We all have a moral obligation to oppose micro-abortions

There have been a number of stories recently about the use of birth control drugs and devices as so-called emergency contraception e.g. Mail on Sunday, Reuters.  I have of course written many times before about the wider implications for the culture of life of contraception, that is, the intentional separation of the unitive and procreative meanings of conjugal relations. Without revisiting that here, I wish to highlight the abortifacient nature of most birth control drugs and devices.

According to the manufacturers of these drugs and devices, one of their modes of action is to prevent the implantation in the womb of newly-conceived human embryos; in other words, to kill unborn children through micro-abortion. It is a simple fact that the killing of unborn children by morning-after pills is just as wrong as, say, killing unborn children through partial-birth abortion. An abortion is an abortion is an abortion. The specific aspects of micro-abortion and of partial-birth abortion may differ. For example, a micro-abortion involves killing:

• the most vulnerable and dismissed human beings
• usually by people who deny or are unware of the humanity of human embryos and the abortifacient mode of most birth control
• in an uneventful, unseen way (at least superficially).

A partial-birth abortion involves killing:

• babies who are clearly identifiable to the naked eye as babies
• often by people who know and accept the humanity of late-term unborn children and the homicidal nature of late-term abortion
• through the most horrific dismemberment.

These things are different aspects of the respective abortion techniques, but not differences in the fundamental nature and objective wrongness of those techniques, which are equal.

It is therefore clear that:

• parents
• teachers
• medics
• pharmacists
• clergy

all have a moral obligation:

• not to be complicit in any way in the distribution, promotion or use of
• to exercise conscientious objection to
• to act and warn against the use of

the morning-after pill and all other birth control drugs and devices which may have an abortifacient mode of action.

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

Help protect children and the culture of life by protesting against the EU's competence creep

One of SPUC's Irish supporters has sent me the following news:

"The Catholic Voice newspaper (15 August 2010) reports that the European Union is funding a conference in Dublin in September, entitled Voices of Children. Very good and proper, you might say. However, the conference will be hosted by a group called Marriage Equality. This group was set up to promote the Civil Partnership Act, and to fight for the status of marriage to be granted to homosexuals and lesbians. The Civil Partnership Act, the group says, doesn’t go far enough for them as it doesn’t yet recognise homosexual marriage, nor does it allow for the adoption of children on the part of homosexuals and lesbians. The October conference is being held to promote the legalisation of adoption of children by [homosexuals]. Rónán Mullen, the Independent senator, who was one of only the four senators who spoke against the enactment of the Civil Partnership Act last month, points out that European Union and Irish government officials have repeatedly claimed that social and ethical issues, including laws on marriage and the family, are matters for member-states and are outside the competence of the EU. So much for Government promises!

"Senator Mullen continues:

‘The funding of this conference highlights an issue that caused many Irish voters to reject the Lisbon Treaty – the problem of “competence creep” in the European Union. This happens when European institutions such as the European Commission and the European Court of Justice (ECJ) extend their policy and decision-making into areas that are supposed to be matters for individual member states.’

"It is indeed a very sad, and serious, state of affairs when a government such as the Irish Government overrides the stated wishes of the people and steamrolls the agenda of a minority but powerful group whose stated aim it is to destroy the family."

Pope John Paul II, a great pro-life champion of the 20th and 21st centuries, pointed out that:

“It is an illusion to think that we can build a true culture of human life if we do not help the young to accept and experience sexuality and love and the whole of life according to their true meaning and in their close interconnection ... There can be no avoiding the duty to offer, especially to adolescents and young adults, an authentic education in sexuality and in love ...” (EV 97)

Readers of this blog may therefore wish to lobby their members of the European parliament (MEPs), urging them to raise the misuse of EU funds in the funding of the Marriage Equality's Voices for Children conference:

• UK MEPs
• Irish MEPs
• All MEPs

Readers may like to remind MEPs that EU funds come from taxpayers in EU member-states, including member-states which uphold pro-life and pro-family principles.

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

An unborn child sings about her wish to experience the love of a mother

Some years ago, the Sophia Press (U.S.A.) published a small, illustrated book, entitled Angel in the Waters, by Regina Doman. It is the story of an unborn baby speaking to her mother, and it is described as follows:

In its mother’s womb, a tiny baby grows, explores the waters, and talks with the angel who is there. These gentle illustrations and wise words tell the story of that baby and the angel in the waters… a story that’s sure to delight all young children because the journey from conception to birth is their story, too.

Now, a song, ‘A Seed of Life’, accompanied by the images from the Angel in the Waters book, has been issued on the YouTube video above. It's well worth watching.

Enjoy!

The book itself can be ordered from the Sophia Press at this address: Sophia Institute
Press, Box 5284, Manchester, N.H. 03108, U.S.A.

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

Unborn children and their mums benefit from lullabies

Mothers who sing lullabies during pregnancy may benefit themselves as well as their unborn children, according to a story in the Irish Times earlier this month.

A research team at the university of Limerick is studying ways of reducing pregnancy stress and a Lullaby Research team has been established at the univiersity "between the school of nursing and midwifery, the graduate entry medical school, the Irish World Academy of Music and Dance and the Irish Chamber Orchestra".

The Irish Times reports:

"The calming effect of music may be attributable to the normal tempo of music falling somewhere between 60 and 80, when measured on the metronome. The average measure is 72, which corresponds with the average adult heartbeat. There is also considerable evidence to suggest listening to music and singing benefits both mother and infant."

It will be interesting to learn the findings of this study which, the Irish Times tells us, will be ready soon.

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

Birmingham Oratory's Brother Lewis Berry is sent to South Africa

As my regular visitors will know, three Birmingham Oratorians were ordered to spend time in prayer for an indefinite period in three separate monasteries, in Scotland, Leicestershire and France. During the past few days, it's been reported that Brother Lewis has been sent to the Port Elizabeth Oratory in South Africa.

The things which strike me most about this situation are:

• the powers-that-be say they are entirely guiltless of any wrong-doing whatsoever, including, specifically, sexual misdemeanours or homophobia

• the confidence and apparent ruthlessness with which manifestly unjust and draconian sentences on them are being enforced

Ruth Dudley Edwards picks up on these themes in an article in today's Irish Independent. It's worth reading. You might also wish to join the Facebook group "Free the Birmingham Three".  You can also keep up with development through the Free the Birmingham Oratory Three blog.

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

Ofsted report into sex education is flawed

Dr John Fleming, SPUC's bioethical consultant, has sent me his analysis of a report by Ofsted, the schools inspectorate, into sex and relationships education. I blogged about the Ofsted report last month. I report Fr Fleming's analysis in full below:

The Ofsted report, “Sex and Relationships Education in Schools”, is a very curious document at best and downright subversive at worst. The report is “a response to a recommendation in the Social Exclusion Unit’s 1999 report Teenage pregnancy that the Ofsted that should carry out a survey of sex and relationships education and produce a guide to good practice.”

1. That Ofsted is not well placed to carry out serious research is amply demonstrated by the methodology employed in this report. The methodology used is merely a collection of impressions by a wide range of Ofsted inspectors about what those inspectors considered to be the state of affairs in a school and based on their attendance at one or two lessons. It is quite unclear how these opinions are arrived at. There is no declared standardisation of the “judgements” made, and one is left with the impression that the “judgements” appear to be no more than the subjective assessments of a variety of different judges.

2. The examples used in the report are, from an educational point of view, damning although cited by the report favourably. For example, at page 9, the report speaks approvingly of students’ knowledge and understanding of topics such as contraception at Key Stage 4. The report immediately goes on to provide an example of “how a topic such as contraception can be dealt with in a straightforward manner” (page 10). The example given of a Year 10 lesson at a girls’ grammar school” by “a specialist teacher” (specialist in what we are not told), reduces the topic down to one of knowledge about “effective accounts of the use of each contraceptive”. The girls were said to be able to use the correct terminology and that “pupils’ questions were answered accurately and honestly”. Nowhere in this ‘praiseworthy account’ is there any evidence that the students were given “accurate and honest” access to information about the serious moral questions which have been raised about the use of contraception both inside and outside marriage. That should include “accurate and honest” information about the abortifacient mechanism that might be at work with a particular contraceptive. Ofstednot only approves of contraception but seems incapable of thinking there could be any reason to question contraceptive practices. This is indoctrination, not education!

3. The report often refers to “moral development” so that students will have “a moral framework that will guide their decisions, judgements and behaviour” (page 3). But nowhere in the report is there any suggestion that morality is taken seriously beyond students making sensible personal judgements, whatever the word “sensible” is meant to denote. For students to have a moral framework they need to be introduced to the subject in a proper manner. But this report assumes the confused moral reasoning implicitly and sometimes explicitly embraced by unqualified education elites to be the only correct moral reasoning which a student will uncritically embrace. No evidence is given of alternative views being given a fair hearing. The mere transmission of so-called ‘facts’ outside of any properly constructed moral framework is itself tendentious. On page 9 the report defines the areas of knowledge and understanding that students should have by the end of Key Stage 4 in terms which make no reference at all to the significant moral issues at stake. To be sure the report often talks about “morality”, but its authors show no sign either of understanding the reach and scope of moral teaching or about how it really applies in the area of sex and relationships education.

4. The report has little regard for the proper role of parents in the lives of their children. The report boldly states that “schools have been effective in addressing the concerns of parents” (page 6). The evidence cited for this remarkable claim is that “about 4 in every 10,000 pupils (0.04%) are currently withdrawn from the non-statutory aspects of SRE”, which is no evidence at all. That the report has scant regard for parents is revealed later in the report under the revealing heading “Parents and Other Sources of Information and Advice”. The report states that parents are “less and less” the pupils’ main source of advice on sexual matters’ and seems to accept that melancholy fact as if there is nothing to be done about it. The report notes that, according to its research, about 40-50% of pupils think their parents should be their main source of advice, but is lukewarm at suggestions that schools might better spend their time assisting parents to educate their children rather than engage in state sponsored imposition of ‘group think’ on unwitting students. In any other circumstances we would assist the educators to educate, so why not assist the first educators of children to more effectively carry out their role.

5. Finally, this report makes strong recommendations based upon inadequate research, subjective impressions by school inspectors (whose qualification in this area of sex and relationships education is not revealed), and muddled thinking accompanied by fuzzy language. It is more about the indoctrination of a particular approach than real education. Even worse it does not take into account the undeniable fact that current approaches to sex education are massive failures measured against their own clearly stated objectives to reduce teen pregnancy, reduce the number of teen abortions, reduce the number of unmarried teenage mothers, and to reduce the incidence of STIs. If Ofsted took into account all of the information widely available it should have concluded that the current sex and relationships education course are massive failures and are in serious need of a root and branch rethink.

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

Pray to end the sacrifice of unborn children

British Catholic readers of this blog will be interested in a message I've received from Edmund Adamus, director of pastoral affairs for the Catholic archdiocese of Westminster, about the nine-month tour of England and Wales of a full-scale relic replica of the famous image of our Lady of Guadalupe, patroness of the unborn. I blogged about the tour back in May.

Edmund writes:

"This digitally reproduced relic image with official seals imprinted upon it is one of only 220 commissioned by Cardinal Norberto Rivera Carrera in 2004 and entrusted for distribution to nations which welcome them." Edmund explains that the original image is associated with the ending in the 17th century of "the deeply embedded cultural practice of human sacrifice" among the Aztecs.

For those who believe in prayer, it could not be more important to pray at this time in Britain. Unborn children are being sacrificed, through the government's policy of providing schoolchildren, including schoolchildren in Catholic schools, with access to abortion services.

Edmund continues:

"The novena began between March 11-17 2010...It extended to three other London parishes, including Ealing Abbey and the Shrine of Our Lady of Willesden, North London. The permission of each diocesan bishop has been sought to allow the image to be welcomed in his diocese for devotional purposes for the cause of the Gospel of Life, the protection of the unborn, the sanctity of families and the peace of the nation.

"The novena tour which will conclude on weekend of 11th/12th December, the Feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe, in Westminster Cathedral. The image is available on request now and beyond December 12th to any parish/community where the Local Ordinary has already granted permission. Please contact edmundadamus@rcdow.org.uk 020 7798 9363 for further details."

The full schedule and other details about the tour can be read on the SPUC website.

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

There's no evidence for pro-abort claim about Polish abortions in Britain

The Polish Federation for Women and Family Planning has been promoting the figure of 10,000 Polish women coming to the UK each year for abortion. Paul Tully, SPUC's general secretary, and Daniel Blackman, who researches international affairs for SPUC, have debunked this claim. They have concluded that:

"There is no solid evidence to support this. It appears that the figure is self-serving speculation."

I publish their analysis in full below.

All abortions in the UK must be registered
The number of registered, legal abortions performed in England and Wales is published each year by the Department of Health of the British government. Abortions performed in Scotland are published separately by the Health Department of the Scottish government. (Scottish abortions account for about 7% of the UK total.) Here, for simplicity, we consider only the England and Wales figures.

The Department of Health is the main provider of abortions in the UK. These abortions are funded through the state-funded National Health Service (NHS) and are performed either in NHS-owned hospitals or with NHS funding in privately-run clinics. About six percent of abortions are performed in privately-run clinics and are paid for privately. These include a proportion which are performed on overseas women not entitled to NHS funding.

Britain has a reciprocal agreement with Poland for the provision of free medical care under EU regulations. The minimum documentation a patient needs is a European Health Insurance Card (EHIC).

No official estimate of Polish ‘visitor’ abortions
The Department of Health’s Statistical Bulletin: Abortion Statistics, England and Wales: 2009 says that for 2009, there were 20 women resident in Poland who had abortions here, which accounted for 0.3% of all abortions on non-resident women. (Table 12a Legal abortions: non residents by country of residence, 2009) This only records those women who said that they were resident in Poland when applying for an abortion. There may be other women who came here for abortions but gave the address of a friend already living in the UK. We are not aware of any study or survey by the Department of Health or any other body to establish an official estimate of this number accurately.

It would be difficult to make an accurate estimate, especially as there is a sizable number of Polish women resident in the UK. One would expect that there are probably a certain number of UK-resident Polish women who have abortions. This means that it would not necessarily be remarkable if, say, a Polish-speaking woman sought an abortion.

Abortions on non-residents are in decline
In 2009, there were 6,643 abortions to residents of other countries compared with 6,862 in 2008. Principally, these non-residents were from Northern Ireland (17%) and the Irish Republic (67%). The number of abortions to non-residents remained between 9,000 and 10,000 in the period 1995 to 2003. The 2009 total is the lowest in any year since 1969.

It would seem unlikely in this context that a growing number of women from Poland are coming to Britain for abortions, especially not on the scale of thousands.

Polish migration
In 2008, there were 64,000 Polish immigrants coming into the UK. Assuming that about half are women, and that the large majority are of child-bearing age, gives a figure of, say 30,000. If 10,000 women were to have an abortion, that would mean one third of the Polish women coming to the UK are coming here to have an abortion. This would seem hugely implausible. There is no evidence for this. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=2369&Pos=&ColRank=1&Rank=224

Lack of plausibility
Would women travel to a foreign country, find accommodation (which is very expensive in the UK), find employment (which can be difficult at present), register with the necessary agencies for NHS treatment, etc., given:
(a) the time all this would take (some weeks or months)
(b) the cost it would incur (travel, accommodation – rent, deposit, insurance – employment expenses, etc.)
c) the administration involved (e.g. getting references for accommodation and work)
d) the social isolation often entailed (language difficulty; lack of friends
- when they could book an abortion at a private clinic, probably for much less cost, and certainly far less time and hassle?

In summary
The claim lacks substance and credibility.

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

New international pro-life newsletter from SPUC

Today we at SPUC have sent out a newsletter to our European and other international contacts. The newsletter contains action alerts on European and international affairs:

Conscientious objection to anti-life practices threatened at Council of Europe
A report on conscientious objection in medicine will be debated in early October in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE). The report’s focus is conscientious objection to abortion, contraception, IVF and euthanasia. Please contact your country’s representatives in PACE. More information is available in:

• English
• French
• Italian
• Portuguese
• Spanish

Human embryos in danger via European Parliament animal rights directive
A draft directive on animal experimentation will be debated during the European Parliament’s plenary session on 7 September 2010. The directive could result in scientists experimenting on human embryos instead of animals. Please contact the members of the European Parliament (MEPs) representing your area. More information is available in:

• English 
• French 
• Italian 
• Portuguese 
• Spanish

Maternal mortality: moves at UN to promote abortion as human right
A right to abortion, under the guise of reproductive health, will be proposed at a United Nations (UN) summit in New York between 20 and 22 September 2010. Please contact strongly pro-life politicians in your country. More information is available in:

• English 
• French 
• Italian 
• Portuguese 
• Spanish

If you would like to receive our international newsletter by email, please visit http://www.spuc.org.uk/em-signup and sign-up to the European affairs list. Existing subscribers to SPUC's email services can add themselves to the European affairs list by first clicking on the "Unsubscribe or change your preferences at" link at the bottom of any recent SPUC email message.

If you would like to receive our international newsletter by post, please supply SPUC with your personal details and postal address either by:

• email to political@spuc.org.uk
• telephone on +44 (020) 7091 7091
• post to SPUC HQ

We want to provide this crucial service to as many pro-life contacts as possible. You can help us by forwarding the information in this blog-post to other pro-life groups and contacts in your country. If you know of any pro-life contacts who would like to receive this newsletter, please ask them also supply SPUC with their contact-details by email, telephone or post as above.

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

Professor Walley speaks of dark changes in obstetrics

Fiorella Nash, as many visitors will know, has an excellent blog entitled Monstrous Regiment of Women. A recent post of hers on maternal mortality, for example, included useful practical information for all mothers-to-be.



Last week she posted the above YouTube clip featuring Dr Robert Walley, the president of MaterCare.

Dr Walley is professor or obstetrics and gynaecology at Memorial University in St. John's, Newfoundland.

He presents a beautiful account of pregnancy and childbirth from the perspective of a doctor specializing in obstetrics and gynaecology. When he began training in 1968 he was told that an obstetrician has one objective: "to ensure to the best of his ability that all pregnancies should result in a live healthy baby and a live healthy mother".

He and his colleagues were well-trained in life-saving skills which, with increasing success, were enabling women with medical complications, such as diabetes, epilepsy and heart and kidney diseases, to become mothers - albeit with a lot of extra medical help. Dr Walley cites the (then current) 16th edition of Williams Obstetrics (the leading text in obstetrics for more than 100 years):

"Happily we live and work in an era in which the foetus is established as our second patient with many rights and privileges comparable to those previously achieved only after birth."

Dr Walley goes on to speak about the dark changes that have occurred since then, in particular the passage of abortion legislation which has "turned the practice of obstetrics upside-down" - resulting in millions of abortions and "destruction and despair" rather than positive help for mothers.

You should watch this simple, compelling, educational video.

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

Join Good Counsel Network's day of prayer and fasting this Saturday

This Saturday, 14th August, is the monthly day of prayer and fasting for life held by Good Counsel Network. I have blogged previously about The Good Counsel Network and their fantastic work supporting mothers and children facing an abortion.

These days of prayer are an emphatic response from this Catholic pro-life group to John Paul II's statement that a great prayer for life is urgently needed (Evangelium Vitae 100). I ask all readers who pray to consider participating in this day in whatever manner is suitable for you.

As they always do, Good Counsel Network advises that one can fast from all food except bread and water for the day or fast from any particular food or luxury, e.g. chocolate, alcohol, cigarettes, TV. The Good Counsel Network recommends that you fast from whatever you can given your state of health, but to make sure it is something that involves a sacrifice to yourself. You can view their poster for the day in pdf format here.

And He said to them; This kind (of demon) can go out by nothing, but by prayer and fasting. (Mark 9:29)

You might also enjoy reading Good Counsel Network's blog which is regularly updated.

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

Pro-life TV programme wins Emmy Award

Recently I blogged on a beautiful episode  of 'Facing Life Head-On', a pro-life TV show hosted by Brad Mattes of Life Issues Institute. The show focused on Missy Davert, a woman who is 2 feet and 11 inches tall, and her incredible battle to give birth to her unborn children.

Last week the show was awarded a regional Emmy Award in the category of Interview and Discussion. Upon accepting the award Brad Mattes, host and executive producer of the show said: "I believe this is a first for the pro-life movement—receiving an accolade at this level by the media industry, much less the Academy".

The award is a testimony to both an expertly produced show and the heroic actions of Missy Davert in defence of her children. LifeSiteNews.com reports that:

Doctors advised Davert and her husband that she should abort one or both of the infants due to the many difficulties that her pregnancy would entail – an option that the tiny, but feisty woman was unwilling to consider.

With the help of Dr. Daniel Wechter, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist based in Saginaw, Michigan, she was able to carry the twins for 32 weeks before giving birth to Austin and Michaela. They are now 10 years old.

“Missy’s story is an inspiration to any woman who may be facing a high-risk pregnancy” reads a description of the episode on Facing Life Head-On’s website. “With the help and support of Dr. Wechter, Missy was able to defy the odds and give birth to two beautiful children.”

In the acceptance speech at the black-tie award ceremony, Brad Mattes thanked God for allowing him to interview guests that have been such an inspiration to his viewers.

"We thank God for this award. The glory goes to Him.  It’s His ministry."

The award-winning episode can be bought or viewed here.  

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

Catholic archbishops should stop whitewashing anti-life policies

Euthanasia by neglect is a frightening reality of our world today, a society John Paul II rightly described as a culture of death. I know from personal experience the reality of how euthanasia by neglect is promoted. SPUC also knows about euthanasia by neglect because families often turn to us when they are most desperate. Indeed the secular media even know about it.

It is interesting to see that Archbishop Longley of Birmingham made dying with dignity the focus the Catholic Church’s Day for Life this year. Interesting, not least because his fellow archbishop, Peter Smith of Southwark (pictured) was interviewed in The Catholic Herald citing the Mental Capacity Act 2005 as his greatest achievement. I objected strongly to this, because the Mental Capacity Act extended the possible scope of euthanasia by neglect in English statute law.

The Herald interview was misleading with regard to a particular amendment to the Mental Capacity Act which Archbishop Smith claimed had been authored by Professor John Finnis of Oxford university. Archbishop Smith claimed that the amendment had provided a key safeguard against euthanasia by neglect. Thanks to correspondence I received from Professor Finnis, following my post on the Catholic Herald article, it was established that the amendment had not been authored by Professor Finnis and it was made even more clear that the amendment did not provide any real safeguard against euthanasia by neglect.

It is sometimes suggested that lobbying of government by the church leaders in England and Wales, like Archbishop Smith is important, and indeed effective, in the promotion of a culture of life, because it assures the best that can be gotten from bad legislation.

The truth is the interview in The Catholic Herald simply served to perpetuate the myth that all is well in the hands of the Catholic bishops of England and Wales. The same myth was promoted by Archbishop Vincent Nichols during the previous governments’ attempt to force schools to teach anti-life and anti-family sex and relationships education. I thank Christ the Law-giver that the Gospel of Life is based on objective truth and not on the self-serving myths of prelates intent on co-operating with the government of the day.

I have a number of questions for Archbishops Smith and Nichols:

• Will you now urgently and directly inform Catholics and non-Catholics of the dire consequences of the Mental Capacity Act?
• Will you provide quality pastoral assistance for individuals and families facing the threat of euthanasia, instead of just leaving it up to relatively small organisations like SPUC?
• Will you now apologise for opposing SPUC’s campaign against the Act?
• When will you stop whitewashing bad policies and providing cover for anti-life governments?

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

Congratulations to Cardinal Keith O'Brien, protector of the unborn, on his silver jubilee

Cardinal Keith O'Brien, no stranger to controversy, is in the news again today.

On behalf of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, I offer my heartfelt congratulations to Cardinal Keith O'Brien, the archbishop of St. Andrews and Edinburgh, who celebrated last Thursday the silver jubilee of his ordination as a bishop. Unborn babies in Britain and Northern Ireland are undoubtedly safer because of him.  If you want to write to congratulate him, you will find his contact details here.

I will never forget the fearless manner in which Cardinal Keith O'Brien told the truth about the British government's Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill.

In his Easter Sunday sermon in March 2008, he laid the responsibility for the Human Fertilisation and Embryology bill squarely on the shoulders of Gordon Brown. He said:

"Our Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, has given the government's support to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill.

"It is difficult to imagine a single piece of legislation which, more comprehensively, attacks the sanctity and dignity of human life than this particular bill.

With full might of government endorsement, Gordon Brown is promoting a bill that will allow the creation of animal-human hybrid embryos ...

... He is promoting a bill which denies that a child has a biological father, allows tampering with birth certificates, removing biological parents, and inserting someone altogether different ...*

... And this bill will indeed be used to further extend the abortion laws. This bill represents a monstrous attack on human rights, human dignity and human life".

There's little doubt that the Cardinal's courage, for which he was widely attacked, was one of the factors which prompted Gordon Brown to step back from the brink, not just once but twice, of allowing pro-abortion amendments to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill which would have led to the most damaging extension of the Abortion Act for over 40 years. Another vital factor was the stand taken by Northern Ireland politicians.

*I can't but comment here that, by way of contrast, Archbishop Nichols, the archbishop of Westminster, has defended the appointment of Greg Pope as deputy director of the Catholic Education Service who, as an MP voted against amendments which sought to retain the requirement for doctors to consider the child’s need for a father (20 May 2008) or male role model (20 May 2008) before a woman is given fertility treatment. He also voted against a bill which would have required practitioners providing contraception or abortion services to a child under the age of 16 to inform his or her parent or guardian (14 Mar 2007) and he supported a substantial number of appalling anti-life and anti-family measures and positions as an MP. As a result of his appointment, and Archbishop Nichols's defence of it, unborn children, our children in schools and the rights of parents are less safe than they might be.


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

Birmingham Oratory spokesman confirms Birmingham Three are entirely guiltless

Ruth Dudley Edwards (pictured), the author, historian, biographer and journalist, writes this month in Standpoint about the Birmingham Three. The Birmingham Three are Birmingham Oratorians known for their championship of the unborn. They publicly opposed the anti-life, anti-family sex and relationships education policies of the last Government and of the Catholic bishops' conference of England and Wales.

Dr Dudley Edwards writes:

"I'll be writing in the next issue venomously about the scandalous way in which these men have been treated, and of the apparent inability of the Catholic Church to learn the downside of secrecy and authoritarianism. But for now I'm just putting it on the record that, in a lengthy interview with me, the ubiquitous Jack Valero of Opus Dei, spokesman for the Newman canonisation cause and the Birmingham Oratory, has confirmed unequivocally that the Three are entirely guiltless of any wrong-doing whatsoever, including, specifically, sexual misdemeanours or homophobia."

Read what she says in full here. As I said in June: "Everything covered up will be uncovered at the Birmingham Oratory". It could not be more important for a proper understanding of this scandal that, according to the spokesman for the Birmingham Oratory, these men are "are entirely guiltless of any wrong-doing whatsoever". I will return to this matter shortly.

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

Lord Joffe's legislative proposals alarm sick and disabled people

Last week The Guardian published an article by Lord Joel Joffe advocating a complete legalisation of assisted suicide in the UK. Regular readers of this blog will be well acquainted with Alison Davis and her incredible life-story. Alison continues to be one of the most eloquent and effective defenders of life within the pro-life movement. Alison wrote a reply to The Guardian, which has not been published. I publish her response, in full, below.

Dear Sir,

Lord Joffe's "New Proposal for Assisted Suicide" (28th July 2010) poses as many questions as it answers about the wisdom of changing the law to allow suffering people the "right to choose" their own death.

He summarily dismisses opponents of assisted suicide as "a small minority [who] should not be allowed ... to impose their beliefs and views on the majority" who he claims favour it. The truth is that a great number of sick and disabled people (including some who, like me, demonstrated against Joffe's own "Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill" bill in May 2006) have this very fear - that once assisted suicide was legalised, the majority view that disabled, sick and suffering people are "better off dead" would prevail over individual concerns. I am certainly personally very afraid of what he proposes.

I have several severe disabling conditions, and, when not confined to bed, use a wheelchair full time. My spine is collapsing causing extreme pain, which cannot be well controlled, even with morphine. It is getting worse, and will inevitably continue to do so. Twenty-five years ago, when doctors thought my life expectancy was extremely short, I decided I had had enough, and developed a settled wish to die. I seriously attempted suicide several times, and was prevented only by good friends, and good doctors who worked on the principle that my life was worth saving (just as they would for any able bodied patient who had attempted suicide). If legally binding Advance Directives had been in place then, as they are now, I would have made one. Neither the ill-named "court of protection" nor the "tribunal" which Joffe envisages, would have saved me, and I would not now be writing this letter. I would have missed the best years of my life, despite continuing extreme physical pain, and no one would ever have known that the future held good things for me, and that the doctors were wrong in thinking I didn't have long to live.

Joffe speaks of only one "important safeguard" - that of "self administration" of the lethal drugs while simultaneously allowing for the authorisation of "other means of self-administration" if the patient is unable to take it him/herself. This uncharacteristic coyness in spelling out what he actually means, was also used by supporters of the bill to legalise assisted suicide in Washington State, USA, where "self-administration" was also touted as a "safeguard." Later it transpired in the smallprint of the Act that this term actually meant the "act of ingesting" the fatal dose. Thus any third party could put the lethal medication in an incapacitated patient's mouth or feeding tube and the act still be regarded as "self-administration" because the patient "ingested" it. Is it any wonder that sick and disabled people are alarmed, rather than encouraged, by Joffe's weasel words?

Finally Joffe rules that there should be a "minimum waiting period" before a patient wanting to die is allowed to "ingest" the fatal dose or change their minds. I wanted to die for ten years. I rest my case.

Yours faithfully,

Alison Davis

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

Students needed to tell freshers the truth about abortion

SPUC wants to help students who want to promote the pro-life message at university. Freshers' fairs are major opportunities to connect with other students. SPUC has devised a leaflet (pictured) that we would like students to distribute at their freshers' fairs. That way we can:

• let new students know that we cherish life from its earliest beginnings, and
• support vulnerable women, letting them know that they are not alone.

The leaflet contains information about the following:

• development of the unborn child
• various abortion procedures
• side-effects of abortion
• alternatives to abortion
• helplines for women in crisis pregnancies.

If you’re interested in handing out the leaflet during freshers' week, or would like any advice or practical help in setting up a university pro-life group, then please email paulsmeaton@spuc.org.uk

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

As Kenyans vote to kill their children, bishops say they respect the outcome of the referendum

Tragically, it appears that Kenyans have voted for a constitution which their Catholic bishops warned last May would result in the "liberalisation" of abortion.

In a statement yesterday, the Catholic bishops of Kenya said:

"We respect the outcome of the referendum, where the larger numbers of Kenyans have voted to accept this proposed constitution. However, truth and right are not about numbers. We therefore, as the shepherds placed to give moral guidance to our people, still reiterate the need to address the flawed moral issues in this proposed constitution. That voice should never be silenced."

The Kenyan bishops have got it badly wrong here. Would they be saying ...

"We respect the outcome of the referendum"

... if the majority of Kenyans had just voted for a constitution which favoured the killing of Catholics, rather than the killing of unborn children? If not, what reasons would they give for not respecting the outcome of a referendum on a draft constitution which allows the killing of Catholics, but respecting the outcome of a referendum which allows the killing of unborn children?

After all, only last May the same Kenyan bishops rightly warned:

"A good constitution should safeguard very basic rights before conferring other rights. The Proposed Constitution of Kenya does not do that. A good constitution is judged by how it protects fundamental human rights. All the gains in the Proposed Constitution of Kenya are, as it were, cancelled by what it says about the most fundamental right, the right to life. A constitution that does not safeguard the sanctity of human life is not a good constitution."

Surely the Kenyan bishops should now be taking a leaf out of the book of Antonio Cardinal Cañizares Llovera, the head of the Vatican's Congregation for Divine Worship and Sacraments, who, according to LifeSite, said last week in Madrid about the new abortion law in Spain:

"Whoever denies the right to life is against democracy and leads society to disaster"

and that where a law "legitimizes" abortion or euthanasia, it

"ceases to be a true morally binding civil law"?

In a veritable call to arms the Cardinal said:

"Let us refuse to support any initiative that goes against life, not give our support to individuals, institutions, works or measures to be or intended to go against life, we can not associate ourselves with those who deny something so fundamental."

Returning to the unfortunate statement of the Kenyan bishops yesterday, they say:

"We shall be giving a more comprehensive statement in the next few days."

I hope their next statement reflects the enormity of what has occurred. Kenyans have voted to kill their own children and it's every bit as bad as voting to kill Catholics, bishops, or politicians. As Pope John Paul II said in Evangelium Vitae (73):

"Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. From the very beginnings of the Church, the apostolic preaching reminded Christians of their duty to obey legitimately constituted public authorities (cf. Rom 13:1-7; 1 Pet 2:13-14), but at the same time it firmly warned that "we must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). In the Old Testament, precisely in regard to threats against life, we find a significant example of resistance to the unjust command of those in authority. After Pharaoh ordered the killing of all newborn males, the Hebrew midwives refused. "They did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but let the male children live" (Ex 1:17). But the ultimate reason for their action should be noted: "the midwives feared God" (ibid.). It is precisely from obedience to God-to whom alone is due that fear which is acknowledgment of his absolute sovereignty-that the strength and the courage to resist unjust human laws are born. It is the strength and the courage of those prepared even to be imprisoned or put to the sword, in the certainty that this is what makes for "the endurance and faith of the saints" (Rev 13:10)."

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

Advertising body approves offensive Marie Stopes abortion ad

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has today ruled in favour of the television advertisement by Marie Stopes International (MSI), one of Britain's main abortion providers.

Paul Tully, SPUC general secretary, told the media today:

“Advertising abortion, whether directly or under the guise of so-called 'pregnancy advice’, is indecent and dishonest. Yet the ASA has approved showing TV ads from one of the biggest abortion-providers in the UK.

“The ASA says the ad is not offensive, thus ignoring the fundamental nature of the ad’s message which is: 'We can kill unborn babies'.  This message is just as offensive as saying 'We can kill immigrants', 'We can kill paedophiles' or targeting any other disparaged group. It is simply casuistic of the ASA to hold that the ad isn’t advertising abortion.

“As an industry-based group, it is free to reflect the views of the broadcasters and publishers who want lucrative advertising deals: it is a great shame that it has not acted more impartially in this matter. The ASA is not a statutory authority. It is not answerable democratically or judicially to anyone, nor does it have power to impose any penalties or hold anyone to account. The ASA’s approval of TV abortion ads highlights the need for Jeremy Hunt, the media secretary, to intervene, as he can, to stop these deeply offensive ads.”

SPUC has launched a nationwide leafleting campaign to put pressure on the Government to intervene.

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

Spanish football coach's son, who has Down's syndrome, shares Spain's glory

Vicente del Bosque, Spain's world cup winning coach, has a 21-year-old son, Álvaro, who has Down's syndrome. MercatorNet tells us that Vicente del Bosque is immensely proud of his son "even though Alvaro has been highly critical of some of his decisions"! “At first we cried a lot,” del Bosque says about the days after Álvaro’s birth, “but now when I look back I think, we were so foolish.”

Álvaro del Bosque went with the players to South Africa for the tournament, accompanying his father, the team's manager. Alvaro is pictured above, celebrating the team's victory, at the official reception. Also in the picture, left, is Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Zapatero.

Mr Bill Muehlenberg, writing on Mercator.net, refers to two couples in Australia who want compensation because doctors did not detect Down's syndrome and other developmental anomalies before their children were born. The parents, in Victoria state, say they would have had abortions, and they want money for the children's upkeep and for "psychiatric injury". Other states have outlawed such claims. [Herald Sun, 21 July]

Mr Muehlenberg contrasts this depressing litigation with the joy Álvaro has given to Spain's winning World Cup team.  The Spanish team's joy might also be contrasted with the grim view of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in Britain which recently described a new, more accurate, search and destroy technique for detecting Down's syndrome babies as the "Holy Grail" of Down's syndrome testing.

Mr Muehlenberg writes: "All true love is self-giving, not self-taking. To love another person is to give away part of yourself, to become vulnerable, to take risks, and to be willing to hurt. If you do not want to hurt, then do not love. A parent’s love may be among the world’s greatest love, because it may hurt the most and cost the most. But love happily embraces such hurts, sacrifices and burdens. Those born with physical or mental incapacities are obviously going to be somewhat more of a handful. But they are all still beautiful sons and daughters who deserve to be loved. They do not deserve the guilt trip put upon them by parents who complain about their very existence, their very right to life."

Mr Muehlenberg is a lecturer in ethics and philosophy at several Melbourne theological colleges and a PhD candidate at Deakin University, Melbourne.


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