The Philippines and backstreet abortion claims published today by AFP in Manila

In a news story today, AFP (Agence France-Presse) promotes the extraordinary claim that there are between 473,000 illegal abortions and 800,000 illegal abortions annually in the Philippines, a country which has a constitutional ban on abortion (and a strong bishops’ conference constantly speaking out against abortion). That would mean that the Philippines has something approaching three times the abortion rate of the UK where virtual abortion on demand has been lawful for over 40 years. (The AFP report appears to be a blatant media effort to promote a "reproductive health" bill which, I reported recently, has totalitarian and coercive elements)

Anyone who’s travelled to the Philippines, as I have on several occasions, and has witnessed first hand the love of the family and the natural abhorrence of abortion in that country, would immediately recognize here the Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels [pictured] principle at work: “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it”.

Similar outrageous claims about backstreet abortion have recently been made about Northern Ireland, as I’ve blogged recently.

The World Health Organization (WHO), the reported AFP source for the figure of 800,000 illegal abortions, routinely makes unsubstantiated claims about illegal abortions, as Dr Susan Yoshihara has pointed out.

It should be noted that the WHO is one of the world’s major pro-abortion bodies. For example, it encourages the provision of abortion facilities in refugee camps. A document produced by the WHO states that camps should:

“where elective abortion is legal, establish links with an appropriate health care facility (Type II health centre for first trimester, district hospital for first and second trimesters). If no such facility is available, consider training staff on-site in the provision of manual vacuum aspiration (MVA) for first-trimester abortion (however, see footnote*) …

“* … Given the particularly sensitive nature of this aspect of reproductive health, it is vital to be aware not only of the legal position within the host country, but also whether there is likely to be violent opposition from within the refugee or displaced community. Opposition to services is looked at in Section A, Chapter 3, and Section C, Chapter 9.”

The source for AFP’s reference to 473,000 induced abortions in the Philippines is the Guttmacher Institute, a body supported by the World Health Organization, the UNFPA, Planned Parenthood of America – and many other major pro-abortion institutions. [The AFP report gives the source as UNFPA]

A more accurate appraisal of the number of abortions in the Philippines can be found in a paper, by Dr. Roberto De Vera of the University of Asia and the Pacific, entitled "An Analysis of the Estimated Figure of induced abortions in the Philippines in 2000 as published in a 2006 Guttmacher Institute* report by Susheela Singh et al".

He says:

“In the 2006 Guttmacher Institute report "Unintended Pregnancies and Induced Abortions in the Philippines: Causes and Consequences", Susheela Singh et al estimated that there were 473,000 induced abortions completed in the Philippines in 2000 using a method consisting of three steps. First, based on reports gathered from 2,039 hospitals which contained the top ten leading causes of admission in the 1999-2001 period, they arrived at an estimate of the number of women in 2000 who were hospitalized due to complications from both induced and spontaneous abortions. Second, they calculated the number of women hospitalized for induced abortions by subtracting the estimated number of women hospitalized for spontaneous abortions (or miscarriages) from the estimated number of women hospitalized for induced and spontaneous abortions. Finally, they arrived at the estimated number of women who had induced abortions by multiplying the estimated number of women hospitalized for complications due to induced abortions by 6 to account for the women who had induced abortions who didn't go to the hospital.

“We find that their method overestimates the figure of induced abortions in the Philippines in 2000 because of three flaws. These flaws had the effect of 1) overestimating the figure for women hospitalized for spontaneous and induced abortions due to an assumption that is weakly supported by statistical data; 2) underestimating the number of women hospitalized for complications due to spontaneous abortions (or miscarriages) because it mistakenly covers only those women with spontaneous abortions occurring in 12th to 22nd week of pregnancy who were hospitalized for complications; and 3) using a multiplier which most likely is higher than the ratio of the number of women who have induced abortions to the number of women who are hospitalized for complications due to induced abortions.

“Using modified version of the Singh et al methodology (corrected to account for the above flaws), we arrived at an alternative estimate of 25,924 induced abortions in the Philippines in 2000 (1.3 abortions per 1,000 women in the reproductive age). Using a second method, we multiplied 0.0117, the share of induced abortions to live births by the number of live births in 2000, to arrive at second estimate of 20,831 induced abortions in the Philippines in 2000 (1.1 abortions per 1,000 women of reproductive age). We consider these two estimates of induced abortion in the Philippines in 2000 to be more reasonable than the 473,000 estimate (24.5 induced abortions per 1,000 women of reproductive age) published in the 2006 Guttmacher Institute report.”

Former abortionist Bernard Nathanson, recently repeated the admission made in his book "Aborting America": "We claimed that between five and ten thousand women a year died of botched abortions," he said. "The actual figure was closer to 200 to 300 and we also claimed that there were a million illegal abortions a year in the United States and the actual figure was close to 200,000. So, we were guilty of massive deception."

The deceptions once practiced, but now renounced, by Bernard Nathanson are alive and well in the work of the Guttmacher Institute and the World Health Organization and in today’s AFP report on the Philippines.

Philippines people resisting daily assaults from the anti-life lobby

Mr Francisco "Kit" Tatad (pictured right) former head of the Philippines senate, this morning told (full speech) this weekend's SPUC national conference that the Filipino people’s faith in the sanctity of life was being daily tested by assaults from the media and pressure groups. Abortion nevertheless remained banned in that country. State-run contraception and sterilisation were the first steps on the road to legalised abortion. Families were getting smaller.

Legislators were promoting a reproductive health bill which contained policies which were against Filipino culture and the Philippines constitution. The bill fell short of legalising abortion but contained much that was unethical. It would empower the state to prevent women from conceiving. Mr Tatad described the proposed measure as Orwellian; politicians should have blocked it from the start yet it was being debated. Scholars at a Jesuit university in the Philippines had said that Catholics could support it; Catholic academics overseas had rebuked them.

Mrs Fenny Tatad (pictured left with her husband Kit) executive director of the Bishops-Legislators Caucus of the Philippines, said that the media had not been neutral on the bill but its opponents had used blogs to spread their message. Parliamentary debate had been tumultuous and the Catholic bishops had also intervened to stop anti-life language from being inserted in a different bill on women. Anti-life activists had also tried to bring language on reproductive health into a bill on agriculture.

While the Philippines had a bloated reproductive health budget, there was insufficient money for basic healthcare and sanitation. Mrs Tatad said that some local councils had adopted reproductive health programmes and formed alliances with overseas organisations and governments.

Mr Tatad added that President Obama’s over-riding of the ban on the use of US money for abortion overseas was a threat to the Philippines. UN bodies were also applying pressure to the nation to legalise abortion. There was a risk of the election of a morally indifferent president in the Philippines.

The UN had to be made to focus once more on its original mandate of promoting peaceful cooperation between nations, instead of intervening in the intimate affairs of families. The UN should promote the sanctity of human life. It needed to have an international convention which would stop states and agencies from promoting birth control and abortion.

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

Easter Sunday gift to unborn children in The Philippines

 Francisco "Kit" Tatad
former head of the Philippines senate 
& International Right to Life Federation 
board member

I welcome today's news of a temporary halt to anti-life legislation in The Philippines. Any check on the pro-abortion lobby, as they seek to trample on nations like Ireland and The Philippines where the people have historically striven to protect unborn children, is a very good thing and is prophetic of more good things to come, with the help of God.

The news comes from Brad Mattes, president of International Right to Life Federation (IRLF) - an organization of which I have the honour to be joint vice-president alongside my colleague, Jim Hughes, the President of Campaign Life Coalition in Canada.

International Right to Life Federation reports:

Pro-life advocates enjoyed an important victory when the Supreme Court of the Philippines put a temporary hold to enacting the anti-life Reproductive Health Law. The legislation had been scheduled to take effect on Easter Sunday, 31 March. However, several constitutional challenges arose. This controversial Reproductive Health Law has been met with strong opposition due to its inclusion of abortifacients. In a 10-5 vote, a 120-day stay was given pending oral arguments slated for 18 June.

Brad Mattes commended the decision saying:

“This is a positive move in respect for life. It is my hope that this temporary hold becomes permanent, thereby protecting the lives of vulnerable women and children in the Philippines.”

Pray for the beautiful Filipino people. I have been privileged to have been invited to speak about abortion in the Philippines on four occasions and I have often written about the relentless pressures brought to bear by the international pro-abortion lobby to impose extreme population control measures on this family-loving country.

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

Humanity under attack in the Philippines

No wonder 15 Philippino bishops led their people in a prayer rally in Manila yesterday opposing a population bill currently being considered by the House of Representatives in the Philippines. Reading it through one can only conclude that the Bill has been framed by the enemies of humanity - or the friends and supporters of International Planned Parenthood Federation.

Read below Sections 21 and 22 of the bill, entitled "Prohibited Acts" and "Penalties":

"SEC. 21. Prohibited Acts. – The following acts are prohibited: a.) Any health care service provider, whether public or private who shall :
1. Knowingly withhold information or impede the dissemination thereof, and/or intentionally provide incorrect information regarding programs and services on reproductive health including the right to informed choice and access to a full range of legal, medically-safe and effective family planning methods;
2. Refuse to perform voluntary ligation and vasectomy and other legal and medically-safe reproductive health care services on any person of legal age on the ground of lack of spousal consent or authorization.
3. Refuse to provide reproductive health care services to an abused minor, whose abused condition is certified by the proper official or personnel of the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) or to duly DSWD-certified abused pregnant minor on whose case no parental consent is necessary
4. Fail to provide, either deliberately or through gross or inexcusable negligence, reproductive health care services as mandated under this Act, the Local Government Code of 1991, the Labor Code, and Presidential Decree 79, as amended; and
5. Refuse to extend reproductive health care services and information on account of the patient’s civil status, gender or sexual orientation, age, religion, personal circumstances, and nature of work: Provided, That all conscientious objections of health care service providers based on religious grounds shall be respected: Provided, further, That the conscientious objector shall immediately refer the person seeking such care and services to another health care service provider within the same facility or one which is conveniently accessible: Provided, finally, That the patient is not in an emergency or serious case as defined in RA 8344 penalizing the refusal of hospitals and medical clinics to administer appropriate initial medical treatment and support in emergency and serious cases. b) Any public official who prohibits or restricts personally or through a subordinate the delivery of legal and medically-safe reproductive health care services, including family planning c.) Any employer who shall fail to comply with his obligation under Section 17 of this Act or an employer who requires a female applicant or employee, as a condition for employment or continued employment, to involuntarily undergo sterilization , tubal ligation or any other form of contraceptive method; d) Any person who shall falsify a certificate of compliance as required in Section 14 of this Act; and e) [sic] f) Any person who maliciously engages in disinformation about the intent or provisions of this Act.

"SEC. 22. Penalties. – The proper city or municipal court shall exercise jurisdiction over violations of this Act and the accused who is found guilty shall be sentenced to an imprisonment ranging from one (1) month to six (6) months or a fine ranging from Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) to Fifty Thousand Pesos(P50,000.00) or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court. If the offender is a juridical person, the penalty shall be imposed upon the president, treasurer, secretary or any responsible officer. An offender who is an alien shall, after service of sentence, be deported immediately without further proceedings by the Bureau of Immigration. An offender who is a public officer or employee shall suffer the accessory penalty of dismissal from the government service. Violators of this Act shall be civilly liable to the offended party in such amount at the discretion of the proper court."

Pat Buckley of European Life Network, one of SPUC's lobbyists at the UN and the Human Rights Council in Geneva, says of the Philippines population bill: "The act not only sets the scene for the introduction of abortion it is also aimed at substantially reducing the population by various means including abortifacient birth control and sterilisation. While some of the language is about choice there is also coercion. Medical personnel will be forced either to comply or to refer people to someone who will. This is a direct attack on conscientious objection. There are also a range of penalties if various people do not comply, from dismissal to fines and imprisonment. There is also a provision that says Any person who maliciously engages in disinformation about the intent or provisions of this Act shall be subject to penalties. This is a grave attack on freedom of speech and is aimed at the pro-life community and the Church. Many of the definitions are straight from the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD, Cairo) document but the sections used have been cherry-picked to exclude the balancing areas. The ICPD is "soft law" only and is not enforceable. The other thing about ICPD is that it states clearly in the text that it does not create any new human rights."

A world day of fasting and prayer for the unborn has been proposed for 14th August. Humanity is under attack in the Philippines - and 40 years after Britain legalized abortion, there's a danger of a huge extension of the Abortion Act at report stage of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill in October, including its imposition on Northern Ireland. Let me know if you would like to organize a day of fasting and prayer in your area and I will send you some simple guidelines. Write to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk

Philippines bishops "take fight versus birth control to the street"

With powerful and enlightened leadership, the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) is organizing a mass demonstration against a reproductive health bill, rushing through the Philippines Congress, which allows the use of artificial birth control in family planning. In a press release entitled “Church takes fight versus birth control to the street” the bishops point out that the Bill seeks, through various measures, to work towards a 2-child policy.

Fenny Tatad, the executive director of the Bishops-Legislators Caucus of the Philippines says that “Collective Bargaining Agreements” between employers and employees are required to include birth control and other services in their agreements and that although not “mandatory and obligatory” the bill also proposes a 2-child policy.

“This and all the above-mentioned proposals are considered gross violations of the pro-family provisions of the Constitution and the universal right to health of citizens,” Tatad said. “Public funds coming from Catholic taxpayers will fund these programs which is oppressive and in violation of their universal right to religious freedom and the freedom to live their faith in an environment that is free of coercion and harassment,” she added.

Thousands of faithful are expected to join a rally at the parade ground of the University of Santo Tomas in Manila on July 25 to show their opposition against the proposed population policy.

“The street protests will coincide with the CBCP’s celebration of the Humanae Vitae’s 40th year, the landmark encyclical issued by Pope Paul VI that deals with Church’s uncompromising stand on birth control” the bishops’ press statement says.

I have blogged recently about the fulfilment in England and Wales of Pope Paul VI’s prophecy in Humanae Vitae, that governments will impose on countries birth control measures which are considered lawful by couples in pursuit of a solution to particular family difficulties. I also explained how the Catholic authorities in England and Wales are co-operating with the British government in imposing birth control, including abortion, on families through children’s access to secret abortion in schools, including in Catholic schools.

The bishops in the Philippines are providing more enlightened leadership – by assisting couples and families to resist public policy which will undoubtedly lead, in the fullness of time, to the type of abuse we parents experience in England and Wales.

Tough archbishop participates in international pro-life conference in Ottawa

Archbishop Terrence Prendergast, the archbishop of Ottawa, joined us at the international Congress and celebrated Mass for Catholic delegates this morning.

Archbishop Prendergast is known in Canada for his no-nonsense stand regarding giving Communion to pro-abortion politicians. In an interview with Lifesite news he said: “The Church’s concern is for anyone who persists in grave sin, hoping that medicinal measures ... may draw them away from the wrong path to the truth of our faith”.

I am pictured above sharing a meal with the archbishop at the Congress, together with Kit and Fenny Tatad from the Philippines. Kit Tatad was for many years majority leader in the Philippines Senate. He addressed the congress today on the huge international attack on the Philippines constitutional protection for the unborn, led by pro-abortion Barack Obama's administration in the US. Kit and Fenny work closely with the Catholic Bishops' Conference on the Philippines in opposing the pro-abortion/contraceptive imperialism of the western world. The Philippines bishops and people are resisting these pressures with great courage. (They need our prayerful support - and they need pro-life campaigners, politicians and church leaders in the western world to expose and to denounce and oppose their governments’ pro-abortion imperialistic foreign policies towards the Philippines.)

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

"Mistaken reasoning" of those who say Catholic church should drop its opposition to contraception: Bishop O'Donoghue

Bishop Patrick O’Donoghue’s “Fit For Mission? Church, Being Catholic Today” provides a major commentary on the Catholic church in England and Wales, including in relation to pro-life issues.

It represents a significant response to the call made by Pope John Paul II: “With great openness and courage, we need to question how widespread is the culture of life today among individual Christians, families, groups and communities in our Dioceses” (Evangelium Vitae, 95)

“Fit For Mission? Church” follows in the style of Bishop O’Donoghue’s “Fit for Mission? Schools” in which he calls on parents, schools and colleges to reject anti-life sex education.

I began reading “Fit For Mission? Church” because I knew it would contain a robust challenge to the culture of death – and I was not disappointed.

On pro-life issues, I would single out the importance of Bishop O’Donoghue’s understanding of the prophetic significance and authority of Humanae Vitae. Indeed, I think it’s important for all believers in God to hear the first thing that Bishop O’Donoghue says about the authority of that document:

“I have heard it expressed many times that the obvious rejection of the Church’s teaching on contraception by many Catholic couples is an apparent expression of the sensus fidelium [what the Catholic faithful sense to be the Catholic faith] and, consequently the Church should drop its opposition to it and adopt a more permissive attitude. This mistaken reasoning forgets three elements essential to the authentic sensus fidelium: Firstly, the sense of the faith must be founded on the Word of God and not secular opinion. Scripture is clear that there is an inseparable bond between sexual love, procreation and God’s creative power and lordship over life…”

Bishop O’Donoghue’s highlights the key point: God’s creative power and lordship over life. And, when this teaching is rejected, mankind and its governments assume arbitrary power over life and death. Whatever a person’s position on Bishop O’Donoghue’s theological perspective (and SPUC includes people of all faiths and none) even those who don’t believe in God can observe the consequences.

Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI’s encyclical, so derided by the liberal “intelligentsia”, accurately forecast that once contraception became “regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty” (HV, 17), brute power which would be used by governments to impose birth control policies on their populations. We now have coercive abortion in China and secret abortions for schoolchildren in the UK – and we have legislative proposals, which include coercive and totalitarian elements, in Kenya and in the Philippines.

Moreover, to my own mind it’s quite clear* that countless human lives have been destroyed as a result of the rejection of Humanae Vitae and its teaching on the wrongfulness of the separation of the unitive significance and procreative significance of the conjugal act, not least through birth control and IVF practices, including amongst Catholics (*albeit on the question of the separation of the unitive significance and the procreative significance of the marital act SPUC itself has no policy. The Society is made up of people of all faiths and none and SPUC’s remit is solely concerned with defending the right to life from conception till natural death.)

As Southern Cross Bioethics Institute put it in their commentary on the Philippines Reproductive Health Bill: “A ‘contraceptive’ is abortifacient (literally ‘causing abortion’) when one of its modes of action is to precipitate the destruction of the developing embryo. For example, intrauterine devices prevent the implantation of the embryo in the uterine lining and hence cause its destruction”. This is something which should concern everyone.

And as I mentioned last month on my blog (in a post about “The Tablet’s” ill-informed campaign against Humanae Vitae) IVF – which gave birth to the first IVF child thirty years ago – has led in the UK to over two million embryos discarded, or frozen, or selectively aborted, or miscarried or used in destructive experiments. (2,137,924 human embryos were created by specialists while assisting couples in the UK to have babies between 1991 and 2005, according to BioNews. During this period, the HFEA informs us that the total of live babies born through IVF procedures was 109,469.)

On a positive note Bishop O’Donoghue observes in his diocese of Lancaster that “the Church has richly developed her doctrine on marital love, seen in Pope John Paul II’s comprehensive theology of the body, the deepening understanding of marriage as a covenant and the Billings Ovulation Method”.

And I love the passion with which the bishop proclaims the truth about human life when he says:

“The advocates and apologists for the culture of death dismissively accuse Catholics of being ‘indoctrinated’ or ‘brain washed’. They are wrong. The one thing we have in common is that we value human life, because we know how much God values every human life. The value of every human life is at the heart of the Gospel, ‘But God proves his love for us in that while we were still sinners Christ died for us’. (Romans 5:8).

“Every crucifix in church and home proclaims the victory of life over the culture of death. The paschal mystery of Christ, (Eucharist, passion, death and resurrection) are the ultimate expression of the Law of Self Gift:

“At every opportunity proclaim the right to Life – the most fundamental human right that underpins authentic work for justice and peace…“

Pray, Protest and Petition the institutions that promote the culture of death – Parliament, the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nurses, Brook Advisory Centres, broadcasters, the tabloids and broadsheets.“

I also ask all parishes to support Catholic organisations, such as Life groups, that provide counselling, advice, support and hospitality to women considering abortions.

“Also consider actively supporting the following groups promoting the Gospel of Life: The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children; Sisters of the Gospel of Life, Life and other pro-life organisations.

Finally, I note Bishop O’Donoghue’s concern, expressed in a note circulated by his secretary that “the section [9.9] on the Bishops' Conference is but a very small part of the document. There are far more important parts … .” I’ve no doubt that’s true and I am looking forward to re-reading and to studying the document in greater depth.

However, what he says about the bishops’ conference is important: “We must keep it clearly in mind that the Bishop is not the manager of his local branch of the Catholic Church, who reports to the board of the national Episcopal Conference…” It’s important because, as I’ve noted elsewhere, the Catholic authorities in England and Wales are co-operating with the government in providing our children and grandchildren with secret abortions in Catholic schools. Bishop O’Donoghue headlines this section of his document “The Need for Confident and Courageous Bishops” and he highlights the following extract from the Catholic church’s teaching in Lumen Gentium: [Bishops] are authentic teachers, that is, teachers endowed with the authority of Christ, who preach to the people committed to them the faith they must believe and put into practice... Bishops, teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff, are to be revered by all as witnesses to divine and Catholic truth.” (LG 25).

I do not believe that the policy of the Catholic authorities in England and Wales regarding secret abortions in Catholic schools is one which is in tune with teaching “endowed the authority of Christ” or with “teaching in communion with the Roman Pontiff”. It’s important to be reminded that individual Catholic bishops in England and Wales are free to reject such a policy – as Bishop O’Donoghue, a confident and courageous bishop, has done. He calls on parishes to “Review the parish’s co-operation with schools to challenge the culture of death among young people” and much else besides.

Cherie Blair is working to undermine Catholic pro-life values

Cherie Blair has given an interview to Tatler, the society magazine, in which she has again attacked the Catholic Church's teaching on sexual ethics. Mrs Blair told Tatler:

"The Church says that sex is not just for procreation and does allow the natural form of contraception. Personally, I think it is better to go for contraception that works, which is quite different from abortion. Controlling our fertility has been one of the key reasons why women have been able to progress and in Africa it can mean the difference between life and death, in preventing the spread of HIV. I hope the position of the Church will change on this." 

Mrs Blair's comments are wrong in so many ways. Mrs Blair says that: "The Church says that sex is not just for procreation". Yes, the Church teaches sex is not just for procreation but it also teaches that every conjugal act must be open to the transmission of life.

Mrs Blair claims that: "The Church...allow[s] the natural form of contraception". In fact, the Church does not allow any form of contraception. Natural fertility awareness (e.g. the Billings Ovulation Method) is not contraception because, unlike contraception, nothing is done to close the conjugal act to the transmission of life.

Mrs Blair says that: "It is better to go for contraception that works." In fact, the practice of natural fertility awareness (e.g. the Billings Ovulation Method) is more effective than contraception in spacing births (better than 99%, according to clinical trials listed on the Billings Centre Canada website).

Mrs Blair claims that: "Contraception...is quite different from abortion." The Church teaches that contraception and abortion are chained together. As the late Pope John Paul II taught in Evangelium Vitae (13):

"[T]he negative values inherent in the "contraceptive mentality" which is very different from responsible parenthood, lived in respect for the full truth of the conjugal act are such that they in fact strengthen this temptation [to abortion] when an unwanted life is conceived. Indeed, the pro-abortion culture is especially strong precisely where the Church's teaching on contraception is rejected ... The close connection which exists, in mentality, between the practice of contraception and that of abortion is becoming increasingly obvious."

Is Mrs Blair trying to persuade us that she is unaware of the consequential relationship of surgical abortion to so-called contraception? Also, most birth control drugs and devices can also act abortifaciently - contraception with abortifacient back-up. If she is against surgical abortion, as distinct from chemical abortion, where is the evidence of her campaigning against surgical abortion? In fact, Mrs Blair has supported of some of the world's major pro-abortion forces:

• in July 2003, Mrs Blair endorsed the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), the world’s leading promoter and provider of abortion, by hosting a private reception at 10 Downing Street (the prime minister’s residence) for IPPF’s “Lust for Life” fundraising campaign.
• At the annual Labour party conference in September 2005, Mrs Blair celebrated the 75th anniversary of the Family Planning Association (fpa), the UK branch of IPPF, helping to cut a special birthday cake (and pictured here offering a condom to the camera-man.) Both IPPF and FPA endorsed the failed campaign to remove the Holy See from the United Nations. 
  
• on her website, Mrs Blair lists Human Rights Watch as one of the charities she supports. Human Rights Watch is one of the most radically pro-abortion international NGOs (non-governmental organisations).
• On a page in the Women of the World section of her website, Mrs Blair says: "The [United Nations] Convention [on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) ... is the only human rights treaty which affirms the reproductive rights of women". "Reproductive rights" is a term commonly used to include abortion on demand. Is Mrs Blair seriously trying to tell us to believe that she is unaware of that very well-known fact?
  

Mrs Blair claims that: "Controlling our fertility [through contraception] has been one of the key reasons why women have been able to progress." In contrast, Pope Benedict, in his latest encyclical Caritas in Veritate, has emphasised that the message of Humanae vitae:

• is fundamental to achieving authentic human development
• "delineat[es] the fully human meaning of the development that the Church proposes"
• "indicates the strong links between life ethics and social ethics"
  
• "essential to the context for the advancement of the culture of life."

Mrs Blair claims that: "[I]n Africa [contraception] can mean the difference between life and death, in preventing the spread of HIV". Indeed - those countries where condom use is promoted have higher rates of HIV than those countries where abstinence and fidelity are promoted, such as Uganda and The Philippines.

Mrs Blair says: "I hope the position of the Church will change on this [contraception]." Mrs Blair is being disingenuous here. She is not waiting for the Church's position to change - she is working to change the Church's position, by her own admission. In her chapter for the book "Why I am still a Catholic", Mrs Blair writes:

"Of course, like many Catholics in this country, I have doubts about some of the positions taken by the Church as an institution - for example, on contraception or the role of women. But I am not one of those who believe that the only response is to walk away because you have a different viewpoint. I have been taught that you should stay and try to change things. It’s like the Labour party in the 1980s. I wasn’t happy with the way it was going, so I tried to help change it from within. Thankfully, we won that battle.  And though the pace of change in the Catholic Church can seem slow, I believe that there are very many people in this country - and not just in the laity - who are convinced of the need for it. That message, however, is not yet fully accepted in the Vatican ... Women still do not get due respect in the Church which is why, in the opinion of many people, it get some things wrong, like its teaching on contraception."

In fact, a big, absolute "yes" to the genuine rights, health and fertility of women is behind the Church's "no" to contraception. Many of the women reformers of social standards in the 19th century pointed out that contraception results in the objectification and exploitation of women by men. One would be forgiven for thinking that Mrs Blair is more interested in promoting the culture of death than the Catholic Church's culture of life.

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

Major international pro-family conference in Moscow - SPUC represented

Today and yesterday, a major pro-family conference entitled International Forum ‘Large family and the future of humanity’ has been held in the Kremlin, Moscow. SPUC staff, as well as many colleagues from other pro-life/pro-family, are in Moscow, making a major contribution to the conference:

• Maria Madise, SPUC's International, UN and Research Officer
• Pat Buckley, one of SPUC's representatives at the United Nations
• Dr Thomas Ward, founder and former President of the National Association of Catholic Families (NACF)
• Obianuju "Uju" Ekeocha, who runs Culture of Life Africa (COLA) 

John-Henry Westen of LifeSiteNews.com, who is one of the keynote speakers, reports that the conference has been attended by

"1,000 delegates from all over the world including over 200 from the West ... Put on by the St. Andrew the First-Called and the St. Basil the Great Foundations, the conference is sanctioned and supported by the federal government."

 Below is the statement issued before today's plenary session:

“Our World is going through an epoch of instability and social crisis closely inter-related with the global transformations in all key spheres of human development and civilisation,” states the concept of the International Forum for Large Family and the Future of Humanity, held in Moscow, 10 and 11 September. An impressive document composed to define the key principles of human existence and family that cannot change continues:

The most important factor in this epoch is the transformation of what it means to be a living, human being and to experience human dignity as intended by the Creator.

[… H]uman beings created in the image of God are no longer … the conceptual and ethical center of the whole of Creation.

With the profound philosophical transformations of the human concept, the historical foundations of civilized human life are now being forced to change and the concept of the family is not an exception. According to the overwhelming majority of people this modern-day ambiguity, relativity, and indeterminacy regarding family, creates the threat to the civilized existence of societies.

Only precise and univalent definitions may permit us to understand that behind the fuzzy explanations of modern humanism and jargon, there hides traits of degradation and deception that would lead to the death of humanity. Only truthful and accurate definitions contradicting the contemporary views allow us to make the conclusion: our era is not so much about the family crisis as the foundation of society, but the very idea of family.

Today, the meaning of family in the context of global ideological competition from self-interested post-modern humanists and challenges to ensure the survival and sovereignty of modern states grows to such an extent that the protection of the classical notions of normative behaviour, civilized man, the human family, and the definition of marriage have to be enshrined in national constitutions.

Humanity must move forward into the future based on the understanding that the natural family has been and remains the foundations of the civilization; and the family was – and still is – and forever will be the marriage between man and woman with many children.

The speakers include:

• Natalia Yakunina (Russia; Chairwoman)
• Archpriest Dmitrtry Smirnov (Russia)
• Konstantin Malofeev (Russia)
• Anatoly Antonov (Russia)
• Donald Feder (USA)
• Elena Mizulina (Russia)
• Lawrence D. Jacobs (USA)
• Hilarion (Chairman of the Department of exernal Church Relations, Moscow Patriarchate)
• Francisco S. Tatad (Philippines)
• Thomas Ward (UK, President of the National Association of Catholic Families)
• Sharon Slater (USA, President of Family Watch International)
• Christine Vollmer (Venezuela; President of Latin American Alliance of the Family)
• Theresa Okafor (Nigeria; Director of Foundation for African Cultural Heritage)
• Holy Patriarch Kirill (Patriarch of Moscow and all Russia)
• Vladimir Yakunin (Russia)
• Aymeric Chauprade (France)
• Patrick Buckley (Ireland)
• Obianuju Ekeocha (Nigeria/UK)
• Radim Uchac (Czech Republic)
• Archpriest Maxim Obukov (Russia)
• John-Henry Westen (Canada)

The first day of the Forum with grand artistic celebrations for the family was held in the State Kremlin Palace. The plenary session and 10 roundtables today are taking place in the Cathedral of Christ the Saviour.

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

Filipino bishops' conference leads the way with pro-life election catechism

The Episcopal Commission on Family and Life of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines have issued a particularly solid "Catechism on Family and Life" for this year's elections in the Philippines. Here are some key points from the catechism:

• "The Church has the duty to teach Catholics about the importance of taking their Faith with them in all their endeavors, including voting."
• "[T]he dignity of the human person and the sacredness of human life...are at the very core of the Catholic moral and social teaching. Because we are people of both faith and reason, it is appropriate and necessary for us to bring this essential truth about human life and dignity to the public square. Church authorities exercise their teaching function also by reminding Catholic civil leaders of their moral obligations, especially in matters related to family and life."
• "Our manner of active involvement in the democratic process means that we will use the power of the vote, as citizens of the Republic, to elect political leaders who will uphold and promote the dignity of human life and the sanctity of family and marriage."
• "[A]bortion is always a most violent, unjust and inhumane act committed against the most harmless, defenseless, and weakest member of our society –the baby– and committed by those who have the greatest duty to care for, love and defend him or her most –the mother, father, doctors and other health care professionals."
• "[R]esponsible parenthood has nothing to do with encouraging individuals to use contraceptives as what reproductive health programs do."
• "[C]ontraception makes the conjugal act a lie. It expresses not a total love, but rather a merely conditional or partial love."
• "[R]eproductive health necessarily presupposes access to contraception and abortion."
• "[T]he Reproductive Health bill (House Bill 5043), which carries the same definition of reproductive health, will penalize with one to six months imprisonment, and/or 10-50 thousand pesos fine, parents who for example prevent their grade school and high school children from using contraceptives, and having satisfying and safe sex."

I blogged in August about the Reproductive Health bill. I also blogged in September on the speech of Kit & Fenny Tatad, senior Filipino pro-life figures, to SPUC's annual national conference.

I give thanks to the good Lord that the Philippines has such strong voices in defence of life and family, especially in the lead-up to elections. I hope that the bishops of England and Wales will speak out with equal strength and clarity before this year's UK general election.

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

Want to donate to The Philippines? Consider Caritas Manila

Caritas Manila protests vs population control

SPUC has received enquiries in recent days from pro-lifers wanting to donate to help the people of The Philippines following the typhoon there. Readers may consider supporting Caritas Manila - donation details can be found at: http://www.caritas.org.ph/Call-To-Action/about.html
Please note that the donation process uses amounts in Philippines pesos (PhP), so you may wish to check the exchange rate/use a currency-converter to know what your donation will be in British pounds.

Unfortunately many of the member-charities of the popular Disasters Emergency Committee (DEC) provide and/or and promote abortion and/or contraception etc.

• British Red Cross - which works to promote so-called "sexual and reproductive health" in crisis-hit countries, including provision of and advice about contraception. "Sexual and reproductive health" and similar words are used commonly as either technical terms or as euphemisms for abortion on demand
• Christian Aid - which promotes contraception in the developing world
• Concern Worldwide - which also promotes so-called "reproductive health" including condom use
• Islamic Relief - which has an agreement with the anti-life/anti-family United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) to promote so-called "reproductive health"
• Merlin - which has supported the Reproductive Health bill, designed to impose population control on The Philippines
• Oxfam - which has a long history of support for abortion (see my 1 March 2009 blogpost re Comic Relief)
• Plan UK  - which "support[s] quality sexual and reproductive health education and services"
• Save the Children  - which promotes contraception as an answer to poverty in the developing world
• Tearfund - whose "partners at the local level" are left to make "decisions about which contraceptive methods are promoted" (letter to SPUC, March 2011)
• World Vision - which signed a "Manifesto for Motherhood" which called on the UK Government to advocate so-called "sexual and reproductive health and rights" in other countries, including access to 'safe' abortions. World Vision may also have other links to the provision of abortifacients.

In contrast, Caritas Manila has a webpage from its chairman, Cardinal Luis Tagle, lamenting the passage of the population control bill through the national legislature - see the photo above of Caritas Manila supporters protesting against the Reproductive Health bill.

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

Catholic leaders give uncompromising pro-life message

The news so far this week has brought reports of Catholic bishops speaking out courageously for life and family around the world:

• In Scotland, Archbishop Mario Conti of Glasgow has said that: “[I]t is wrong in principle for someone to take their own life” and “it is wrong in principle for someone to help them to do so.”
• In Oregon, America, Bishop Robert Vasa of Baker has ended his diocese's sponsorship of a local hospital which was performing sterilisations.
• In the Philippines, the bishops' conference has said that the distribution of free condoms in Manila "undermines the significance of human sexuality and love and and deserves the condemnation of the entire population"
• At the Vatican, Cardinal Carlo Caffarra has written that: "It's impossible to consider oneself a Catholic if that person in one way or another recognizes same-sex marriage as a right," said Cardinal Carlo Caffarra of Bologna.*
• And Pope Benedict told the Romanian bishops last week that they should respond to "the scourges of abortion [and] birth control by methods contrary to the dignity of the human person" by "organis[ing] improved pastoral care of the young."

When the full weight of the Catholic Church is put behind an uncompromising pro-life stance, lives can saved in large numbers. For example, the educational effort by the Catholic Church in Poland was effective in massively reducing Poland's abortion rate. And LifeSiteNews.com reports that the Philippines has one of Asia's lowest HIV rates, no doubt thanks to the resilience of the Philippines bishops' conference.

The pro-life movement in this country in England and Wales could achieve so much more if the Catholic bishops' conference here would end its collaboration on pro-life/pro-family issues with our anti-life/anti-family government. "For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle?" (1 Cor.14:8)

*(The reason why the Catholic Church's teaching on homosexuality is so important for the pro-life cause can be found in Pope John Paul II's Evangelium Vitae. In paragraph 97, Pope John Paul teaches that it is an illusion to think that we can build a true culture of human life if we do not offer adolescents and young adults an authentic education in sexuality, and in love, and the whole of life according to their true meaning and in their close interconnection.)

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

Philippines reproductive health bill has totalitarian elements

A bill before the Philippines parliament, due to be discussed tomorrow by the Appropriations Committee of the House of Representatives, could pave the way for legal abortion, as well as promoting contraception, sex education and reproductive technology. Southern Cross Bioethics Institute of South Australia (logo shown here) have written a commentary on the bill and I've used it for this blog. In it they say: "The Bill proposes a heavy handed approach to dissenters, and elements of the Bill appear to be totalitarian".

Much of the bill covers areas, such as the elimination of violence against women, which are subject to existing laws. Although the Philippines presently has pro-life laws, this proposed bill, with its "reproductive rights" language, could lead to conflict. Such conflict might lead to case law in this area.

The bill would permit abortifacient birth control even though the constitution says that the state will protect people from conception. It defines birth control drugs and devices as medicines, yet they do not treat illnesses and can actually terminate young lives.

The proposed measure severely restricts conscientious objection to its provisions and, where it does allow such objection, requires practitioners immediately to refer the enquirer to medics who will provide the unethical service. For some health workers, this will itself go against their consciences.

It also recommends two-child families and, while it doesn't mention coercion, couples could come under subtle pressure. The bill could be amended to include coercion. Couples wanting to marry would need a certificate showing they had been instructed in family planning. The bill would punish people who are deemed to have misrepresented what it contains, a significant threat to free speech and a potential weapon against pro-lifers.

Overall, this proposed measure is an intrusion by the state on couples' rights to have families in accordance with their beliefs and it advances the international sexual health agenda which is part of the campaign for widespread birth control and abortion.

[Commentary on the Philippines Reproductive Health Bill, Southern Cross Bioethics Institute, August 2008]

No pro-life leader will match Dr Jack Willke's worldwide educational impact: May he rest in peace!

Pictured above left to right in September 2009 at SPUC's London office are:

• William Saunders, then senior vice president of legal affairs, Americans United to Life
• Francisco "Kit" Tatad, former senate majority leader, Philippines
• Dr Talmir Rodrigues, paediatrician, member of the Brazilian federal parliament
• Pat Buckley, one of SPUC's lobbyists at the United Nations
• Dr Jack Willke, IRTLF president and president of Life Issues Institute
• Mrs Fenny Tatad, executive director, Bishops-Legislators Caucus of the Philippines
• Peter Smith, another of SPUC's lobbyist at the United Nations
• myself
• Jim Hughes, national president, Campaign Life Coalition, Canada
• Chiang Lim, then chief executive officer, NSW (New South Wales) Right to Life

Dr Jack Willke, the father of the worldwide pro-life movement, who died last Friday, has been a friend and collaborator of SPUC's for over 40 years. He was 89. May he rest in peace.

To understand something of the full significance of Jack's life and work - shared by Barbara his beloved wife - read the obituaries in the National Review Online, and the Washington Post.

No other pro-life leader or organisation will match the solid educational work done by Jack and Barbara Willke through their books and lectures. And for virtually the whole of their active pro-life service, they did it without the aid of the worldwide web.

Their title Handbook on Abortion, the New York Times tells us, sold a million and a half copies - and there were so many other titles besides ... Other significant publications included: Abortion and Slavery, History Repeats and Assisted Suicide & Euthanasia, Past & Present and they co-authored six other books on human sexuality which have been translated into 30 languages. Five years ago they had clocked up 87 countries in which they had lectured ... and rising ... He also broadcast on 400 radio stations - one-minute pro-life messages in a programme entitled "Life Jewels". Jack was a pro-life marketing genius. Brad Mattes, his successor (see below) has kept up this remarkable broadcasting output since Jack stepped back a few years ago. His legacy is alive and very well.

SPUC's presentation in schools, albeit updated with the latest research and delivered with the aid of all that modern technology provides, is fundamentally based on the Willke slide presentation which I personally watched them present in The Philippines, in the UK, in Kenya and elsewhere.

I had the honour of serving as joint vice-president of International Right to Life Federation, with Jim Hughes, Canada's Campaign Life Coalition national president, during the final years of Jack's presidency - now succeeded by Brad Mattes who also succeeded Jack as president of Life Issues Institute.

During Jack's visit to the UK in September 2009 (see picture above), Jack delivered a message of hope to SPUC's national conference in which he said: “We must keep doing what we’re doing. It’s slow but we shall win in the end.” One could not lose the argument, he said, when one advanced the case that abortion killed babies.

On behalf of my colleagues in SPUC, and our thousands of supporters, I sent heartfelt condolences and a promise of prayers to Jack's family, his six children and 22 grandchildren. May he rest in peace.

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

Philippines statesman challenges academics using Catholic status to promote population bill

In a measured and authoritative article on his blog, Francisco "Kit" Tatad, disposes of the pretensions of a group of academics from Ateneo university purporting to speak on behalf of the Catholic Church. They support a bill before the Philippines parliament, entitled An Act Providing For A National Policy On Reproductive Health, Responsible Parenthood And Population Development, And For Other Purposes.

I have blogged on the bill (Philippines reproductive health bill has totalitarian elements) and SPUC commissioned and published a commentary on it prepared by Southern Cross Bioethics Institute.

Kit Tatad, a former cabinet minister, senator, publisher, editor and newspaper columnist has been at the forefront of Philippines politics for over 40 years. When he was just 29, he was the youngest person ever to be appointed to the cabinet.

A Reading from 14 Ateneo Professors, Kit Tatad's article, begins: "Fouteen 'Ateneo professors' argue that the highly controversial reproductive health bill 'adheres to Catholic social teaching' and that 'Catholics can support it in good conscience.' They ask 'our bishops and fellow Catholics' not to block passage of House Bill 5043.

"How should a 'fellow Catholic' respond? With profound humility, I suppose, but with a firm resolve not to be misled. The 'professors' identify themselves as 'individual faculty' whose opinions 'do not necessarily reflect the official position of the Ateneo de Manila University nor the Society of Jesus.'

"It is a crafty disclaimer. If they truly wanted to speak as individual Catholics, they could have done so without using the Ateneo label. But they clearly did not mind cashing in on Ateneo’s Catholic reputation.

"Opposition to House Bill 5043 arises mainly from the fact that it seeks, among other things, to legalize a State program of contraception and sterilization that will require married couples to contracept or sterilize themselves before engaging in marital sex, and make available contraceptives and sterilization devices as 'essential medicines' even to unmarried individuals. It also seeks to impose a 'mandatory sex education' on all children, from Grade V up to high school, without parental consent, to prepare them for 'a safe and satisfying sex life' ... "

Read on here. It's important for Catholics to be alert to the growing phenomenon of those who use their membership of the Catholic Church, or their official position within it, to undermine the teaching of the Church on the sanctity of human life and to impose anti-life policies on Catholic families. Regular readers of my posts about the situation of Catholics in England will recognise this trend. Former Senator Kit Tatad provides a good example of how to challenge their deceptive work.

Eugenics and coercion in Kenyan abortion bill

In a recent blog I reported on the draft Reproductive Health and Rights bill in Kenya, denounced by John Cardinal Njue as "an affront… to the integrity of the human being" as well as a socio-economic threat to Kenya’s future; and on Kenya’s President Mwai Kibaki saying “he saw no reason, now, or in the future, why anyone would want to legalize abortion in Kenya”.

Southern Cross Bioethics Institute (SCBI) has prepared on SPUC's behalf a commentary on the new bill which you can find here.

The bill, if passed, will promote and allow easy access to abortion on demand, with virtually no safeguards to protect unborn children.

Under the subtle guise of "reproductive rights" language, the bill declares "safe and accessible abortion-related care" as a reproductive right. Abortion can be permitted provided that “the continued pregnancy would pose a risk of injury to the woman’s physical or mental health”. This will, in effect, allow abortions on demand. Notably, this clause avoids using the term "substantial risk" (common to abortion legislation) and consequently may be used as grounds for abortion in any circumstance, given that all pregnancies carry at least a minor risk of harm.

The bill goes on to list specific circumstances where an abortion is easily available, discriminating against unborn children conceived in specific circumstances. These include:

• those conceived through sexual violence or incest (a statement from the mother alone will be taken as proof of sexual assault);
• those at risk of "severe physical or mental abnormality" (thus deepening worldwide lethal prejudice against the disabled whom the state has a special duty to protect);
• those facing "extreme social deprivation" (a term which is not defined, which could be interpreted very broadly within Kenya and which will increase eugenic discrimination against those living and attempting to raise children in poverty);
• those resulting from contraceptive failure (which deems unborn human life disposable and discards any notion of individual responsibility for sexual behaviour. It is utterly implausible that the courts could or would determine whether contraception had actually been used in a specific instance.)

Access to abortion would also be made easily available to minors without any legal requirement of parental knowledge or consent. This would be a clear abuse of power by the state, overriding parental rights despite their primary responsibility and input into the child’s welfare.

Further evidence of potential state abuse can be seen in a clause permitting abortion for “mentally disordered” persons. Such women would lack the capacity to consent and, while consultation with the woman’s guardian is required, the bill leaves open the dangerous possibility that the state may be able to enforce an abortion without the consent of the mother or her family.

The bill, if passed, will comprehensively undermine the sanctity of human life from conception, as well as neglect the interests of those in Kenya who seek to uphold the value and dignity of human life. Like the reproductive health bill in the Philippines, the bill aims to prevent true conscientious objection among health care service providers, by ensuring that those who object are legally required immediately to refer a patient to another practitioner who will provide an abortion. Conscientious objectors will thus be forced to be complicit with the unethical practice of others.

The draft bill, like in the Philippines, has worryingly totalitarian overtones that will deny freedom of conscience to those who oppose its obviously pro-abortion agenda.

Episcopal failures to oppose the sexual revolution have global consequences

Michael Voris, the American Catholic apologist, has this week been visiting the Philippines. In a video recorded there, Michael said:

"Obama's attempt to ram birth control down the Church's throat [is] exactly what is happening here in the Philippines ... [I]n America, the Catholic hierarchy folded like a house of cards 40 years ago in the face of the sexual revolution ... Catholics in America need to keep Catholics in other countries in mind when casting their vote for US president. It isn't just the Church in America that Obama is attacking, but the Church all over the world."

An analogy can be made with the situation in the UK vis-a-vis the Cameron government's promotion of homosexual marriage at home and so-called gay rights abroad. British government policy can have a significant effect internationally. Policy changes in Britain have the capacity to influence policy change in the English-speaking world and in Europe. I pray that Archbishop Nichols and his fellow English and Welsh bishops will not "fold like a house of cards" in the face of the Cameron government's sexual revolution, abandoning Catholics in other countries to the homosexual agenda. It is encouraging to see Bishop Mark Davies of Shrewsbury taking a strong stand.

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

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

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

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

Are the Chinese Olympic games the greatest triumph of the population control lobby?

I searched Google “news” using the words China, forced, and abortion. I got 245 results. Using just two words, China and abortion, I got 299 results.

The largest number of those results referred to three Christians arrested on Tiananmen Square for protesting against China’s forced abortion and one-child policy.

Googling for China Olympic Games produced 9,760,000 results.

Quite a crude piece of research to do early on Saturday morning. But it prompts the question for me: Are the Chinese Olympic Games the greatest triumph of the population control lobby?

What’s more, is the indifference of the west to what’s been described as “arguably the greatest bioethical atrocity on the globe” giving the green light to the population control lobby to move into developing countries around the world with their totalitarian schemes attacking the family and attacking the sanctity of life?

Take the Philippines, for example, and the Reproductive Health Bill which just cleared the Appropriations Committee in the House of Representatives. The Bill, which paves the way for legalized abortion “…proposes a heavy handed approach to dissenters, and elements of the Bill appear to be totalitarian" according to Southern Cross Bioethics Committee, SPUC’s advisers on bioethics.

I received the following message yesterday from Fenny Tatad, executive director of the Bishops-Legislators Caucus in Quezon City, the Philippines, regarding the Reproductive Health Bill. She said: “John, there is tremendous and unbelievable pressure coming from external sources to pass these bills. Could you please let me know if similar efforts are being brought down on legislatures in other parts of the developing world? And why?”

I would be very interested to receive informed comments from readers on Fenny’s question to me. I do wonder if the population control lobby is saying: “Well if we can get away with it in China where our abuse of the people is so well-documented, we can get away with it anywhere.”

Vatican condemnation of Obama's "arrogance" is well-judged

It's the morning after the night before as the world wakes up to the terrible reality of Barack Obama's presidency of the US.

In a well-judged response, the Vatican has been swift to pronounce a severe judgement on one of Obama's first presidential decisions: to sign an order to "aggressively promote" abortion as a tool of population control in developing countries - as I explained in my blog "The party's over ... " last week.

The BBC reports that: "Senior Vatican official Monsignor Rino Fisichella (pictured), President of the Pontifical Academy for Life, urged Mr Obama to listen to all voices in America without 'the arrogance of those who, being in power, believe they can decide of life and death' ... If this is one of President Obama's first acts, I have to say, in all due respect, that we're heading quickly toward disappointment".

His predecessor, Monsignor Eli Sgreccia, put it even more strongly, likening Obama's policy to that of King Herod and his slaughter of the innocents.

These strength of the Vatican's response to Barack Obama's action is well-judged, in view of the gravity of the situation. In addition, the new President has promised to sign the Freedom of Choice Act which seeks to compel medical professionals to provide abortions, with no opt-outs for conscientious objection. Such presidential action will only serve to strengthen moves elsewhere in the world - the Philippines, Kenya, the European Institutions, and Britain - where attacks on conscientious objection are either proposed (as in the Philippines and in Kenya); are government policy or enshrined in legislation (as in Britain) or are being powerfully promoted (as in the European institutions).

As I've mentioned before, peaceful resistance is the way forward for the pro-life movement worldwide - as well as continuing our existing educational, political, and compassionate caring work. SPUC's campaign of peaceful resistance is focused on resisting euthanasia at the bedside and the Society's Safe at School campaign. Please contact me at johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk for further details.

In addition, later this week SPUC is launching its campaign to make the right to life a top priority issue at the next general election. Abortion, euthanasia, IVF and embryo research cannot be dismissed as a "single issue" of no more significance than any other social justice issue. As Bishop Sgreccia says: we're fighting against the "slaughter of the innocents" and it's time for the campaign strategy of the pro-life movement, which includes our supporters in the faith communities, fully to reflect that reality.

Pope Benedict thanks the pro-life movement and confirms the personhood of the human embryo

Pope Benedict, in his homily at Saturday night's vigil for all nascent human life, said [my emphases in bold]:

"Dear brothers and sisters, our coming together this evening to begin the Advent journey is enriched by another important reason: with the entire Church, we want to solemnly celebrate a prayer vigil for unborn life. I wish to express my thanks to all who have taken up this invitation and those who are specifically dedicated to welcoming and safeguarding human life in different situations of fragility, especially in its early days and in its early stages."

“[T]here is no reason not to consider [the human embryo] a person from conception.”

"I urge the protagonists of politics, economic and social communications to do everything in their power to promote a culture which respects human life, to provide favorable conditions and support networks for the reception and development of life."

Pope Benedict echoed his vigil homily this morning in his address to the bishops of the Philippines on their ad limina visit. In a clear reference to the Reproductive Health bill which the bishops are fighting, Pope Benedict said [my emphases in bold]:

"Thanks to the Gospel's clear presentation of the truth about God and man, generations of zealous Filipino clergymen, religious and laity have promoted an ever more just social order. At times, this task of proclamation touches upon issues relevant to the political sphere. This is not surprising, since the political community and the Church, while rightly distinct, are nevertheless both at the service of the integral development of every human being and of society as a whole".

"At the same time, the Church's prophetic office demands that she be free 'to preach the faith, to teach her social doctrine ... and also to pass moral judgments in those matters which regard public order whenever the fundamental human rights of a person or the salvation of souls requires it'. In the light of this prophetic task, I commend the Church in the Philippines for seeking to play its part in support of human life from conception until natural death, and in defence of the integrity of marriage and the family. In these areas you are promoting truths about the human person and about society which arise not only from divine revelation but also from natural law, an order which is accessible to human reason and thus provides a basis for dialogue and deeper discernment on the part of all people of good will.”

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