A blog launched on the 41st anniversary of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), the first pro-life organisation in the world, established on 11 January 1967. I wrote this blog in my role as SPUC's chief executive, commenting on pro-life news, reflecting on pro-life issues and promoting SPUC's work. I retired from my post on 31st August 2021 and will therefore be adding no further posts.
Earlier this week Chris Brennan of SPUC Bristol branch was interviewed for BBC 1's Politics Show on the subject of assisted suicide. Chris was opposed by Sir Terry Pratchett, the author, who has a form of Alzheimer's. Sir Terry emphasised individual choice and the terrible nature of Alzheimer's. Chris responded that all human life is precious and should be protected. He said that the availability of assisted suicide will make sick people more vulnerable and afraid of being a burden on others. He added that the law against assisted suicide is being changed by stealth. Well done Chris!
Pat Buckley, who has this week been representing SPUC at the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva, Switzerland, has just sent me the following report:
"The 12th session of the Human Rights Council in Geneva is currently considering a draft resolution on HIV/AIDS. This resolution contains many good proposals but has also generated considerable debate and controversy.
"There have been sustained attempts by Brazil, the US, Canada and the European Union to retain references in the draft resolution to the 'UN International Guidelines on HIV/AIDS and Human Rights'. Whilst the 12 guidelines in themselves are uncontroversial, they have been inserted into a very controversial document containing an explanatory text and commentary.
"The international community rejected this document during the 2001 special session on HIV/AIDS, because the commentary
seeks to overturn all laws that limit sexual activity, including laws against 'adultery, sodomy, fornication, and commercial sexual encounters' i.e. prostitution
calls for nations to legalize homosexual marriage
seeks to impose explicit sexual and homosexual education on children, as well as other public information programmes that (according to the explanatory text) should 'not be inappropriately subject to censorship or other broadcasting standards'
seeks to impose 'penalties on anyone who vilifies people who engage in same-sex relationships'. Although it is unclear what 'vilification' means in this context, and what 'penalties' would be sought, there is concern that religious leaders may be held criminally liable for upholding the biblical teaching that homosexual acts are sinful. Islamic countries consider the document to be offensive.
"The current draft resolution seeks to reference the document in a way that separates the 12 basic guidelines from the commentary and explanatory text. This approach was used previously in a resolution on violence against women in the 2005 Human Rights Commission. There is, however, strong opposition to this. Many countries wish to return to the 2001 solution where all references to the document were removed from the outcome document.
"The draft resolution was initiated by Brazil which has made it clear that they wish to retain the references but also wish to have a consensus text. Egypt on the other hand has warned that if the references remain they will not join consensus and will push for a vote on the text when it comes before the plenary later this week. The Holy See would also prefer that the references to the guidelines are deleted."
Dana Rosemary Scallon (pictured), the pro-life former MEP, has just issued the following statement, "Don't be afraid to vote no says Dana", regarding Friday's vote in Ireland on the Lisbon treaty:
"I am not afraid to vote No to Lisbon, said Dana Rosemary Scallon today. The people must know the truth, that the guarantees are worthless and that the EU will have primacy over Ireland's Constitution. Lisbon is not about tidying up the democratic process - it is about tying up the democratic process.
"As former French president Valery Giscard d'Estaing stated, when he welcomed the Lisbon Treaty wording: 'Public opinion will be led - without knowing it - to adopt the policies we would never present to them directly. All the earlier proposals will be in the new text - but will be hidden or disguised in some way.'
"I cannot be bought. I have always told the truth about what I saw happening in Europe, especially when it threatened our Constitution and our democratic rights as citizens of Ireland. I have no axe to grind, I am not seeking political office and as I don't run a budget airline I don't have to tread carefully and change my mind for the sake of a few euros.
"During my time in office from 1999-2004, the building of an EU Constitution and the move towards an EU Superstate was clearly set out. I stated this publicly many times and urged our political leaders and public representatives to uphold our Irish Constitution - they all refused to do so.
"A simple name change will not change the fact that adopting the Lisbon Treaty will undermine our sovereignty and political independence and profoundly weaken Ireland's position in Europe and is the path to a European Constitution, having primacy over Ireland's Constitution.
"Former Irish Taoiseach, Dr Garett Fitzgerald also stated on June 30, 2007, that proposed changes to the Constitutional Treaty 'had no practical effect. They have simply been designed to enable certain heads of government to sell to their people the idea of ratification by parliamentary action rather than by referendum.' Chancellor Merkel of Germany and Jose Zapatero, Prime minister of Spain confirmed that 'The substance of the constitution is preserved' and that 'not a single substantial point' of the constitutional Treaty has been let go. Even former Taoiseach Bertie Ahern noted that there had been 'no dramatic change to the substance of what had been agreed in 2004'.
"We have already rejected this Lisbon Treaty and in response our political leaders apologised to Brussels.
"The Lisbon Treaty will give the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights primacy and a legally binding status. The fact is that in the case of conflict between the rights contained in the EU Charter and those rights contained in our Irish constitution, the Lisbon Treaty will give the final say to the EU Court of Justice over our Irish Supreme Court.
"Voting NO will protect Ireland's Constitution in matters such as the definition and protection of the family; Children's rights; Parent's rights; the protection of life and the child embryo; the right to a fair trial; the right to strike etc. Any so-called 'guarantees' and protection of our Irish Constitutional position on these points are not part of the Lisbon Treaty, they therefore have no legal weight what-so-ever and cannot be relied upon. They are, as we have been told many times, worthless.
"This is no longer about the politics of right and left, it is about right and wrong. I can no longer stay silent about the wilful betrayal of Ireland's Constitution.
"Just as in Article 12.8 of Ireland's Constitution the President states 'In the presence of Almighty God I do solemnly and sincerely promise and declare that I will maintain the Constitution of Ireland and uphold its laws, that I will fulfil my duties faithfully and conscientiously in accordance with the Constitution...."; Article 9.2 calls upon everyone stating: "Fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the state are fundamental political duties of all citizens".
"People should not be afraid to vote no, proclaim loyalty to the State and fidelity to the nation. Our Constitution should be upheld not diluted for political and personal gain.
"Many decent members of Fianna Fail, Fine Gael, Labour and the Greens know that the parties are not listening to their grass roots. The electorate know in their hearts that the democratic will of the people is being ignored. As a nation we cannot return to the years of the begging bowl. All of Europe is waiting for the Irish people to once again defend, speak up for and protect those who have no voice. Only the people can protect democracy and people must not be afraid to vote NO."
Ireland For Life has also just issued a statement making similar points to those made by Dana.
As I blogged recently, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) will debate this Friday (2 October) a radical pro-abortion report. Help defend Europeans, born and unborn, against the report. Please contact the UK delegates to the assembly (contact details) to urge them to reject the report.
The European Centre for Law and Justice (ECLJ) has produced a masterly briefing rebutting the report, promoted by Christine McCafferty, the veteran anti-life British MP. Here are some of the best points from the ECLJ's briefing:
"The ECLJ is particularly concerned about the [report's] underlying promotion of abortion as a means of family planning and population control."
"The Council of Europe has no authority or competency to promote abortion."
"[T]he [report is] based upon unsupportable concerns regarding the need for greater population control in developing countries."
"Promoting abortion violates the core values upon which the Council of Europe was built by greatly offending the protection of human life and dignity, and respect for national sovereignty."
"International law does not provide a so called 'right' to abortion … Only the right to life is recognized."
"The European Convention on Human Rights explicitly contains a provision guaranteeing the right to life. The Parliamentary Assembly cannot infer from the Convention that the right to life does not extend to the unborn, and cannot lower the degree of protection afforded by the State to human life."
"Attacking the legitimacy of any country’s abortion laws is not within the competency of the Council of Europe."
"The Explanatory Memorandum’s recommendations are premised in large part on unfounded assertions about the need for population control and advance the cause of the neomalthusianism philosophy."
"[I]improving agricultural technology has allowed food production to more than keep pace with population growth."
"Indeed, in 1995, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization estimated that by fully employing present agricultural technology, the world could feed 30 to 35 billion people."
"Malthus’s theories eventually gave rise to the eugenics movement of the late 19th and 20th Centuries that divided human beings into 'superior' and 'inferior' races and called for the segregation or elimination of the 'inferior' races
"[T]he population control movement has also been used as an instrument of imperialism against less-developed countries."
"The money to be spent on population control in less developed countries can be better spent on basic health care needs and economic development in those countries."
"[T]he availability of abortion as a component of population control programs coupled with the widespread availability of technology that allows parents to learn the sex of their unborn child has led to a disproportionate number of abortions of unborn girls."
Pictured is Charlemagne, commonly known as the Father of Europe.
Tomorrow is a national day of prayer and fasting for life, organized by the Good Counsel Network. See my post of earlier this month which explains the religious background to this important project and how people can take part.
Do remind others who may be interested in joining in this initiative.
More from Pat Buckley, who has this week been representing SPUC at the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva, Switzerland. As well as Malta, Slovakia is standing up for life. Pat has just sent me the following report:
"The United Nations Human Rights Council reviews periodically the situation on human rights in UN member-states. The council has just released the report of its review of Slovakia. In the review process, one of the recommendations made by the Holy See calls on Slovakia to 'defend the right to life, based on article 15 of the Constitution'. The Slovakian response to this is:
'Article 15(1) of the Constitution of the Slovak Republic clearly states that everyone has the right to life and that human life is worth protecting even before birth. In the spirit of these principles, the amendment to the act on healthcare of September 2009 contains details on mandatory instructions given to women preceding the written informed consent of the woman, as a precondition for carrying out abortions and introduces the obligation to advise on other alternatives. The law also provides women who want to give up their newborn child with the possibility of anonymous birth, as well as the possibility to place a newborn in a publicly accessible incubator- a so-called baby hatch.'"
It's been reported in a Cambridge University study published last week that people in a so-called persistent vegetative state (PVS) (or more correctly, persistent non-responsive state) still learn. It provides a welcome reminder that we should never give up in our battle for life and for the right to life, however disappointing and tough that battle may seem at times. Whatever may be the personal views of the Cambridge University researchers, their study is a reminder of the mystery and worth of every human being and that there's no such thing as a life not worthy to be lived. This view of humanity is reflected in universal human rights instruments.
As director of SPUC, like anyone else in the pro-life struggle, I certainly value such reminders from time to time.
SPUC was granted intervener status in Debbie Purdy's legal challenge on assisted suicide. During the past year the Society spent over £50,000 in seeking to defend the value and inviolability of every human life in that particular matter.
Disastrously, two months ago, senior judges in the House of Lords gave a judgement supporting assisted suicide. Earlier this month, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers, the senior Law Lord who handed down the Purdy judgement, expressed his personal support for assisted suicide, according to The Daily Telegraph. Last week, Keir Starmer, the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), in response to the Law Lords' judgement, issued guidelines which will be a useful guide to anyone who wants to promote the suicide of their troublesome relatives with impunity.
So did SPUC waste its supporters' money as the only intervener in the Debbie Purdy case? In my opinion, no.
One of the fundamental reasons why legal tolerance of assisted suicide is wrong is that it promotes the idea, already so prevalent in society, that there's such a thing as a life not worthy to be lived. It's one thing for a person to want to commit suicide. It's another thing for another person to agree that it's right for you, in your circumstances, to do so and to help you to do so. It's even more dangerous when society moves towards legal tolerance of assisted suicide.
Assisted suicide rightly remains a serious statutory offence. As Professor John Keown pointed out yesterday in The Daily Telegraph, the Law Lords' recent ruling which helps to minimize someone's risk of prosecution for this offence, is "surely unprecedented, unsound and unconstitutional".
Whether SPUC and our fellow pro-life groups succeed or fail in our battles for the value and inviolability of every human life, we must continue in that fight.
The Cambridge University study on people in persistent vegetative state is particularly poignant, as it was a Law Lords' ruling which resulted in the death by dehydration of Tony Bland, who was in a persistent non-responsive state, in 1992. The growing practice of silent euthanasia in Britain stems from that decision, as does too, I'm sure, the Law Lords' latest ruling in the Debbie Purdy case.
A senior Vatican prelate has said that Catholic politicians who vote for anti-life and anti-family policies should not be given Holy Communion or Catholic funerals. Speaking at a Catholic awards dinner, Archbishop Raymond Burke, prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, said:
"To deny these is not a judgment of the soul, but a recognition of the scandal and its effects."
His comments follow the public Catholic funeral for Edward Kennedy, the pro-abortion American senator.
Following Tony Blair's reception into the Catholic Church, some Catholics said that it was wrong to criticise him for his anti-life and anti-family political record, or even to ask him to repudiate it. One of their arguments was that being received into the Catholic Church wiped Mr Blair's slate clean, so to speak, as reception into the Church involved confession of past sins and a stated agreement with all the Church's teachings. Archbishop Burke, however, says:
"[W]ith greatly sinful acts about fundamental questions like abortion and marriage, [a politician's] repentance must also be public. Anyone who grasps the gravity of what [such a politician] has done will understand the need to make it public."
Not only has Tony Blair refused to repudiate his anti-life and anti-family political record, since being received into the Catholic Church, he has extended it with open attacks on Catholic teaching on sexual ethics.
Archbishop Burke's comments are a refreshing antidote to the pampered treatment Mr Blair received courtesy of L'Osservatore Romano, the semi-official Vatican newspaper.
In 2007, Archbishop Raymond Burke published a very thorough scholarly article The Discipline Regarding the Denial of Holy Comminion to Those Obstinately Persevering in Manifest Grave Sin in Periodica De Re Canonica (vol. 96 (2007) pag. 3 - 58. He concluded:
First of all, the consistent canonical discipline permits the administering of the Sacrament of Holy Communion only to those who are properly disposed externally, and forbids it to those who are not so disposed, prescinding from the question of their internal disposition, which cannot be known with certainty.
Secondly, the discipline is required by the invisible bond of communion which unites us to God and to one another. The person who obstinately remains in public and grievous sin is appropriately presumed by the Church to lack the interior bond of communion, the state of grace, required to approach worthily the reception of the Holy Eucharist.
Thirdly, the discipline is not penal but has to do with the safeguarding of the objective and supreme sanctity of the Holy Eucharist and with caring for the faithful who would sin gravely against the Body and Blood of Christ, and for the faithful who would be led into error by such sinful reception of Holy Communion.
Fourthly, the discipline applies to any public conduct which is gravely sinful, that is, which violates the law of God in a serious matter. Certainly, the public support of policies and laws which, in the teaching of the Magisterium, are in grave violation of the natural moral law falls under the discipline.
Fifthly, the discipline requires the minister of Holy Communion to forbid the Sacrament to those who are publicly unworthy. Such action must not be precipitous. The person who sins gravely and publicly must, first, be cautioned not to approach to receive Holy Communion. The memorandum, "Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion", of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, in its fifth principle, gives the perennial pastoral instruction in the matter. This, in fact, is done effectively in a pastoral conversation with the person, so that the person knows that he is not to approach to receive Holy Communion and, therefore, the distribution of Holy Communion does not become an occasion of conflict. It must also be recalled that "no ecclesiastical authority may dispense the minister of Holy Communion from this obligation in any case, nor may he emanate directives that contradict it" *.
Finally, the discipline must be applied in order to avoid serious scandal, for example, the erroneous acceptance of procured abortion against the constant teaching of the moral law. No matter how often a Bishop or priest repeats the teaching of the Church regarding procured abortion, if he stands by and does nothing to discipline a Catholic who publicly supports legislation permitting the gravest of injustices and, at the same time, presents himself to receive Holy Communion, then his teaching rings hollow. To remain silent is to permit serious confusion regarding a fundamental truth of the moral law. Confusion, of course, is one of the most insidious fruits of scandalous behavior.
Pat Buckley has this week been representing SPUC at the the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva, Switzerland, and he has just sent me the following report:
"The United Nations Human Rights Council reviews periodically the situation on human rights in UN member-states. The council has just released the report of its review of Malta. In the review process, the Maltese government 'reiterate[d] that the right to life is an inherent right of every human being – this includes the unborn child, from its conception. We will retain our existing national legislation on the question of abortion.' Malta also made clear its opinion that 'whether or not to legislate to recognize the relationship between two partners, irrespective of their sex, remains a matter of national competence.'
"The Holy See (the government of the Catholic Church) supported Malta within the council by recommending that Malta 'continue its policy in defence of the right to life' and 'continue its policy to protect the family as the natural and fundamental group unit of society based on the stable relationship between a man and a woman.'
"Malta's resolute and courageous stand for life and family values in the face of considerable pressure from pro-abortion and anti-family forces is to be commended. The Holy See is also to be commended for supporting Malta's pro-life and pro-family laws."
When the Pope visits Britain next year, the country he will find is the valley of the culture of death.
In Britain, the government organises secret abortions on schoolgirls behind parents' backs. The chief prosecutor has today issued rules tolerating assisted suicide, under which the disabled will be treated as second-class citizens. The leaders of the major political parties all voted for sinister destructive experiments on embryonic children. I hope that Pope Benedict will issue stern reminders to church leaders and Catholic parliamentarians of their absolute duty to place the right to life from conception to natural death at the top of Britain's moral and political agenda."
In summary, SPUC Pro-Life's detailed response is that the interim policy:
says prosecutions will be less likely in cases where the deceased had been disabled or terminally ill
will legally downgrade the right to life of disabled or terminally-ill people
confirms the fears of disabled people that the law deems their lives to be inferior
contradicts the fairness and objectivity requirements of the existing general code for prosecutors
will be a useful guide to anyone who wants to promote the suicide of their troublesome relatives with impunity
goes against the government's national suicide prevention strategy.
We will be encouraging disability groups, and all those affected by suicides and suicide attempts, to lobby the DPP to enforce the law against assisted suicide justly and fairly.
SPUC Pro-Life's response in detail:
Paul Tully, SPUC Pro-Life's general secretary, commented:
"The new interim policy for prosecuting assisted suicide issued by the director of public prosecutions (DPP) today confirms the fears of disabled people that their lives are regarded as of inferior quality by the law."
"The right to life of terminally-ill and disabled people will be legally downgraded under this policy, despite the lip-service paid to the right to life of disabled people during the House of Lords hearing.
"This is a subtle but significant downgrading of disabled people - we are seeing withdrawal of legal protection by stealth.
"In the newly-published prosecuting policy, physical disability of a suicide victim is listed among the factors that count against prosecuting someone who either encourages or helps a suicide".
The document says:
"The policy says that it is a 'factor against prosecution' if the victim had:
a terminal illness; or
a severe and incurable physical disability; or
a severe degenerative physical condition;
from which there was no possibility of recovery" (p5, (4))
"This stands in stark contradiction to the existing general code of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) which says:
"Crown Prosecutors must be fair, independent and objective. They must not let any personal views about ethnic or national origin, disability, sex, religious beliefs, political views or the sexual orientation of the suspect, victim or witness influence their decisions. They must not be affected by improper or undue pressure from any source."
"This new assisted suicide policy introduces pressure on Crown Prosecutors from within the service to be unfair and subjective.
"The new policy as drafted will be a useful guide to anyone who wants to promote the suicide of their troublesome relatives with impunity. Among the factors that count against a prosecution are that the victim:
indicated unequivocally to the suspect that he or she wished to commit suicide
asked personally on his or her own initiative for the assistance of the suspect.
"Knowing these factors will help the perpetrators of crime avoid prosecution, simply by making statements about what the victim allegedly said to them - and the victims will not be able to deny it.
"Today's policy not only contradicts the CPS prosecuting code, it also goes against the government's National Suicide Prevention Strategy, which seeks to identify and dissuade people at risk of committing suicide. The DPP's new policy says that encouraging or helping someone with a history of suicide attempts is less rather than more likely to deserve prosecution. This contradicts the positive approach of the suicide prevention strategy, which seeks to identify potential suicides and ensure that they get the help they need to give them hope. This is vital for the many thousands of people each year who become suicidal and need positive support".
We will be encouraging disability groups, and all those affected by suicides and suicide attempts, to lobby the DPP to enforce the law against assisted suicide justly and fairly.
Yesterday, I highlighted how the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) seems to be on a PR bandwagon that's preparing the public for his guidelines on assisted suicide which are due out tomorrow. It looks like he will say that the authorities will only take action against those who help friends or relatives kill themselves if there's evidence of coercion or ulterior motives.
Paul Tully of SPUC has pointed out how parliament recently voted against letting people take others abroad for suicide, adding: "Now the legal authorities are forcing a weakening of the law against helping people to kill themselves. There is a democratic deficit in their action." He said that the DPP's failure to take action on high-profile assisted suicides had weakened the law. The guidelines could undermine disabled people.
The DPP is issuing these guidelines because of a House of Lords ruling. Lord Phillips (right), now president of the new supreme court, expressed sympathy for people who wanted to kill themselves.
The prime minister's spokesman restated Mr Brown's opposition to assisted suicide but would not be drawn on the DPP's guidelines. Mr Cameron, the leader of the opposition, has called moves to tolerate assisted suicide "dangerous for society". We must hold these politicians to account. We must also build a massive public campaign against any guidelines which allow assisted suicide in practice. The present law, which unambiguously forbids helping someone to kill themselves, should not be undermined.
The Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) is due to issue his guidelines on assisted suicide on Wednesday. The House of Lords told him to do this in response to Mrs Debbie Purdy's request. She wants to know if her husband will get into trouble if he takes her abroad to kill herself. Although the guidelines aren't due out yet, Mr Keir Starmer, the DPP (right), has been on the media talking about his new policy.
Yesterday, he spoke to Andrew Marr on BBC television about the case of Daniel James. He said: "Daniel James had a clear, settled intention to commit suicide. His parents were acting purely out of compassion; and whilst assisting him weren't encouraging him, and they had nothing to gain. Now it's obvious that those factors are going to feature fairly heavily in the policy we're publishing on Wednesday."
It would seem that the policy will mean that people like Mr and Mrs James will continue to escape prosecution, even if (as Mr Starmer recognizes) they assist a suicide. Elsewhere in the interview, Mr Starmer says: "Well we're certainly not changing the law. Assisted suicide is an offence; it'll remain an offence."
It is very disturbing to see these comments being made in advance of the publication of the new prosecution policy. It suggests that there is a public relations strategy that is driving the DPP's action. The strategy seems to be to soften up public opinion in advance of the new policy.
Statute law has not been changed but the DPP's policy could well make a difference in the way people behave in circumstances of a person's suicide. The court decision in which Mr Starmer was instructed to issue this new policy included a legal argument to say that committing suicide was part of one's right to private life which is protected in article eight of the European Convention on Human Rights.
All this is very dangerous indeed and it's why SPUC intervened in Mrs Purdy's case.
George Pitcher in today's Telegraphreminds us of how Lord Falconer said that the Archbishop of Canterbury lacked compassion because he opposed assisted suicide. Mr Pitcher writes: " The DPP … has dutifully played his role in this legislative charade. He made some respectable noises after the Law Lords' ruling that it wasn't for him to change the law. Then he proceeded in effect to do just that." He warns that, once the law has been undermined by this guidance, the law will itself be changed. Mr Pitcher even predicts a suicide clinic in Britain and calls on David Cameron to reverse this worrying trend.
Two stories caught my eye this week which prompt me this morning to give three rousing cheers for the world's independent, vigorous, good-humoured and peaceful pro-life movement.
Firstly, Vienna's Cardinal Schönborn forbad Bishop Andreas Laun (pictured), an auxiliary of the Salzburg diocese, from attending a peaceful pro-life protest outside Vienna's City Hall. "Bishop Laun is an excellent and brave man", according to Dr Tom Ward, president of the National Assocation of Catholic Families (NACF), who knows him - and you can find here the faithful bishop's dignified comments on television during a Mass which preceded the rally outside the city hall. Inside, Vienna's mayor was leading a celebration marking the 30th anniversary of "a busy abortion clinic".
The TV pictures show a characteristically cheerful group, including many young people, giving eloquent witness on behalf of unborn children whose right to life is being swept aside by Vienna's mayor - just as the Nazi party began to sweep away the rights of Jews in Vienna in 1938.
Secondly, a number of British journals this week, have carried reviews of an autobiography by Baroness Williams of Crosby in which it is claimed: "When, in the course of her victorious campaign for the SDP in the [1981] Crosby by-election ... the Society for the Protection for the Unborn Child threatened to flood every Catholic church in the constituency with leaflets urging support for her Tory opponent, she simply picked up the phone to Archbishop Warlock of Liverpool and got the whole thing stopped."
For the record, SPUC did not urge support for the Tory opponent (more of that below***).
Whatever the late Archbishop Warlock may or may not have sought to do, SPUC's Crosby branch continued to campaign vigorously to spread the pro-life message during that by-election. Since then, over the years, it's grown to become probably the largest local pro-life group in Britain.
It's a good job it is really because SPUC Crosby's ethically-challenged Member of Parliament, Claire Curtis-Thomas,a Catholic, and a vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary pro-life group, said in a House of Commons debate on abortion last year: "For the record, and contrary to many of the statements that I have read this week which purport to know my views, I am not opposed to abortion. I believe that women should have the right to choose; I just hope that they do not choose to have an abortion." Claire Curtis-Thomas confirmed her anti-life stance in correspondence with a constituent later in the year - and she has politely refused my offer of a public debate on her position.
In connection with these stories, we must constantly bear in mind that we are living through a period of history many pro-lifers are posing the question: "Are there subversive elements at work within the Vatican who are intent on appeasing Barack Obama and Tony Blair and their anti-life policies?"
In this grave crisis, it's vital that pro-life, pro-family movements, maintain their vigour, their independence, their good humour and their entirely peaceful character. Many of our members are inspired by the unchanging teaching of their Christian faith, whilst others, without a faith, simply respect the right to life which continues to be upheld in universal human rights instruments for all members of the human family. The pro-life movement is here; we’re growing; we’re passing on our experiences of failures and successes to the next generation who are beginning to join us in growing numbers.
Whatever the considerations which guided Vienna's Cardinal Schönborn earlier this month to make his decision about the pro-life rally in Vienna, and whatever Archbishop Warlock did or did not do in the Crosby by-election nearly thirty years ago - let's give three cheers for the world's independent pro-life movement.
***N.B. I was general secretary of SPUC in 1981 and I wrote to our supporters in November 1981 telling them exactly what the Society was saying to Crosby voters. Contrary to Lady Williams' reported claim, our practice then, as now, was to inform the electorate of the voting records and voting intentions of parliamentary candidates. We never express a preference for any party.
"On October 2nd, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe will vote on a pro-abortion report and resolution (Doc. 11992) “Fifteen years since the International Conference on Population and Development Programme of Action”, drafted by Ms Christine McCafferty, (UK Soc.) [pictured] from the Social, Health and Family Affairs Committee.
"This report encourages the Committee of Ministers to start developing a European convention on sexual and reproductive health, and to achieve universal access to sexual and reproductive health and rights by 2015." [According to the World Health Organisation's definition "sexual and reproductive health" services includes the provision of abortion on demand.]
"Here is its official Summary:
"'2009 is the fifteenth anniversary of the International Conference on Population and Development Programme of Action; women, children and their families cannot wait any longer for the promises made fifteen years ago by leaders of 179 nations.'
"'The rapporteur thinks that funding for this programme must increase, sexual and reproductive rights must be upheld, and policies should respond to needs and not be coercive. Health systems must be strengthened, in order to improve lives and achieve the promises of the Millennium Development Goals, in particular, Goal 5 to improve maternal health.
"'A range of family planning, including emergency contraceptives, safe abortion, skilled birth attendants and obstetric emergency care, must be accessible, affordable, appropriate and acceptable to all, irrespective of age, community or country.'
"Within other aspects, the report acknowledges a connexion between climate change and population control.
Deep concern was expressed today at the demand for a review of a European Union (EU) member-state's legislation on the protection of minors.
Pat Buckley, international spokesman for SPUC, commented from Dublin:
"The EU is not supposed to have the power to review the domestic law of member states and this represents a new departure. The European Parliament has today voted to instruct its Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) to review a new law recently passed in Lithuania. The European Parliament has been spurred to this attempt to extend its sphere of influence by the Lithuanian Parliament's move, which has not yet come into force, but which seeks to stop minority sexual groups seeking to influence children.
"The FRA is the direct successor of the body which attacked Slovakia for seeking to protect the right of conscientious objection of pro-life doctors and nurses. Since it has such a strong pro-abortion track record, we are concerned that the next target will be one of those countries such as Malta or Ireland, that uphold the right to life of the child before birth.
"What is so deeply disturbing is that, firstly, an unelected Agency is being used to interfere in issues beyond the Parliament's competence, and secondly, that that Agency seems to oppose foundational rights like the right to life of the unborn, freedom of conscience and parental rights.
"On October 2, the Irish republic is being asked to vote again on the Lisbon Treaty. Today's motion is a timely warning which gives powerful ammunition to opponents of Lisbon."
Pat paid tribute to the work of the various groups that had lobbied against the EP motion. MEPs passed the on a roll-call vote by 349 to 218 with 46 abstentions. (57%, 35.5%, 7.5%).
A study has found that women who have an abortion may run an increased risk of subsequently giving birth to premature or low-weight babies. Researchers from Toronto, Canada, reviewed evidence from 37 studies from around the world between 1965 and 2001.
It seems, however, that the more evidence which emerges about the harm abortion causes, the more the supporters of abortion insist that abortion not be restricted. Dr Prakesh Shah. the study's author, said:
"I think it should not be used as a way of saying, this is bad and we should not be doing this kind of thing. There is an association which we should be aware of, and we should let mothers be aware. I don't want unintended pregnancies to increase."
"The most important message is not that this should be used in any way to prevent women having a termination of pregnancy. The effect has to be balanced against the serious effects of forcing women to continue with unwanted pregnancies. Any medical procedure is likely to have side-effects."
Dr Shah and Professor Steer unwittingly highlight several key points to be made against abortion:
Abortion IS bad. As well as being lethal to unborn children, it is bad for mothers and bad for children born to women who previously had abortions.
Doctors and medical bodies often fail to make mothers aware about the dangers of abortion.
Abortion can't prevent unintended pregnancies. In fact, the availability of abortion may increase the number of unintended pregnancies (the phenomenon of "moral hazard", as explained by Professor David Paton)
Abortion is not a right - the law should (and still does in Britain, at least in some circumstances) prevent women having abortions.
Abortion is not merely the "termination of pregnancy" (birth is the normal termination of pregnancy) but the killing of an unborn child, an innocent member of the human family, whose equal right to life is upheld in international human rights law
The overwhelming majority of pregnancies are the result of consensual sexual activity. And although some pregnancies may be unwanted or unintended, and some expectant mothers may have conflicted emotions about their unborn child, no child is ever in fact unwanted. As the late Mother Teresa said: "Please don't kill the child. I want the child. Please give me the child. I am willing to accept any child who would be aborted, and to give that child to a married couple who will love the child, and be loved by the child. From our children's home in Calcutta alone, we have saved over 3,000 children from abortions. These children have brought such love and joy to their adopting parents, and have grown up so full of love and joy!"
Abortion may be a medical(ised) procedure, but it is not medical treatment. It cures no illness and heals no wound - in fact, it creates new ones. The high risks identified in the study are not mere standard side-effects. Does Professor Steer really think the health and maybe even the lives of future generations should be airily dismissed in the name of the ideology of choice?
In a speech to the European Parliament, Anna Zaborska, the pro-life/pro-family Slovak MEP, has strongly defended moves by some European countries to protect both born and unborn children against elements within the European institutions. In particular, Mrs Zaborska defended the right of Lithuania to pass laws to protect children against sexualisation. Mrs Zaborka is greatly concerned, as I am, about the way that the European institutions are exceeding their remits in an attempt to impose abortion and other evils on European countries. The full text of Mrs Zaborska's brief speech is below.
"In 2006, Slovakia was condemned by the EU institutions because of a freedom of conscience clause in its national legislation.
"Today a national law from Lithuania which aims to protecting minors from sexualisation by society is condemned by the EU institutions.
"I consider our meeting to be a manipulation of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. This text is not a legally binding instrument.
"The EU Parliament is ignoring the legitimacy of the national Parliament of a Member State.
"The EU Parliament also requests an Opinion of the Fundamental Rights Agency, but this Agency has no mandate to assess the legal quality of a national law.
"I wonder what the Irish people will think about these procedures in advance of the upcoming referendum on the Lisbon treaty. What else can they think but that soon, Ireland also will be condemned because of its laws to protect the family and life?
"I profoundly regret that the European Parliament does not respect the basic principles of diversity and national culture, and that we question the protection of children and the right of parents to educate them."
The Law Reform Commission of Ireland is recommending legislation which would allow euthanasia by denial of food, fluids and reasonable medical treatment. The Commission's proposals mirror almost exactly the British government's Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Blair government's claims about that Act. The Blair government's Mental Capacity Act 2005 enshrined and expanded euthanasia by neglect in English law.
The (English) Mental Capacity Act 2005 enshrined the principles of the 1992 Bland judgment in English statute law, expanded to cover a much wider range of circumstances. Tony Bland, who was severely brain-damaged, was dehydrated to death following a ruling by the Law Lords that tube-delivered food and fluids was medical treatment and could be withdrawn from him in order to cause his death. The Law Reform Commission of Ireland's proposals draw heavily on the Bland judgment, similar subsequent English court judgments and on the (English) Mental Capacity Act 2005. The Commission's press release says:
“Under the proposed legislation, an advance care directive could include an instruction to refuse life-sustaining treatment (treatment which is intended to sustain or prolong life and that replaces or maintains the operation of vital bodily functions that are incapable of independent operation) … The Commission recommends that a statutory Code of Practice on Advance Care Directives should contain detailed guidance for health care professionals, including the circumstances in which artificial nutrition and hydration (ANH) may be considered to be basic care or, as the case may be, artificial life-sustaining treatment.”
As well as advance directives or so-called living wills, the Irish Commission's proposals include powers of attorney over healthcare. In this regard, the Irish Commission's proposals may be even more radical that the pro-euthanasia (English) Mental Capacity Act 2005. Paragraph 3.100 of the Commission's report reads:
"Under the Code of Practice for the English Mental Capacity Act 2005, a person appointed under a lasting (enduring) power of attorney can only consent to or refuse life-sustaining treatment on behalf of the donor where the donor has specifically stated that they want the donor to have this authority. The Commission considers, however, that due to the importance of promoting patient autonomy, the proxy must have the power to refuse life-sustaining medical treatment."
Surely the good people of Ireland, many thousands of whom every year work to resist the repeated attempts to undermine its pro-life constitution, will not stand idly by at this attempt to import silent euthanasia? Please write to newspapers and other media outlets in the Irish Republic to:
alert people that the Commission's proposals mirror the English Mental Capacity Act 2005, which has entrenched and expanded euthanasia; and
urge the Irish government and Dail (parliament) to reject the Commission's proposals.
Fr John Fleming, SPUC's bioethical consultant, explains the (English) Mental Capacity Act 2005 as follows. The Act provides for euthanasia by omission of reasonable care, Fr Fleming says. It does this by a faulty understandings of ordinary care, autonomy and “best interests”.
Ordinary care
Fr Fleming explains Pope John Paul's teaching that the administration of water and food, even when provided by artificial means, always represents a natural means of preserving life, not a medical act. However, under the (English) Mental Capacity Act 2005, artificially-delivered food and fluids is seen as medical treatment.
Autonomy
Autonomy is the right to self-determination, the right to free choice. However, free choice is linked to fundamental human values and inalienable human rights such as the right to life. A person cannot exercise his autonomy by giving away his right to freedom, for example, by selling himself into slavery. Neither can he use his autonomy by denying his right to life as the (English) Mental Capacity Act 2005 permits.
Neither can my autonomy be exercised by another person. The (English) Mental Capacity Act 2005 falls prey to a false understanding of autonomy in this respect too. “Autonomy” cannot be handed on like a baton in a relay race, Fr Fleming says. You can make decisions on my behalf when I am not able to do that for myself but that is not an exercise in autonomy. It might be you acting autonomously on my behalf.
This leads to another danger: Relatives can be overcome with identifying with the patient's suffering and the problem of transference arises: "Please put grandma out of my misery".
'Best interests'
Hurt a child and the law intervenes, Fr Fleming says. The law ensures that parents' choices on behalf of their children are constrained by the child's objective “best interests”. However, the (English) Mental Capacity Act 2005 imposes no such constraint on those with power of attorney for, and doctors caring for, mentally incapacitated patients.. The patient's “best interests” in the new law are not objective but are subjectively defined.
The (English) Mental Capacity Act 2005 by enshrining in law euthanasia by neglect is the first legislative step to active euthanasia, and those behind it know that's the case, Fr Fleming says.
A national audit of 4,000 patients put on the Liverpool Care Pathway last year has found that more than a quarter of families are not told when life support is withdrawn from terminally-ill loved ones. The audit was conducted by researchers from the Royal College of Physicians and the Marie Curie Palliative Care Institute in Liverpool. Under the Pathway, doctors can withdraw food and fluids from terminally-ill patients and sedate them continuously until death. Peter Millard, emeritus professor of geriatrics at the University of London, is quoted by today's Daily Mail:
"The risk as this is rolled out across the country is that elderly people with chronic conditions like Parkinson's or respiratory disorders may be dismissed as dying when they could still live for some time ... Only when death is unavoidable should you start withdrawing treatment."
The report confirms what we have long known at SPUC: that there is a policy of silent euthanasia being practised across Britain. Alison Davis of No Less Human shows in a recently published paper, how euthanasia has spread, starting with the 1992 Bland judgment, expanded the 2005 Mental Capacity Act and now implemented through the Liverpool Care Pathway.
Tony Bland was seriously injured in the Hillsborough Stadium tragedy of 1989, leaving him in a persistent non-responsive state – often called a “persistent vegetative state” (PVS). Alison's paper discusses his treatment and subsequent death following removal of food and fluids, with specific attention to the legal details and implications of the case.
Tony could breathe by himself and assimilate foods and fluids administered by tube, yet following a High Court application by the Airedale Hospital trust, a decision was made to remove his feeding tube. That decision was upheld on appeal and by the House of Lords. Tony died nine days after the tube was removed. Alison highlights the reinterpretation by the judiciary of the traditional medical meaning of the patient’s “best interests” to now include death by removal of food and fluids. More disturbingly, that reinterpretation represents a shift from considering the burdensomeness or futility of treatment to the burdensomeness or futility of a person’s life.
The Bland case acted as a precedent for other changes that would undermine respect for human life in such vulnerable circumstances. Alison cites the 1999 British Medical Association’s guidelines which extend the circumstances under which a feeding tube may be removed to include non-PVS patients, possibly meaning those with serious stroke or severe dementia. More seriously, the 2005 Mental Capacity Act formally defined the provision of food and fluids by tube as medical treatment, not only making their provision more easily denied, but also making it possible for patients, through an advance directive, to have food and fluids removed upon becoming incompetent. Alison also identifies the “Liverpool Care Pathway” as an avenue for the same risk to patients’ lives.
Finally, Alison joins the dots and points to the link between these changes and assisted suicide and euthanasia. Once it is accepted that death can be intended and brought about by the removal of sustenance, it is that much easier to intend death by direct means such as lethal injection.
Today's Guardianreports on a double-page spread interview with Tony Blair, the former British prime minister, in L'Osservatore Romano, the Vatican's newspaper. The Guardian says:
"Weeks after a packed Catholic conference in Italy gave Blair an ovation for his words about the universality of Catholicism, the pope's newspaper was equally effusive, calling the convert 'a gentleman, educated, smiley, courteous in a way few know how to be'.
"Letting slip the Vatican's possible ambition for Blair, the paper also described him as 'a probable future president of the European Union'.
"With a double page spread at his disposal, Blair served up a mix of anecdotes about his conversion and strong indications of how faith is at the heart of every step he takes."
I pose the question: Are there subversive elements at work within the Vatican who are intent on appeasing Barack Obama and Tony Blair and their anti-life policies? Imagine if Obama and Blair were committed racists rather than being committed to their anti-life and anti-family policies. Would L'Osservatore Romano afford them such a generous platform? I hope not. But surely this same standard should apply to attacks on the sanctity of human life. As Michel Schooyans, one of the Vatican's leading scholars has pointed out in a masterly analysis, Obama and Blair, with their anti-life, anti-family agenda, are seeking to undermine both law and religion respectively.
Tony Blair has refused to repudiate his anti-life, anti-family record and he has also attacked the Catholic Church's teaching on pro-family issues. In my letter to Tony Blair (11 January 2008), I wrote:
"We would...be most grateful if, in the light of your reception into the Catholic Church, you would tell us if you now repudiate: • voting in 1990 for abortion up to birth three times during Parliamentary debates on what became the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990; • personally endorsing your government’s policy of supplying abortion and birth control drugs and devices to schoolgirls as young as 11 without parental knowledge or consent; • your government introducing legislation which has led to a law which allows, and in certain circumstances requires, doctors to starve and dehydrate to death vulnerable patients; • your government’s commitment to the promotion of abortion on demand as a universal fundamental human right. • personally championing destructive experiments on human embryos."
The reply I received from Mr Blair's office - in fact, from the Tony Blair Faith Foundation - refused point-blank to answer any of the questions that I had put.
Monthly national day of prayer & fasting for life, Tuesday 29 September, feast of St Michael, archangel.
A great prayer for life is urgently needed. Pope John Paul II
Join us in:
fasting: Fast from all food except bread and water for the day or fast from a particular food or luxury, e.g. chocolate, alcohol, cigarettes, TV. Fast from whatever you can given your state of health etc, but make sure it is something that involves a sacrifice to yourself.
prayer: We are asking people to say a Rosary (or an extra Rosary if you say it daily already). You could also offer an extra effort such as going to Mass (or an extra Mass) on the day, or going to Adoration. You can even pray before a closed tabernacle if Adoration is not available near you.
And He said to them; This kind (of demon) can go out by nothing, but by prayer and fasting. (Gospel of Mark 9:29)
On 29th September please pray and fast for the end of abortion and euthanasia. Your prayer and fasting is urgently needed.
For information on the day of prayer and fasting contact The Good Counsel Network on 020 7723 1740.
And the people of Ninevah believed in God; they proclaimed a fast and put on sackcloth, from the greatest to the least…God saw their efforts to renounce their evil ways. And God relented about the disaster which He had threatened to bring on them, and He did not bring it. (Jonah 3:5,10)
I've just been sent a video called "Happy Birthday". It's a rap/R&B music single by the group Flipsyde. The single was very popular when it was released in 2006, topping the music charts in several countries. The song is a man's regret over his involvement in abortion. The lyrics are very powerful, and they confirm the message of the Silent No More campaign that abortion hurts men as well as women. Click below to view the video (which has the lyrics subtitled, which I've also included below).
Happy Birthday...so make a wish
Verse 1:
Please accept my apologies, wonder what would have been
Would you've been a little angel or an angel of sin?
Tom-boy running around, hanging with all the guys.
Or a little tough boy with beautiful brown eyes?
I payed for the murder before they determined the sex
Choosing our life over your life meant your death
And you never got'a chance to even open your eyes
Sometimes I wonder as a foetus if you faught for your life?
Would you have been a little genius in love with math?
Would you have played in your school clothes and made me mad?
Would you have been a little rapper like your papa da Piper?
Would you have made me quit smokin' by finding one of my lighters?
I wonder about your skintone and shape of your nose?
And the way you would have laughed and talked fast or slow?
Think about it every year, so I picked up a pen
Happy birthday, love you whoever you woulda been
Happy birthday...
Chorus:
what I thought was a dream (make a wish)
Was as real as it seemed (happy birthday)
What I thought was a dream (make a wish)
Was as real as it seemed
I made a mistake!
Verse 2:
I've got a millon excuses to why you died
Bet the people got their own reasons for homicide
Who's to say it woulda worked, and who's to say it wouldn't have?
I was young and strugglin' but old enough to be your dad
The fear of being my father has never disappeared
Pondering frequently while I'm sippin' on my beer
My vision of a family was artificial and fake
So when it came time to create I made a mistake
Now you've got a little brother maybe he's really you?
Maybe you really forgave us knowin' we was confused?
Maybe everytime that he smiles it's you proudly knowin' that your father's doin' the right thing now?
I never tell a woman what to do with her body
But if she don't love children then we can't party
Think about it every year, so I picked up a pen
Happy birthday, love you whoever you woulda been
Happy birthday...
[Chorus]
And from the heavens to the womb to the heavens again
From the endin' to the endin', never got to begin
Maybe one day we could meet face to face?
In a place without time and space
Happy birthday...
From the heavens to the womb to the heavens again
From the endin' to the endin', never got to begin
Maybe one day we could meet face to face?
In a place without time and space
Earlier this week Chris Brennan of SPUC Bristol branch was interviewed for BBC 1's Politics Show on the subject of assisted suicide. Chris was opposed by Sir Terry Pratchett, the author, who has a form of Alzheimer's. Sir Terry emphasised individual choice and the terrible nature of Alzheimer's. Chris responded that all human life is precious and should be protected. He said that the availability of assisted suicide will make sick people more vulnerable and afraid of being a burden on others. He added that the law against assisted suicide is being changed by stealth. Well done Chris!
