The second George Orwell Prize: the way pro-life people are portrayed

Readers may recall that I’ve started awarding regular George Orwell Prizes to abortion promoters and/or providers who make the most misleading, euphemistic or blatantly dishonest statements.

I began my search for a winner this time by taking a little excursion across the Atlantic, to see how American pro-abortionists portray their opponents. Planned Parenthood’s Teenwire makes for interesting reading in the way it misleads women about issues such as post-abortion trauma, particularly since the most important evidence of its reality is women who’ve had abortions themselves.

However, far more damning was what Teenwire had to say about crisis pregnancy centres that offer women alternatives to abortion and which give women the information about the development of the unborn child that abortion facilities don’t tend to be too forthcoming about.

“Women are often lured into CPCs only to find that the staff members usually have no professional training and the environment is filled with inaccurate, anti-choice information.”

It is ironic to see pro-life organisations being accused of inaccuracy by an organisation which claims on its website that the unborn child does not become a baby until birth, but it is the word "lured" that is most insidious, implying criminal activity, manipulation and entirely sinister motives. It goes on:

“It's common for CPCs to use misleading films, ultrasound pictures, and written materials to scare and emotionally manipulate women into continuing their pregnancies. By presenting women with false information about abortion and the development of the fetus, CPCs threaten women's abilities to make informed choices.”

The sight of a tiny baby on an ultrasound scan does indeed have a tendency to make a big emotional impression on a woman but the pro-life movement did not create the reality of an unborn child’s humanity in order to irritate the abortion lobby. The facts speak for themselves.

Back in Britain, the Family Planning Association (FPA) very nearly scooped this issue’s Orwell Prize for its blatant attempts at manipulating young people in its ‘Abortion: Just so you know’ cartoon leaflet. Needless to say, abortion is portrayed as an entirely sensible and morally acceptable option and backstreet abortion is used as the major reason why abortion should be legal, even though this argument has long been shown to have no foundation. In the FPA leaflet, people who oppose abortion are portrayed as uniformly male, spouting quasi-religious clichés. Pro-life doctors who courageously refuse to involve themselves with abortion are depicted as heartless. “Most NHS doctors are sympathetic to women considering abortion” but, we are informed, “doctors who oppose abortion can refuse to help.” The fact that an increasing number of doctors do not regard themselves as "helping" anyone by signing an abortion form is not mentioned. Incidentally, the Brook Advisory Service uses the same emotive approach to doctors who object to abortion:

“Doctors who have a moral objection to abortion should make this clear to any patient who asks them for help. They should also arrange for them to see someone else who would be prepared to help.”

But once again, the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) pips the others to the post… well, almost. Ann Furedi (pictured), the chief executive of BPAS, wins the Orwell Prize in a personal capacity, for a hysterical and insulting outburst against the ProLife Alliance in 2001 which remains unrivalled in spite of the best attempts by other pro-abortion fundamentalists to stoop a little lower. According to Furedi, prolifers are "vile scum", not to mention "dishonest, manipulative, irrational, ignorant fanatics who patronise women." When questioned about the article she wrote for Spiked online magazine, she told the BBC that she stood by "every word" and thought she had been "quite moderate". Oh well, why engage in rational debate when you can just spit poison at your opponents?

“Political language ... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” George Orwell

BPAS is first winner of John Smeaton, SPUC director blog's George Orwell Prize

It was George Orwell who said: “Political language ... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” I cannot help feeling that this statement accurately describes the tactics used by the abortion lobby to promote their ideology among the general public. Over the forthcoming weeks, I will be awarding regular George Orwell Prizes to abortion promoters and/or providers who make the most misleading, euphemistic or blatantly dishonest statements.

There is no better place to begin than with the ugly reality of the abortion procedure itself. For a movement that claims to believe in a woman’s right to choose, the abortion lobby shows a distinct unwillingness to allow women to make an informed choice about abortion. I looked at materials put out by the Brook Advisory Service, BPAS, Marie Stopes, FPA and IPAS to see whether any of them had the courage and honesty to describe what actually happens during an abortion.

There are certain misleading words that are common to virtually all abortion providers when describing abortion, such as speaking of "the pregnancy" instead of unborn child, foetus, baby or embryo. For example, Marie Stopes claims that “gentle suction is used to remove the pregnancy from the uterus” when describing surgical abortion, FPA talks about “taking pills to expel the pregnancy” and BPAS, when describing a late term dilation and evacuation, states: “Forceps are used to remove the pregnancy.”

It takes very little knowledge of obstetrics and gynaecology to notice that the word "pregnancy" refers to (in the words of the Oxford English Dictionary) "the condition or period of being pregnant", not the unborn child whose life is ended in the womb by abortion. However, abortion providers do not seem to feel that women have a right to know this.

The other way abortion providers get around the inconvenient truth of abortion is to describe the unborn child as a mere "product", i.e. abortion removes "the products of conception" or to speak of the unborn child as though he or she were simply filling up space in the womb that it has no business to occupy. So we have BPAS describing manual vacuum aspiration in the following terms: “The uterus is emptied using a gentle manual or electric vacuum.” Emptied of what?

The runner-up for the George Orwell Prize this week is IPAS, the international abortion promoter, which uses virtually every euphemism possible in its literature; ‘uterine-evacuation procedures’ , ‘contents of the uterus', ‘products of conception’ etc. However, the overall winner is BPAS, which promises women who undergo a late abortion: “All tissue from abortion procedures is disposed of in a sensitive way. However, if you have specific wishes about the disposal of your fetal tissue, please discuss this with a member of staff before the procedure.”

When describing medical abortion between nine and 23 weeks, BPAS informs women: “The doctor will put a needle into the uterus and inject medicine to stop the fetal heart.” [ibid.] Medicine does not deliberately stop a beating heart. Maybe the word they were looking for is poison.

“Political language ... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind."

Nancy Pelosi's stem cell spin wins her the latest George Orwell Prize

Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the US House of Representatives has implied that embryonic stem cell research has saved lives. Paying tribute to Nancy Reagan (pictured with Pelosi), widow of Ronald Reagan, the pro-life former president, Mrs Pelosi said:

"Your support for stem cell research has made a significant difference in the lives of many American people. It has saved lives, it has found cures, it has given hope to people."

Mrs Reagan is a prominent promoter of embryonic stem cell research.

Yet, as has been pointed out repeatedly, embryonic stem cell research has yet to produce any benefits in human patients.

One suspects that Mrs Pelosi was trying to mislead people about embryonic stem cell research, just as she tried to mislead people about Catholic teaching on abortion. So for her spin I've awarded Mrs Pelosi the latest George Orwell Prize.

“Political language ... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." George Orwell

Evan Harris given a special lifetime Orwell award

In Parliament this morning Dr Evan Harris MP (pictured) led an adjournment debate (a brief ad hoc debate, not followed by voting) on the subject of so-called assisted dying. Dr Harris is one of Parliament's leading devotees of killing the innocent. Dr Harris described the situation in Britain thus:

"Assisting someone to die is punishable with 14 years of imprisonment ... and that seems to me to be inappropriate with the sort of cases that we're dealing with at the moment. We all know the examples of where people are seeking assistance to die, and that is different to assisted suicide ... What we are not talking about here clearly is assisted suicide. Assisted dying is for people who want to live, not for people who want to die in the case of assisted suicide, so I have no difficulty with the current law which criminalises assisted suicide, where people are suicidal and they are helped through websites or indirectly ...

Dr Harris went on to say that "Dignitas as we know helps people with incurable illnesses to die ... and over 100 [British citizens] have travelled to Switzerland have an assisted death since October 2002."

I invite Dr Harris to visit the website of Dignitas, where he can read a recent speech by Dignitas founder Dr Ludwig Minelli, in which he said:

"By accepting the idea of suicide in principal (sic) and by being prepared to offer professional help with suicide, DIGNITAS is recognised as a credible and trustworthy source of help for people in suicidal situations ... We must be prepared to offer professionally-supervised assisted suicide to those people whose problems cannot be solved ... As long as residents of those countries have to travel to Switzerland for assisted suicide because the law of their own country does not allow them to ask for it at home, neither their freedom of choice nor their right to suicide can be said to correspond with the guarantees of the European Convention on Human Rights." (my emphasis)

The pro-suicide movement championed by Dr Harris rivals the pro-abortion movement in its use of “political language ... designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” (George Orwell) And so, both for his claims in his speech this morning and for his record of other outstandingly deceptive claims, I am today giving Dr Harris a special lifetime Orwell Award.

Julie Burchill wins the third George Orwell prize

Post-abortion trauma (PAT), sometimes called post-abortion syndrome, is a condition members of the pro-life movement come across a great deal. I suspect this is chiefly because we are among the few sections of society prepared to offer genuine support to women suffering after abortion. Professor Philip Ney, the psychiatrist, states: “From clinical and research observations, I have concluded that abortion is the most deeply damaging trauma that can happen to any human.”

A study conducted in New Zealand, published in the Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry in 2006 concluded: “Those having an abortion had elevated rates of subsequent mental health problems including depression, anxiety, suicidal behaviours and substance use disorders. This association persisted after adjustment for confounding factors.”

The Elliot Institute's website contains thousands of pages of research, case studies and other resources on post-abortion problems including PAT. Organisations such as BVA, Good Counsel Network, Life and Silent No More work around the clock offering help and support to women and men struggling after an abortion experience.

In spite of the overwhelming evidence that abortion hurts women, the abortion lobby continue to dismiss or ignore it, whilst at the same time letting slip from time to time that abortion does indeed carry the risk of psychological and emotional harm.

The Brook Advisory Service's website fails to mention anything at all about the emotional and psychological after-effects of abortion. It might of course be covered in the pamphlets on sale at their online shop, but the abortion page on the site simply ignores the subject. Likewise, the section on abortion on the BUPA website makes no mention of how a woman may feel after an abortion, aside of physical symptoms.

The RCOG comes within a whisker of treating PAT honestly, then uses the usual "it is probably not the fault of the abortion, you are probably just like that" argument to dismiss the problem:

“Some studies suggest that women who have had an abortion may be more likely to have psychiatric illness or to self-harm than other women who give birth or are of a similar age. However, there is no evidence that these problems are actually caused by the abortion; they are often a continuation of problems a woman has experienced before.”

Later, the RCOG states that a woman should be offered “further counselling if you experience continuing distress (this happens to a few women and is usually related to personal circumstances)".

FPA's leaflet for young people claims that "most women who choose an abortion do not regret it" and that "only a few women have any long-term psychological problems and those women who do often had similar problems before pregnancy." FPA state that women should seek help if they are "feeling upset about having had an abortion", but none of the cartoon-faces illustrating the point express regret:

• “I just felt very relieved after the abortion. I still do!”
• “Sometimes I wonder what having a baby would have been like. But, no, I don't regret it.”
• “I was surprised how sad I felt, but I must admit we were both really relieved.”

The token sad girl states: “It was a difficult time for me – not just the abortion. Counselling really helped me.” So even in her case, abortion is not the primary cause of her unhappiness.

An interesting angle on the subject at Women on Web, modern-day backstreet abortionists who send abortion drugs to women in pro-life countries. As expected, Women on Web do their best to dismiss the likelihood of mental distress following an abortion since “feelings of regret after abortion are rare. Indeed, the most common emotional response after abortion is relief.” If women do feel bad, readers are told, it is likely to be the fault of “taboo and social stigma” or guilt “because they don't feel guilty about having an abortion, but think they should feel guilty.”

The confusion expressed on the website, however, only serves to highlight the conflict that exists within the abortion movement itself. For example, readers are informed that “most psychiatric experts doubt the existence of 'post-abortion syndrome' and point out that abortion is not significantly different from any other stressful life experience that might cause trauma in some people.” So, is there a risk of a trauma response after abortion or isn't there? Straight after assuring readers that “most women who have abortions experience little or no psychological harm”, the FAQ reads: “What can I do to help myself heal after an abortion?” Is this the healing that women only rarely need? Healing from an overwhelming sense of relief perhaps?

Then there are the few pro-abortion types who actually use the unhappiness women experience after abortion to promote their cause. I was browsing "Abortion changes you". I should point out immediately that it appears to be a very good site, offering women the opportunity to explore their feelings after an abortion and seek help and healing. The stories posted on the site are by no means a reflection of the site's own policy on abortion and they make heartbreaking reading, charting the journeys of women abandoned by families, boyfriends or husbands as soon as they became pregnant, very young women frightened by the prospect of raising a child alone.

“I chose to pretend like nothing happened,” wrote one. “I had a mask in place to make it look, to the outside world any way that I had it all together. No one even knew I went into deep depression every year around Easter and then again in December, when my little girl would have been born.” “Whoever is thinking about having an abortion, please THINK OVER AGAIN. It's your baby. Or else you'll regret later like me and some others.” “Every day I live with regret, shame, and sadness. I hate myself for what I've done.”

Tucked in the midst of all these stories is a "prayer" someone has posted which is supposed to help women who have had abortions. It is taken from a book entitled “Talking to God."

“A Prayer After the Termination of a Pregnancy:

“I made a decision, God, to terminate my pregnancy. This choice was not made lightly. I prayed, I meditated, I searched by soul for an answer. I knew in my heart that I should not complete this pregnancy.

“You know my heart, God. You know my pain. You know my anguish. In your infinite wisdom, I pray that You will glean the spark of potential life and plant it where it may grow and flourish.

“Help me, God. Shield me from the reproach of those who do not know my heart. Teach me how to overcome feelings of shame and guilt.

“Let me begin again, God. Lead me to new hope, to new joy. Hear me, heal me, never leave me.

“Amen."

It is almost blasphemous in its self-justification, basically saying: "God, I just wanted to tell you what a good, upright person I am! And it wasn't really a human life, it was a 'potential life', so that's all right then, but do please protect me against these nasty pro-life types who keep pointing out that there is a something wrong about abortion." It is a stark reminder that religion can be used to manipulate women into accepting an experience their own feelings and instincts tell them should never have happened.

But once again, the George Orwell Prize goes to an individual. Step forward Julie Burchill, for her breathtakingly ignorant and bitchy attack on women suffering after abortion, published in The Guardian no less.

“No doubt if you're the sort of lumbering, self-obsessed poltroon who believes that seeing Mommy kissing Santa Claus 30 years ago irrevocably marked your life, you wouldn't get over an abortion, as you wouldn't get over stubbing your toe without professional help. But you choose to be that way, because you are weak and vain, and you think your pain is important. Whereas the rest of us know not only that our pain is not important, but that it probably isn't even pain - just too much time on our hands.”

“Political language ... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." George Orwell

Some further thoughts on Lynne Featherstone and George Orwell

Following my blogpost on Lynne Featherstone's absurd literary gaffe about same-sex marriage, I've received two particuarly observant responses. Ann Farmer, the pro-life author, said:

"Government proposals for same-sex 'marriage', by marginalising those who disagree, do indeed suggest that all will be equal, but that those who agree with the move will be more equal than others. And speaking of Orwell, Ms Featherstone's remark is also redolent of 1984 - a fine example of state-imposed 'doublethink'."

And Fr Brendan Gerard, who served on SPUC's staff as a researcher and writer in the 1990s, said:

"The mere fact there is an "equalities minister" already tells us everything we need to know!"

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

There are plenty of chances and dangers in the new parliament

Last night's historic general election results present both opportunities and dangers for the pro-life movement. There were a number of good results:

Harrow East: Tony McNulty, the anti-life Labour minister, was defeated by Bob Blackman (Conservative), who assured SPUC of his intentions to vote pro-life if elected. A team of local SPUC members distributed many thousands of leaflets in the constituency.

Stockton South: Dari Taylor, the anti-life Labour MP, was defeated by James Wharton (Conservative), who also told SPUC of his intention to vote pro-life if elected. The local SPUC branch also distributed leaflets in Stockton South.

Cardiff North: Jonathan Evans (Conservative), a pro-life MEP and former MP, was elected. SPUC has worked closely with Mr Evans in various issues, and SPUC members were active in the constituency during the election campaign.

Many anti-life MPs lost their seats. Notable among them were:

• Gillian Merron (Labour), public health minister
• Sandra Gidley (Liberal Democrat), very anti-SPUC and pro-morning-after pill.
• Jacquie Smith (Labour, home secretary), originally elected via the pro-abortion EMILY's List.
• Oxford West and Abingdon: Dr Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat), perhaps the most anti-life MP, was defeated by Nicola Blackwood (Conservative). In 2008, I gave Dr Harris (popularly known as "Dr Death"), a special lifetime Orwell Award for his outstanding use of “political language ... designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” (George Orwell)

Those are some of the individual highlights for the pro-life movement from last night's results. It's difficult to give an overall assessment. Some pro-life MPs lost their seats (e.g. David Drew, Labour, Stroud) and some pro-life hopefuls (Phillippa Stroud, Conservative, Sutton and Cheam) were not elected.

The most immediate concern for SPUC in this new Parliament is to protect children from the pro-abortion ideology which lies behind plans to make sex and relationships education compulsory in England from the age of five. SPUC is therefore to launch a campaign against sex education proposals as the new Parliament meets.

In the last Parliament, plans to make sex and relationships education compulsory from 5 to 16 years had to be abandoned by the (Labour) government when it was forced to negotiate with opposition parties in the “wash up” period immediately prior to the general election. Parents and children were betrayed by MPs and by church leaders in England and Wales who backed the government’s plans.

The three major party leaders and their parties have all signalled their support for an anti-life/anti-family approach to sex and relationships education (though the Conservative party's behaviour regarding the Labour government's bill has been inconsistent). Whichever party or parties form the new government, the danger is basically the same.

The government’s compulsory sex and relationships education (SRE) policies sought to impose their ideology regarding so-called sexual and reproductive health. This ideology included the confidential provision of abortion and birth control drugs and devices to children under the age of 16 without parental knowledge or consent, as Ed Balls, who was Secretary of State for schools, repeatedly made clear.

This ideology is embedded in the draft guidance on sex and relationships education published earlier this year by the Department of Children, Schools and Families, which is unaffected by the general election (and a change of government).

Parents must fight back against the policies promoting abortion and attacking young children’s natural reserve and innocence in sexual matters. Parents have a right and a duty to protect their children. They have been betrayed by MPs, and by Catholic and Anglican church leaders who have not told the truth, and who backed the government’s plans to make abortion and birth control drugs and devices accessible, on a completely confidential basis, to schoolchildren throughout England.

Parents have a right and duty to know if their young teenage children are receiving so-called sexual health procedures such as abortion, long-term birth control implants, the morning-after pill, or STD/HIV tests and treatment.

SPUC is therefore launching a parents’ right to know campaign and will be organizing regional seminars for headteachers and for parents on the threat posed by the draft guidance on sex and relationships education published earlier this year by the Department of Children, Schools and Families.

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

Equalities minister makes absurd literary gaffe about same-sex marriage

Lynne Featherstone, the British government's Equalities minister who is leading the government's campaign for same-sex marriage, told Parliament recently that:

"Religious people may continue to believe that marriage can be only between a man and a woman. That is not the state’s view. We do not take the Orwellian view that “All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others”."

Mrs Featherstone has made an absurd gaffe regarding George Orwell's Animal Farm and its relevance to the definition of marriage. The whole point of Animal Farm is a condemnation of arbitrary redefinitions by the state of fundamental norms in order to serve vested interests. This is exactly what Ms Featherstone is guilty of in her proposed rewriting of the centuries-old understanding of marriage in order to serve the vested interests of the homosexual rights lobby.

Just as in Stalin's Russia (the regime Orwell was condeming) people were punished who didn't obey the state's latest ideological diktats, so too is Mrs Featherstone's Britain moving towards punishing people who won't accept the homosexual rights 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

SPUC's George Orwell prize goes to Dr Kate Guthrie

Earlier this month the Guardian newspaper, no doubt downhearted by the disappointing turn-out to a pro-abortion protest they organized in central London recently, published a story with the alarmist headline Anti-abortion climate 'will deter new generation of doctors'

In the story, the Guardian quoted a Dr Kate Guthrie as saying:

" ... from the feedback that I have had, I really do think that the question has to be asked: what impact is this increasingly negative politicisation going to have on future providers of abortion care? Is it going to put doctors and nurses off becoming involved in this work?"

Roger French, chairman of SPUC Milton Keynes branch, wrote to me with the following observation:

I've noticed that the pro-abortion lobby use language in the same way that the Soviets and their proxies did in drafting UN resolutions back in the good old days, full of euphemisms like "peace" and "democracy".

Here we have Dr Kate Guthrie, clinical director with Hull and East Riding Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare Partnership, asking the question "What impact is this increasingly negative politicisation going to have on future providers of abortion care? Is it going to put doctors and nurses off becoming involved in this work?"

According to my dictionary "care" means "feel concern; provide food, attendance, etc (for children, invalids); feel regard, deference, affection for". I wonder which of these elements Dr Guthrie has in mind for the unborn child ?

Thank you Roger. Your comment has reminded me to revive SPUC's George Orwell prize - which goes today to Dr Kate Guthrie.

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

Attacking the sacred in the name of abortion and sexual “freedom”

Today I am going to take a look at deliberate acts of sacrilege committed in the name of abortion. This will make for disturbing reading but it is important to expose the depths to which the abortion lobby is prepared to sink in order to forward the culture of death. It says a great deal for the nature of their business that the pro-abortion lobby feels the need to attack everyone, including God, in the course of their work.

A runner-up this week is the self-publicist Danish artist who built sculptures of pregnant teenagers nailed to crosses in a parody of the crucifixion entitled "In the Name of God". It is being used as part of a crusade (the press release’s word not mine) against “the extreme Bible fundamentalists – with Bush and the Pope at the head” – in other words against an understanding of human sexuality to which the artist is opposed. The artist claims that the stunt “is not a global accusation against Christianity” and says he likes “progressive Christians” whom he says he speaks for. The artist claims furthermore that the stunt is an analogy not a caricature, with the teenager being a symbol of innocence subjected to "the ultimate punishment" like Jesus the lamb, but this is simply nonsense. The artist’s theological musings don’t disguise the reality that he has degraded a symbol sacred to Christianity and is causing maximum hurt and offence to Christians in order to make a statement. He apparently intends to parade his creations in various Catholic countries as well as Vatican city. The artist says his sculptures should not be seen as “a comment on the issue of abortion”; but, the fact is that the sculpture has been used in Nicaragua as part of the campaign to legalise abortion in that country. Mockery of Christ’s sacrifice for the whole of humanity and attacks on the sanctity of human life are, for Christians like myself, inseperably linked.

Moving across the globe to Argentina comes another contender for the Orwell Prize - the members of a pro-abortion rally who attacked a group of young people stationed outside a cathedral to protect it from desecration. According to European Life Network, which ran the story:

“The video clearly shows the pro-abortion protesters screaming insults and spitting in their faces, whilst the young people calmly pray and refuse to retaliate. This is the sort of despicable action the abortion lobby seems to revel in - an unprovoked attack on innocent people at prayer- and then place blame on the pro-lifers.”

Also featured in the video are men mocking the actions of priests and, according to Spanish speakers, members of the crowd screaming comments about Mary being a whore.

But in first place this week is a man who had himself filmed taking a consecrated host "hostage" during a Catholic Mass. It was then filmed next to a condom (the whole stunt was apparently supposed to be a protest against the Church’s teaching on sexuality). After that, it was sent to a Dr P. Z. Myers at the University of Minnesota, who filmed himself mistreating the host, piercing it with a rusty nail and throwing it into the dustbin.

“Political language ... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." George Orwell

The euphemisms of euthanasia

I am grateful to Anthony Ozimic, SPUC's communications manager, for his reflections on the news that the Voluntary Euthanasia Society (VES), rebranding itself Dignity in Dying, now claims that does not campaign for euthanasia or suicide. Anthony writes:

Sarah Wootton (pictured), the VES' chief executive, writing in yesterday's Guardian, claims that:

"[W]e campaign for the choice of assisted dying for the terminally ill within strict safeguards. Not euthanasia. Not suicide ... but the choice of assistance to die for those who are suffering, competent to make the decision and are already dying."

In recent years, the VES' strategy has been to narrow its campaigning targets and soft-soap its public face, in order to allay opposition and thereby get some movement towards the legalisation of assisted suicide and euthanasia. That is the real reason why the VES now calls itself Dignity in Dying, not because it no longer supports euthanasia. The VES' name-change mirrors the name-change of the Hemlock Society in America to "Compassion and Choices".

The duplicity of the VES campaign is further seen in their support of Debbie Purdy's legal challenge. Mrs Purdy's stated aim is to find out how likely it is that her husband will be prosecuted if he assists her to travel to Dignitas in Switzerland. The VES claims that she "would like the option of an assisted death should her suffering become unbearable". Mrs Purdy herself is more explicit:

"Since the 1961 Suicide Act was introduced we have legalised homosexuality and abortion without making them compulsory. We need to look at the law on assisted suicide again and think about how that could be legalised too with proper safeguards in place." [AO: my emphasis]

And Mrs Purdy, who has multiple sclerosis, is not dying, as multiple sclerosis is not a terminal illness. So why is the VES - which has declared that "assisting non-terminally ill adults to die is wrong" - supporting her case? The immediate reason is that the VES is using the case as a lever for the legalisation in the UK of assisted suicide and euthanasia, for both terminally-ill and non-terminally ill persons. The truth of this immediate reason is confirmed by the VES' boast that that it was "involved in drafting the Mental Capacity Act 2005", which enshrined in English law euthanasia by neglect of non-dying, non-competent and non-consenting adults.

The deeper reason for the VES's support for Mrs Purdy's case (and for euthanasia generally) is only hinted at by Mrs Purdy's analogy with legal abortion, but made more explicit in the words and person of Sarah Wootton herself. In her Guardian piece Ms Wootton has described the opposition to so-called assisted dying as "the anti-choice lobby". Dig a bit deeper elsewhere and one discovers that, before coming to the VES, Ms Wootton worked for the pro-abortion Family Planning Association (FPA) and was a founding trustee of Abortion Rights.

So now we know exactly where we are - in the dark world of anti-life euphemism, the hall of smoke and mirrors where unborn babies are re-labelled "products of conception" and killing them is called "terminating an unwanted pregnancy".

So I have no hesitation in awarding Ms Wootton our George Orwell prize.

“Political language ... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind." George Orwell

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk

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

Must-read pro-life news-stories, Tue 8 May

Top story:

SPUC expresses sadness at the death of Phyllis Bowman
SPUC has expressed its sadness at the death of Phyllis Bowman, the Society’s first national director. In a joint statement, SPUC’s leading national officers said: “We regret to learn of the death on Monday 7 May 2012 of Mrs Phyllis Bowman, SPUC's former National Director. Phyllis Bowman inspired and led the growth of SPUC, the world’s first pro-life organisation of its kind, from its foundation in 1967 until she stepped down as national director in 1996. She was present, and as a successful journalist was appointed press secretary, at the founding meeting of SPUC at the Wig and Pen Club, on 11 January 1967. She became SPUC’s first national director in the early 1970s. We will always remember and be grateful for her energetic and inspiring pro-life leadership over three decades in Britain and Northern Ireland, as well as for her leading role in the development of the pro-life movement internationally. We extend our deep sympathy to Jerry, her husband, who always supported Phyllis in her pro-life work, and to her family.”

Other stories:

Clare Short

Abortion

• Pro-abortion Clare Short (pictured) to speak at English Catholic college [Digby Stuart College, 8 May]
• New animated video shows personhood’s link to Native Americans, slaves, disabled, and preborn [Jill Stanek, 8 May]
• Australian woman died from anaphylactic shock after abortion [LifeNews.com, 7 May]
• Upbeat report from SPUC's pro-life chain at Bath [John Smeaton, 4 May]
• Catholic Georgetown university invites pro-abortion US health secretary [Cardinal Newman Society, 4 May]

Embryology

• 'Birth defect link' to IVF injections [Irish Independent, 8 May]

Sexual ethics

• Welsh government writes to schools following marriage petition controversy [Welsh Government, 8 May]
• US bishops talk about defence of marriage during Rome visit [CNS, 8 May]
• US nuns supported pro-contraception speech, claims Melinda Gates [Daily Beast, 7 May]
• Some further thoughts on Lynne Featherstone and George Orwell [John Smeaton, 5 May]

General

• Kenya’s bishops urge pro-life vote [Catholic Culture, 8 May]

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

UK Government depicts unborn as fully human and alive in anti-smoking campaign

I welcome and congratulate the government on their new campaign aimed at expectant mothers who find it tough to stop smoking. This has got to make sense, as research shows. The Foundation for the Study of Infant Deaths point out in their research factfile on reducing the risk of cot death:

"Evidence from a very large number of studies worldwide consistently demonstrates that maternal smoking during pregnancy increases the risk of SIDS."

According to PA News:

"The ad campaign, from NHS Smokefree, will highlight how every smoked cigarette restricts essential oxygen to the baby. A baby's heart has to beat harder every time a pregnant woman smokes, it will show."

The NHS Smokefree website and its pregnancy calendar makes fascinating reading. Whilst it's account of the development of the baby in the womb is not entirely accurate (eg the baby's heart starts to beat between 21 - 25 days from fertilisation and not between week 6 - 7 as the NHS calendar indicates), nevertheless the text is full of references which are clearly intended to bond mothers to babies who are depicted as fully human and fully alive. For example, under week 3 - 4, it states:

"Well done! Quitting smoking is the best decision you can make for you and your growing baby."

And under Week 8 - 12, it states:

"The baby is now called a foetus meaning 'young one'". SPUC could have written that!

Now does anyone mind if I say something blindingly obvious? Exactly the same Government which focuses on the humanity of unborn babies, starting with fertilisation, in order to target mothers who find it tough to stop smoking, is also targeting mothers in order to offer to have their babies killed. Here's the language that's used about unborn babies by organizations funded by the government to do its dirty work:

In describing abortions, Marie Stopes claims that “gentle suction is used to remove the pregnancy from the uterus” when describing surgical abortion, FPA talks about “taking pills to expel the pregnancy” and BPAS, when describing a late term dilation and evacuation, states: “Forceps are used to remove the pregnancy.” You can find more examples here of what I'm saying.

This is government-funded propaganda at its worst. As George Orwell put it: “Political language ... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”

I do hope - for the sake of children and their parents - that the government campaign to stop expectant mothers from smoking is successful. I also hope that the public will recognize more and more the government's inconsistency and treachery in promoting the killing of unborn children - even seeking to target every secondary school in the country, including church schools, providing access to abortion clinics for children as young as eleven without parental knowledge or consent - through the use of misleading language by their pro-abortion partners as they seek to cover up their crimes against humanity.

Let's rally around Sarah Palin's family

Sarah Palin, the Republican party's proposed nominee for US vice-president, has announced that Bristol, her unmarried 17-year-old daughter, is pregnant. Sarah Palin is regarded as having a strong and total committment to the sanctity of human life and the dignity of the family. Some anti-life commentators have been quick to rush to condemnation. Sarah Sand, an American columnist, has written:

"I have utter contempt for [Bristol's] mother [Sarah] ... Bristol is one year away from legally being an adult, and unfortunately for her she’s fair game ... Bristol has absolutely no choice about having a baby ... But this isn’t about Bristol. It’s about her mother, her mother’s parenting skills, judgment ... Palin is one-hundred percent responsible for putting her nearly adult daughter in the limelight and is to be condemned for it, not us who will talk about it..."

For the anti-life/anti-family lobby, sexual activity is primarily about personal pleasure, and the natural consequence of sex - a child - is such an intolerable imposition that it justifies even homicide. As Ann Furedi (a recent recipient of my George Orwell Prize) of BPAS has written:

"Sex is an accepted part of an adult relationship for which we do not expect to suffer unwanted consequences. Pregnancy is seen by an increasing number of women as an unwanted consequence that they are not prepared to adapt to ... [I]t may be time to understand that, for women, abortion is an essential method of family planning and accept it as such."

I blogged recently about how The Times has been openly promoting abortion as a good solution for teenage pregnancy.

One suspects that the controversy about Bristol Palin's pregnancy is being whipped up by the anti-life lobby via their friends in the media. They believe that having an abortion is the right thing for a teenage mother to do and they don’t want Sarah Palin and her family setting a very different example to the world – including their joyful acceptance of Trig, their Down’s Syndrome son.

I hope that reasonable-minded citizens will continue to rally around the Palin family.

Euthanasia lobby rumbled in Lords debate

In a House of Lords debate yesterday, an attempt by the pro-euthanasia lobby to mislead people was rumbled by parliamentarians opposed to assisted suicide. "Dignity in Dying" (the euphemism which the Voluntary Euthanasia Society now uses for itself) has produced a charter, ostensibly on end-of-life care but thinly veiling its immediate objective of legalising intentional killing of the innocent. Anthony Ozimic, SPUC political secretary (pictured below), provides below a run-down of the debate:

"The debate was led by Lord Warner (pictured above), a former Labour health minister. Lord Warner started by declaring that he is a member of the British Humanist Association (BHA). That name sounds benign, even positive, but the BHA is a radical anti-life, anti-family campaigning organisation, headed by Polly Toynbee, Britain's leading pro-abortion commentator.

"Lord Warner said that assisted suicide 'should be available to us in a civilised society'. Suicide, however, is not civilised but often a hallmark of societies where human life and intrinsic human dignity have little or no value, such as ancient Rome and Nazi Germany.

"Lord Warner, and Lord Dubs later in the debate, said that it was a matter of not denying people choice. Yet some choices are wrong. Some choices are false choices, because one has no right to choose to do certain things, such as killing the innocent, including oneself. Lord Warner's rhetoric is the same empty rhetoric of choice used by the pro-abortion lobby.

"The Earl of Arran claimed that allowing assisted suicide would provide 'greater protection for the vulnerable'. Allowing assisted suicide, however, will undermine protection for everyone, both the vulnerable and those of us not currently vulnerable, by lessening the value of human life.

"Lord Lester used a well-worn tactic deployed by anti-lifers, by claiming that the law on end-of-life treatment needs clarifying.

"Lord Hameed, a Muslim, pointed out that Islam and many other world religions both prohibit suicide and require doctors to care for patients regardless of terminal illness.

"The Anglican bishop of Exeter said: 'For many—and I declare an interest as a parent of a Down’s syndrome child—the promise of more choice has so often turned out to mean pressure to choose that which suits others'. He added that a law to allow assisted suicide 'by definition, would involve the state in affirming the view of an individual life as intolerable and not worth living'.

"Baroness Jay let the euthanasia lobby’s mask slip by referring to 'medically assisted suicide', rather the 'assisted dying' euphemism.

"Baroness Murphy claimed that '[a] change in the law to allow assisted dying … would immeasurably improve the trust that patients have in their doctors'. Yet when assisted suicide was legalised briefly in the Northern Territory, Australia, aborginals feared going to doctors or hospitals for fear of being killed.

"Baroness Knight, a veteran of the pro-life movement, led the charge in rumbling the euthanasia lobby:

“'Let there be no doubt whatever about the aims of those who are trumpeting this cause today … [The Voluntary Euthanasia Society] is trying to fool us … What we are actually talking about is encouraging people to kill themselves and, worse, opening the way for relatives to get elderly and sick people out of the way … [I]t is very easy to give an old lady or old gentleman the impression that their continued existence leads to great problems and great expense for their sons and daughters … Terminally ill but mentally competent people will, if the true aims of the Voluntary Euthanasia Society are realised, submit themselves to a lethal injection or a fatal dose, when it is made clear to them in a subtle or direct way that it is time that they shuffled off this mortal coil for the general good.'

"Baroness Finlay, a palliative care professor, assisted Baroness Knight:

“'The pro-euthanasia lobby’s approach in this document is reminiscent of Orwell’s 1984 and the Ministry of Truth … Why is the euphemism “assisted death” used? Midwives assist at birth and palliative care assists at death; assistance is supportive help, not accelerating death or cutting life short by months or years. Why not be honest? What are the authors of this document frightened of? What they are really proposing is aiding and abetting suicide or giving doctors a therapeutic option of killing their patients. Palliative and other end-of-life care is being used like bubble-wrap around a sharp and dangerous object in an attempt to assisted suicide by the back door.'

"Lady Finlay argued that '[p]atients die of their disease and deserve good care and support, not shortcuts in care to end life'.She also pointed out that '[i]n Oregon, one in six of those whose suicides were assisted had their depression missed by those assessing the request'.

"Lord Carlile QC asked: 'Do we not have to look at end of life with a quite different set of ethical values? If you assist a thief, the stolen goods can be returned. If you assist a suicide, only the body can be returned; there is no going back'.

"Baroness Emerton joined the assault on the euthanasia lobby, arguing that assisted suicide 'is not a health issue at all. It is one of justice and human rights—the right to life. None of us can escape death but we must have the right to have healthcare provided free from the risk of coercion to suicide.' She also pointed out the euthanasia lobby's 'sleight of hand' in trying to conceal its assisted suicide agenda within a charter on palliative care.

"Baroness Masham, president of the Spinal Injuries Association, reminded the House that '[t]here are only a few people who want to be assisted to be killed, but there are thousands of vulnerable disabled people who fear that if the law is eased, their lives will be put at risk'.

"Baroness Greengross potentially misled the House by claiming that:

“'Those who want to see, in exceptional circumstances, people openly being able to be helped to die are not seeking premature death for anyone; it should happen only at the very last stage of life when people are in intolerable pain.'

"But the whole point of assisted suicide is to bring about death prematurely. Lord Joffe's bill, which is due to be re-introduced, doesn’t just allow assisted suicide 'at the very last stage of life' but where a doctor predicts the patient has up to six months left to live. As we know, terminally-ill patients often live much longer than expected. Lady Greengross, Lord Taverne speaking before her and Lord Lester speaking earlier all misrepresented both the use of pain-relief and the principle of double-effect. Lord McColl, the Conservative health spokesman, rebutted those misrepresentations deftly later in the debate: 'The definition of a good drug such as a pain-relieving drug is that the dose required to relieve is a fraction of the dose required to kill'.

"Baroness Greengross also referred to people 'losing their dignity at the end of life'. But every human being, regardless of age or medical condition, has an inalienable and inherent dignity simply because they’re human. The effects of age or illness cannot touch that dignity, and are addressed by medical treatment and personal care.

"Baroness Howe of Idlicote argued that Baroness Warnock’s recent comments proposing a duty to die were proof of the slippery slope.

"Baroness (Jenny) Tonge described a lady in the advanced stage of motor neurone disease as 'helpless'.But no patient is helpless, even where medical treatment is no longer possible. If (as one hopes and assumes) the lady is receiving basic nursing and palliative care, pastoral attention, and the love of family and friends, then she is being helped, in ways often more important than medical treatment.

"Lord McColl presented the testimony of Alison Davis, convenor of No Less Human, a group within SPUC, whose outstanding life would have been cut short if assisted suicide had been available during her suicidal depression many years ago.

"Baroness Thornton, wrapping up the debate on behalf of the government, said:

“'[T]he Government have no plans to change the law in this area and we have it made very clear that we take a neutral stance when others seek to change the law. This means not standing in the way of such a change, but not actively pursuing it. Equally, we have no plans at present to carry out any associated research in this area.'

Thanks Anthony! As I blogged on Monday, the government's position on assisted suicide must be watched, not least considering its appointment of Joan Bakewell to represent the elderly.

In conclusion, we must be vigilant against both the euthanasia lobby and the government's dangerous self-styled neutrality, whilst remaining grateful that ethically-minded parliamentarians were able to defend the truth.