Pro-abortion lobby tries again to deceive Polish women

Early last month Anand Grover, United Nations special rapporteur "on the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health" visited Poland and told the country that its access to abortion is unsatisfactory. He admitted that he had not obtained official data on the number of illegal abortions performed in Poland, but added that Polish nongovernmental organizations put the figure at anywhere from 80,000 to 180,000 a year. The Warsaw Voice newspaper, reporting Grover's visit, failed to mention that these "nongovernmental organzations" are in fact the same ones campaigning for greater access to legal abortion.

We are sure that many Polish people, whose natural instincts are pro-life, will see through this ruse. Firstly, let's look at the facts of the current story: an incredibly rough estimate (80,000 to 180,000) without comparison to official figures. Secondly, let's look at the history of abortion law in Poland. Before the passing of a law restricting abortion in 1993, a concerted campaign by pro-life groups and the Catholic Church resulted in a steady decline in the number of legal abortions from 105,333 in 1988 to 777 in 1993. Thirdly, let's look at the history of the campaign to legalise abortion in the US before the 1973 Roe v Wade ruling. Dr Bernard Nathanson, the abortion pioneer who became pro-life, admitted that he deliberately exaggerated the estimated number of illegal abortions five-fold.

As I've said before, the pro-abortion lobby should stop patronising Polish women with its deceitful, death-dealing agenda. The people of Poland have, in large numbers, this very week celebrated both the 20th anniversary of the end of Communist rule and the 30th anniversary of the first visit of the late Pope John Paul II to Poland. The last thing Polish people want is to return to a culture of death.

Obama-Clinton's worldwide abortion propaganda unit

The US House of Representatives is due to vote this week on the establishment of an Office of Global Women’s Issues within the US State Department. The office will be responsible for coordinating efforts “relating to gender integration and women’s empowerment in United States foreign policy.” The head of the new office is Melanne Verveer (pictured), former chief of staff to Hillary Clinton, and reported to be pro-abortion Catholic. With Barack Obama as President and Mrs Clinton as Secretary of State, we can expect this new office to engage in a worldwide campaign to make abortion on demand a universal human right.

This is yet more evidence that, for Obama and Clinton, a pro-abortion position is not just something to be expected of a Democratic party administration. They now appear to be making the promotion of a so-called right to abortion among the highest priorities of US domestic and foreign policy, something the mainstream media has generally failed to report. The courageous opposition, however, of thousands of people, including scores of bishops, to Notre Dame university honouring Obama turned the world's spotlight on Obama's anti-life reputation. That is why at Notre Dame Obama felt it necessary to try to spin convincingly about common ground. All the more reason why we must debunk his spin and warn the world about the abortion-centred new world order he is working to create.

Political leaders who've misunderstood human sexuality

It was reported recently that David Cameron, the Conservative party leader, will be the first Tory party leader to attend the London's annual Gay Pride march this summer. In a similar move, President Obama recently proclaimed June to be "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Pride Month".

These political leaders believe that they are advancing an agenda of respect for individuals relating to choice around sexuality. In this they are, unfortunately, misguided and in error: they have misunderstood the true nature and purpose of human sexuality. They also posit a false choice and a false freedom.

In Evangelium Vitae paragraph 97, Pope John Paul II taught 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 the true nature and purpose of sexuality, and in love, and the whole of life according to their true meaning and in their natural interconnectedness. These political leaders are also raising very profound questions which anthropologists must begin to address - in addition to the analysis and commentary given by courageous theologians, clergy and demographers.

The truth of Pope John Paul II's teaching can be understood in moves to recognize marriage between same sex couples by changing the natural and legal meaning of marriage. The achievement of such an objective necessarily involves changing the nature and understanding of sexual intercourse, so that the conception of children through sexual intercourse becomes all the more clearly an optional add-on, yet another manifestation of personal choice in the individualistic society in which we now live. In such a social environment unborn children are certain to become all the more disposable.

History shows just how quickly and comprehensively a society can move to disposing of human beings once it abandons pro-life and historical family values for centuries upheld by the world's major religions. Mr Obama himself saw proof of this when he visited (pictured) the remains of Buchenwald, the Nazi concentration camp.

SPUC in Northern Ireland goes to court to challenge abortion guidelines

SPUC in Northern Ireland is going to court to challenge government guidelines on abortion. Liam Gibson of SPUC Northern Ireland says: "The law in Northern Ireland not only safeguards the lives of unborn children but also protects women from the terrible damage which abortion can cause. By issuing guidance that distorts the law, the department of health has created a grave threat to unborn children, to the safety of women and to the rights of medical professionals." You can read more about our challenge in an SPUC press release, which includes links to relevant documents.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks that cardinal won't be joining Blair foundation

I've relieved to read that Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor, the former archbishop of Westminster, will not, as previously announced, be joining the Tony Blair Faith Foundation. I've blogged before about the dangers that the Blairs and the Foundation pose to life and family. I hope the cardinal's decision marks the beginning of the end of the Blairs' campaign to inveigle themselves into high ecclesiatical places, and will help convert them into true pro-life/pro-family advocates.

Standing up for life around the world

People all around the world are prepared to stand up for life, as can be seen from the following news:

• Legislators in the Dominican Republic vote to modify the constitution to guarantee the right to life from conception to natural death. Catholics pray that those legislators who voted against the pro-life move will "reflect upon their decision".
• Thousands of Poles brave a torrential downpour to march for life through the centre of Warsaw, the capital (pictured).
  
• Polls in Spain find that a majority of Spaniards are against the government's plan to allow abortions for children without parental consent.

So there's every reason for hope when there are so many people around the world who support pro-life values.

Video of 2nd International Student Pro-Life Conference, March 2009

In March, SPUC Scotland organised the 2nd International Student Pro-Life Conference. Attendance was up markedly on last year's well-attended conference and it was judged a great success. Do watch the video summarising the conference clicking below.

Extreme pro-abortion anti-family report presented at Human Rights Council meeting

A report into violence against women has been used to promote an extreme pro-abortion agenda at the United Nations Human Rights Council, currently meeting in Geneva. The report, by Yakin Ertürk, the council's special rapporteur on violence against women, attempts to link bans on abortion with violence against women. The report is entitled "15 Years of the United Nations Special Rapporteur on violence against women, its causes and consequences (1994-2009), a critical review".

Pat Buckley, representing SPUC at the council meeting, commented:

"Irrespective of what the report says, there is not and never can be a human right to abortion. The idea of trying to create a right to terminate the life of the most vulnerable human beings, by tearing them from their mothers' wombs, is in fact the very essence of violence against women and their babies."

The report refers to "violations related to reproductive rights pertain[ing] to violence occurring directly and indirectly as a result of State action/inaction in the context of reproductive health policy", such as "criminal sanctions against all forms of abortions".

The report has yet to be approved by the council, which will meet until 19 June. SPUC is urging government representatives to study the report carefully, as it appears to contain many unacceptable and disturbing claims against the value of human life, the status of the family and the dignity of women.

Culture of neglect of the elderly will add to assisted suicide death-toll

An inquest into the death of Harry Denton (pictured), an elderly man with Alzheimer's, has heard claims that carers left him alone at home without food or drink for five days before he died in hospital of pneumonia. As the case is currently under inquest, I don't propose to comment further on the reported claims. What I wish to underscore is that there is evidence of a culture of neglect in Britain of elderly, disabled and vulnerable people; and that such neglect will become more common if assisted suicide is allowed.

People with degenerative diseases, or in advanced age, will feel under pressure to agree to an assisted suicide, with the implicit or even explicit message that it's better that they agree to die before they become too much of a burden. As Baroness Warnock said in September:

"If you're demented, you're wasting people's lives – your family's lives – and you're wasting the resources of the National Health Service ... [I]f somebody absolutely, desperately wants to die because they're a burden to their family, or the state, then I think they too should be allowed to die ... [T]here's nothing wrong with feeling you ought to do so for the sake of others as well as yourself."

Dame Joan Bakewell, the anti-life broadcaster appointed by Harriet Harman to be a 'Voice for Older People', has referred sinisterly to "an old age that brings with it all the humiliations of being helpless, incontinent and in pain."

And in a parliamentary debate in November, Baroness Greengross spoke of people "losing their dignity at the end of life".

So some of the most prominent and senior figures in our society are already trying to convince the vulnerable that they would be better off dead, shamelessly exploiting them for political capital in the parliamentary campaign to legalise assisted suicide. Let's stop that campaign in its tracks - please see and act today upon SPUC's action alert on the Coroners and Justice bill.

Anniversary highlights government role in abortion history

Today is the 42nd anniversary of the first day of the Report stage of the Medical Termination of Pregnancy Bill, the bill authored by David Steel which became the Abortion Act 1967. The bill was effectively talked out by a small group of dedicated pro-life MPs, who easily managed to keep the debate going until 4pm. Had the Labour government of the day not been persuaded by Roy Jenkins MP, the anti-life Home Secretary, to provide additional parliamentary time, the bill would have fallen on this day. (The full debate can be found here.)

SPUC in assisted suicide case in Lords today

SPUC will today be represented in a House of Lords hearing which concerns assisted suicide.

SPUC is the intervenor in Ms Debbie Purdy's appeal concerning whether her husband will be prosecuted if he takes her overseas to commit suicide.

SPUC argues against weakening the law which prohibits assisted suicide, as this would seriously undermine legal protection of the right to life. One result of this would be to threaten vulnerable people.

The principal issue is whether the Law Lords will overturn the ruling of the High Court and the Court of Appeal that the Director of Public Prosecutions is not required to issue a prosecuting policy on assisted suicide. The judges have so far held that the way the existing law is applied is sufficiently clear to enable Ms Purdy and her husband to know the likely outcome of their proposed actions.

Surprising support from the green left on population control

Further to my blog on the threat of population control in Australia, an interesting article has appeared on an Australian website called Green Left Online. Simon Butler, the author, starts by arguing that man-made climate change is a great danger. Unlike David Attenborough, however, Mr Butler gives ten reasons why population control is not the answer. Below are the ten reasons, but do read the arguments for them in full. I don't agree with some of the article's points, not least because not all them are pro-life/pro-family, but it is refreshing that some people on the green left are opposed to population control.

From "Ten reasons why population control can’t stop climate change", Simon Butler, Green Left Online, 31 May 2009:

1. Population does not cause climate change
2. The world is not 'full'
3. Social justice and women’s equality are the best contraception (JS: though, of course, actual contraception and a contraceptive mentality are, as I've argued before, bad for humanity.)
4. The climate emergency demands immediate, transformative action now
5. Population arguments wrongly downplay the potential to win
6. Population control is an old argument tacked onto a new issue
7. Arguing for tighter migration restrictions in Australia is a dangerous policy
8. Population control has a disturbing history
9. People in the global South are part of the solution, not the problem
10. Who holds political power is the real ‘population’ issue

Life is not a disposable consumer product

George Pitcher, the religion editor of the Daily Telegraph, has an excellent article on why assisted suicide is wrong. Among other things, he says:

"Fear leads us to consider that life can be treated as a consumer product, to be disposed of when it turns rotten, and to kid ourselves that there is 'dignity' in doing so ... The mistake is in thinking that our life is our own, to do with as we wish, when actually it is only defined in relationship to those around us. To commoditise life is to disown it and to deny others their duty of care."

It is therefore disturbing to read in the Guardian that there are almost 800 British members of Dignitas, the Swiss suicide company, with 34 of them ready to travel to Zurich and take a lethal drug overdose.

We have seen how abortion and IVF are now regarded are public services, with a focus by government on waiting times, waiting lists, equitable provision in all regions, etc. Without a prohibition on assisted suicide, the culture of death will spread yet further from the unborn to the born. This is something which is already happening in various ways, of course, but it will acclerate if an amendment is passed to the Coroners and Justice bill next week - please see and act today upon SPUC's action alert.

SPUC condemns shooting of Dr George Tiller

SPUC has condemned the shooting in Kansas, USA of George Tiller, a prominent abortion provider.

Although the motivation behind the killing of Dr Tiller has yet to be established, SPUC, in common with other pro-life groups, condemns his killing as a crime against life. SPUC has always condemned violence, whether against abortionists or unborn babies. Acts of violence towards the staff of abortion facilities are isolated. Those responsible have on each occasion acted as individuals, and not members of any pro-life group.

Our sympathy goes out to Dr Tiller's family.

Right response to pro-abortion policies is strong condemnation and resistance

Who could possibly take issue with The Tablet's editorial this weekend and its appreciative reference to Obama's speech at Notre Dame University calling for "respectful mutual comprehension" in relation to his anti-life policies?

I do.

The Tablet* writes:

Archbishop Nichols' words [at his installation sermon at Westminster Cathedral] might be construed as calling for the Catholic Church to be given a fair hearing, whereas Mr Obama was implicitly addressing his critics within the Catholic Church in America who condemn him as pro-abortion (and therefore condemn Notre Dame for honouring him). But Archbishop Nichols goes on to say: 'In these matters we ourselves in the Churches have so much to learn and do.' This sounds more like an appeal to his fellow Catholics to consider how they themselves engage in public controversy, in which case he is implicitly reinfor­cing Mr Obama's plea for respectful mutual comprehension."

I completely disagree with The Tablet. The right response to Barack Obama and his unprecedented execution of pro-abortion policies since being elected President is strong condemnation and peaceful resistance. As Father Frank Pavone (pictured), the national director of the US's Priests for Life puts it: "We have to stop trivialising abortion". Speaking about the students protesting against Notre Dame's honouring of Obama, Fr Frank writes:

"Everyone can imagine people they would protest speaking at a commencement: an avowed racist, anti-Semite, or advocate of terrorism. So the failure to object to one who is unwilling to call for an end to abortion is the failure to see that abortion is as bad or worse than those other evils. We have to stop trivializing abortion.

"Moreover, the university gave the President an honorary law degree. Law exists to protect human rights; but this president has admitted that he doesn’t know when a child receives human rights. How can he defend human rights when he doesn’t know who has them? ...

" ... Now dialogue with our opponents on this issue is something we at Priests for Life specialize in. I maintain friendships with abortion advocates and practicing abortionists. The clarity of our own convictions never means we despise, demonize, or shut out other people. And yes, we are willing to collaborate with others in morally legitimate ways to reduce the numbers of abortions.

"But the President’s remarks had a glaring omission. While willing to dialogue and to promote adoption, he gave no indication of any willingness to protect the children in the womb. And that’s the crux of the issue. In his remarks, he referred to the Brown vs. Board of Education Supreme Court decision that outlawed segregation. Certainly, his call for open minds does not include openness to reconsider the segregation issue. There’s a right answer to it, period.

"So it is with the protection of the unborn."

The latter part of 20th century history shows again and again that the appropriate response to fundamental human rights abuses on the part of the State is organized peaceful resistance on the part of citizens - and strong condemnation on the part of the Church, as Pope John Paul II reminded us in Evangelium Vitae:

"The Second Vatican Council, in a passage which retains all its relevance today, forcefully condemned a number of crimes and attacks against human life. Thirty years later, taking up the words of the Council and with the same forcefulness I repeat that condemnation in the name of the whole Church, certain that I am interpreting the genuine sentiment of every upright conscience: 'Whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia, or wilful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where people are treated as mere instruments of gain rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others like them are infamies indeed. They poison human society, and they do more harm to those who practise them than to those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonour to the Creator'." (EV, 3)

*The Tablet describes itself as an international Catholic weekly but, editorially, it opposes Church teaching on fundamental issues relating to the sanctity of human life.

Social Bookmarking

Good news from Mexico and on adult stem cells

I've been drawn to some recent news stories which provide hope for the sanctity of human life:

• yet another Mexican state (San Luis Potosi, coat-of-arms pictured) approves a pro-life constitution.
• poll finds that the majority of Americans believe that abortion is bad for women [LifeNews, 25 May].
• advances in adult stem cell research in the areas of childhood cancer (Huddersfield Daily Examiner, 26 May) (This is Leicestershire, 25 May) and sight loss (Daily Mail, 28 May).

These successes prove that pro-life work in the fields of lobbying, education and medicine has tangible results. There's no reason for apathy in pro-life work, not least because inaction means that not only opportunities, but lives, will be lost.

The threat of population control in Australia

A group called Sustainable Population Australia (SPA) is pushing for Australia to adopt a Chinese-style one-child policy, with the aim of reducing Australia’s population of 22 million people to seven million. The groups claims that such a drastic population cut is needed to ensure a sustainable future.

Anthony Ozimic of SPUC, who assists me with my blog, is an Australian, and he tells me:

"The history of modern Australia to the present day is one of under-population. Australia does not, and never has had, anywhere near a sufficient population to take proper advantage of its natural potential. As a result, Australia has always required fresh waves of immigration. I have personal knowledge of these things. Both sides of my family came to Australia from Europe, helping to meet Australia's need for hard-working, industrious immigrants. My father and maternal grandfather, both reservoir geologists, were at the forefront of supplying the oil and gas which sustains Australia's enviable standard of living.

"Believing in humanity entails acknowledging its unfailing ability to produce pioneers who solve many of its problems. Australia has always been a country of pioneers, whether it be explorers of Australia's vast habitable areas or scientists finding better ways to supply food, water and energy. A radical cut in Australia's population would mean cutting Australia's best natural resource - its people, and the future pioneers among them. Australia already has a below-replacement fertility rate and a high abortion rate. Concerns about sustainability, pollution, etc will not be addressed if fewer potential future scientists, engineers, etc are born."

Coroners and Justice Bill – assisted suicide threat

An amendment that would have the effect of legalizing assisted suicide has been tabled to the British government's Coroners and Justice Bill in the House of Lords. Despite the Government saying that they did not want such an amendment attached to the Bill, it has been tabled by Lord Alderdice (pictured). Although the amendment has little chance of success, it is very important that it is strongly opposed at the committee stage debate, which is scheduled for 9th and 10th June. Please read and act on this SPUC alert. Thank you.

Positive report in The Times on Napro Technology - the ethical fertility treatment

Oddly enough for the London Times, which is usually virulently anti-life, it has published a positive report on natural procreative technology (NaProTech or NPT). Among other things, the report points out that:

• "NPT is offered to couples as an 'ethical alternative' to assisted reproductive techniques ... There is no egg selection, no donor insemination and no embryo wastage."
• "NaPro is slowly establishing itself in Britain."
• "Supporters of NPT say that its attractions are not only moral but tangible."
• "NPT has markedly lower fees than IVF"
• "The biggest study of NPT effectiveness [found] a live birth rate of 25.5 per cent, a figure that seems impressive given that in the UK the IVF success rate is about 23 per cent."

Do read the report in full. It's refreshing that sometimes light is allowed to shine out from the darkness of the anti-life mainstream media.

Gordon Brown's wife endorses the international pro-abortion lobby

Last month I blogged about Sarah Brown (pictured), wife of Gordon Brown, the British prime minister, and her participation in a conference where abortion was promoted. Mrs Brown has now gone one step further by openly endorsing some of the world's leading pro-abortion agencies. In a keynote address at the recent World Health Assembly (at which SPUC was represented), Mrs Brown praised the work of the:

• United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA)
• United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) - see my blog of 3 May
• White Ribbon Alliance - see my blog of 5 May
• International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics (FIGO)
• Women Deliver conference, London, 2007
• Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG)
• Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation - see last weekend's Sunday Times

Mrs Brown singled out for praise the late Dr Allan Rosenfield, former national chairman of Planned Parenthood of America (America's largest abortion provider) and a leading pioneer of population control in the developing world. Mrs Brown said that "[t]he medical and academic world lost a great figure" when he died last year.

I find Mrs Brown's endorsement of these pro-abortion groups worrying, considering that these groups shamelessly manipulate the issue of maternal mortality to promote their child-killing agenda. That said, I'm not surprised either, considering her husband's anti-life record and her work for EMILY's List, which helps elect female Labour candidates to Parliament, but only if they are pro-choice i.e. pro-abortion.

It seems, unfortunately, to have become de rigeur for British prime ministers' wives to promote pro-abortion organizations!

UN committee calls for liberal abortion law in Northern Ireland

SPUC has criticised the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights for calling for Britain's liberal abortion law to be extended to Northern Ireland.

Liam Gibson of SPUC Northern Ireland said:

"The Universal Declaration of Human Rights upholds the inherent dignity and equal rights of all members of the human family, including children before birth. It is disturbing, therefore, to see how far the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has departed from the UN's founding principles.

"Abortion not only denies the fundamental human rights of children but it is deeply damaging to women. It is clear that the committee has no real concern for either women or children and knows nothing about Northern Ireland. If it did, then it would know that there is no evidence of so-called backstreet abortion in Northern Ireland and that in fact we have the best maternal mortality record in the UK.

"UN committees must be told to stop promoting abortion. It is time for pro-life politicians everywhere to call on the UN to return to its founding principles and protect the human rights of all members of the human family from the first moments of life until its natural end."

At a meeting in Geneva two weeks ago, the UN committee said in its report: "The Committee calls upon the State party to amend the abortion law of Northern Ireland to bring it in line with the 1967 Abortion Act with a view to preventing clandestine and unsafe abortions in cases of rape, incest or foetal abnormality."

Scottish abortions "inhuman and degrading", says cardinal

Cardinal Keith O'Brien, archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh, has responded to the latest abortion statistics in Scotland, published today. I reproduce his office's brief media statement in full below:

Reacting to the release today of the latest Scottish abortion statistics showing a total of 13,817 abortions in Scotland last year http://www.isdscotland.org/isd/1918.html#Tables Cardinal Keith O'Brien has described them as "inhuman and degrading". He said:

"The 2008 abortion statistics confirm the abject failure of the so called 'sexual health strategy' of recent years. They represent a human rights violation, in our midst, on a massive scale. We destroy 53 unborn children each day in Scotland. Were this carnage to take place among children lucky enough to have been born our outrage would be boundless. The victims of this inhuman and degrading violence are firstly the 13,817 Scottish children killed before they have been born and then the thousands of women who agree to their own off-spring being aborted."

Cardinal O'Brien added:

"[When i]n 2007 I claimed that 'we kill the equivalent of a classroom full of school children every day' many objected to the vehemence of my language. Grotesquely, since then we have seen classroom sizes in Scotland fall and abortion numbers rise. Today we abort over 50 children per day or two classrooms full. These statistics shame and debase us all."

Cardinal O'Brien concluded:

"I am haunted by the words of a surgeon who wrote to me the last time I criticised such statistics. He said: 'I feel powerless to halt the carnage and there is nothing more heartbreaking than seeing little arms and legs being sucked down a glass tube and binned for the sake of someone's lifestyle'. I hope we will all be haunted by these figures to the point where we act to halt them once and for all."

Dana does not support Paschal Mooney

Dana, one of Ireland's most successful entertainers, stated today that she has not endorsed any EU candidate or political grouping in the European Parliament.

"I cannot in conscience support any candidate, political party or EU political grouping that promotes and supports the Treaty of Lisbon and the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights contained within it. This Charter and the EU Constitution of which it is the foundation stone, undermines our Irish Constitution and in particular the protection afforded within it by the Irish people to Family and Life issues," said Dana.

Earlier today John Brown, Dana's assistant, said that Paschal Mooney MEP was untruly claiming that he was "good friends" with Dana and implying that she supported him and the Liberal group in Europe he is joining.

Mr Brown said: "Dana does not support Paschal Mooney, nor would she ever have anything do to with the Liberal group in Europe, nor any person or group associated with them nor those who supported or promoted issues such as abortion, euthanasia or embryo research."

In 1999, Dana was elected as a Member of the European Parliament, representing Ireland’s Connacht-Ulster constituency from 1999 to 2004. She is pictured above after leading 86,000 young people singing her composition "Totus Tuus" for Pope John Paul II in the New Orleans’s Super Dome .

The weak arguments of those denying human rights to embryos

In an extraordinarily flippant comment promoting destructive embryo research, David Norris, a Irish senator, told a press conference last month:

“Nobody takes an embryo to the zoo or the cinema or the church. Let’s be real about this.”

In response to Sen. Norris, Professor William Binchy, a Irish pro-life legal expert, wrote to the Irish Times:

"A child who shows wonderment at an elephant at the zoo delights us because of the child’s innocence, spontaneity and capacity to share experience. But no child’s rights should depend on such a fragile entitlement ... To attempt to condition the right to life on the capacity of a human being to relate to, or enthral, others is to contradict the core insight of human rights – that each of us, at all stages in our life, regardless of our particular capacities, has an equal inherent worth and dignity."

Sen. Norris confirmed the weakness of his position in a reply to Prof. Binchy:

"At 14 days or less the embryo is an undifferentiated cluster of cells. It possesses no intellect, no spinal cord, no organ development, no capacity to experience the material world, no consciousness etc."

In addition, Sen. Norris confirmed in his flippancy:

"I might also point out that nature in its own way is very cavalier indeed concerning the fate of these tiny entities, happily destroying hundreds of millions of them. Nature, that is, not man and this is all despite Prof Binchy’s quixotically amiable feelings towards them."

I've pointed out in a previous blog the cynical, self-serving, contradictory arguments for destructive embryo research, but in response to Sen. Norris, I would add the following:

• Countless thousands of embryos, every day of the year, all over the world, go to the zoo, the cinema and to church - in their mother's wombs!
• The embryonic stage of development ends at eight weeks after conception, not 14 days.
• The embryo, even at its earliest stage, is not undifferentiated, as the late Professor Jerome Lejeune, the esteemed geneticist, testified 20 years ago: "[D]ifferentiation is, so to speak, prewritten in the first cell ... [I]t cannot be said that the first cell is a non-differentiated cell. It must be said now the first cell is knowing how to differentiate the progeny, the cell progeny."
• If Sen. Norris were to be knocked unconscious, he would not be able to exercise his intellect or experience the material world. Would it therefore be alright to kill him by ripping out tissue from his body, for use in redundant medical experiments?
• Nature is not a moral agent, but man is. Man has, throughout history, also destroyed hundreds of millions of innocent human beings, born and unborn. Is Sen. Norris saying that's alright, as long as the purpose is medical research?

Dialogue brought to "a screeching halt" by Obama, says bishop

Bishop Robert Finn of Kansas City has given a insightful interview regarding President Obama's Notre Dame speech. The bishop underlines the key issue regarding the issue of dialogue between the opposing sides of the abortion debate:

"[T]he President got up and said that the differences that we have on abortion – namely the Catholic Church’s staunch opposition to abortion and his staunch support of abortion were “irreconcilable.” And at that moment, it would seem to me that the dialogue came to a screeching halt ... The President shut the door on dialogue by saying that there was not going to be any change in his position on abortion and he understood that there was not going to be any change in the Church’s position on abortion. To me, that was the lesson of the day. I am glad that Mr. Obama was so clear."

Bishop Finn goes on to warn that: "I think the rug is already being pulled out from under us. If we sit back and allow ourselves to be lulled into a false sense of peace and cooperation in regards to [pro-life/pro-family issues], then we will lose these battles and, later, wonder why."

Do read the interview with Bishop Finn in full. Also speaking out strongly about Obama is Bryan Kemper of Stand True, who spoke at the International Student Pro-Life Conference organised by SPUC Scotland in March. Bryan writes:

"Let me ask you this. Would you be willing to find common ground with someone advocating for legalized rape? Would you be willing to find common ground with someone advocating the reinstitution of the Third Reich and Nazi policies? Of course not, these are ludicrous statements. I would also argue that finding common ground with those who advocate for the killing of fully human pre-born children is a ludicrous idea."

World statistics published today show women need healthcare not abortion

Figures released today by the World Health Organisation (WHO) show that improved standard health care, but not abortion, is needed to improve survival rates among mothers.

The WHO's World Health Statistics 2009 report (released today) shows that the Republic of Ireland, where abortion is banned, has the lowest maternal mortality rate in the world (1 death per 100,000 live births). In contrast, the maternal mortality rate in other developed countries where abortion is almost totally unrestricted are several times higher than Ireland's (8 deaths per 100,000 live births in the UK and 11 deaths per 100,000 live births in the US).

Pat Buckley, who is currently lobbying for SPUC at the WHO's World Health Assembly in Geneva, tells me:

"Improved basic living conditions, basic health care, skilled attendants and emergency obstetrics have always been the key to decreasing maternal mortality in the developed world.

"The world statistics published today underline once again the falsehood of the claim that saving women's lives is dependent on legal abortion. Tragically, this false claim diverts attention from women's real healthcare needs and threatens to undermine the whole field of obstetrics and gynaecology.

"The WHO and the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) have focused on reducing the number of children born, rather than on making childbirth safer. This approach is fundamentally flawed, ideologically driven and ultimately responsible for the deplorable lack of progress in improving maternal mortality in developing countries.

"We are therefore calling upon the governments represented at this week's World Health Assembly to resist any moves promoting abortion under the guise of sexual and reproductive health."

Pat is pictured above (right), with Scott Fischbach (left), chief executive of

Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life Global Outreach (MCCL GO) and Jeanne Head (centre) of National Right to Life (NRLC).

Encouragement and support for parents expecting a disabled child

Alison Davis of No Less Human, a group within SPUC, tells me that:

"The Washington Times has recently carried an article on alternatives to abortion for women who have discovered they are carrying a disabled baby. As in the UK, the vast majority of American babies with major disabilities are aborted, and most information available for women carrying such babies is heavily biased towards abortion.

"Nancy Mayer-Whittington's daughter Angela lived only 10 minutes after birth. Angela had Trisomy 18, a genetic condition which usually, but not always, results in a very short post-natal life. Her mother, determined to help others in a similar situation has written a book entitled 'For the Love of Angela'.

"Anna Lise 'Cubby' Lahood's son Francis had polycystic kidney disease and died a few minutes after birth, in his mother's arms. Recognising their similar experiences, the two women joined forces to develop a website (www.isaiahspromise.net) which provides support and encouragement to parents who have discovered that their unborn child has a disabling condition.

"'Cubby' Lahood said 'the pressure from the medical community to abort was severe'. The work of these two remarkable women proves that this need not be the only so-called advice new parents receive."

Fewer Northern Ireland women seek abortions in Britain

The number of Northern Ireland women having abortions in England fell last year but pro-life campaigners are warning that it is likely to increase if abortion providers are allowed to advertise on television and radio.

Betty Gibson, chairwoman for SPUC in Northern Ireland, commented as new figures from the Department of Health in England and Wales showed that 1,173 abortions were performed on women from the province. While Mrs Gibson welcomed the fact that the number was down by 170 on the previous year, she said that a great deal more needed to be done to help women facing crisis pregnancies.

"Abortion kills children but also hurts women. Many women are never told about the physical and emotional damage which abortion can cause. It is important that women get all the help they need to care for their children. If the Advertising Standards Authority allow abortion providers to advertise on TV and radio, it will add to the pressure on vulnerable women. They will be sold abortion as a simple, safe and easy answer to their problems when it's not.

"Most people believe it is wrong that vulnerable women should be given abortion counselling by people who have a financial interest in the abortion industry. Allowing TV and radio ads will be good for the abortion business and bad for women and their unborn children. People should write to Gregory Campbell, minister for culture, arts and leisure, Causeway Exchange, 1-7 Bedford Street, Belfast, BT1 7FB, and ask him to do everything he can to ensure that the restrictions on abortion adverts are not lifted."

There were 195,296 abortions in England and Wales in 2008 compared with 198,499 in 2007, a fall of 1.6%. The total number of abortions under the Abortion Act 1967 has now exceeded seven million.

SPUC has produced a briefing on the public consultation on abortion advertising which ends 19 June. Copies are available free by emailing me at johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk

Don't be fooled by Obama's so-called common ground feint

Some media outlets, even ones usually supportive of the pro-life cause, have convinced themselves that President Obama is a moderate on abortion, who wants all sides of the abortion debate to find and stand on common ground. A recent meeting between White House staff and American pro-life groups, however, provides further evidence against that myth. Family Research Council (FRC), who were represented at the meeting, report:

"In answer to a question about reducing abortion, Obama staffers Joshua DuBois and Tina Tchen made it clear--the President's goal is not to reduce the number of abortions. It is to reduce 'the need for abortion' ... For President Obama, it's not only unacceptable to protect unborn life legally, but it is becoming clear that it is unacceptable even to influence a woman to 'choose' life ... Don't be fooled by the conciliatory rhetoric about 'common ground'. Barack Obama believes women 'need' to have abortions, and judging by his actions, he intends to make sure that they get them."

As I pointed out in my initial reactions to Obama's Notre Dame speech, while he runs his rhetorical campaign to bring people together to reduce abortions, he is ruthlessly pursuing policies which are aimed at providing more abortions and will lead to more unintended pregnancies. We cannot afford the indulgence of wishful thinking that Mr Obama is really some sort of Gandhi-like reconciler. Any such thinking by pro-lifers would result in more abortions, not least through an emasculation of the pro-life movement itself.

The scandal of government backed abortions

Last year's abortion statistics for England and Wales have just been published.

Paul Tully, SPUC general secretary, said:

"The scandal of government backed abortions is reflected in these figures, which show the highest ever number of NHS-funded abortions. State provision of abortion is now a major aspect of government policy - a policy which hurts women and kills unborn children.

"For the first time, in 2008 the majority of abortions were performed in private clinics at the NHS’ expense.

"The figures show a slight drop in the total abortions registered under the Abortion Act in 2008, but the figure remains higher than the 2006 number, and more abortions than ever were funded by tax-payers. The number of NHS abortions in private clinics has increased by 11-fold in the past 17 years.

"The total number of abortions under the Abortion Act 1967 has now exceeded seven million."

Excellent reflection on reaction to Obama's Notre Dame speech

I'm very grateful for the kind responses to my initial reactions to President Obama's speech at Notre Dame university. I had started that blog by saying that I would be posting a more extensive reflection on the speech, but I've since read an excellent reflection by Dave Andrusko of National Right to Life. Dave says what I'd like to have said (and more), so please read his column in full. Below are some extracts:

"[W]e're told by Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne, 'Obama's opponents seek to reignite the culture wars. He doesn't.'... How in the world can someone possibly come to that conclusion, at least with respect to abortion? Simple. They are talking about Obama's soaring rhetoric. If they can convince you (and themselves!) to look up toward the clouds, you'll never notice the grim, anti-life details of his policy proposals on the ground.

"[P]ro-life critics of Obama...cite chapter and verse what he has done already (e.g. [revoking the] Mexico City [policy]); what he has steadfastly insisted he will do; and what he is already inkling he will do. With that evidence in hand, they reach the only conclusion anyone whose head is not in the clouds could come to: this is [Planned Parenthood's] heartthrob.

"[W]hatever short-term gains there undoubtedly were for Obama, long-term the only way pro-lifers could have lost would have been had they remained mute at the travesty of the most pro-abortion President in our history being honored by the best known Catholic University in our country. For now the winds remain at Obama's back. But they won't always."

Society's senior figures urging discrimination against the vulnerable

Yesterday evening the House of Lords debated the Coroners and Justice bill at second reading. A number of Peers made speeches on the subject of assisted suicide. Among those speaking in favour of assisted suicide were two Peers who had been senior ministers during Tony Blair's government, Lord Falconer, former Lord Chancellor, and Baroness Jay, former leader of the House of Lords. Also speaking in favour of assisted suicide was Baroness Warnock, the notorious anti-life philosopher, and a number of anti-life veterans in the Lords.

It has become clear that there is a now a concerted effort by some of society's most senior figures to undermine the law on assisted suicide. Last week, Sir Ken Macdonald, the former director of public prosecutions (DPP), Lord Bingham, former Lord Chief Justice and Sir Philip Havers QC joined together on a radio programme to argue for parliament to change the law. Sir Ken Macdonald told listeners that he would have acted in the same way as Daniel James's parents if he had been in their place, saying: "Who wouldn't have?"

The theme among the anti-life contributors to both the Lords debate and the radio programme was that parliament needs to clarify the law, starting with removing the possibility of prosecution of people who help others to commit suicide overseas. The pro-life movement has seen this strategy before, in the campaign for abortion on demand. The campaign starts with a plea to protect people in desperate circumstances, by regulating hard cases in place of an outright ban. Once this concession is obtained, however, the thin veil of a moderate reform is quickly dropped and pressure is applied for the practice to be made a right.

It is also no surprise that some of society's most senior figures have joined this campaign. The pro-life message is based upon the equality of all human beings upheld by international human rights law, which exists to protect the most vulnerable, despised and rejected. This radical message of equality jars with (at least some of) these privileged establishment personages. For example, Baroness Warnock has said: "I am not ashamed to say that some lives are more worth living than others".

So I'm grateful for the contribution of another, yet different, senior figure, the Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham, who said in the Lords:

"We should not accept any amendments which would relax the existing law and diminish the protection offered to those at risk of self-destruction. Such a step would be wrong in itself. It would also be totally inappropriate in the context of this Bill, which proceeds from the assumption that the existing law is right in seeking to protect life, and needs to be changed in order to do so more effectively in today’s circumstances."

Callous attitude towards the disabled displayed

Saturday's Guardian newspaper published a story entitled "NHS failure on Down's screening kills healthy babies". The story reported complaints by doctors that most NHS hospitals are not using what they describe as the "best" test to screen for unborn children with Down's Syndrome. Once again we see a callous attitude displayed towards the disabled. Alison Davis of No Less Human, a group within SPUC, gave me her reaction to the story:

"Yet again we are having all sorts of so-called experts and professionals mourning the deaths, by mistake, of what they call 'normal, healthy babies' as a result of antenatal tests for disability. However, no mention is ever made of the equal tragedy of the deaths of disabled babies, which is the whole purpose of these antenatal tests. For instance Kypros Nicholaides, the well-known professor of foetal medicine at King's College, London, has said that it is 'shameful ... scandalous and disgraceful....' that healthy babies were lost in error as a direct result of these tests.

"It is well known that some degree of so-called foetal loss among 'healthy' babies is an accepted part of antenatal tests. So-called experts quibble over whether 3% or 5% loss of non-disabled babies is acceptable, and meanwhile the intended carnage among disabled babies continues apace. As a disabled person myself, I find the intended loss of disabled babies just as 'shameful, scandalous and disgraceful' as the unintended loss of those who are apparently 'healthy'."

My initial reaction to Obama’s Notre Dame speech

I will be posting a more extensive reflection on President Obama’s Notre Dame speech of yesterday, but I want to share with you some of my initial reactions to some of its content. Please see my comments in parentheses marked “JS”.

“We must decide how to save God's creation from a changing climate that threatens to destroy it.” (JS: Are unborn children not God's creation? The political climate you’ve intentionally created threatens to add to the 1.2 million abortions performed in America every year, and those funded by your administration overseas.) “We must seek peace at a time…when weapons in the hands of a few can destroy the many.” (JS: Yes, simple instruments in the hands of a few abortionists can destroy many unborn children.)

“[W]e must find a way to live together as one human family.” (JS: International human rights conventions include unborn children as members of the human family. Mr Obama, all your talk about inclusivity, diversity, common ground etc is rank hypocrisy as long as you exclude unborn children from protection.)

“Part of the problem, of course, lies in the imperfections of man … all the cruelties large and small that those of us in the Christian tradition understand to be rooted in original sin … The strong too often dominate the weak … And so, for all our technology and scientific advances, we see around the globe violence…that would seem sadly familiar to those in ancient times.” (JS: The Christian tradition has always regarded abortion as cruel, a domination by the strong of the weak, a violence belonging to ancient times. Mr Obama, stop trying to appropriate the Christian tradition for your own anti-life political ends.)

“Those who speak out against stem cell research may be rooted in admirable conviction about the sacredness of life, but so are the parents of a child with juvenile diabetes who are convinced that their son's or daughter's hardships can be relieved.” (JS: That is a patronising cariacature of the pro-life position. Pro-lifers are not opposed to stem cell research, but to embryonic stem cell research, because it kills human beings and it doesn’t work. In contrast, adult stem cell research is already being used to treat juvenile diabetes. Stop selling false hope to vulnerable families, Mr Obama.)

“So let's work together to reduce the number of women seeking abortions by reducing unintended pregnancies” (JS: But your policies, Mr Obama, will lead both to more abortions and more unintended pregnancies) "and making adoption more available" (JS: The number of children that might possibly be saved through better adoption services is small compared to the numbers of abortions that will result from your policies) "and providing care and support for women who do carry their child to term" (JS: But you think abortion can be better than carrying a child to term, or as you put it, being “punished with a baby”. ) “Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause” (JS: So why have you repealed President Bush’s conscience protections and why are you threatening to abolish conscientious objection through the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA)?) "and make sure that all of our health care policies are grounded in clear ethics and sound science, as well as respect for the equality of women." (JS: Abortion and embryo research are neither ethical nor sound science nor good for women.)

"Each side [in the abortion debate] will continue to make its case to the public with passion and conviction. But surely we can do so without reducing those with differing views to caricature.” (JS: Too late, Mr Obama - you've already done it, not least in this very speech!)

“Open hearts. Open minds. Fair-minded words.” (JS: Why is your heart closed to the unborn, the most vulnerable? Why can’t you open your mind to a world in which there is no abortion? Why do you support those who use words like “products of conception”, “blob of cells” etc to depersonalise human beings?)

“You [Notre Dame graduates] will be called…to give future generations the same chance that you had to receive an extraordinary education.” [JS: Millions will be denied a chance to be educated because your policies, Mr Obama, because they will have been aborted.]

“It is beyond our capacity as human beings to know with certainty what God has planned for us or what He asks of us, and those of us who believe must trust that His wisdom is greater than our own.” (JS: But we can know with certainty that God wants us to uphold the sanctity of human life and ignore the man-made ideologies which promote abortion.)

“[M]ost of all [persuade] through an abiding example of good works, charity, kindness, and service that moves hearts and minds.” (JS: In what way is the killing of innocent human beings through abortion compatible with these things?)

“For if there is one law that we can be most certain of, it is the law that binds people of all faiths and no faith together … It is, of course, the Golden Rule - the call to treat one another as we wish to be treated. The call to love. To serve. To do what we can to make a difference in the lives of those with whom we share the same brief moment on this Earth.” (JS: Mr Obama, were you not once an unborn child in your mother’s womb? Would you prefer to have been aborted?)

“[C]ivil rights for all of God's children.” (JS: How about civil rights for the unborn?)

“Remember that each of us, endowed with the dignity possessed by all children of God, has the grace to recognize ourselves in one another; to understand that we all seek the same love of family and the same fulfillment of a life well-lived.” (JS: Forgetting the unborn again, Mr Obama?)

Research report on embryonic stem cells is "disingenuous and misleading"

Claims that Japanese scientists have discovered how to stop embryonic stem cells producing tumours are "disingenous and misleading" according to James L. Sherley, MD, Ph.D (pictured), senior scientist at Boston Biomedical Research Institute.

LifeNews reported last week: "Embryonic stem cells have never helped human patients in part because they produce tumors when injected as treatments in animal research ... In a new article in the current issue of Cell Transplantation (Vol. 18 No.1), a team of Japanese researchers eliminated the problem of tumor growth by co-transplanting bone marrow stem cells along with embryonic ones."

Writing to Alison Davis, the leader of No Less Human, Dr Sherley commented:

"First and foremost, it is a disingenuous (to be kind!) and misleading report. If I had been a reviewer, I would have rejected it for two reasons: 1) misrepresentation of the facts as reported; and 2) unacceptable experimental design.

Misrepresentation of the facts:

Although the title is a faithful representation, important statements in the abstract are not supported by the data in the report. To be exact, the combination of bone marrow stromal cells and mouse embryonic stem cells is no more effective for reversing the effects of the induced spinal cord injury than a compared buffered salt solution (PBS = phosphate buffered saline) that contained no cells of any type.

Unacceptable experimental design:

Here there is cause for two objections.

First, a crucial control comparison is omitted without mention. They did not evaluate the effect of the bone marrow stromal cells alone. Whether this was motivated by unethical politics or poor science, I cannot say. However, it is predicted by the studies of previous groups that the addition of bone marrow stromal cells on their own would be more effective than the buffered salt solution; and importantly, they may be more effective than the presented combination of mouse embryonic stem cells and bone marrow stromal cells.

Second, though they do report a dramatic reduction in the number of tumors produced when bone marrow stromal cells are added to mouse embryonic stem cells (versus the mouse embryonic stem cells on their own), they only waited 5 weeks and they only evaluated 15,000 cells per injection. Conventional assays to rule out tumor formation in mice use 1-10 million cells per injection and wait several months for certainty. Thus, the assay upon which their conclusion of tumor prevention rests is well below the established standards for such a determination ...

All in all though, on the more important notes of ethics and morality, even if this approach were scientifically sound, and were proven to work for human embryonic stem cells, and adult stem cells were not an alternative (as they are!), it would still be unacceptable, because it would still require the sacrifice of innocent human beings to make the embryonic stem cells."

James Sherley is a leading stem cell scientist and has travelled the world pointing out the inefficacy of embryonic stem cell research to his scientific colleagues.

Joan Bakewell abuses again her government appointment to promote assisted suicide

Dame Joan Bakewell (pictured), the broadcaster, was appointed by the government to be a "Voice of Older People" in November. Soon after her appointment, she used her Times column to back assisted suicide and euthanasia, as I blogged about at the time. Today she has similarly used her Times column, this time to back Dr Philip Nitschke, the pro-suicide campaigner dubbed "Dr Death". Dame Joan writes:

"Dr Death should have been welcomed ... [The issue of assisted suicide] won't go away because we are living longer into an old age that brings with it all the humiliations of being helpless, incontinent and in pain. What’s more those now getting on are the baby-boomers, even now in their sixties, a generation of assertive and insistent individuals who won’t be willing to face their declining years with timid submission."

And who appointed Dame Joan as a "Voice of Older People"? Why, one of the most assertive and insistent anti-lifers among British baby-boomers, Harriet Harman. Perhaps a case of "jobs for the girls"? In the statement announcing Dame Joan's appointment, Ms Harman said:

“Joan is a champion in the fight against discrimination against older people and a role model for active and positive senior citizens; so I’m delighted that she’s going to contribute to the equalities agenda and be a voice for older people.”

Yet legalising assisted suicide and euthanasia will lead to more, not less discrimination against older people - fatal discrimination by those who think the lives of older people are not valuable. A true "equalities agenda" would make the equal right to life and dignity of older people its top priority.

More evidence that abstinence works

The Family Research Council (FRC), based in Washington D.C., is one of America's leading pro-life/pro-family groups. FRC has commented on President Obama's decision to transfer funding from abstinence education to contraception promotion, which I blogged about last Friday. FRC said:

"The truth is, abstinence education goes beyond pregnancy prevention to promoting holistic change in teenagers. Studies show that in addition to preventing pregnancy and disease, teens who practice abstinence are better off emotionally and are much more likely to experience marital fidelity and satisfaction. The same cannot be said of the comprehensive sex education. In a review of 119 studies, comprehensive sex education has produced no compelling evidence of sustaining a meaningful effect on protective behaviors in a school-based setting, even after three decades of implementation and evaluation."

FRC provide a link to a webpage by the National Abstinence Education Association, which details the evidence of the effectiveness of abstinence programmes.

If the mainstream media is to be believed, pro-life/pro-family activists are ignoramuses motivated by religiosity and chauvinism. The work of groups like FRC and NAEA help us to show that, in contrast, the hard facts are on our side of the argument.

Blairs' ambitions floundering, reports the Guardian

One usually expects bleak, misleading anti-life propaganda from the Guardian newspaper but today may be different. Hugh O'Shaughnessy, writing for the Guardian website today, reports that Tony Blair and his Faith Foundation are becoming something of a failure.

O'Shaughnessy cites, as well as other matters. the conference at which Mgr Michel Schooyans delivered his masterly analysis of the Obama-Blair agenda for law and religion, which I blogged about last Sunday.

Particularly welcome is Mr O'Shaughnessy's opinion that:

"The hostility – and ridicule – that the Blairs and their associates stir up mean he is increasingly unlikely to achieve his ambition of becoming president of the EU."

The frustration of Tony & Cherie Blair's post-Downing St ambitions would be a great relief to the worldwide pro-life/pro-family movement. Their anti-life/anti-family record is lengthy and their acceptance in certain prominent Catholic milieu is disturbing. Please join me in praying that the threat they pose to life and family will be averted, and that they will become truly pro-life.

We have proof, hope and duty to spur us to daily pro-life action

It's great to read that the Mexican state of Guanajuato (coat of arms pictured) has amended its constitution to protect "all human beings from conception to natural death”. At least nine other Mexican states have enshrined similar protection. In the midst of frequent, even daily, setbacks experienced in the fight against the culture of death, pro-lifers often overlook the reality that pro-life lobbying and complementary efforts actually work. Here is a list, in no particular order and by no means complete, of some other pro-life victories in recent years:

• British government dissuaded from accommodating pro-abortion amendments via the HFE bill, such as extending the Abortion Act to Northern Ireland.
• defeat of the Joffe bill to allow assisted suicide and of Diane Pretty's legal challenge
• the Republic of Ireland's rejection of the Lisbon Treaty and the 2002 abortion referendum
• total ban on abortion in Nicaragua
• various laws and policies passed under former US president George W Bush (e.g. partial-birth abortion ban, defunding of international pro-abortion groups, protection for children surviving abortion, etc.)

As well as the solid grounds for hope which the pro-life victories in Mexico and elsewhere provide, those who defend the sanctity of human life also have the call of duty to spur us on. Archbishop Raymond Burke, a fearless pro-life advocate, spoke recently of:

"our responsibility as citizens to work tirelessly to change unjust programs, policies and laws ... In the present situation of our nation, a serious question has arisen about the moral obligation...to work for the overturning of the Supreme Court decisions in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton. There are those who would tell us that such work is futile and, therefore, is to be abandoned, so that we can devote ourselves to help prevent individuals from choosing abortion. [W]e can never cease to work for the correction of gravely unjust laws. Law is a fundamental expression of our culture and implicitly teaches citizens what is morally acceptable. Our efforts to assist those who are tempted to do what is always and everywhere wrong or are suffering from the effects of having committed a gravely immoral act, which are essential expressions of the charity which unites us as citizens of the nation, ultimately make little sense, if we remain idle regarding unjust laws and decisions of the courts regarding the same intrinsic evils. We are never justified in abandoning the work of changing legislation and of reversing decisions of the courts which are anti-life and anti-family."

So we have proof, hope and duty to spur us to daily pro-life action.