Catholic and Anglican leaders speak out against David Cameron's same-sex marriage agenda

Bishop Philip Egan

In response to the Cameron government's announcement on Friday regarding its same-sex marriage plans, Catholic and Anglican leaders have spoken out.

Philip Egan (pictured), the new Catholic bishop of Portsmouth, has issued a statement saying (inter alia):

"[B]y attempting to change the natural meaning of marriage, he seems utterly determined to undermine one of the key foundations of our society ... If the prime minister proceeds with his intentions, he will pervert authentic family values, with catastrophic consequences for the well-being and behaviour of future generations ... The institution of marriage has its ups and downs, but will we ever forget that it was the leader of the Conservative Party who finally destroyed marriage as a lasting, loving and life-giving union between a man and a woman?"

Joseph Devine, the Catholic bishop of Motherwell, has written a two-page letter to David Cameron which says (inter alia):

“I suspect it is only a matter of time before you go one step further and outlaw the teaching of Christian doctrine on sexual morality on the grounds of discrimination.”

The Church of England has issued a statement, saying (inter alia)*:

"[T]he meaning of marriage will change for everyone, gay or straight, if the proposals are enacted ... [T]he uniqueness of marriage is that it embodies the underlying, objective, distinctiveness of men and women. This distinctiveness and complementarity are seen most explicitly in the biological union of man and woman which potentially brings to the relationship the fruitfulness of procreation.

To remove from the definition of marriage this essential complementarity is to lose any social institution in which sexual difference is explicitly acknowledged.

We believe that redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships will entail a dilution in the meaning of marriage for everyone by excluding the fundamental complementarity of men and women from the social and legal definition of marriage."

*Readers should note that the Church of England's statement contains a number of other comments which differ from Catholic teaching regarding the homosexual agenda.

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

History exposes the Government's empty assurances on same-sex marriage and schools

Maria Miller, the government's equalities minister, blogged on Friday on the government's assurances regarding conscientious objection to same-sex marriage. Here is what she wrote about schools:

"There has been some debate about how this Bill will affect teachers and teaching about marriage in schools. Let me make it absolutely clear, that teachers will continue to have the clear right to express in a professional way their own beliefs, or that of their faith, such as that marriage should be between a man and a woman. No teacher will be required to promote or endorse views which go against their beliefs. As with any area of the curriculum, teachers will of course be required to teach the factual position that under the law, marriage can be between opposite-sex couples and same-sex couples. But, of course they will not be required to promote same-sex marriage, and neither will we be bringing in new powers to sack teachers who disagree with same-sex marriage. There are already many subjects which need to be taught carefully, particularly in faith schools – divorce, for example. The guidance governing these issues is the same guidance that will govern how same sex-marriage is handled. And equally, parents will continue to have the right to withdraw their children from sex education lessons that they do not consider appropriate."

SPUC is continuing to respond to the detail of the government's assurances, such as in our letter to headteachers and in forthcoming documents. What is also needed, however, is a historical perspective on the reliability of assurances given to Parliament. Here are but three examples:

• In 1967, Parliament was told that the Abortion Act would not lead to mass abortion or to abortion on demand. Today, there are 200,000 abortions annually, almost all authorised with little or no question.
• In 1990, Parliament was told that an abortion on the grounds that the unborn child had a cleft palate would never be allowed. Today abortions on that ground are performed every year.
• In 1994, the Sunday Trading Act was passed following assurances that no one would be forced to work on a Sunday. Last month the High Court ruled that Christians have no right to refuse to work on Sundays.

Now let us look at what the senior figures of the three main parties have said in the recent past about homosexuality and schools. Here is what David Cameron, now Prime Minister but then Leader of the Opposition, said during an interview with Jeremy Paxman on Newsnight on 23 April 2010:

Paxman: "You're in favour of faith schools being able to teach sex education as they like".

Cameron:"Not as they like. That's not right. What we voted for was what the government suggested in the end, which is proper sex education..."

Paxman: "Should they be free to teach that homosexuality is wrong, abortion is wrong, contraception is wrong?"

Cameron: "No, and the government discussed this and came up with a good idea, which is to say that we wanted a clearer path of sexual education across all schools, but faith schools were not given any exemption but they were able to reflect some of their own faith in the way that this was taught. But no, you must teach proper lessons in terms of gay equality and also combat homophobic bullying in schools, I think that's extremely important."

Mr Cameron is the most high-profile and powerful politician to make clear that same-sex marriage is essential for 'gay equality'. Therefore it is clear that, for Mr Cameron, "proper sex education" and "proper lessons in terms of gay equality" means forbidding schools from teaching that homosexual marriage is wrong, including because homosexuality is wrong.

Nick Clegg, then only leader of the Liberal Democrats but now also Deputy Prime Minister, was reported by The Independent newspaper on 13 January 2010 to have told Attitude, the homosexual magazine, that all schools, including faith schools, should be forced to teach that homosexuality is "normal and harmless". Interestingly, The Independent also reported that:

"the Tories are unlikely to give full marital rights to gay couples."

And if the Labour party were to lead the government after the 2015 election, we have an indication of what will happen from the comments of Ed Balls, then Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families:

Telegraph, 23 Jan. 2010:

"... Does [Mr Balls] agree with Nick Clegg that faith schools should be forced to teach that homosexuality is normal and harmless? The answer is yes."
[Balls]: "If their faith has a view in scripture, they can inform pupils of that. What they must not do is teach discrimination. They must be absolutely clear about the importance of civil partnerships [and that] bullying of homosexuals is wrong ..." .

Today programme, 23 February 2010:

"[S]chools cannot just ignore these issues or teach only one side of the argument. They also have to teach that there are different views on homosexuality. They cannot teach homophobia. They must explain civil partnership ... [Catholic schools] cannot teach that homosexuality is wrong and that therefore it is OK to discriminate on homosexuality ..."

Letter to The Times, 23 February 2010:

"[S]tatutory lessons on sex and relationship education...includes education about contraception and the importance of stable relationships, including marriage and civil partnerships. It will not allow the teaching of homophobia. All maintained schools and academies will be required to teach the full programmes of study. This includes promoting equality and encouraging acceptance of diversity ... The bottom line is that...discrimination is prevented in all schools."

Thus we know what our political leaders want and where they are leading us. The Government's latest assurances regarding same-sex marriage are empty.

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

David Cameron pits himself against the pro-life movement

Below are some quick-fire rebuttals by Anthony Ozimic, SPUC's communications manager, to David Cameron's keynote speech to Melinda Gates' London Summit on Family Planning last Wednesday. Some of Anthony's other quick-fire comments on the Summit can be read via SPUC's Twitter feed at https://twitter.com/spucprolife Earlier in the week, SPUC issued a series of press releases and videos containing detailed arguments against the population control agenda behind the summit - see:

• Hormonal contraceptives may cause early abortions and cancer
• Food not contraception saves lives 
• Microsoft first lady partners pro-abortion leaders

(David Cameron's words are marked DC and Anthony's words AO.)

• DC: "We’re here for a very simple reason: women should be able to decide freely, and for themselves, whether, when and how many children they have."
• AO: Women can do this without contraception. The summit is about convincing women that they should avoid having children.

• DC: "This is not something nice to have. Some sort of add on to our wider development goals."
• AO: By prioritising contraception, the Department for International Development (DFID) is neglecting real development goals e.g. food.

• DC: "It’s absolutely fundamental to any hope of tackling poverty in our world."
• AO: There is no proof that contraception helps to tackle poverty. There is considerable evidence that large family sizes and growing populations help lift nations out of poverty.

• DC: "Why? Because a country can’t develop properly when its young women are dying from unintended pregnancies and when its children are dying in infancy."
• AO: Women don’t die from pregnancies. Pregnancy is a healthy outcome of a natural process. Women die from lack of basic healthcare. Contraception can’t save children from dying in infancy. It’s healthcare not contraception that saves lives.

• DC: "As a result of this Summit, in the next eight years we will avert an unintended pregnancy every two seconds and 212,000 fewer women and girls will die in pregnancy and childbirth. That alone, frankly, is a good enough reason for us to be here."
• AO: These are figures made up by the abortion-contraception lobby to justify its eugenics and population control agendas.

• DC: "But there’s another reason why family planning is so important for development. When a woman is prevented from choosing when to have children it’s not just a violation of her human rights it can fundamentally compromise her chances in life, and the opportunities for her children."
• AO: The issue of forced pregnancy (e.g. through rape or following a forced marriage) is a separate issue from contraception. This wrong is being cynically exploited by the abortion-contraception lobby to justify its eugenics and population control agendas.

• DC: "Without access to family planning, pregnancy will often come far too early. In Sierra Leone, for example, a UNICEF survey found that a staggering two-fifths of girls give birth for the first time between the ages of 12 and 14. These young girls are not ready physically, emotionally or financially to become mothers. They don’t want to give up school or the chance to go on and run a business and build a better life for themselves."
• AO: The evil there is statutory rape. Providing contraception will simply allow the rapists and child-marriage criminals to further their crimes.

• DC: "And yet suddenly their dreams are broken as they become trapped in a potentially life-threatening pregnancy. Even if they survive, many are left with catastrophic scarring."
• AO: Again, it is irrational to depict pregnancy, a healthy outcome of a natural process, to be life-threatening. Lack of basic healthcare is life-threatening.

• DC: "They struggle to bring up children that are healthy and educated and they are likely to have many more children than they have the resources to look after."
• AO: I thought the point of international development was to help mothers raise healthy and educated children and provide resources for them.

• DC: "It’s a simple fact that as countries get richer, women generally have fewer children."
• AO: Increases in population lead to countries become richer. The improvement in health following population-driven prosperity means that fewer children die and therefore couples are less driven to achieve more pregnancies.

• DC: "And by concentrating their resources on a smaller number of children those children are healthier, better educated and more likely get a job and build a prosperous future for themselves and their own children. Family planning helps that process along."
• AO: It simply doesn’t work like that. Smaller families result in fewer resources, because it leads to future shortfalls in workers who create profit, pay taxes, make products, care for the elderly etc.

• DC: "The availability of contraception enables women to decide to have fewer children."
• AO: Contraception has a massive real-world failure-rate.

• DC: "And as fertility rates decline, having fewer children to support can help the economy to grow."
• AO: Not true. The 20th century proved that economies grow as population rises.

• DC: "We should be pragmatic about what works."
• AO: Indeed. Contraception is based instead on the ideologies of sexual liberalism and eugenics.

• DC: "In East and Southeast Asia, this reduction in children accounted for more than two-fifths of the growth in per capita GDP between 1970 and 2000. In Matlab in Bangladesh, a twenty year study found that a family planning programme together with improved support for maternal and child health led not just to smaller, healthier families but also to women being better educated and earning more and their families owning more assets with the average value of an educated woman’s home as much as a fifth higher than for women in nearby villages where this programme hadn’t been introduced. So we know this works. So family planning works not just because smaller families can be healthier and wealthier but because empowering women is the key to growing economies and healthy open societies -unlocking what I call the golden thread of development."
• AO: Whole swathes of Asia are now ageing rapidly with no hope in sight. Korea is a dying society, filling more graves than cradles. Japan is the most rapidly ageing society in the world, with a elderly-care crisis with no solution. China is predicted to be the world’s first developing country that will become old before it becomes rich. Yes, support for maternal and child health and for education makes societies healthier and wealthier. But contraception impoverishes.

• DC: "The UK government is taking a whole new approach to development. We know that in the long term we cannot help countries develop just by giving them money. Development cannot be done to the poor by outsiders. It has to be driven by the people who need the change. Our role is to help the poorest countries create the building blocks of private sector growth and prosperity. These building blocks are the same the world over. No conflict, access to markets, transparency, property rights, the rule of law, the absence of corruption, a free media, free and fair elections. Together these key enablers of growth make up the golden thread that runs through all stories of successful development across the world. And they are quite simply life changing. Curbing corruption means not having to pay a bribe to lease a plot of land. Transparency means that people can monitor whether revenue from natural resources like oil is being invested in roads or wells for their villages, or wasted. The rule of law means that a woman can go to court to settle a dispute knowing that her evidence will be given the same weight as a man’s. Free and fair elections mean that every citizen has a voice in their government and the opportunity to stand for office."
• AO: So why are you pumping hundreds of millions of pounds into contraception instead?

• DC: "But these vital building blocks of freedom and democracy can not be laid down without a transformation in the participation of women. Why? Because where the potential and the perspective of women is locked out of the decisions that shape a society, that society remains stunted and underachieving. So enabling women to have a voice is a vital part of improving governance and achieving sustainable and equitable growth. And this isn’t just the case in Sub-Saharan Africa. This is the case all over the world. A World Bank Study of 100 countries found that the greater the representation of women in parliament the lower the level of corruption. While one of the most powerful signs that real change was afoot in Egypt and Libya was when women turned up and made their voices heard, refusing to be confined to their homes while men decided their future. And one of the standards by which Egyptians will judge their new government must surely be the engagement and participation of women. Crucially, it is by empowering women that countries can unlock their economic potential. Studies show that limited education and employment opportunities for women in Africa mean annual per capita growth is almost a whole percentage point lower than it should be. Had this growth been achieved, Africa’s economies would have doubled in size over the last thirty years. Providing girls with just one extra year of schooling can increase their wages by as much as 20 per cent. And that really matters because a woman who can decide when to have children, will go to school for longer and then invest her extra money in her own family."
• AO: But none of this has anything to do with contraception. The way to reduce teenage pregnancy is to promote abstinence, outlaw child-marriage, and enforce laws on statutory rape and the age of consent. The UK still has high rates of teenage pregnancy after decades of increasing provision of contraception.

• DC: "When women have opportunity, resources and a voice, the benefits cascade to her children, her community and her country. So family planning is just the first step on a long journey towards growth, equality and development. But it’s an essential step – saving lives and empowering women to fulfil their potential as great leaders of change."
• AO: Contraception doesn’t save lives; it prevents lives. It is insulting to women to tell them that they need pills, rubbers, coils etc to ‘fulfil their potential’.

• DC: "So I am delighted that Britain is taking the lead – together with the Gates Foundation – to tackle an issue that has been ignored for so long."
• AO: This is a complete myth. Western governments, wealthy foundations, UN agencies and abortion lobbyists have been flooding the developing world with contraception for decades.

• DC: "Just like the money we gave last year through GAVI to immunise children against preventable diseases this aid is transparent and direct – it reaches the people who need it, and it doesn’t get caught up in bureaucracy. Last year’s vaccines summit is saving 4 million lives. This year’s family planning summit will prevent a further 3 million babies dying in their first year of life giving 120 million women and girls in the world’s poorest countries the chance to access affordable, lifesaving contraception for the first time. And I’m proud to say that Britain will contribute over £500 million between now and 2020 – doubling our annual investment in family planning. This alone will help 24 million women and girls preventing an unintended pregnancy every 10 seconds and saving a woman’s life every two hours."
• AO: These figures are self-serving fantasies. In many developing countries, there are not even reliable statistics about the population in general, let alone accurate figures for estimates of healthcare outcomes. Lies, damned lies and statistics.

• DC: "Of course there are some who will oppose this. There are those who will say we can’t afford to spend money on aid at a time like this. And there are those who might accept the case for aid, but who object to supporting family planning and the empowerment of women because they think it’s not our place to tell people what to do, or interfere in other cultures. I think it’s vital that we confront these arguments head on. Let me do so. First, it is morally right to honour our promises to the poorest in the world."
• AO: We are unaware that the Conservative or Liberal Democrat parties, either separately or in the Coalition agreement, made any promises to bankroll contraception globally.

• DC: "Every six minutes a woman who did not want to become pregnant will die in pregnancy or childbirth. Every six minutes."
• AO: Again, this figure is a self-serving fantasy.

• DC: "So how many minutes do we wait? I say we don’t wait at all."
• AO: This is tear-jerking 'Mom and apple-pie' rhetoric, cynically wheeled-out to fool the naive.

• DC: "But there’s not just a strong moral argument for keeping our aid commitment, there’s a second, more practical argument too. If we really care about our own national interest about jobs, growth and security we shouldn’t break off our links with the countries that can hold some of the keys to that future. For if we invest in empowering women in Africa as the key to driving trade and economic growth it’s not just Africa that will grow but Britain too. And that’s why I will always defend our spending on aid."
• AO: This is another straw-man argument. SPUC does not argue against giving aid but against wasting aid on contraception.

• DC: "As for those who say we shouldn’t interfere let me be absolutely clear. We’re not talking about some kind of Western imposed population control, forced abortion or sterilisation."
• AO: Wrong. The UK government has for decades given tens of millions of pounds annually to the very same organisations which support and help manage China’s population control programme of forced abortion and sterilisation. In April, it was alleged that DFID money went to a forced sterilisation programme in India (Observer, 15 April). Melinda Gates' partners, Marie Stopes International and International Planned Parenthood Foundation (IPPF), were founded by leaders in the early eugenics and population control movements, and who were very open  that they did not like the idea of poor people of colour having children.

• DC: "What we’re saying today is quite the opposite. We’re not telling anyone what to do. We’re giving women and girls the power to decide for themselves."
• AO: The easy availability of contraception enables predatory men and coercive relatives to pressure vulnerable women and girls into sexual activity.

• DC: "Yes family sizes need to come down but they come down not because we say they should but because the women who have children want them to."
• AO: This is a reversal of the UK government’s policy under Labour which claimed it was neutral about population sizes. In any case, what is the evidence that mothers want family sizes to come down?

• DC: "And to those who try to say it is wrong to interfere by giving a woman that power to decide I say they are the ones who are interfering, not me."
• AO: Most women around the world, including women in the developing world, already exercise the power to decide over the size of their family. They are not in relationships in which they cannot decide, in conjunction with their spouses/partners, to limit the number of children they conceive. In those relationships in which they cannot exercise this power, this is a problem relating to the nature of the relationship, not a lack of contraception.

• DC: "I’m not dictating who runs her country. I’m not saying how many children she should have. What jobs she can do. How she can dress. When she can speak. It’s those who are imposing their values on women who are doing the interfering. I say that every woman should be able to decide her own future. And yes I say we should stand up against those who want to decide it for her."
• AO: Mr Cameron is cynically adopting radical feminist rhetoric in order to caricature those who uphold traditional family values. He is pitting himself against the pro-life movement.

• DC: "Because there are no valid excuses for the denial of basic rights and freedoms for women around the world."
• AO: There is no international treaty or convention which declares that contraception is a basic right.

• DC: "So what we are talking about today is the beginning of a much wider battle that will define our century. A fight for female empowerment and equality that cannot be won by having special separate discussions on women every now and then but requires instead that women are at the table in every discussion on every issue. In Britain, we are scaling up and re-prioritising resources for women and girls in all of DFID’s 28 country programmes. We have made a commitment to help 6.5 million of the poorest girls in the world to go to school. We are standing up for women’s rights against horrific sexual crimes, including through the campaign to prevent sexual violence in conflict which William Hague launched in May with Angelina Jolie. We are determined to end the barbaric practice of female genital cutting making it illegal in Britain leading the way in countries like Somalia where it affects a staggering 98 per cent of women and supporting the brave leadership of the first ladies of Burkina Faso and Niger who are here today. And I will personally ensure that the fight for the empowerment of women is at the heart of the international process I am co-chairing to renew the Millennium Development Goals. Because we know today just how important that empowerment is for women, for the well-being of their families and the future growth and prosperity of the whole world."
• AO: Mr Cameron is again expropriating feminism as a background of justification for flooding the developing world with contraception. Women do not need contraception in order to be empowered, equal and protected. Indeed, contraception often degrades vulnerable women to the level of sex objects.

• DC: "Just before I came onto this stage today I met Aslefe. Aslefe is an inspiring young woman from Ethiopia. She told me she is the captain of her village football team. She uses football matches to distribute materials, contraceptives and HIV prevention methods. She wants every woman and girl to have access to family planning and wants improved health systems in Ethiopia so girls her age no longer have to suffer."
• AO: I think the vast majority of both children and parents in the world think that what Aslefe is doing is strange and that the normal thing for her to do would be to stick to sport.

• DC: "She has hope in her eyes. She has ambition in her voice. She gives you that sense that she believes things really can change. Today we are investing in that hope for Aslefe and for girls like her all over the world. Their future will determine our future. And we will help them fight for it. Today and every day until that battle is won. Thank you."
• AO: Mr Cameron has now overdone the tear-jerking, heartstring-tugging rhetoric here. More arguments and less Walt Disney please.

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

Women around the world respond to Melinda Gates' controversial plans

Last week Melinda Gates held a family planning summit, the focus of which was the promotion of contraceptive devices to women in poor countries. So far an estimated US$4.6 billion dollars has been raised by this summit to promote contraceptives in the developing world.

In this short video, produced by Human Life International, women around the world respond to Melinda Gates' controversial plans for them, and her supposed charitable assistance. Although the women in the video are addressing Melinda Gates, the same points they make could just as appropriately be made to David Cameron, who addressed the summit and whose government is spending huge amounts of money promoting contraception and abortion in the developing world.



See previous SPUC releases and blog posts on this issue.

Must-read pro-life news-stories, Wed 25 July

Top story:

MPs who vote for Cameron gay marriage pledge will be punished at election time
MPs who vote for David Cameron's gay marriage pledge will be punished at the general election, says SPUC. SPUC was responding to Mr Cameron's speech, reported by The Telegraph http://goo.gl/fNQJn in which he promised to enshrine same-sex marriage in law before the next general election in 2015. John Smeaton, SPUC's chief executive, commented: "There are numerous reports that the Conservative party is already losing huge numbers of voters, members and activists because of Mr Cameron's foolish support of same-sex marriage. SPUC and its colleagues in many pro-family, Christian and Muslim groups, representing countless thousands of supporters and activists up and down the country, will ensure that same-sex marriage becomes a big general election issue, especially in marginal constituencies." [SPUC, 25 July]

Other stories:

Abortion

• Disability no longer to be legal ground for abortion, announces Spanish government [ThinkSpain, 22 July]

Sexual ethics

• Scottish government to introduce same-sex marriage bill [Scottish Government, 25 July]
• Teenage births in Wales fall by 11.5% in one year, according to report [Wales Online, 25 July]
• Czech pro-life groups organize counter-protests to upcoming Prague ‘gay pride’ event [LifeSiteNews.com, 24 July]

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

Lobby Lords on sex education bill

The Children, Schools and Families bill received its third reading in the House of Commons on 23 February (see SPUC's alert of 22 February) and will have its second reading (first debate) in the House of Lords on Monday next, 8 March. It is then expected to go into Lords committee, possibly as soon as 22 March. It would be a huge blow against the right to life if such legislation were enacted, imposing pro-abortion sex education on all state schools.

Although the general election could be called within this timeframe, the bill could even then be rushed through in the clearing-up procedure by which bills can pass through several readings in a matter of minutes, prior to an election. It is therefore most important to raise objections to the bill as strongly as possible in the Lords. Please contact as many Lords as you can, asking them to oppose the bill. Could you do five, ten, twenty, or more Lords? You can find email addresses for Lords via http://www.spuc.org.uk/lobbying/email/email (Please SPUC know if you experience any problems using this list). You are welcome to email Lords either randomly or according to your choice. We recommend, however, focusing upon Conservative party Lords. The Conservative party both opposed the bill in the Commons and tabled amendments which sought to limit the harm of the bill's sex education proposals. We therefore need to ensure that the Conservative party does the same in the Lords. This is particularly important, considering that it seems highly unlikely that the bill could be rushed through without Conservative support. Please visit our list of Conservative (and cross-bench i.e independent) Lords who attend Parliament regularly. You can use this list in conjunction with our lists of Lords' emails.

It is important to point out to Lords that the government's amendment (passed in the Commons) which purports to safeguard faith schools will not prevent schools from having to impart information promoting abortion. Ed Balls, Children, Schools and Families secretary, said that such schools would still have to tell children how to access abortion. Whatever the impact of the amendment, it would not in any case provide any protection to non-faith schools – which the majority of children attend.

As well as emailing Lords, please write by post to:

• Gordon Brown, the prime minister, urging him to withdraw the sex education proposals,  at 10 Downing Street, London, SW1A 2AA
• David Cameron, the Conservative opposition leader, telling him of your strong objection to the proposals, at: House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA. You can also email him at david.cameron@conservatives.com

Please forward any replies you receive to SPUC by:

• email to political@spuc.org.uk
• post to Paul Tully at SPUC HQ

More information can be found in:

• SPUC's briefing on the CSF bill 
• SPUC's leaflet "Government sex education: priming children for teenage sex and abortion?" 
• SPUC's briefing on the government's draft SRE guidance 
• SPUC's critique "Sexual health in 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
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Pope Benedict, not party leaders, protects children, born and unborn

Last night's debate between Gordon Brown, David Cameron and Nick Clegg demonstrated clearly their unanimity on abortion, embryo research, homosexuality and contraception (see pp.16-18 of the transcript). Britain is witnessing the fulfilment of the prophetic message of Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI's historic encyclical which celebrated its 40th anniversary last year. He warned about:

"public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law".

William L. Saunders Jnr, a distinguished US attorney and bioethicist, has written:

"Article 16 [of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights] declares: 'The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.' Thus, article 16 recognizes the common sense fact, sometimes overlooked by governments and international organizations, that the family exists prior to the state, is the foundation of the state, and that the state is obligated to protect it."

For many years in Britain, our government has been pursuing a policy of providing access to abortion and birth control drugs and devices for children under the age of sixteen without parental knowledge or consent. The Children, Schools and Families bill threatened to entrench and extend this policy by forcing all state schools to provide sex education. That danger was only averted by the pressure put by pro-lifers and their allies on parliamentarians to drop the bill's offending clauses in the wash-up prior to parliament's dissolution for the general election.

Whichever party forms the next government, the defence of human life in parliament will rely on individual MPs voting pro-life and resisting pressure from party managers. Anyone concerned for the protection of human life should contact SPUC for information and resources to help them assess their local candidates. The unanimity of the three party leaders makes it all the more important that voters base their choice on how their local candidates promise to vote if elected to parliament.

On the issue of child sex abuse within the Catholic Church, the party leaders responded as follows:

David Cameron:

"I think the Catholic Church has got some very, very serious work to do to unearth and come to terms with some of the appalling things that have happened, and they need to do that."

Nick Clegg said:

"I do welcome the Pope's visit, but I hope by the time he does visit, there is a greater recognition that there has been terrible, terrible suffering, there have been abusive relationships which have left immeasurable scars on individual people's lives and we need a process of openness and then healing. You can't undo the tragedies of the past, but you can be open about them so people can start to move on."

Gordon Brown said:

"[T]he church has got to deal with these problems, and it's got to make sure that there is an open and clean confession about what has happened, and that we help those people who have been put into difficulty by this abuse."

None of the party leaders mentioned the incidence of child sex abuse outside the Catholic Church, and their comments all gave the impression that the Catholic Church hasn't responded to the problem of child sex abuse. Although the three party leaders all welcomed the Pope's forthcoming visit, their unfair and unbalanced criticism merely adds fuel to the anti-Benedict fire. Massimo Introvigne, an Italian sociologist of religion, in an excellent analysis of the issue, has asked:

"Why are old and very often well-known cases being exhumed in 2010 on a daily basis, always attacking the Pope?"

Dominic Lawson points to the answer in yesterday's Daily Mail. He quotes Professor Richard Dawkins, the anti-life atheist scientist, who wrote in his book "The God Delusion" (2006) that:

"[W]e live in a time of hysteria about paedophilia, a mob psychology that calls to mind the Salem witchhunts of 1692 ... The Roman Catholic Church has borne a heavy share of such retrospective opprobrium ... I dislike the Catholic Church, but I dislike unfairness even more. I can't help wondering whether this institution has been unfairly demonised over this issue, especially in Ireland and America."

Mr Lawson then points out how in recent months Prof. Dawkins has forgotten what he wrote and is now defaming Pope Benedict and the Catholic Church over the same issue.

As I blogged last month, it is clear that Pope Benedict is being defamed by opponents of the sanctity of human life and the dignity of the human person. It is therefore incumbent upon pro-lifers of all faiths and none to help defend the good name of Pope Benedict, one of the world's great pro-life leaders and the head of the world's largest pro-life organisation.

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
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

A New Act is Born - designed to kill millions of babies created not to be born

With, perhaps, unconscious irony, the British government announced last week "A New Act is Born" - a law designed to kill millions of innocent human beings deliberately created never to be born.

"A New Act is Born" is the headline given to the press release published by the Department of Health announcing that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act had received Royal Assent.

The government release goes on to explain:

"Human-admixed" embryos created from a combination of human and animal genetic material, purely for laboratory research will be allowed and strictly controlled. There will be a 14 day limit, after which the embryo must be destroyed. Sex selection of offspring for non-medical reasons is banned. Sex selection is only allowed for medical reasons - for example to avoid a serious disease." [And, of course, embryos with the wrong sex will be destroyed] ... And there are many other clauses designed to harm or kill embryos created in the laboratory.

Let's not forget that Gordon Brown (pictured above), the Prime Minister and a total of 269 Labour MPs (out of 349), David Cameron (picture below), the Tory leader, and a total of 48 Conservative MPs (out of 193), and Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat leader, and a total of 30 Liberal Democrat MPs (out of 63) voted in favour of this barbaric law.

It's appalling that our country is led by a politician who voted for abortion up to birth for disabled three times, as did his predecessor Tony Blair, and that his main rival for the job of Prime Minister, David Cameron, has said that disabled babies should continue to be aborted up to birth, even though he and his wife have a disabled son themselves.

Please consider joining SPUC's campaign in your area - or starting such a campaign - to alert constituents as to how your MP voted in the defining issue of the 21st century, the treatment of the most vulnerable members of our community, newly-conceived human embryos. Contact me at johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk if you want to run or join such a campaign in your area.

New blood test to promote genocide of the disabled is applauded in today's press

A story in today's Telegraph about "a cheap blood test that could allow doctors to check unborn children for Down's syndrome" is arguably the most significant news of the 21st century. This is not hyperbole. It's arguably the most significant news this century because it illustrates the culture of death in which we are living at its very worst.

Consider the following:

Dr Suzanna Frints, of Maastricht University Medical Centre in the Netherlands, who carried out the research on the new test, said that she hoped all women in the world [my emphasis] would be offered this test, according to the Telegraph report.

Dr Frints and her colleagues were reporting on their findings at the 26th annual meeting of the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology in Rome.

Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News reports Dr Frints as saying: “This is innovative translational research, and when we succeed in developing the MLPA procedure for use in maternal blood, we will be able to offer a safe, cheap, fast, reliable, and accurate noninvasive test, which will be of immediate benefit to pregnant women [my emphasis].”

The significance of a "non-invasive test" is explained by the Telegraph's report that amniocentesis, an invasive process which involves taking a sample of fluid from around the foetus, "can, in some cases, cause a miscarriage even if the woman is carrying a healthy foetus [my emphasis]".

Given that there's no cure for Down's Syndrome, it's crystal clear that the "immediate benefit to pregnant women" is that they will know they are carrying a child with Down's syndrome who can be killed by abortion without the prior risk of a test which may accidentally kill a child without Down's syndrome.

In summary: A story appeared today on the front page of the Telegraph in the UK and in scores of other news outlets throughout the world which, with a terrifying lack of irony, reports on scientific researchers publicly applauding as a possible breakthrough a new test for mothers-to-be throughout the world which will target the killing of some of the sweetest, most innocent, most vulnerable, most loving human beings on earth.  To add insult to fatal injury, these loving children are dismissed with the inaccurate, contemptuous, term "unhealthy foetuses".

Tragically, in Britain, abortion up to birth for disabled babies was legalised by Parliament in 1990. Those who support such selective killings include David Cameron, the British Prime Minister, whose support for abortion of the disabled up to birth he has made quite clear. He is, in my view, supporting genocide. If I might plagiarize Fr Fleming's paper "Developing a global understanding of the inviolability of life from conception to natural death in and through the international institutions":

The questions David Cameron and others need to address are these: How is it not genocide to define some members of the human family as non-persons, thereby allowing them to be directly and intentionally killed by induced abortion? How is it not genocide to legally prescribe and actively promote the induced abortion of human beings on the grounds of their actual or perceived disability? If it could be shown that homosexuality was genetically influenced, and homosexuality was thought of as a disability, would the routine abortion of homosexuals be considered the crime of genocide against homosexuals?

You might like to read Fr Fleming's paper and his full section on the Genocide Convention here.

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
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Why the government's plans to redefine marriage must be opposed

On Saturday I spoke to the Union of Catholic Mothers of the Archdiocese of Southwark, at Amigo Hall next to St George's cathedral. You can read a report of my address on the SPUC website. In summary, I said:

• David Cameron and his government were seeking to deny children’s birthright, to be brought up by both a mother and a father, by institutionalising fatherless and motherless families.
• Legalising same sex marriage is not about being nice to people with same-sex attraction and letting them get married if they want to. It is about the destruction of the oldest human institution in the world which protects the mental and physical wellbeing of men, women and children
• Research by Dr Patricia Morgan, commissioned by SPUC and presented to Parliament, shows that in countries in which same-sex marriage has been legalized, real marriage is undermined.
• Government statistics on abortion clearly show that unborn children are four to five times less likely to be aborted if they are conceived within marriage. Undermining marriage will result in more unborn children being killed.
• Same-sex couples will demand the right to have children – making it even more difficult for pro-life groups effectively to oppose in vitro fertilisation. Defending the right to life of unborn children will be increasingly viewed as an attack on the rights of homosexual couples.
• Same-sex marriage is about the sexual rights of adults. Real marriage is about best interests of children.
• Claims by government ministers that a teachers will continue to have the right to teach children that marriage is between a man and a woman do not stand up to legal scrutiny nor to statements made by political leaders such as David Cameron, Nick Clegg, and Ed Balls.
• Schools will come under further pressure to teach pupils about homosexual sex.
• Whether the battle is won or lost on the government’s same-sex marriage bill, those in society, including the UCM, who have a clear understanding of what’s at stake must maintain an unceasing educational campaign to warn parents and the general public about the impact of same-sex marriage legislation.
• Unless we continue to insist, through taking our information door-to-door throughout the country, future generations of children will simply never know, still less experience for themselves, that the natural habitat for children is the family based on the marriage of a man and a woman as a permanent exclusive union, as upheld in international human rights instruments.
• We must act now to prevent our country descending into centuries of barbarism.
• I urge members of the UCM to write to their Members of Parliament calling on them to vote against the third reading of the Marriage (Same Sex) Couples Bill. Briefings can be found at www.spuc.org.uk
• I urge UCM foundations to leaflet their parish churches on the weekends of 5th May and 12th May – since the third reading of the Bill could be as early as the week beginning 20th May. Leaflets are available from SPUC. Telephone me at 020 7820 3128 or email me at johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
• I appeal to leaders to come forward who would be willing to organize a team of people locally to provide a permanent outreach to the local community. We need 900 groups who are each capable of leafleting 10,000 local homes.
• I greet the West Norwood UCM foundation at whose meeting on 21st February 1951 my birth of the day before had been announced!

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

Beware of playing abortion party politics

Some of the media have been spinning the story that, under a Conservative government, there might be restrictions to the abortion law. Pro-lifers need to be very wary of such spin. It may end in tears.

One of the main protagonists for reducing the upper limit for abortion in the recent parliamentary debates was Nadine Dorries, the Conservative MP for Mid-Bedfordshire. She is openly pro-abortion in the early months of pregnancy. In the House of Commons abortion debate on 20^th May, she said: “I should like to make my personal position clear, because it has been misrepresented in the past few days. I am pro-choice. I support a woman’s right to abortion – to faster, safer and quicker abortion than is available at the moment, particularly in the first trimester. That is my position.”

It was under a Conservative government that Parliament voted for abortion up to birth. David Cameron, the current leader of the Conservative party, is on record as saying with regard to such abortions that the current law should remain.

It was also under a Conservative government that the upper limit for abortions was raised for abortions generally; and human embryo research was legalized, backed by the then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher.

Today, David Cameron backs human animal hybrid embryos and “saviour siblings” whereby rejected embryos, who won’t provide an appropriate tissue match for their sibling, are destroyed.

People mistakenly claim that the time limit was reduced from 28 weeks to 24 weeks by the Conservative government’s Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. However, because of amendments to the law made by the 1990 Act, the previous limit, which was based on the capability of the baby to be born alive – not a fixed number of weeks (28) – was abolished and a 24 week time limit was introduced but only for certain cases. In other cases (including where the abortion is carried out on the grounds of disability) abortions can be and are now carried out right up to the time of birth.

Every child who had reached the stage of development of being “capable of being born alive” was protected by the pre-1990 law. Since 1990 that protection has been removed. So the effect of the 1990 Act was to increase the time limit for abortion in most instances and in many cases right up to birth.

It was pro-lifers who pressed for the 1990 Act to contain provisions relating to abortion, in the hope of being able to insert some restrictions, particularly early time limits. Sadly this tactic backfired, resulting in a less, not more, restrictive abortion law.

SPUC said at the time: “… Kenneth Clarke [the secretary of state for health] was … responsible for giving MPs a misleading concept of the clause allowing abortion up to birth when it was debated at the Report Stage of the Bill on 21^st June [1990] … He informed the House ‘the doctor will terminate a pregnancy while attempting to save the life of the baby if he can’. However, termination such circumstances has always been allowed but previously it has been described as ‘induced birth’. For the first time it can be legally categorised as abortion, and, whatever the claims of Mr Clarke, there is now no law compelling a doctor to save the life of the child.” (Human Concern, summer 1990)

Fast forward to 12^th May 2008, and the Second Reading of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. The shadow Conservative Secretary of State for Health, Andrew Lansley, demonstrated an equally frightening nonchalance towards the right to life of unborn children when he called for the law to be changed to allow early abortions to be made more easily available, as I blogged that week.

Dr Helen Watt, the director of the Linacre Centre for healthcare ethics, was right to say recently (in relation to the various life issues under consideration in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill): “We get the Parliament we deserve, and should all give a top priority at the next election to these issues, looking less to party affiliation and more to the voting records of individual MPs”. (Catholic News Agency report)

SPUC agrees. SPUC is political but not party political – and that will reflect our policy at the next general election.

Read SPUC's tweets from yesterday's same-sex marriage debate

Below I reproduce the tweets @spucprolife by Anthony Ozimic, SPUC's communications manager, during yesterday's Second Reading debate on the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill:

• Miller doesn't understand that secondary/incidental changes to marriage law doesn't change timeless core of marriage = heterosexual
• Miller quotes opinion of QCs Kennedy, Lester and Pannick. Unconvincing: they're the usual suspects from the pro-gay/anti-family lobby.
• No mention in Miller's introductory speech of the unique reason why society privileges marriage: protection of children, born & unborn
• Lot of fluffiness from rad fem Yvette Cooper re confetti, biscuits, parties, rubber chickens etc. Just killed her PM ambitions, one hopes.
• Repeated confusion btwn benefits of marriage (commitment, stability) and nature of marriage (complementary union ordered towards children)
• Mention of books written for children promoting gay relationships. Coming to a school near you if marriage (& thus family) redefined.
• Yvette Cooper warns anti-SSM churches that "religious freedom goes both ways". Must not prevent state from redefining marriage.
• Yvette Cooper confuses legal reforms of practice of marriage with false idea that core of marriage (i.e. heterosexual) can change.
• Discredited Marxist theory of social change being used to justify what even the original Marxists didn't dream of (gay marriage).
• Robert Flello MP: Marriage more than just love & commitment. Gay marriage redefines everyone's marriage by reducing it to a relationship.
• Steve Gilbert MP defames upholders of marriage status quo as "those who would hoard privilege". More souped-up Marxist ramblings.
• Sir Roger Gale MP: assurances that civil partnerships would not lead to same-sex marriage have been broken.
• Natascha Engel MP: gay couples can raise children just as well as straight couples. Thus fathers and mothers are just interchangeable carers
• Nick Herbert MP also confuses reforms of secondary aspects of marriage law with abolishing fundamental nature & purpose of marriage
• Stephen Doughty MP implied that it was the state's prerogative to extend marriage. But marriage doesn't belong to the state.
• Edward Leigh MP: we must be careful to ensure that law and reality do not conflict. Gay marriage bill tries to change essence of marriage.
• Gay marriage bill is not evolution but revolution, says Edward Leigh MP. Marriage exists for sake of children. Not just for love or sex.
• Pro-SSM MPs rattled that their seats now in danger at the next election. We like rattling.
• Jim Shannon MP: letters against gay marriage = largest mail-bag I've received in all my years as MP and MLA.
• Simon Hughes MP used Lincoln film to draw historical lesson re gay marriage. He needs to read real history not the Hollywood spin.
• Craig Whittaker MP: marriage already being eroded so state shouldn't be making situation worse by changing nature of marriage
• Stephen Timms: marriage exists for children but SSM bill barely mentions children.
• Gay relationships are not the same as marriage, they are different, says Stephen Timms MP.
• Clear implication of Fiona Mactaggart MP interjection is that gay marriage will redefine the family by redefining marriage
• Not exactly the most intelligent or original speech being given by Emma Reynolds MP re gay marriage
• John Glen MP: received incredible vitriol simply for upholding marriage as it is.
• David Lammy MP repeating his low-quality performance back during the Mental Capacity Bill. Comparing anti-SSM to racism. What a bore.
• Chris Bryant MP conspicuously omits Book of Common Prayer text: "First, [marriage] was ordained for the procreation of children" @His_Grace
• William McCrea MP: quoting Bible in Parliament often met with laughter, scorn, intolerance by MPs. Biblical marriage has served UK well.
• MT @RhoslynThomas: BBC radio 4 playing the wedding march as they announce the SSM bill.
• Stewart Jackson MP: comparing opposition to gay marriage to racism is complete nonsense.
• Catholic adoption agencies "smashed on the altar of political correctness", says Stewart Jackson MP
• David Simpson MP: neither Parliament nor Government has the (moral) jurisdiction to redefine marriage
• Sarah Wollaston MP lowers debate by wheeling out old case of Alan Turing's chemical castration and suicide. Emotional blackmail.
• Ian Paisley Jnr MP: Government cannot change nature. Refining marriage is a nonsense which will damage marriage.
• Willie Bain MP claiming maj. support for SSM among Catholics. But such surveys usually don't distinguish btwn practising RCs and lapsed RCs
• Andrew Selous MP quotes Jesus' definition of marriage as between man & woman. Not merely a cultural norm but God's design from Creation.
• Matthew Offord MP: a flexible redefinition of marriage will lead to calls for further redefinitions e.g. polygamy, polyamory
• Eric Ollerenshaw MP should've studied the canon law and practice of the Catholic Church re marriage rather than ramble incoherently about it
• Pro-SSM MP Brooks Newmark quotes Orwell's Animal Farm. But Orwell would have opposed the state's power-grab of marriage from the people
• Andrea Leadsom MP: no mandate and no public clamour for same-sex marriage
• Bob Blackman MP: I've received 1000 letters against gay marriage, only 6 in favour
• Richard Drax MP: element of token politics in parliamentary push to redefine marriage
• Teachers who refuse to teach lessons about gay marriage will be disadvantaged, says Richard Drax MP
• Equalities spokeswoman Kate Green caricatures traditional definition of marriage as religious. Repeats nonsense that marriage evolves
• MPs now voting on whether to give the same-sex marriage bill a second reading
• 400 ayes, 175 noes on same-sex marriage bill 2nd reading
• MPs now voting on the government's programme motion (timetable of forthcoming stages of the bill)
• RT ‏@Gillibrand #marriagevote Parliament has just voted to defy natural law, acting way beyond their powers.
• MT @ProtectthePope: Shame on House of Commons - 400 for same-sex marriage, 175 against. Children will pay the price.
• MT @labourwhips: Preliminary figues suggest Cameron failed to get majority of Tory MPs. 139 voting No, 132 Yes.
• MT @LouiseMensch: David Cameron secures his place in history. > As PM who wrecked marriage in law for generations as yet unborn.
• Programme motion: ayes 499, 55 noes
• RT ‏@c4mtweets Blog» C4M delighted by the scale of the Parliamentary opposition to redefining marriage bill: Res... http://bit.ly/11QZbrt  #C4M #Marriage
• RT ‏@c4mtweets Blog» Gay marriage vote, ‘a disaster for Cameron’ says C4M: Tonight, 175 MPs voted against the Bi... http://bit.ly/11QZbHK  #C4M #Marriage
• Pro- #family MPs fight back in same-sex #marriage debate http://www.spuc.org.uk/news/releases/2013/february05 … #prolife

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

Lord Carey's trumpet call to Britons

Lord Carey, the former archbishop of Canterbury, sounded a trumpet call yesterday which must resound in all sections of society, throughout Britain. He wrote in the Daily Mail:

"As David Cameron knows, I am very suspicious that behind the [legislative] plans to change the nature of marriage, which come before the House of Lords soon, there lurks an aggressive secularist and relativist approach towards an institution that has glued society together for time immemorial."

Lord Carey went on to say that the Government threatens:

" ... to empty marriage of its fundamental religious and civic meaning as an institution orientated towards the upbringing of children.

"If this is not enough, the legislation fails to provide any protection for religious believers in employment who cannot subscribe to the new meaning of marriage. There will be no exemptions for believers who are registrars. They can expect to be sacked if they cannot, in all conscience, support same-sex marriage.

"Strong legal opinion also suggests that Christian teachers, who are required to teach about marriage, may face disciplinary action if they cannot express agreement with the new politically-correct orthodoxy ... "

May Lord Carey's trumpet sound in the hearts of fellow bishops, Anglican and Catholic, to whom we look to lead Christians and the people of Britain against same-sex legislation which discriminates against children by institutionalising motherless and fatherless families.

May Lord Carey's trumpet sound in the hearts of teachers, headteachers, school governors, and parents who must fight for their fundamental right to teach children about the unchanging nature of marriage as the permanent exclusive union of one man and one woman, a right that threatens to be destroyed by Cameron's legislation.

May Lord Carey's trumpet sound in the hearts of time-serving "Catholic" politicians who are prepared to betray families and children for generations to come for their short-term political advantage - and to betray the founder of their faith, Jesus Christ, who said: ""Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife and the two shall become one ... "

May Lord Carey's trumpet sound, above all, in the hearts of the ordinary citizens of this country. There is one thing which can beat Cameron and his plan to destroy the family: and that's local leadership. The fundamental group unit of society is not the State; it's not Her Majesty's Government - which has no right to redefine marriage. . The fundamental group unit is the family based upon the marriage of a man and a woman. The State has a duty to serve and protect natural marriage and recognise its primacy, not redefine it.

SPUC and the Coalition for Marriage can beat their drums; we can win the arguments in our briefings, in our public meetings, and in the growing scholarly evidence that same-sex marriage destabilises marriage and family life. But what we need now is local leadership in the towns and villages and cities of Britain, local leaders who will take the message about the terrible threat to marriage and the family to their fellow citizens. Without such local leadership we are wasting our sweetness on the desert air.

SPUC needs leaders to organize leafleting in 120 targeted constituencies. Please pass this message on, sound Lord Carey's trumpet, and let us know if you will help - by leafleting homes, door-to-door, in targeted areas close to you.

For some reason, this Easter weekend, my SPUC email isn't working - so please write to me at johnjsmeaton@gmail.com

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

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]

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 Bishop Mark Davies's Easter sermon touching on Cameron's plans for same-sex marriage*

In a powerful Easter morning sermon, Bishop Mark Davies (pictured), the Catholic bishop of Shrewsbury, has said:

" ... Dr. John Sentamu, the Anglican Archbishop of York, was accused of 'exaggerating' when he spoke of the Government’s proposals to re-define the identity of marriage as linked to a totalitarian mentality (The Daily Telegraph 31st January 2012). Yet his analysis of recent history is clearer than that of many of the leaders of opinion in our society."

Bishop Davies suggested in his sermon that the Cameron/Clegg government is attempting to turn the clock back to pre-Christian times and to discard the Christian inheritance of faith and morality as if it had never existed. He said:

"If Christianity is no longer to form the basis and the bedrock of our society then we are, indeed, left at the mercy of passing political projects and perhaps even the most sinister of ideologies."

Bishop Davies is right to refer to totalitarianism when speaking of the Government's plans with regard to same sex marriage. To understand why, consider the far-sighted reflection of another world Catholic leader, Cardinal Pell, who recently published his submission to the Australian Senate’s Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee. Zenit, the international news agency, reports:

[Cardinal Pell] said that the Commonwealth of Australia must continue to recognise and support marriage as meaning the exclusive and permanent union of one man and one woman.

Some proponents of same-sex marriage have argued that in the event of marriage being redefined, the Catholic Church and other religious communities will be protected or exempted from being required by law to perform same-sex marriages.

Cardinal Pell commented that such proposals fail to understand the immensely powerful role and influence of the law in our society. Changing the Marriage Act would, in practice, compel Catholics and other faith communities to recognize and accept same-sex marriages in their schools, social welfare, health care and adoption services, he pointed out.

When we permit same-sex relationships to mimic marriage we also say that a child gains no benefit from the knowledge that they were created through an intimate act of love between their parents, Cardinal Pell said.

Cardinal Pell's words to the Australian Senate totally apply to David Cameron's claim last week that church law will not be affected by extending civil marriage to same-sex couples and that his proposals would “change what happens in a register office, not what happens in a church”.  Not so, according to the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR). Whereas the ECHR (in a recent ruling concerning a lesbian couple in France) ruled that there was no obligation on member states' governments to legalise same-sex marriage, the judges also said:

"Where national legislation recognises registered partnerships between same sex, member states should aim to ensure that their legal status and their rights and obligations are equivalent to those of heterosexual couples in a similar situation."

As Neil Addison, a lawyer, pointed out in the media:

"Once same-sex marriage has been legalised then the partners to such a marriage are entitled to exactly the same rights as partners in a heterosexual marriage.

"This means that if same-sex marriage is legalised in the UK it will be illegal for the Government to prevent such marriages happening in religious premises."

One does not need the powers of an Old Testament prophet to understand the pressures which will be brought bear on parents and on educators not to teach children that marriage is the permanent, exclusive union of one man and one woman, or not to teach that same-sex marriage lacks basic elements of real marriage - for example the complementary sexual difference between spouses necessary for the procreation and healthy upbringing of children.

Thus the right of parents to be the primary educators of their children will be further undermined - a right written in to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights specifically in the light of the Nazis' attempt "to turn Germany's renowned educational system into a mechanism for indoctrinating the young with the government's programme". (See Professor Mary Ann Glendon's authoritative book on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights A World Made New.)
 
Bishop Davies's comments are timely and worthy of wide dissemination and further study.

Readers of my blog in Britain may like to apply for flyers to take our message about real marriage to the general public, door-to-door and on high streets throughout the UK.

*Real marriage as an institution protects children, both born and unborn. Statistics show that unborn children are much safer within marriage than outside marriage. For more information see SPUC's position paper and background paper on same-sex marriage.

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 study shows that artificial birth control doesn't reduce abortions, pregnancies or infections among minors

David Paton, professor of industrial economics at Nottingham University Business School, has co-authored a new study into the free provision of morning-after pills via pharmacies. Dr Paton told today's Telegraph:

“We find that offering the morning-after pill free of charge didn’t have the intended effect of cutting teenage pregnancies but did have the unfortunate side of effect of increasing sexually transmitted infections. By focusing on sexually transmitted infections, it allows us to test whether there is an impact on sexual risk-taking, and that seems to be the implication.”

And as Dr Paton says in the study itself:

"Empirical studies to date suggest that schemes to increase access to [morning-after pills] have failed to result in observable decreases in unwanted pregnancy or abortion rates ... [O]n average, the presence of a pharmacy [morning-after pill] scheme in a local authority is associated with an increase in the rate of STI diagnoses amongst teenagers of about 5%. The equivalent figure for U16s is even larger at 12%."

Time and again we see how the culture of death does young people a grave disservice, telling them that:

• losing their virginity before marriage is inevitable
• sex using artificial birth control is consequence-free; and
• abortion is always there as a back-up.

As a result the UK has stubbornly highest rates of teenage pregnancy, teenage sexually-transmitted infection and teenage abortion.

Dr Paton has provided a reliable basis upon which David Cameron's government can safely throw the Labour government's Teenage Pregnancy Strategy - which emphasised increased morning-after pills access (personally endorsed by Tony Blair*) - into the dustbin of history marked "Failed".

*foreword, Teenage Pregnancy Report, Social Exclusion Unit, 1999.

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
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy