunately, Tanya works promoting contraceptives. If this isn't the case then I apologise unreservedly. It is clear from the interview that Tanya is aware that what is most heavily promoted by society is not necessarily what is best for women. If she doesn't already know, it would be worth her noting that the manufacturers of contraceptive drugs and devices acknowledge that their products may, as one of their modes of action, kill a developing embryo by preventing him or her from implanting in the lining of the womb.

This blog has pointed out several times before that there is hard evidence that pushing contraception onto children does not reduce teenage pregnancies or abortion. Professor David Paton, who holds a chair in Economics at Nottingham University, has shown in a paper entitled "The economics of family planning and underage conceptions" (this paper is not available free online, but if you would like a copy please contact John Smeaton) that so-called "family planning", and increased access to it, increases the likelihood that teenagers will engage in sexual activity. Professor Paton says:

"I find no evidence that greater access to family planning has reduced underage conceptions or abortions. Indeed, there is some evidence that greater access is associated with an increase in underage conceptions..."

Kate Cooper was 20 and a student when she had an abortion. Ms Cooper said that she was never morally troubled by her abortion and that she remains happy about the decision to this day. Ms Cooper said that she would advise her daughter to have an abortion if she became pregnant at an inconvenient time and seemed genuinely mystified by the notion that anyone might object to abortion. Here, as a brief reminder, is a description of a suction abortion, the most common type of abortion procedure in Britain, representing 52% of the 189,574 abortions which took place last year under the Abortion Act in England and Wales:

"The cervix (the neck of the womb) must be stretched open to allow the surgeon to insert a plastic tube into the womb. Sharp-edged openings near the tip of the tube help to dismember the baby so the parts are small enough to be sucked out. The surgeon then uses the suction tube to evacuate the placenta from the womb. The remains of the baby are deposited in a jar for disposal."

Mara Clarke is a self-described "abortion activist" and is openly committed to the promotion of abortion. It would seem that Mara finds nothing morally problematic with abortions, but does with the idea that abortion is illegal in Ireland. This makes her claim at the end of the interview that "you cannot legislate morality" particularly surprising. Most people would agree that much of our legislation is based on objective principles of morality and rightly so. Most people would agree that the illegality of child abuse and rape is a good thing and something that should be upheld. It is also clear that Mara finds it morally reprehensible that women don't have easy access to abortion in Ireland. What Mara is advocating, therefore, isn't for legislation which ignores morality, but for legislation which corresponds with her own moral views, which include the belief that it is morally acceptable to kill an unborn child.

Dr. Evan Harris begins with the deliberate use of rhetorical language which aims to both demonise and belittle pro-life pregnancy counsellors. He says:

"You cannot allow women who are seeking abortions to be encouraged into the clutches of those who would claim, for example, that abortion causes cancer. It has been well established by science that it doesn't."

Notwithstanding the ridiculous and insulting description of pro-life counsellors as having "clutches", Harris uses the well-known tactic of employing a straw-man argument by suggesting that pro-life counsellors unequivocally claim that abortion causes cancer. What pro-life counsellors might well inform women about, and what Harris refuses to acknowledge, is that there are numerous studies which suggest a link between abortion and breast cancer. These studies included (but are not limited to) the work of Professor Joel Brind, who in 1996 published a meta-analysis of 23 epidemiologic studies; Dr. Angela Lanfranchi’s research at the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute; or the 2003 paper by Karen Malec in the professional journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, which states that:

"[T]hirty-eight epidemiological studies exploring an independent link between abortion and breast cancer have been published. Twenty-nine of these report risk elevations. Thirteen out of 15 American studies found risk elevations. Seventeen studies are statistically significant, 16 of which report increased risk. Biological evidence provides a plausible mechanism for this statistical association".

I am not aware of a single pro-life organisation in the UK which claims that the evidence linking abortion and an increased risk of breast cancer is conclusive. In order to depict pro-life counsellors as scare-mongering, conspiracy theorists (possibly with claws instead of fingers), Dr Harris utterly dismisses the existence of scientific evidence which suggests there may be a link. He is not concerned with providing women with truthful information, but solely with promoting abortion.

At the conclusion of the episode Dr Harris gives the lie to the claim that abortion promoters don't put women under pressure to have abortions:

"If someone finds they're pregnant when they weren't intending to be and they're not sure if they want to continue the pregnancy it's in a woman's best interest to have rapid access to abortion if that's what she's going to have because the later one leaves it the more dangerous it is and for those people who have ethical concerns about abortion the more problematic it is for later stage abortions".

According to Dr Harris, women considering abortions should be seen by abortion providers as soon as possible, since any delay would make things more difficult and potentially more ethically problematic. It is somewhat surprising that Dr Harris is even prepared to accept that abortions are genuinely dangerous for women. It was reported only last Friday that a London-based abortionist has been fired after leaving an Irishwoman fighting for her life after he botched the abortion. Dr Harris even uses what he describes as the ethical concerns of those opposed to abortion to advocate for abortion as quickly as possible! Abortion at any stage of a child's development is the destruction of an innocent human being and any distinction between human beings is prejudiced and arbitrary.

Matt O’Connor, the founder of Fathers 4 Justice, made a number of interesting points in his interview. Mr O'Connor pointed out that abortion providers have a vested interested in promoting abortion for financial gain. As one would expect, Mr O'Connor's concern is principally representing the rights of fathers, but he has also penetrated a number of the myths promoted by the abortion lobby. He rightly pointed out that abortion is not solely a women's issue, as it involves the life of another - the unborn child. He also identified as an injustice children aborted without their father's knowledge or consent.

Obadah Ghannam, a Muslim and a medical student, said he felt challenged by what he considered to be a conflict between medical ethics and his understanding that his religion said abortion, generally speaking, isn't correct. Mr Ghannam said:

"If a fourteen year old Muslim girl came up to me and I was a GP in the clinic and she said to me 'I'm pregnant. I want an abortion.' The question is: what would I do? And there are two conflicting things here. On the one side I'm having to think about my professional obligations about how we would deal with this situation and what's best for the patient."

Mr Ghannam seems unaware that doctors are not under any obligation to refer women for abortions. It is worrying that he seems to think they are.

Edward Rennie, clerk to the All-Party Parliamentary Pro-Life Group, is a member of "Catholic Voices" and is described on the 4Thought.tv website as a "Catholic pro-life activist". His interview concludes on the positive note that we need to "reclaim our responsibilities" and Mr Rennie suggests that society needs to re-examine our root attitudes to sex, relationships, marriage and raising children. However, a number of his comments preceding this are troubling. At the beginning of the episode, he says:

"In the United Kingdom as a whole we're still left with over five-hundred abortions a day and I think that pro-choicers and pro-lifers can agree that that's just far too high".

This begs the question: how many abortions does Mr Rennie think is too many?

Mr Rennie is not correct in thinking that he will find such common ground with so-called 'pro-choicers'. At a recent Voice for Choice public meeting in central London, BPAS's medical director said that: "it's crucial for abortionists to talk about abortion as a good thing" and that she finds performing abortions "gratifying". At the same meeting the idea that there is such a thing as too many abortions was held up to general ridicule by Marge Berer, a veteran abortion activist and editor of the magazine Reproductive Health Matters. She described abortion as a normal part of life and simply a part of a whole sex - contraception - abortion cycle.

Mr Rennie later said that:

"I think pregnancy counselling should be offered from many sources and it shouldn't be offered solely from those who provide abortion".

The suggestion here is that abortion providers should be one of many different groups offering pregnancy counselling, but surely as a Catholic and self-proclaimed pro-lifer he is opposed to abortion providers offering pregnancy counselling at all?

Mr Rennie then goes on to state:

"[W]hatever angle you're coming from, whether you're pro-life or very strongly pro-choice, in terms of the counselling it needs to be non-directional to allow a pregnant woman to come to her own view of what she wants to do".

To suggest that counselling "needs to be" non-directional is to undermine the vital and life-saving work of those organisations who offer explicitly pro-life 'directional' counselling. To suggest that the moral legitimacy of pregnancy counselling is based on the counselling providing no direction, rather than providing a morally good direction, is to suggest that abortion may be an acceptable choice for a mother to make, so long as it is a choice she arrives at independent of persuasive counsel.

-- Paul Smeaton's analysis ends --

I confess that even after decades of working in the pro-life movement I continue to find it alarming that individuals such as Evan Harris, Kate Cooper and Mara Clarke are given a public platform to promote the killing of unborn children. However, in the context of the culture of death 4Thought.tv appear to have done their best to provide what they would consider to be a balanced and varied selection of guests. What is especially disappointing is that, despite the presence of a "pro-life activist" among those interviewed, the right to life of unborn children was not clearly and comprehensively defended by any of last week's participants.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Morning-after pill scheme is gift of death for Christmas

2011-12-06T11:44:00.001Z

SPUC has condemned as "the gift of death" a Christmas promotion to supply morning-after pills following telephone consultations.

SPUC was commenting after the announcement that the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), one of the UK's main abortion providers, has launched the scheme, which it is promoting with offensive advertisements which read: "Sex: getting 'turned on' this Christmas?" (pictured)

Paul Tully, SPUC general secretary, told the media earlier this morning:

"Christmas is about the gift of life, yet BPAS are offering instead the gift of death. According to the manufacturers, morning-after pills can kill newly-conceived human embryos by making the womb's lining hostile. It is a sick idea, and an appalling reflection on society, that an abortion-inducing drug can be supplied over the phone as a Christmas promotion.

"BPAS is a money-grabbing organisation which has a vested interest in increasing the irresponsible sexual activity which often leads to abortion. BPAS wants a greater share of the multi-million pound government contracts in state-funded abortion and birth control. BPAS is advertising the scheme as free, when in fact it will be taxpayers who foot the bill via the government's business deal with BPAS.

"Despite massive promotion of the morning-after pill over the past two decades, the rate of registered abortions, both surgical and by other abortion drugs, has trended upwards. There has also been an explosion in the rates of sexually-transmitted infections, not least because morning-after pills offer no protection against them.

"We call upon the government to end its association with BPAS and its sick advertising campaigns".

Tough, loving, health-care professionals need support

2011-12-03T18:01:00.001Z

In response to a number of posts I've published in recent weeks concerning the growing danger to vulnerable patients, put on the Liverpool Care Pathway, of being killed through the Pathway - as a number of doctors and new research have pointed out - I received an eloquent message from one of the visitors to my blog:

Dear John,

Having spent 46 years as a member of the nursing profession I have witnessed many politically-based healthcare changes during that period. One of the many changes that concern me is the of 'end of life' care issue that is purely economicaly based. I worked mainly in the 'care of the elderly' sector for five years before I retired and I particularly felt disturbed by the implemented 'end of life' frameworks that seemed too ambiguous for my liking. I made it clear from day one that I would not implement any of the frameworks when the elderly were in my care. There was a policy whereby the nurse in charge must send for the Advance Practitioners if deterioration occurred which I firmly ignored on one particular occassion when caring for a dying resident who welcomed the tiny amounts of water I placed on his lips whilst I privately prayed the Divine Mercy for him. I firmly agree with Ann Farmer that there is nothing to be gained by asking an elderly, often confused person about their impending death. In my experience elderly people in care often make the comment "I don't want to die". If it is considered to be caring to ask some of the most vulnerable members of our society, who have often worked hard to support their families and have a wisdom that comes with long life where and how they wish to die then we are no longer a nation based on true compassion but rather misguided compassion ... "

Sincerely etc ...

Compassionate, tough, health professionals like my correspondent, who are prepared to protect their patients in defiance of cruel or lethal health care regimes, and who are not afraid to take their Christian faith into the workplace, will not survive in the current political climate in the health care services - unless, as I urged yesterday, we are truly vigilant in the care of our relatives and loved ones.

I say once again: If you are concerned about the treatment somebody you know may be receiving then contact Patients First Network, SPUC's service which confronts the NHS' practise of silent euthanasia. I urge readers to check whether the Pathway is being operated in hospitals, hospices or care homes where you live. If so, please write to the management there and draw their attention courteously to the concerns which continue to be expressed about the Liverpool Care Pathway by leading medical professionals.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

All should check if the Liverpool Care Pathway is operating in their area

2011-12-02T14:19:00.001Z

The Telegraph has reported this morning that Dr Patrick Pullicino, a consultant neurologist at East Kent University Hospitals, has questioned the current protocol of the Liverpool Care Pathway, a system which thousands of UK NHS patients are placed on each year.

I include below the key elements of their article, which you can read in full on their website.

Dr Patrick Pullicino, a consultant neurologist at East Kent University Hospitals, said it was vital that more information was made available about the use of the Liverpool Care Pathway in the NHS.

He said: "We need to know how frequently it is being used. Data should be released showing the proportion of patients who die in hospital who were on the Liverpool Care Pathway and how many were on it against their will or that of their family."

Tens of thousands of patients with terminal illnesses are being placed on a “death pathway”, almost double the number just two years ago, the Royal College of Physicians has found.

...

In one hospital trust, doctors had conversations with fewer than half of families about the care of their loved one. In a quarter of hospital trusts, discussions were not held with one in three families.

...

In addition to the withdrawal of fluid and medication, patients can be placed on sedation until they pass away. This can mean they are not fed and provided with water and has led to accusations that it hastens death.

...

Kevin Fitzpatrick, spokesman for the campaign group Not Dead Yet, said: “It is very worrying that in any situation less than 100 per cent of families are being consulted before patients are being put on the Liverpool Care Pathway. It is a shock for families to find that out.

“In some situations doctors are prepared to do it without consulting families because they think they know what is best and questions arise as to why they think it is OK to do that. Families have the right to know why a loved one is being put on the LCP.”

Dr Pullicino's comments and the report by the Royal College of Physicians are the latest in a number of high-profile questioning of the controversial scheme. In March this year Dr Clare Walker, the president of the Catholic Medical Association, was quoted saying that euthanasia is being practised widely in the NHS. In September 2009 a group of leading doctors wrote to the Telegraph saying that terminally ill patients were in serious danger of being killed through the pathway. In August 2009 a report by Adam Brimelow, BBC news health correspondent, warned that "there is evidence that some clinicians may already be using continuous deep sedation (CDS), as a form of 'slow euthanasia'". That report echoed the concerns of Dr Adrian Treloar, a senior consultant and lecturer in old age psychiatry, which were published in 2008 in a letter to the British Medical Journal. Dr Treloar stated then that "The Liverpool care pathway (LCP) is the UK’s main clinical pathway of continuous deep sedation and is promoted for roll out across the NHS".

As Alison Davis of No Less Human points out in her paper "The case of Tony Bland", the practice of consigning vulnerable patients to a death pathway stems from the 1992 court ruling against Tony Bland, which resulted in him being dehydrated to death. The government's 2005 Mental Capacity Act extended the possible scope of this practice. The inherent right to life of all patients, whether they are terminally ill or not, must be defended in the face of a war against the weak. As Alison argues:

"What was started in Bland may well end in the direct killing of any sick, disabled or elderly person, on the grounds that such lives have no value. We all have reason to be very afraid."

Dr Pullicino's comments are a reminder for the need to be vigilant in the care of our relatives and loved ones. If you are concerned about the treatment somebody you know may be receiving then contact Patients First Network, SPUC's service which confronts the NHS' practise of silent euthanasia. I urge readers to check whether the Pathway is being operated in hospitals, hospices or care homes where you live. If so, please write to the management there and draw their attention courteously to the concerns which continue to be expressed about the Liverpool Care Pathway by leading medical professionals.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

MPs support parents in fight against pornographic sex education

2011-12-01T22:25:00.001Z

Members of Parliament joined parents and experts today at Westminster to support a campaign against pornographic sex education programmes in schools.

SPUC's Safe at School organised a packed meeting entitled “Sex education as sexual sabotage”, co-hosted by the Working Party on the Sexualisation of Children under the Lords and Commons Family and Child Protection Group.

Jacob Rees-Mogg, MP for North-East Somerset, said that the meeting was “terrifically important. SPUC’s work is of overwhelming importance for our society.” He said that he has met with local parents worried about school-based sex education. Mr Rees-Mogg thanked everyone at the meeting for helping him to inform himself about the issue, which he is taking up with his local authority. High resolution image of Mr Rees-Mogg

Following the meeting, Jonathan Evans, MP for Cardiff North, and Andrea Leadsom, MP for South Northamptonshire, joined parents in delivering to the Department of Education a 47,000-signature petition to Michael Gove, the education secretary, calling for sex DVDs to be banned from UK primary schools. High resolution image of petition presentation

During the meeting, Dr Judith Reisman, the global expert on sexology pioneer Dr Alfred Kinsey, took delegates back in time to explain why sex education in schools is so explicit today. Dr Kinsey, starting in the 1940s, invented the myth that children are sexual at birth, a presupposition which underpins material used in sex and relationships education (SRE) today. Dr Reisman said it is child abuse to expose children to sexually-explicit material because of the lasting and uncontrollable effect such exposure can have on children’s developing brains. High-resolution image of Dr Reisman

Mrs Lynette Burrows, a leading commentator on the family and a mother of six children, said: “Sex education has an unaaceptable number of casualties”. She argued that the open promotion of paedophilia in the 1970s is now manifested in a different form, namely pornographic sex education. Both Mrs Burrows and Dr Reisman also argued that school-based sex education was not necessary, as parents throughout the ages have proved themselves competent educators of their children in sexual matters. The rise of out-of-wedlock pregnancies, sexually-transmitted infections and child abuse runs parallel with the rise of sex education by so-called professionals rather than parents. High-resolution image of Mrs Burrows

Safe at School has been calling for parents to be given back this critical role in their children’s lives. Parents around the country are calling Safe at School for support in dealing with their children’s schools, which systematically sideline parents from any knowledge of or involvement in the sex education delivered in the classroom.

Emma Clarke, a Northampton mother of three, said that her son’s behaviour changed radically for the worse after he was exposed to sex education at school. Mrs Clarke, who also runs a charity for child sex abuse victims, said that sex education puts children in a vulnerable position because the material used is basically paedophilic.

Ruth Pond related her experience as a parent governor at a state school in Worksop, where she was kept in the dark about the use of Channel Four’s “Living and Growing” DVD. She was isolated by the school management when she objected to the video; she described the school as “hell-bent” on showing the pornographic material to children.

Participants in the meeting were united in their belief that programmes such as “Living and Growing” went beyond merely explaining the mechanics of sex but actually primed pre-pubescent children for sexual activity.

Members of a range of groups and institutions were present at the meeting, including:

Anglican Mainstream (Dr Lisa Nolland)
Imam Maulana Shahid Raza Khan (Muslim College in London; World Islamic Mission of Europe)
SREIslamic (Yusuf Patel)
Islamic Medical Association (Dr A. Majid Katme)
Core Issues Trust
Lydia Fellowship
ACA (Against Child Abuse) (Belinda McKenzie)
Family Education Trust (Norman Wells, Dr Trevor Stammers)
Anscombe Bioethics Centre (Dr Helen Watt)
St Mary's University College, London
LIFE (Anne Scanlan)
Catholic Women's League (CWL); World Union of Catholic Women's Organisations (WUCWO)
Cost of Conscience
Morality Forum
Prayer for Parliament
Women's Federation for World Peace

Taya Kennedy, who was born with Down's, is a modelling star

2011-11-29T06:48:00.001Z

With profuse apologies to the Daily Mail - and I urge you to read their story in full - allow me to lift a substantial quotation from a proud mum, Gemma Andre, speaking about the achievement of her beautiful daughter, Taya Kennedy - both pictured right.

"I always believed my daughter was stunning but I thought, 'I’m her mum. I’m biased,'" she says.

"When the agency rang me and said, 'We want her on our books. She’s absolutely beautiful', I was delighted.

"I asked them if they were aware she had Down’s Syndrome. They said: 'It’s immaterial. We’ve accepted her.' At that moment I burst into tears. I was overjoyed, not so much because Taya was going to be a model. More importantly, she had competed on equal terms with every other child and succeeded ... "

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

In Oregon the only help a depressed patient got was a lethal prescription intended to kill him

2011-11-28T16:59:00.001Z

I urge you to read the succinct, enlightening, tragic letter from Charles J. Bentz, a physician practising medicine in Oregon, published by Times Colonist, an on-line Canadian journal. Physician-assisted suicide is legal in Oregon.

In brief, Dr Bentz's patient, being treated for cancer, became depressed. Dr Bentz's letter concludes: "In most jurisdictions, suicidal ideation is interpreted as a cry for help. In Oregon, the only help my patient got was a lethal prescription intended to kill him. Don't make Oregon's mistake."

Earlier this month I wrote about Dr Philip Nitschke, the president of Exit International. He was touring the UK leading public meetings and seminars, focusing on advising people how they can commit suicide using a wide range of methods.

Paul Smeaton, my son, attended his public meeting in London Paul and wrote his observations of the meeting (part 1, part II).

Whilst what Paul reports is truly shocking, Dr Bentz's letter underlines the truth of what Wesley Smith, the stalwart anti-euthanasia bioethicist, says about Dr Nitschke and his promotion of suicide methods, not just for the terminally-ill but for anyone:

" ... Nitschke appears to be on the radical edge of the assisted suicide movement - but he's really not."

Vladamir Putin turns to Mary to halt Russia's population decline

2011-11-26T16:58:00.001Z

Under the headline "Mother of God's Belt comes to Russia to help reverse population decline" The Freethinker The Voice of Atheism since 1881 has featured the news that Vladamir Putin, prime minister of Russia, received the Belt of the Mother of God "a revered Orthodox piece of antiquity" at St. Petersburg Airport.

Pictured above, behind Putin's left shoulder, is Vladamir Yakunin, president of Russian Railways since June 2005. I was the guest last month of Mr Yakunin at the Rhodes Forum, of which he is the founding president. He attended the Roundtable on population and the family, moderated by his wife, Natalya, which I was invited to address. Freethinker quotes Vladamir Yakunin thus:

"The belt of the Most Holy Virgin Mary possesses miraculous power. It helps women and helps in childbirth. In our demographic situation, this is … important."

Freethinker's caption under the picture above reads: "Prime Minister Vladimir Putin puts on a solemn face for Mary’s belt".

Now whatever one might think about Mr Putin, he has every reason to be solemn at such an occasion for two reasons:

There's a huge spiritual revival in Russia which, unsurprisingly, has been reflected in the reception given by Russians to Belt of the Mother of God - as MercatorNet reports today.
Secondly, as MercatorNet highighted last week, Russia is experiencing a catastrophic decline in its population. They link to an important article in Foreign Affairs Magazine by the internationally renowned demographer Nicholas Eberstadt, which they rightly say everyone should buy and read in full.

Eberstadt's article begins:

"December marks the 20th anniversary of the end of the Soviet dictatorship and the beginning of Russia's postcommunist transition. For Russians, the intervening years have been full of elation and promise but also unexpected trouble and disappointment. Perhaps of all the painful developments in Russian society since the Soviet collapse, the most surprising -- and dismaying -- is the country's demographic decline. Over the past two decades, Russia has been caught in the grip of a devastating and highly anomalous peacetime population crisis. The country's population has been shrinking, its mortality levels are nothing short of catastrophic, and its human resources appear to be dangerously eroding."

My letter in this weekend's Tablet rebutting Clifford Longley's 'pro-choice' position

2011-11-26T15:33:00.001Z

The 19 November edition of The Tablet (the de facto house journal of British Catholic dissent) contains a column-piece on abortion by Clifford Longley (pictured), the broadcaster (who inter alia assists Catholic Voices, co-run by former Tablet deputy editor Austen Ivereigh). My published letter responding to Mr Longley is immediately below, and below that is (for the sake of completeness) Mr Longley's column-piece. Tabula delenda est.

The Tablet, Letters, 26 November 2011

Catholic MPs must oppose abortion

Clifford Longley’s tendentious reasoning (“The argument that criminal law must mirror moral law is surely not tenable”, 19 November) supporting Catholic MPs embracing a “pro-choice” position does him little credit.

At the heart of Longley’s account is his flawed notion of the relationship between democracy and abortion. In Evangelium Vitae (nn. 69-73), Blessed Pope John Paul II makes it clear that democratic systems cannot operate without moral foundations. He critically refers to the “commonly held” view that “the legal system of any society should limit itself to taking account of and accepting the convictions of the majority”. This “commonly held” view is and always has been rejected by the Church. “Democracy cannot be idolised to the point of making it a substitute for morality or a panacea for immorality,” says Evangelium Vitae.

The fundamental values of society – in the case of abortion, the fundamental right of an innocent person to be protected from intentional killing – are not provisional and changeable “majority opinions”, says Blessed Pope John Paul II. Democracy can only flourish when fundamental human values are protected in law. Catholic MPs, and all MPs of goodwill, have a conscientious duty to protect fundamental human values.

Evangelium Vitae (n. 73) encapsulates the matter, where MPs are concerned, in these terms: “In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it or to ‘take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it’.”

John Smeaton
National director, Society for the Protection of
Unborn Children, London SE11

The Tablet, "The argument that criminal law must mirror moral law is surely not tenable", Clifford Longley, 19 November 2011

Is it plausible for a Catholic MP to be “pro-choice”? The issue is raised once more by the case of Jon Cruddas, Labour MP for Dagenham and Rainham and a practising Catholic, who has incurred church disapproval for saying that he thinks abortion should be – to quote President Bill Clinton – “safe, legal and rare”.

Cruddas has also said he is happy with the law as it stands in Britain, which is not quite a standard pro-choice position because of the 24-week time limit and because two doctors have to confirm that the statutory criteria have been met. But Cruddas’ views were nonetheless described by a spokesman from the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales as “significantly at variance with the Church’s position”.

That position is set forth in general in the 1995 encyclical, Evangelium Vitae, that “direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder”. It therefore follows, it goes on to argue, that the law must protect all unborn human life, from the moment of conception, from deliberate harm. It would not surprise me if a Catholic MP held the first of these two points, yet hesitated about the second. Indeed the first of these two positions is probably not far from what most people feel.

Even Ann Furedi, director of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service and therefore a major lobbyist on the pro-choice side of the argument, has said abortion is “always a personal tragedy”. She and many like her, however, would say it is sometimes the lesser of two evils. I have heard her liken a woman who seeks an abortion to a hunted animal caught
in a trap, which gnaws off its own foot in terror in order to escape.

The argument that the criminal law must in all respects mirror the moral law – and specifically the moral law as interpreted by the Catholic Church – is surely not tenable. Almost nobody thinks adultery, for instance, should be a crime. And while it is characteristic of the Catholic way of thinking about morality to say that ends can never justify means, there are instances where the “lesser of two evils” – killing an enemy in war, for instance – is regarded as acceptable.

Nor can we ignore the political reality. The present UK abortion law is supported by a large majority of public opinion and a large majority of MPs. The absolutist position – that every abortion from the moment of conception onwards should be punished as a crime – has minimal support. As far as I am aware, no attempt has ever been made in the House of Commons to repeal the Abortion Act, and the probability of such an attempt succeeding is zero.

Were such a law by some undemocratic means ever to be passed, with public opinion in its present state, the difficulties would be insuperable. Would juries ever convict anyone under a law they so strongly disagreed with? Would
judges, similarly ill-disposed, ever pass deterrent sentences? If not, where would be the law’s protection of the unborn? And what would this do for respect for the law, not to mention democracy?

This picture presents real dilemmas for a conscientious Catholic MP. He or she cannot simply advocate repeal of the Abortion Act without saying what should be put in its place. Repealing it would simply make all abortion legal. Yet the only option the Catholic Church would approve of on the basis of its teaching cited above, complete criminalisation, is in practice unrealistic. Are any Catholic MPs who would not support complete criminalisation for such reasons as these, therefore, to be deemed “pro-choice”?

This is the heart of the problem. Anything less than complete criminalisation would involve someone having to decide which abortions to allow and which to prohibit. The “choice” of the pregnant woman would necessarily figure in that decision. MPs in this situation would naturally prefer them to be as few as possible – or “rare”, to use one of Mr Cruddas’ terms. They would be bound to prefer them to be “safe”, to use another, rather than unsafe; and “legal”, to use the third, rather than illegal.

Would it not be reasonable for Catholic MPs to want to take into account the damage to respect for democracy and the rule of law that would follow if the criminalisation of all abortion had somehow been forced through Parliament in defiance of public opinion? Is that course of action really “the Church’s position” with which Mr Cruddas is said to be “significantly at variance”? Catholic MPs are not the only ones with a moral dilemma – it seems the bishops face one too.

Bishop Mark Davies says the Holocaust teaches us to be vigilant in the defence of life

2011-11-25T16:58:00.001Z

The Catholic diocese of Shrewsbury has just published Bishop Mark Davies's Holocaust Memorial Day address yesterday at a synagogue in Manchester (full text below). Of particular note Bishop Davies said:

"[W]e cannot forget the return of 'eugenic' thinking directed against the unborn and the most vulnerable deemed 'unfit to live' or threatened with 'mercy killing'."

I congratulate Bishop Davies on another prescient and courageous act of witness to the sanctity of human life.

Text of Bishop Davies’s talk in full:

Holocaust Memorial Day 2011

Thank you for your invitation to join you on this Holocaust Memorial Day. I have been asked in these opening words to address the importance of the Holocaust specifically for Christians and to thereby consider the theological significance of the Holocaust to the Christian mind. As Blessed John Paul II expressed this, “no one is permitted to pass by the tragedy of the Shoah …” and no Christian can pass by the Holocaust without profound reflection. A Christian reflection might focus upon the mystery of evil, upon the sins of Christians and the need of repentance on the heartfelt prayer of Blessed John Paul II that our relationship “be healed for ever”. However, today in this short address I wish to focus upon the significance to the Christian mind of the attempted annihilation more than 60 years ago of that people who were called by the Lord, “before all others”.

I can only begin this reflection from silence, the silence often remarked upon at the scenes of the Holocaust where it is said the birds no longer sing. Four years ago I travelled with a group of Catholic priests to Auschwitz-Birkenau and my abiding memory will be of the silence which marked that day and continued in the group long into the evening. It is not only a human response to such horror but also as Pope Benedict described on his visit to that same camp in 2006: “To speak of this place of horror, in this place where an unprecedented mass crimes were committed against God and man, is almost impossible … In a place like this, words fail; in the end there can only be a dread silence …” It is a silence which must also mark this Holocaust Memorial Day. A silence which becomes in Pope Benedict’s words, a heartfelt cry to God which leads us to bow our heads before the endless number who suffered and were put to death and a plea to the living God that this must never happen again (28th May 2006).

We are painfully conscious that mass crimes, acts of genocide and cruelty on an unimaginable scale have continued to disfigure history. We think of the trial continuing today of the former rulers of Cambodia and we cannot forget the return of “eugenic” thinking directed against the unborn and the most vulnerable deemed “unfit to live” or threatened with “mercy killing.” The struggle against evil continues. Yet the Holocaust causes us in Blessed John Paul II’s words on his return to Poland in 1979: “to think with fear of how far hatred can go, how far man’s destruction of man can go, how far cruelty can go” (Mass at Brezeinka Concentration Camp 7th June 1979). “For the death camps,” he insisted, “were built for the negation of faith – faith in God and faith in man – to trample radically not only on love but on all signs of human dignity, of humanity. A place built on hatred and contempt for man …” And as he reflected as a now aged Pope on the sixtieth anniversary of the liberation of the prisoners at Auschwitz in 2005, “may it serve today and for the future as a warning: there must be no yielding to ideologies which justify contempt for human dignity …”

As Christians we cannot fail to see that amidst all the victims of Nazism it was a chosen people who marked down for systematic and total destruction. Both Pope Benedict and Blessed John Paul point to the significance of this will to annihilate the people, “who draws its origin from Abraham, our father in faith” (Romans 4:12) to the people who in the words of the Apostle Paul, “belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship and the promises …” (Romans 9:4-5).

Here I wish to share with you a story which was brought to my attention in a publication I was given Jerusalem earlier this year. It begins in the South Tyrol (a German-speaking region of Italy) in the last months of the Second World War. In the autumn of 1944 the remaining youth of the town all Catholics were conscripted into the collapsing armies of the Third Reich and in January of the following year despatched to the Eastern front under the command of SS officers. One boy, a medical orderly, finding his friend dead heard the officer sneer, “Now you may love your enemies; isn’t that what you were told by this Jew Jesus?” And he gave a courageous reply which he later realised flowed from his Christian faith and upbringing, “Yes, I love the Jews … they are the people of Jesus.” German soldiers were executed for lesser offences against Nazi ideology but somehow he survived amid the chaos of those days and became after the war a Catholic priest who dedicated much of his life to increasing understanding between the faith of Israel and the faith of the Church. As a teenager he had seen what Pope Benedict wishes to frequently reminds us as Christians that the Jewish people are “our fathers” in faith. “The people chosen by the Lord before all others to receive his word,” as the Catechism of the Catholic Church declares (CCC 839).

In this one, small incident in a barn on the Silesia in 1945 we see something of the hope which Pope Benedict expressed last year on his visit to the Synagogue of Rome that the memory of these events of the Holocaust “compel us to the strengthen the bonds that unite us so that our mutual understanding, respect and acceptance may always increase.” The Nazi reign of terror we recall today was based on a racist myth on an idolatry of race and state but as both Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have reminded us it was also a radical rejection of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob who is, “the God of Jesus Christ and all who believe in him”. For “the Almighty” Hitler and the Nazis spoke of was a pagan idol as Pope Benedict declared in Berlin’s Reichstag Building in September this year This idol Pope Benedict said “wanted to take the place of the Biblical God, the Father and Creator of all men”. “By wiping out this people,” he had declared at Auschwitz, “they intended to kill the God who called Abraham, who spoke on Sinai and laid down principles to serve as a guide to mankind, principles that remain eternally valid.” And contemporary historians point to the logical intention of the National Socialist State rooted in this idolatry of man, of race, of the state to destroy not only the Jewish race but Christian morality and the faith of the Church.

For it strikes us as both Jews and Christians as to how the Holocaust so explicitly trampled on every one of the “The Ten Words” “The Ten Commandments” in a systematic eradication of morality: “you shall not kill,” “you shall not steal,” “you shall not bear false witness.” As Pope Benedict reflected with the Jewish community in Rome earlier this year, “the Ten Commandments call us to respect life and to protect it against every injustice and abuse, recognising the worth of each person, created in the image and likeness of God … Bearing witness together to the supreme value of life against all selfishness, is an important contribution to a new world where injustice and peace reign, a world marked by that “shalom” which the lawgivers, the prophets and sages of Israel longed to see.”

The study of the Holocaust must lead, as I have tried to suggest in this brief talk to a deeper appreciation of the close bonds between the Jewish people and Christians recognising our common roots and the rich spiritual patrimony we share. An ideology which grew at the centre of European civilisation sought to remove from the face of the earth in this Holocaust the people called by the Lord before all others. This must surely lead us to recognise every continuing assault upon the value and dignity of every human life and person and to recognise in this the denial of the Creator. This must call us to vigilance in the face of the developing ideologies and mindsets of our time so often hostile to the Judeo-Christian foundations on which our civilisation was built. So as Pope Benedict reflected on the memory of the Holocaust: “the past is never simply the past; it tells us the paths to take and the paths not to take.”

May the memory of this day, reflected upon by Christians and Jews, help all humanity to take those right paths. Amen.

Ends

Urge MEPs to vote against motion on abortion and HIV/AIDS

2011-11-25T14:01:00.001Z

Françoise Grossetête, pro-abortion MEP

On Thursday 1 December, members of the European Parliament (MEPs) will vote on a motion which links abortion, contraception and HIV/AIDS. The motion is riddled with anti-life and anti-family content. Here is one of the worst examples:

"22. [The European Parliament c]alls on the Commission and Council to ensure access to quality comprehensive sexual and reproductive health services, information, and supplies. This should consist of, among others, confidential and voluntary counselling, testing and treatment for HIV and all sexually transmitted infections; prevention of unintended pregnancies; equitable and affordable access to contraceptives, including access to emergency contraception; safe and legal abortion, including post-abortion care; care and treatment to prevent vertical transmission of HIV, including of partners and children".

The motion is yet another attempt by the international pro-abortion lobby to secure recognition of abortion as a universal, fundamental human right, under the guise of "sexual and reproductive health". Linking funding of abortion services with funding for HIV/AIDS programmes means increased funding for both abortion and contraception.

Please contact the MEPs for your region immediately to urge them to vote against the motion, entitled "EU global response to HIV/AIDS" and presented by Françoise Grossetête (pictured), a French MEP. Please tell MEPs that:

abortion and contraception should not be linked with genuine care (e.g. antiretroviral drugs for HIV)
abortion is neither a human right nor healthcare, but the killing of an innocent member of the human family, denied his or her equal right to life under international and European human rights instruments
programmes promoting condom use do not in fact lessen the spread of HIV, and programmes promoting contraception do not in fact reduce the incidence of unintended pregnancies or abortions.

Supporters resident in the UK can find the names and contact-details of the MEPs for their region at http://www.europarl.org.uk/view/en/your_MEPs/List-MEPs-by-region.html

Supporters resident outside the UK can find out the names and contact-details of the MEPs for their region at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/public/geoSearch.do?language=EN

You can read the motion in full at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=MOTION&reference=B7-2011-0615&language=EN

Please don't forget to copy any replies you receive from MEPs to SPUC, either by email to political@spuc.org.uk or by post to SPUC HQ.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Holy See tells UN: yes to parents' rights, no to condoms for any reason

2011-11-24T13:46:00.001Z

On Tuesday the Holy See (the universal government of the Catholic Church) made an excellent statement to a committee of the United Nations General Assembly in New York. Among other things, the statement said that a proposed resolution on the girl child could:

"create a misleading impression that early pregnancy, per se, constitutes a health risk ... [W]hat is needed in such cases is prenatal and postnatal healthcare for the mother and her child, especially skilled birth attendants and appropriate emergency obstetric care, as enshrined in Article 24 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC)."

In other words: abortion is not necessary when young girls become pregnant (something of which Archbishop Fisichella would do well to remind himself).

The statement went on to refer to parents thus (my emphasis in bold):

"[The Holy See] welcomes in this text the inclusion of the role of parents in the upbringing and development of girls, even though the prior and primary responsibility of their parents is not explicitly cited. In matters concerning the upbringing and development of the child, particularly in the area of attitudes and life skills, the measure of the best interests of the child is guaranteed by parental priority, as enshrined in Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and reaffirmed in Article 18, 1, of the CRC. Without these guarantees, what stands between children and the coercive power of the State in those places where serious human rights violations could be inflicted against them?"

In other words, upholding the status of parents as the primary educators of their children is absolutely essential to protect children generally from abortion, infanticide and the violation of their innocence by explicit sex education.

The statement finished with a direct reference to abortion - and a very important reference to condoms* (my emphasis in bold):

"The Holy See reaffirms its reservations with the Resolution, especially regarding its references to “sexual and reproductive health” since the Holy See does not consider abortion or abortion services to be a dimension of such terms and regarding the term “family planning” as the Holy See in no way endorses contraception or the use of condoms, either as a family planning measure or in HIV/AIDS prevention programmes."

The Holy See's statement echoes the statement by the Catholic bishops of Kenya last December (my emphasis in bold):

"We reiterate and reaffirm that the position of the Catholic Church as regards the use of condoms, both as a means of contraception and as a means of addressing the grave issue of HIV/AIDS infection has not changed and remains as always unacceptable."

The Holy See's statement is an official confirmation that the Catholic Church rejects the position taken by Dr Austen Ivereigh and Jack Valero, the coordinators of Catholic Voices, who have falsely claimed that:

"[U]rging a promiscuous infected person to at least use a condom ... is Catholic pastoral practice" (Dr Ivereigh)
"[Using a condom] might be the right and responsible thing to do in order to prevent infection" (Dr Ivereigh)
"[I]t is right for schools to teach how condoms help to reduce transmission of STDs." (Dr Ivereigh)
“[The Church has] never said that in a particular case it’s wrong to use a condom to protect somebody ... [T]he condom itself may be a good thing" (Mr Valero)
"[I]f in a particular case [church workers in Africa] think that a condom will protect then that may be OK" (Mr Valero).

SPUC, whose lobbyists at the UN work closely with the Holy See delegation, congratulates the Holy See on yet another strongly pro-life/pro-family statement (see Pat Buckley's report on the Holy See's intervention last month, and Peter Smith's report on a Holy See statement in November last year on maternal health.)

* Why is the Catholic Church's teaching on condom use (and dissent from that teaching) important for the pro-life movement? The late Pope John Paul II, the great pro-life champion, taught in paragraph 97 of his 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae that it is an illusion to think that we can build a true culture of human life if we do not offer adolescents and young adults an authentic education in sexuality, and in love, and the whole of life according to their true meaning and in their close interconnection.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Royal college admits abortion unlawful in N. Ireland but in denial over harm to women

2011-11-23T17:09:00.000Z

SPUC Northern Ireland has responded to the new guideline on abortion issued today by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) (see note 1 below). Liam Gibson, SPUC's Northern Ireland development officer, told the media earlier today that while the RCOG has finally acknowledged that abortion in the Province is not lawful unless to save the life of the mother (note 2), it has continued to ignore the evidence that abortion can cause serious physical and psychological harm to women (note 3) and families.

Liam said:

“In the past the RCOG has consistently misrepresented the law in Northern Ireland. The RCOG has corrected this mistake but it is still blinded by its ideological commitment to promote abortion regardless of the evidence. There has never been one scientifically proven medical benefit to abortion but literally hundreds of studies linking it to a range of physical and emotional problems.

“A recent study (note 4) published in the British Journal of Psychiatry found that women who had an abortion experienced an 81 per cent increased risk of mental health problems. The study also found that almost 10 percent of all women’s mental health problems are directly related to abortion. It is becoming harder to dismiss a growing body of evidence of the damage done by abortion.

“The RCOG guidance calls on doctors ‘to emphasise the overall safety of the procedure’ when discussing abortion with women (note 5). Sadly abortion is never safe for an unborn child and the damage it causes is a daily reality for countless women struggling to cope with its after-effects. It is simply not good enough for the medical profession to dismiss without concern the suffering of so many women”.

Notes for editors:
1) "The Care of Women Requesting Induced Abortion. Evidence-based Clinical Guideline Number 7", Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG), London, November 2011 http://www.rcog.org.uk/files/rcog-corp/Abortion%20guideline_web.pdf
2) Guideline, 3.1.
3) Guideline, 5.13.
4) Coleman, Priscilla K. Abortion and mental health: quantitative synthesis and analysis of research published 1995-2009, BJP 2011,199:180-186.
5) Guideline, 5.2.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

New abortion guideline is ideology and bad science

2011-11-23T13:45:00.001Z

The new guideline on abortion issued today by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) (see note 1 below) is based on pro-abortion ideology and bad science. Here's what I told the media about it earlier today:

The RCOG's new guideline further entrenches its de facto role as the puppet of the abortion industry. Whether it is the physical and psychological effects of abortion, conscientious objection or counselling for women, the RCOG promotes ideology and bad science instead of high clinical and ethical standards.

The RCOG says (note 2) that counselling should be merely "offered on request". The new guideline doesn't even cover counselling in detail (note 3). The guideline does, however, give the paltry assurance that "[w]omen should be informed that they have a right to delay or cancel appointments and/or the [abortion] should they wish." (note 4). The RCOG is particularly keen to get women to use contraception (note 5), even though contraception is closely associated with rising abortion figures (note 6).

The RCOG is at pains to convince women that "abortion carried out by an NHS approved provider is a safe procedure" (note 7). All the studies which link abortion to breast cancer, ectopic pregnancy, placenta praevia, infertility or psychological harm are dismissed (note 8). The right of medics to conscientious objection to abortion is interpreted in falsely narrow terms (note 9).

Chillingly, the guideline recommends that in some cases "feticide should be performed...to ensure that there is no risk of a live birth." (note 10) That is the reality of abortion: the killing of babies, denied their equal right to life as innocent members of the human family.

1) "The Care of Women Requesting Induced Abortion. Evidence-based Clinical Guideline Number 7", Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG), London, November 2011 http://www.rcog.org.uk/files/rcog-corp/Abortion%20guideline_web.pdf
2) Q & a briefing on guideline http://www.rcog.org.uk/files/rcog-corp/QA%20-%20TOP%20and%20counselling%20-%20final.pdf
3) Guideline, 1.2: "Counselling to assist individuals in making the decision to have an abortion, rather than to continue the pregnancy, is not discussed in detail. The starting point of this guideline is the point at which a woman presents to a health provider requesting induced abortion of an unintended/unwanted pregnancy."
4) Guideline, 4.25.
5) Guideline, 6.2: "All appropriate methods of contraception should be discussed with women at the initial assessment and a plan agreed for contraception after the abortion."
6) Dr Judy Bury, former director, Brook Advisory Centre, Edinburgh: "There is overwhelming evidence that, contrary to what you might expect, the provision of contraception leads to an increase in the abortion rate." (The Scotsman, 29 June 1981).
7) Q & a briefing on guideline http://www.rcog.org.uk/files/rcog-corp/QA%20-%20TOP%20guidelines%20-%20final.pdf
8) Guideline, 5.10 to 5.13.
9) Guideline, 3.3.
10) Guideline, 6.21

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Caitlin McInnis, budding flim-maker, makes powerful short movie on abortion

2011-11-22T10:42:00.001Z

This weekend I received an email from a young lady named Caitlin McInnis. Caitlin is a budding film-maker and has begun to use her creative talents to spread the pro-life message. Her short film The Letter is the story of an anonymous mother writing to her aborted child. I think it is very powerful. Do pass it on to others. Caitlin says:

The Letter is a short film about a woman who writes an amazing letter to the child she aborted 10 years ago.

I'm a student taking a film class at a local university. I've always been pro-life, but it was just a couple years ago that I decided to use my love of filmmaking to raise awareness of the tragedy of abortion. Media is so influential in today's society so my goal is to one day produce Hollywood films with a pro-life message.

This film was created for a "dramatic piece" assignment for my editing class. During the research for a different pro-life idea, I found this letter on the internet and thought it would make a very powerful film. I couldn't have written a script like this! A 28 year old woman, somewhere in the world, regretting her abortion 10 years prior, wrote this heartfelt letter. Although she is anonymous, I am keeping the author in my prayers and I hope she has found peace.

Over the course of 4 days, I shot and edited. Much to my surprise during the premiere of our videos in class, mine was met with great feedback from not only the pro-life students, but an instructor said it would appeal to the pro-choice audience as well. If it softens one heart, or better yet, as the woman writing the letter says, if it saves one baby, then it would have served a purpose.

We're all affected by abortion; whether we realize it or not.

SPUC has a sister organisation called ARCH (Abortion Recovery Care and Helpline) for people suffering after an abortion. ARCH runs a helpline (0845 603 8501) which can be telephoned from within the UK during office hours Monday to Friday and outside office hours seven days a week from 19:00 to 22:00 UK time.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Iain Duncan Smith MP makes spirited defence of marriage

2011-11-21T17:24:00.001Z

I was encouraged to hear Iain Duncan Smith MP, Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and former leader of the Conservative party, speaking up in a spirited manner for marriage and the family on the World at One earlier this month (11th November).

A guest by the name of Sadie King had just said:

"Yeah I think that giving tax breaks to married couples is really out of touch with the way modern families work and are evolving. Forcing people into marriage: it's social engineering, it's not something that's wanted by society. I think it's quite sexist. I think this is a step backwards for women."

And Iain Duncan Smith wiped the floor with her as follows:

"Can I just pick that up actually, ‘cos I don't think this is a choice for women. Quite often it's forced on a lot of women. What kind of a choice is it to live in a community where you are beset and you're trying to bring up kids without being able to pass on any concept of the right way to behave, that you have no man in your life who is responsible for those children that either helps you financially or supports you? That when those boys get to a certain age they no longer respect you, they don't live with you, they don't work with you.

"I mean this is not about choices, I think if you don't mind it's a very middle-class attitude to say this is all about choices. The reality is family break-down has damaged Britain dramatically. We have higher levels of family break-down in this country than other countries in Europe and the idea that they're all equivalent relationships is not true. And the benefits system right now it actually penalises families at lower income levels if they stay together. There's a real incentive under the benefits system right now to split up families and I think that's morally wrong. I think it's ridiculous.

"We're making men and women, who have very little money, have to make a decision that I can't stay with her because frankly she'd be better off without me financially. That's not a balanced choice. This is not about lecturing people, but it's saying 'make sure you understand what this choice does. Cohabitation has a very high level of break-up. Nearly one in two cohabiting families will split before the child is five. Whereas when it comes to marriage it's about one in twelve. Having a child is a massive commitment and a terrible thing just to leave to one other person if you have the responsibility also to support that child. So it's not just about free choices - it's about the outcomes of those choices, which people need to recognise, that child needs the best start in life and all of us owe it. It's difficult enough with two parents to bring it up. We need to support, obviously, the lone parents and give them every support we can, but you do need both parents to step up to the mark."

You might wish to write to Iain Duncan Smith about his comments. Write to him at alambridesl@parliament.uk (his assistant's email address). What a tragedy that this fine politician's leader, David Cameron, is supporting gay "marriage", thus undermining the special place of marriage in society (i.e. faithful and permanent heterosexual unions open to begetting children).

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Spread the word about conference on family and demography, Gdansk, Poland, 3 Dec

2011-11-19T10:50:00.001Z

SPUC's colleagues from Human Life International (HLI) Poland have asked us to share with you their invitation (below) to a conference in Gdansk on family and demography. Please spread the word!

Dear Friends!

Human Life International - Poland invites to Gdansk University on December 3, 2011 for an international conference “FAMILY - DEMOGRAPHY – FUTURE”! It will be an opportunity to listen to very interesting lecturers. We provide full simultaneous translation Polish-English-Russian.

Please send this information to your friends at home and abroad, along with a personal recommendation. Please also put information about this conference on websites.
Best regards and thank you for your cooperation

Ewa H. Kowalewska

International Conference

FAMILY - DEMOGRAPHY - FUTURE

PROGRAMME

8:00 - 9:00 Registration

9:00 Opening of the conference: prof. Franciszek Makurat
Chairman: Antoni Szymański
9:05 - 9:45 speeches of the guests of honour and authority representatives
9:45 -10:15 Ewa Tomaszewska (Poland): The risk of poverty and exclusion - the most important issues of social policy towards the elderly.10:15 -10:50: dr hab. Jerzy Gwizdała (Poland): Mortgage to buy a home for households during the time of economic crisis.10:45 – 11:20 Igor Biełoborodov, Ph.D. (Russia): The demographic catastrophe in Eastern Europe, history, effects and ways out of the situation.
10:50 - 11:10 Małgorzata Wyszyńska (Poland): Demographic determinants of family policy in Poland in the context of ageing population.
11:10 - 11:40 11:40 - 12:10 Thomas Ward (United Kingdom): Parents as the first educators of their children.
12:10 - 12:30 Break

Chairman: Adam Hlebowicz
12:30 - 12:45 Celebration of the 20th anniversary of the Gdansk Branch of Polish Association of Natural Family Planning Teachers
12:45 - 13:15 Ewa-Kuczapska Ślizień (Poland): The increasing infertility - a new medical problem.13:15 - 13:45 Ewa Kowalewska (Poland): The influence of radical feminism on fertility.13:45 - 14:15 Joseph Meaney (USA): World war against girls.

14:15 -15:00 Lunch

Chairman: Ewa Kowalewska
15:00 - 15:30 Teresa Kapela (Poland): European family associations and their influence on politics.
15:30 - 15:50 Antoni Szymański: What kind of family policy Polish family requires.15:50 - 16:05 Fr. Tomasz Kancelarczyk: Spiritual, social and formative dimension of the March for Life as an effective form of pro-life awareness.
16:05 - 16:20 Jadwiga Sielska (Poland): Direct aid to women in crisis pregnancy and needed right away help for large families.

Moderator: Adam Hlebowicz

16:20 - 16:55 Round table - How to protect your family - how to find a ways out of deadlock.

16:55 - 17:00 Summary and closing of the conference.

CONFERENCE LANGUAGES: English, Polish, Russian - simultaneous translations

CONFERENCE VENUE:
Meeting place in the Senate Hall of the University of Gdańsk, Library Building, 53 Wita Stwosza street, Gdańsk

CONFERENCE ORGANIZER:
"Solidarity" Commission of the University of Gdańsk

Friends of Human Life Association - Human Life International - Poland
http://www.hli.org.pl/

PATRONAGE:
Archbishop Leszek Sławoj Głódz, Metropolitan of Gdańsk
Prof. Bernard Lammek, Rector of Gdańsk University

REGISTRATION:
- E-mail: konferencja@hli.org.pl
- Phone: (58) 341 19 11
- Fax: (58) 346 10 02

NOTE: The number of places is limited - first come first enter.
The organizer does not provide accommodation!

FEES:
The cost of participation for 1 person is: €10,- EUR
Couple: €15,- EUR

The fee includes: participation, conference materials and meals during lunch and coffee breaks.

Fees should be paid to the following account:
PeKaO S. A. 33 1240 1242 1111 0010 0921 9417

Association of Friends of Human Life
st. Jaśkowa Dolina 47/1a
80-286 Gdańsk
With a note: The conference fee

Speakers:

Dr. Igor Biełobarodov (Russia), sociologist, demographer, director of the Charitable Foundation for the Protection of Family, Motherhood and Children. Vice President of the All-Association "For the protection of life and family values." Editor of the portal www.demografia.ru

Dr hab. Jerzy Gwizdała (Poland), researcher and lecturer in the Department of Banking at the Faculty of Management at the University of Gdansk. Chancellor of the UG. Educates managers and professionals for financial institutions - primarily for banks and insurance companies.

Adam Hlebowicz (Poland), journalist, historian, editor in Chief of "Radio Plus" in Gdansk

Fr. Thomas Kancelarczyk (Poland), the Catholic church assistant of Civitas Christiana Association in Szczecin, Poland's largest organizer of the marches for life.

Teresa Kapela (Poland), Graduate of the Department of History at the Jagiellonian University. Activist of movements that promote and support large families. Initiator of the "Pro-family weblists" and the Association of Large Families "Three Plus", where she has the function of the Vice-President. Co-organizer of international conferences in the field of family policy. Involved in the international exchange of experiences with foreign federations of family organizations (European Large Families Confederation - ELFAC - European Federation of Large Families, The Federation of Catholic Family Associations in Europe - FAFCE - European Federation of Catholic Families; FEFAF - European Federation of Active Women in the House).

Ewa Henryka Kowalewska (Poland), Graduate of Polish philology at the University of Gdansk, President of the Forum of Polish Women, president of Friends of Human Life Association - Human Life International Poland. The well-known lecturer in Poland and abroad in defence of life and family.

Prof. Franciszek Makurat (Poland), psychologist, head of the Department of Sport Psychology, Faculty of Social Sciences, University of Gdansk. Lecturer of the University of Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski and of School of Social Communication. Chairman of the "Solidarity" Commission of Gdansk University.

Joseph Meaney (USA), Human Life International Director of International Coordination. Author of numerous publications and reports for television ETWN. He graduated from Catholic University of Dallas and the University of Texas Institute for Latin American Studies. He lives and continues his doctoral studies in Rome.

Jadwiga Sielska (Poland), educator, president of the charitable organization that helps women in crisis pregnancy, mothers in difficult situations and families with many children, "Gaudium Vitae" from Gdynia.

Prof. dr. hab. Teresa Rostowska (Poland), head of the Family Research and Quality of Life at the Institute of Psychology, University of Gdansk. Well-known author of many books, among others.: Marriage, family, work versus the quality of life; Quality of family life; Selected issues. Psychology of the family; Marriage and the family to today's challenges.

Alina Strzalkowska (Poland), education consultant for family life and health education, Teacher Education Center (CEN) in Gdańsk.

Antoni Szymanski (Poland), sociologist, Senator of the sixth cadence, a member of the Team of the Joint Commission for Family Affairs and the Government of the Polish Episcopate.

Ewa Ślizień-Kuczapska (Poland), gynecologist-obstetrician, MD, president of the Polish Association of Natural Family Planning Teachers. Lecturer, author of publications on family issues in terms of fertility and health.

Ewa Tomaszewska (Poland), physicist, lecturer at Warsaw University. A specialist in social policy. Since 1980 the Solidarity Trade Union activist, a long-time member of the National Commission. Former Member of Parliament, Senator of the sixth term of office, Member of the European Parliament of the sixth term of office. Currently a member of the National Science Section of Solidarity and the advisor to the local authorities of Mazowieckie province. For years she has conducted social activities aimed at reducing poverty in Poland, child malnutrition and lack of proper support for the elderly.

Thomas Ward (United Kingdom), a doctor, a specialist in family medicine, pediatrics, geriatrics and clinical pharmacology, the founder of the National Association of Catholic Families.

Małgorzata Wyszyńska (Poland), economist, specialist in the field of demography and social gerontology.

Care for the disabled should be automatic

2011-11-18T22:39:00.001Z

Ann Farmer, the pro-life writer, has made the following very interesting point in a recent letter to The Telegraph:

"Dear Sir,

Eve Richardson, of the National Council for Palliative Care, says that "people with dementia often receive poor care at the end of their life" and recommends speaking to sufferers soon after diagnosis to ascertain their wishes about end of life care (Telegraph, November 12, 2011). I should have thought nothing could be more depressing to someone recently diagnosed with a mentally disabling, progressive disease, than to broach the subject of their death. And what else could they possibly answer, than 'I want to be cared for'? Surely, if we care properly for extremely vulnerable people while they are living, it should be no different when they are dying?

Yours faithfully,

Ann Farmer (Mrs)"

Christian Medical Fellowship promotes a positive alternative to Dr Death

2011-11-17T17:06:00.001Z

Earlier this week I wrote about Dr Philip Nitschke's talk in London and his shameless promotion of suicide and assisted suicide around the UK.

I have now been informed that an alternative event has been organised in York as a positive response. I am glad to pass on the details of it.

CMF North Yorkshire is pleased to be co-hosting An Evening with Dr John Patrick (pictured) in York on Wednesday 23rd November at Clifton Parish Church from 7.30 pm. John will be speaking on A Good Death: Physician Assisted Suicide and End of Life Decisions. This accessible location has ample car parking and cake & refreshments will be available.

The event has been organised as a positive response to the 21st November York visit of Exit International’s Dr Philip Nitschke, known as ‘Dr Death’ for his suicide promotion seminars.

John Patrick is a good friend of CMF, having spoken at many events – local, national and international. His wise and insightful analysis of the moral issues in the end-of-life debate are relevant to both healthcare professionals and patients, Christians and non-Christians alike.

The event is also being promoted to York churches through One Voice York. Please do pass on details to others who you feel may be interested.

A reminder to act re abortion counselling and sex education

2011-11-17T11:37:00.001Z

This is a reminder to readers and SPUC supporters to take action on two fronts at Westminster - abortion counselling regulations and the sex education consultation:

Abortion counselling regulations
Please contact your MP about the proposal for government regulations on counselling for women considering abortion, which was announced in September. Please ask your MP to ensure that:
1) the proposals are primarily designed to further the government’s stated priority of reducing the abortion rate;
2) pro-life agencies helping women avoid abortions are not impeded by any regulations, and equally that the inherent right of conscientious objection to abortion is fully respected;
3) MPs tell the minister they are prepared to vote down any regulations that are not fit for purpose in this regard.

On a separate matter, we are also expecting to hear at any time about the decision from the committee revising the code of advertising (BCAP) on abortion advertising. Please be ready to act by urging Jeremy Hunt, the culture secretary, to ban abortion services from broadcast advertising.

Sex education consultation
The current consultation exercise by the Department for Education on sex and relationships education (SRE) closes on 30 November. Please respond to the consultation. Please read SPUC's briefing which includes all you need to know to make a submission.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

"Sex education as sexual sabotage": meeting in Westminster 1 Dec

2011-11-16T13:46:00.001Z

SPUC's Safe at School campaign is co-hosting a meeting in Westminster on 1 December, 11am to 1pm, entitled: "Sex education as sexual sabotage". The other co-host is the Working Party on the Sexualisation of Children under the Lords and Commons Family and Child Protection Group.

Dr Judith Reisman

Speakers will include:

Dr Judith Reisman: the global expert on Alfred Kinsey, creator of the canon of modern sex education. It is his ‘scientific research’ which underpins what our children are being taught under the guise of sex ‘education’.
Mrs Lynette Burrows: a leading commentator on the family. Her published works include “Fight for the Family: The Adults Behind Children’s Rights.”

Mrs Lynette Burrows

Immediately following this meeting, SPUC's 45,000-strong petition to ban sex DVDs from UK primary schools will be presented to the Secretary of State for Education.

The meeting is invitation-only. For more information please call:

Antonia Tully on (020) 8407 3463

Lisa Nolland on (0117) 924 4896

Philip Nitschke is the true face of the campaign for suicide

2011-11-15T17:54:00.001Z

Last Saturday my son Paul attended Dr Philip Nitschke's public meeting in London (see my blog of last Thursday). Paul has written his account and observations of the meeting (part 1, part II). Paul wrote:

"Dr Nitschke introduced the topic of the meeting as 'why it makes sense for every elderly or ill adult to know how they could peacefully and reliably end their life' ... Nitschke isn't concerned about people being encouraged to commit suicide and the impact this might have on them."

Wesley Smith, the stalwart anti-euthanasia bioethicist, has written extensively about Dr Nitschke and his promotion of suicide methods, not just for the terminally-ill but for anyone. Wesley says:

"[I]f society comes to broadly accept a 'right' of the dying to receive assisted suicide,...what would prevent legal access to terminal prescriptions from expanding eventually to people with serious disabilities and chronic diseases, the elderly and the existentially despairing, who, after all, might suffer far more profoundly and for a longer time? And indeed, that is precisely what has happened in the Netherlands and Switzerland, after assisted suicide became popularly accepted. Nitschke appears to be on the radical edge of the assisted suicide movement - but he's really not."

Dr Nitschke's activities seem to me to be grounded in, and helped by, a common acceptance of a laissez-faire attitude to suicide and its contemplation. I am reminded of a scene in the English drama "To serve them all my days". David Powlett-Jones, a school-master, loses his recently-married wife and children in a car accident. A fellow school-master, in a heated discussion with the headmaster, says (see video below):

"[I]f I were [in his place], I should probably do what is usually called 'something silly' ... PJ's his own man ... You may see human life as a sacred trust. I see it rather as something to be got through, with as little self-contempt and misery as possible - pretty insupportable at the best of times. If Powlett-Jones has chosen to put an end to himself, that's entirely his own decision. I respect his dignity, I don't think you do."

Because this attitude - that life may cease to be worth living and therefore 'dignity' requires the chance to commit suicide - underpins the campaign for legal assisted suicide, all the safeguards and limits proposed by the supposedly mainstream campaigners for so-called "assisted dying" are illusory. Dr Nitschke's free-market, supposedly radical approach to suicide is on its way to becoming mainstream. Only a societal rejection of the misanthropy underpinning assisted suicide will be sufficient to protect the vulnerable.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy