Margaret's plea to Romanian authorities: Don't abort the reported raped girl of 11

A harrowing story of a young Romanian girl raped, it is said, by her uncle was reported by AFP on Friday. A medical ethics panely has, reportedly, examined her and decided that "abortion should not be imposed" for certain legal reasons.

This young girl is only 11 years of age. It's said she did not know that she was pregnant and that her parents only found out by accident when she was given a medical after suffering stomach pains. Rape by an uncle is, it's reported, suspected but not proven. Margaret Cuthill of BVA, an experienced Post Abortion Trauma Counsellor of 20 years, said “If indeed the young girl has been raped, then performing an abortion on her would be akin to a further assault on her young body. It seems she has not had any say in what has been happening to her at all, and that the adults in her life are making all the decisions for her. In my experience those who have had late abortions in their teenage years are the most psychologically damaged.”

This is borne out by The Elliot Institute in America who recently published the following statistics relating to teenage abortion:-

• Teenagers are 6 times more likely to attempt suicide if they have had an abortion in the last six months than are teens who have not had an abortion.


• Teens who abort are up to 4 times more likely to commit suicide than adults who abort, and a history of abortion is likely to be associated with adolescent suicidal thinking.


• Teens who abort are more likely to develop psychological problems, and are nearly three times more likely to be admitted to mental health hospitals than teens in general.


• About 40% of teen abortions take place with no parental involvement, leaving parents in the dark about subsequent emotional or physical problems.


• Teens are times more likely to seek subsequent help for psychological and emotional problems compared to their peers who carry “unwanted pregnancies” to term.


• Teens are 3 times more likely to report subsequent trouble sleeping, and nine times more likely to report subsequent marijuana use after abortion.


• Among studies comparing abortion vs. carrying to term, worse outcomes are associated with abortion, even when the pregnancy is unplanned.

For these reasons and others I will be joining Margaret in appealing to the relevant authorities in Romania to stick to their decision and not to "impose abortion" on this young girl.

Sexual Education Forum and British Pregnancy Advisory Service doing the British Government’s dirty work at taxpayers' expense

The Sexual Education Forum recently released a report that conveniently supported the policies of its major funder: the Government. The Sexual Education Forum is run under the auspices of the National Childrens’ Bureau a charity which receives more than half of its funding from the government, and is concerned with the “children’s sector” in England and Northern Ireland.

The Sunday Mail broke the results of a survey carried out by the Sexual Education Forum revealing that one-third, or 1,000, of secondary schools provide ‘sexual health’ services on the school site. Moreover this is often done without permission, or even knowledge, of the parents. The Sexual Education Forum is a largely taxpayer-funded agency dedicated to promoting the Government’s ‘reproductive health’ agenda in our schools, and the failing Teenage Pregnancy Strategy.

In addition, Ann Furedi, chief executive of the British Pregnancy and Advisory Service (BPAS), which receives more than 65% of its income from the NHS for the abortion services it provides , recently stated that pro-life campaigners were guilty of increasing the numbers of abortions in the UK by reminding women considering an abortion that they are simply doing what many of their contemporaries also do. As evidence for this she used that fact that the numbers of abortions have increased most in Scotland which had seen some of the fiercest campaigning.

One is entitled to be very sceptical of claims made about pro-life campaigners by a body carrying out, largely at the expense of the taxpayers, government policy in providing abortions virtually on demand.

Lisbon Treaty referendum and Ireland's abortion ban

The Sunday Business Post carries an interesting analysis of the critical role played by voters wanting to maintain Ireland's ban on abortion in the "no" verdict on the Lisbon Treaty Irish referendum on 12th June.

On the one hand Protocol 35 to the Lisbon Treaty clearly states: "Nothing in the Treaties, or in the Treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community, or in the Treaties or Acts modifying or supplementing those Treaties, shall affect the application in Ireland of Article 40.3.3. of the Constitution of Ireland."; however, on the other hand, the European Centre for Law and Justice has pointed out in a legal analysis, that this would not necessarily be enough to protect the Irish Constitution from a court decision establishing abortion as a human right. Ireland is one of only three countries within the EU that protects the unborn in this way. A "yes" vote for the Lisbon Treaty might well have brought that protection to an end.

Help stop abortion agenda behind child abandonment resolution

An important European institution will vote on Friday 27 June on the subject of child abandonment. The Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) will debate a draft resolution entitled "Preventing the first form of violence against children: abandonment at birth" http://tinyurl.com/5k7dvw The Council of Europe (which is distinct from the European Union) has a Parliamentary Assembly consisting of representatives who already sit in the legislatures of the Council's 47 member-states. Although the Parliamentary Assembly cannot pass laws, it does pass resolutions which may have significant influence on law, in particular human rights law.

Although it contains some good aspects (e.g. support in crisis pregnancies), the draft resolution and its accompanying report also promotes "legal and easier access to sexual rights and reproductive health services" (article 9.4.) such as "contraception and abortion" (article 33.6). It is clear that the resolution's message is that it is better for women to kill their babies by abortion than to abandon them, even than abandoning them to institutions that will care for them and place them for adoption. Even the resolution's title ("Preventing the first form of violence against children: abandonment at birth") implies support for abortion - an earlier form of violence against children is in fact killing them before birth. This fact is the reason why the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child says, "The child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth."

The hijacking of the issue of child abandonment by pro-abortion extremism is shocking, but unsurprising considering that the resolution has been drafted by the strongly pro-abortion British MP Mike Hancock, under the chairmanship of Christine McCafferty, a leader of the abortion lobby in the British parliament.

Please contact the representatives of your country in the Assembly immediately, urging them to vote to remove all anti-life language from the draft resolution, and to vote against the draft resolution if the anti-life langauge is not removed. Assembly members should be asked to oppose articles 7, 9.4, 10.3, 17, 18, 19, 33.6, 33.7 and any other articles which could be interpreted as support for abortion or other anti-life/anti-family practices (e.g. mass provision of contraception; value-free sex education; attacks upon the work of faith communities to save children; etc).

You may also wish to remind Assembly members of the words of the late Nobel Prize-winner, Mother Teresa:

"These concerns (for orphan children in India and elsewhere in the world) are very good, but often these same people are not concerned with the millions that are killed by the deliberate decision of their own mothers. And this is what is the greatest destroyer of peace today, Abortion...For the pregnant women who don't want their children, give them to me."

Contact details for Assembly members can be found at http://tinyurl.com/65tqqg Please remember to email any replies you receive to political@spuc.org.uk

2007: tragedy of highest ever abortion rates

Government policies have generated the highest abortion totals (205,598), the highest abortion rate (18.6 per 1000 residents) and the greatest ever rate of child-abortions, according to figures for 2007 for England and Wales published yesterday.

The 13-to-15 abortion rate was 4.4 per thousand girls in that age group, and the under-18 rate was 19.8 per thousand.

The key to explaining the rising trend is found in documents like Recommended Standards for Sexual Health Services, drawn up by a coalition of pro-abortion advocates and abortion providers and endorsed by the government in 2005.

The figures reflect the Department of Health's (DH) policy of performing an abortion as quickly as possible on any woman enquiring. The policy includes arm-twisting doctors who are reluctant to refer for abortion. Many GPs would refuse to refer women for abortions on medical grounds, or for religious or conscientious reasons. The DH brooks none of these objections, but insists that every woman who enquires about abortion is immediately referred for abortion.

It is a conveyor-belt, one-size-fits-all, approach. There is no counselling routinely offered, and the DH has targets for rushing women through the abortion mill against the clock. Health trusts which miss the target and don't kill enough babies quickly enough are liable to be penalised.

Abortion is more than a social malaise. It is a grave abuse of human rights. It harms women and kills children.

Professor knighted for developing the killing of babies with spina bifida and Down's syndrome

Yesterday I blogged about pro-abortion amendments to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill to de-restrict abortion up to 24 weeks and to empower midwives and nurses to perform abortion - and the urgent action needed to oppose these amendments.

Today we read that Professor Nicholas Wald, director of the Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, has been honoured by the United Kingdom for his work of identifying disabled people before they are born in order to kill them. Here's what Alison Davis, who has spina bifida, and who leads No Less Human, a division of SPUC, says about the award:

"Prof. Wald's award, for developing pre-natal tests whose sole aim is to identify disabled babies in the womb so that they can be aborted, is hardly an achievement in the eyes of disabled people. This is not 'prevention' of disability, as he maintains, and as his job title suggests, but direct and deliberate eugenic killing. It is ironic that simultaneously Prof Wald has developed the use of folic acid in pregnancy which can reduce the chance of the baby having spina bifida by 72%. He seems to see no distinction between preventing a baby from having a disability, and killing a baby because s/he has a disability. He clearly has no understanding at all of the value and dignity of people like me with disabilities. This award is highly offensive to all who live with disabling conditions, but particularly those who have conditions which he has spent his life trying to eradicate by abortion. That he is to get an award for work that directly led to killing so many who would otherwise have grown up to be like me is adding insult to injury."

New pro-abortion amendments announced, please leaflet now

Yesterday pro-abortion MPs tabled extremely damaging amendments to the Abortion Act via the HFE bill. It is critical that we act now to resist these amendments as strongly as possible.

The committee stage of the bill has now been completed and pro-abortion MPs have tabled abortion amendments to de-restrict abortions up to 24 weeks, and to empower midwives and nurses to perform abortion. Further amendments may be tabled to seek to extend the Abortion Act to Northern Ireland. More babies will die if such amendments are passed.

I know that many people have worked very hard in the fight against this bill. But today we must make a final push to stop these amendments being incorporated into it. Please order a quantity of our new leaflet "No to more abortion" http://www.spuc.org.uk/hfeabort.pdf and distribute them door-to-door, in the street and at churches. Order the leaflets by emailing lizfoody@spuc.org.uk or by phoning SPUC on 020 7091 7091. The new leaflet complements the recent one "How should human life be treated" http://www.spuc.org.uk/hfeleaflet.pdf which is still current, and both leaflets can be distributed separately or together.

Please make it your top priority to distribute as many leaflets as possible in the coming week. The bill's report stage may start at the very beginning of July, so we have to act straight away to have an impact.

It's essential for people to contact their MPs to ask them to vote against amendments extending abortion. MPs can be contacted in writing at House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA, or by email. If you have internet access you can contact your MP (and find out your MP's name) via http://www.spuc.org.uk/mps Please copy any replies you receive to Anthony Ozimic, SPUC political secretary, either by email at political@spuc.org.uk or by post to SPUC HQ.

If you share my belief in the power of prayer, please pray for the defeat of the bill and the abortion amendments. 'Pray as if everything depended on God and work as if everything depended on you.'

David Cameron backs wider access to abortion

The office of David Cameron, the leader of the Opposition, has written to SPUC, saying that Mr Cameron regards current proposals for wider access to abortion as "practical and sensible". The relevant section of the letter from Mr Cameron's letter starts by noting that Mr Cameron voted for a “modest” reduction in the the 24 week limit for 'social' abortions. The letter goes on to say:

"David is aware of the comments made by the Shadow Secretary of State for Health, Andrew Lansley MP, in the House on the 12 May. Andrew was advocating that early, medical abortions are preferable to late, surgical ones. Therefore, Andrew was in favour of amending the requirement for two doctors to consent to an abortion being performed and for reviewing the restrictions on nurses providing medical abortions. As David is in favour of allowing women to have abortions, but supports a reduction to the abortion limit, he thinks that this is a practical and sensible proposal. However, it must be emphasized that this is currently a free vote issue."

I warned recently that certain Conservative parliamentarians prominent in the recent abortion debates see wider access to abortion and reducing the 24 week limit for 'social' abortions as two sides of the same coin.

Amendments to enact proposals for wider access to abortion could be tabled at the next stage (the ‘Report’ stage) of the government’s Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, expected early in July.

If your MP is a Conservative, please write to him/her to say that the support by Mr Cameron and Mr Lansley for wider access to abortion does no credit to the Conservative party. Other points you can make to your MP can be found on our new leaflet "No to more abortion" http://www.spuc.org.uk/hfeabort.pdf You can contact your MP (and find out your MP's name) via http://www.spuc.org.uk/mps or by writing to your MP at the House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA. Please remember to copy any replies you receive to Anthony Ozimic, SPUC political secretary, by email at political@spuc.org.uk or by post to SPUC.

Please order a quantity of our new leaflet "No to more abortion" http://www.spuc.org.uk/hfeabort.pdf and distribute them door-to-door, in the street and at churches. You can order a quantity of leaflets by emailing lizfoody@spuc.org.uk or by telephoning SPUC on 020 7091 7091.

SPUC plans to intervene in assisted suicide case

SPUC plans to intervene in the case of Debbie Purdy (pictured), a lady with multiple sclerosis who is seeking an assurance that her husband will not be prosecuted if he assists her suicide. According to media reports, Mrs Purdy wants to know if her husband will be liable to prosecution if he helps her to travel to Europe to commit suicide. The High Court in London today agreed to grant Mrs Purdy a judicial review hearing at a later date.

SPUC has been at the forefront of the campaign against euthanasia and assisted suicide in the UK for a number of years. SPUC led an intervention in the 2002 case brought by Mrs Dianne Pretty, who was seeking automatic exoneration of her husband should he bring about her death. A number of pro-life groups, medical ethics groups and disability rights organizations supported the intervention. Mrs Pretty lost her case. She subsequently died peacefully. SPUC has also campaigned in relation to other cases where the right to life of disabled people has been undermined - such as the deliberate killing of Down's baby John Pearson in 1981 and the young brain-injured football fan, Tony Bland, who was starved by court order in 1993. SPUC is also a member of the Care Not Killing alliance, which helped defeat Lord Joffe's assisted suicide bill.

Alison Davis, co-ordinator of No Less Human, a division of SPUC, said: "Allowing assisted suicide or weakening the law against it would compromise the protection from harm every vulnerable person deserves. The assumption that dying and incurably disabled people are, in effect, right to want to die and better off dead would be confirmed. It will make all vulnerable people even more vulnerable to a form of fatal discrimination. It will divert resources from the hospice movement, which aims to achieve peaceful deaths for all, to providing deliberate killing as a solution to the challenges illness and disability pose. There is no legal or moral right for anyone to commit suicide.

Ms Davis continued: "I understand completely the despair and blackness which causes some disabled and ill people to feel suicidal, because I once felt the same. I have spina bifida and several other painful disabling conditions. I use a wheelchair full time, and am getting progressively weaker. For ten years I wanted to die and I made several serious attempts to kill myself. My friends, however, helped me to re-establish a sense of my own infinite human value, a value which isn't diminished by being severely disabled and having to depend on others. I am now grateful that assisted suicide remains illegal."

Killing embryos who may be disabled "a miraculous and wonderful healthcare option"

Alison Davis, the leader of No Less Human, a division of SPUC, has pointed out to me how a story in the Daily Mail glosses over mention of the lethal discrimination against the disabled inherent in the practice of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD).

Naturally, our hearts go out to parents (pictured) who fear that their children may be affected by a hereditary disabling condition. Newspapers, however, have a responsibility to give their readers the facts, especially on such serious matters for parents and families

Instead, sadly, as is so often the case with media, the misinformation in the Daily Mail story is appalling. Headlined "Baby born free of hereditary gene peril thanks to controversial screening" the Daily Mail fails entirely to point out that embryos affected by the disabling condition are simply destroyed/discarded. Indeed, you might conclude from the Daily Mail that PGD was completely harmless to children! The mother in the story is quoted as saying: "If the technology is there and there is something that can be done that doesn't harm the child or myself, then we should go down that road".

Alison Davis writes in a letter to the Mail: "While naturally happy at the birth of any baby, I was very saddened to read in the Daily Mail that a couple decided to have pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) in order to ensure that their baby did not have neurofibromatosis. While, on the face of it, it would seem laudable to prevent a baby having a disabling condition, the article failed to point out the realities of the PGD procedure.

"It is not simply a case of 'preventing' the disabling condition. In PGD, early human embryos are examined under the microscope. Those who are affected by the disabling condition in question are immediately discarded (i.e. thrown away). One of those not affected is then chosen to be implanted in the mother's womb. The eugenic philosophy behind the procedure is very clear. Those who have a disability will always be thrown away.

"This has particular resonance for me, as I have several severe disabling conditions and use a wheelchair full time. I am painfully aware that such procedures disciminate fatally against those like me who would otherwise grow up with a disability. By discarding embryos with disabling conditions we are sending out a very strong negative message to all disabled people - that we are tolerated only because the technology wasn't available to eliminate us at the embryonic stage. It also sends out a very subtle message to those like baby Ethan, who were born after the PGD procedure - that they are loved and wanted only because they are not disabled."

While we know that Alison's letter has appeared in today's printed version of the Daily Mail, the text isn't presently on their website.

Barry Gardiner MP praises China’s crimes against humanity

In last night’s Second Reading debate on the government’s Climate Change Bill, Labour MP Barry Gardiner proposed three options for dealing with climate change, including this one:

“to reduce population—something that politicians in developed countries are very reluctant to discuss, but which Governments in developing countries have already taken on board. People are very keen to accuse China, as we have heard in this debate, over their coal-fired power stations. Such people fail to commend the political initiative that has seen 400 million people not being born to create a carbon footprint in the first place. We need to take the issue of population seriously. It is the third element of the triangle, and it should be incorporated into this Bill.”

Mr Gardiner was clearly praising China’s population control programme, the core of which is a one-child policy implemented by forced abortions, forced sterilisations, compulsory fittings of abortifacient birth control devices, abandonment of children and deliberate killing of orphans through neglect. Coercion is exercised through stiff penalties which include extortionate fines, destruction of property, imprisonment and even torture. I blogged yesterday that leading environmentalist Jonathan Porritt was attempting to bully us with the threat if we don't stop procreating by choice, governments will start copying China’s one-child policy and stop us procreating by force.

The minister in charge of the Climate Change Bill, Joan Ruddock, noted Mr Gardiner’s “important contribution” on “the important issue of population”. It is a poor reflection upon the House of Commons that not one single MP objected to Mr Gardiner’s praise for China’s crimes against humanity. I do hope that MPs who weren't present at the debate will make their objections known once they read what Mr Gardiner said. Readers in the UK may like to write to their MP about the matter.

Global warming no excuse for anti-life measures

The claim that global warming is a man-made threat to the earth and its inhabitants is now being used to call for population control. Jonathon Porritt, a leading environmentalist, has called for more support for "family planning" and "reproductive health" (common euphemisms for abortion) to reduce human numbers and therefore carbon emissions. Mr Porritt has also attacked the Catholic Church for its resistance to anti-life measures, saying: "I really believe The Roman Catholic Church is undermining the future prospects for human kind." It is interesting to note Mr Porritt was appointed as chairman of the Sustainable Development Commission by Tony Blair. I have noted elsewhere Mr Blair's anti-life record in government, and his refusal to repudiate his record since his reception into the Catholic Church.

Mr Porritt is in fact more correctly titled The Hon Sir Jonathon Porritt, 2nd Baronet, one of three children of the 11th Governor-General of New Zealand. New Zealand provides a good example of why the claims of population control advocates are fanciful. Our colleagues at the Population Research Institute (PRI) last year looked at New Zealand, in a well-written essay entitled Eunuchs for the Green Kingdom. In short, not only is New Zealand's birth rate (1.95 children per woman of child-bearing age) below replacement level (2.1), but the country has one of the world's lowest population densities, amidst fertile countryside. No over-population there, though inconvenient truths don't stop some environmentalists calling for even fewer children to be born. Perhaps Jonathon Porritt would like to tell us which of his two siblings or his two children should not have been born in order to save the earth?

Whatever the evidence regarding man-made global warming, the right to life and the right to found a family are fundamental, universal human rights enshrined in legally-binding international conventions. Mr Porritt is attempting to bully us with the threat that if we don't stop procreating by choice, the government will stop us by force (in fact, Mr Porritt claims to have counted the amount of carbon emissions China's brutal one-child policy of forced abortions has prevented).

Don’t fall into the “we already have abortion on demand” trap – the law does matter

It is not only on the home front that legislators are considering permissive changes to abortion legislation. In the Australian state of Victoria, pressure is being applied to remove abortion from the criminal code altogether, that is, to completely decriminalise it. In response, the Catholic bishops of Victoria have produced a pastoral letter, directed to “the Catholic people of Victoria and all men and women of good will.” In it the bishops outline the reasons for the Church’s moral opposition to abortion, reasons that are “rationally grounded” and not ‘merely’ religious. There are good reasons for respecting and protecting every member of the human family, and many non-religious people have the same view.

Even though the practice of abortion in Victoria is effectively unrestricted, decriminalising it would nevertheless be a serious and final blow to the vestiges of protection for unborn children and their mothers. As the bishops note, the “Law is a great educator”, and “moving the regulation of abortion from the Crimes Act to the Health Act would also give strength to the fallacy that abortion is just an ordinary medical procedure.” That would represent a clear victory for pro-abortion forces. It would also completely remove any last remaining sense within the law - weakened as it is – of the “equality of all before the law.” Society’s most vulnerable would be completely deprived of any legal recognition of wrongs perpetrated against them. The bishops make it clear, “when a state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of the state based on law are undermined.”

How is this relevant to the UK?

Current proposals to change the law by pro-abortion MPs, whilst not full decriminalisation, are edging ever closer to it. The underlying drive behind the various proposals, by seeking to further liberalise abortion, is leading us in precisely the same direction as decriminalisation. For example, the amendments drafted by Dr Evan Harris MP, by removing the requirement for two doctors to authorise an abortion, and no longer requiring doctors to act in “good faith”, would make abortion more like any other medical procedure. The result will not only be more abortions but - similar to the effect that the Victorian decriminalisation will have - the public will be educated to think that abortion is really little different to the removal of a tumour.

The sentiment expressed by some MPs in the recent parliamentary debates has been overtly pro-abortion. Along with Andrew Lansley MP (shadow health secretary, Conservative), Nadine Dorries MP (also Conservative) wants abortions to be faster and safer, arguing on the grounds that early ones are better than late ones.

Claire Curtis-Thomas (Labour), a vice-chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Pro-Life Group, is “not opposed to abortion. I believe that women should have the right to choose …. I would be much happier with 12 weeks—that is where I stand. Let women have the choice, but make it at 12 weeks." This is just the type of view that is not only consistent with decriminalisation, but at the very least implies that abortion should be a legal right. One wonders what these MPs would say if pressed on the point.

Amendments to widen access to abortion could be tabled at the next stage (the ‘Report’ stage) of the government’s Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, expected early in July. These pro-abortion amendments may include promoting nurses as abortion practitioners, and extending the Abortion Act to Northern Ireland. More babies will die if such amendments are passed.

I know that many people have worked very hard in the fight against the HFE bill. But today we must redouble our efforts to stop pro-abortion amendments being incorporated into the bill. Please order a quantity of our new leaflet "No to more abortion" http://www.spuc.org.uk/hfeabort.pdf and distribute them door-to-door, in the street and at churches. You can order a quantity of leaflets by emailing lizfoody@spuc.org.uk or by telephoning SPUC on 020 7091 7091.

It's essential to contact your MP to ask him/her to vote against amendments extending abortion access. You can contact your MP (and find out your MP's name) via http://www.spuc.org.uk/mps or by writing to your MP at the House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA. Please remember to copy any replies you receive to Anthony Ozimic, SPUC political secretary, by email at political@spuc.org.uk or by post to SPUC.

US pro-lifers likened to “Saudi extremists” by panellists at American launch of the Tony Blair Faith Foundation

Last week saw the American launch of the Tony Blair Faith Foundation, an international organisation founded by the former prime minister to ‘promote respect and understanding between the major religions’. At the much-publicised event, two of the panellists showed their respect and understanding of believers by comparing pro-life Americans to “Saudi extremists”. According to an op-ed in the Washington Post, Mr Blair distanced himself from the comment whilst talking to a journalist afterwards with the promise that that ‘could not be what they intended.’

I would have more faith in Tony Blair’s reported promise if he had repudiated his own extreme voting record on abortion, destructive research on human embryos and other such matters.

Some Catholic commentators have suggested that it’s “extreme” to expect him to repudiate his voting record on life issues. But as I’ve blogged in another context, if Tony Blair had voted for laws permitting the killing of Catholics or Jews or people from ethnic minorities or lethal experimentation on them, would Catholics be right to expect him publicly to renounce such laws and to repudiate his role in passing such legislation before being received into the Church?

Brazilian bishops affirm wrongness of all embryo destruction and abuse

In response to the recent Brazilian supreme court ruling allowing destructive research on surplus IVF embryos, the bishops of Brazil have reiterated that life, which begins “at fertilization,” should be protected “in all circumstances.” The bishops stated that the embryo is “a human life,” as confirmed by “embryology and biology, and therefore the human embryo has the right to be protected by the State.”

The bishops "reaffirm that the mere fact of being in the presence of a human being demands full respect for his integrity and dignity: any behavior that could constitute a threat or an offense to the fundamental rights of the human person, the first of which is the right to life, is considered gravely immoral”.

The Brazilian bishops' statement is important. It is sometimes asserted in pro-life circles, for example, that IVF practices are tolerable, permissible or even desirable - even though IVF practices involve embryo destruction, embryo freezing and the foreseen death or "wastage" of surplus embryos. Similarly, some people also believe (wrongly) that, while embryo destruction is wrong, there is nothing wrong with IVF from a secular ethical perspective if no embryo destruction takes place. IVF, however, is in fact intrinsically wrong from a secular ethical perspective, whether or not embryo destruction takes place. The Church's teaching on the intrinsic wrongness of IVF is itself based on secular (though by no means irreligious) ethical perspectives, in particular the dignity of the human being as a member of the human family. As the Church teaches in Donum Vitae:

"Such fertilization entrusts the life and identity of the embryo into the power of doctors and biologists and establishes the domination of technology over the origin and destiny of the human person. Such a relationship of domination is in itself contrary to the dignity and equality that must be common to parents and children"

and therefore

"[t]he political authority consequently cannot give approval to the calling of human beings into existence through procedures which would expose them to those very grave risks noted previously....As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of his conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights."

HFEA meets only “joke standard” in comments on Catholic Church teaching on human life and its decisions on human-animal hybrids

Lisa Jardine, the new head of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, recently made some very ill-informed comments on Catholic Church teaching on when human life begins. It augurs badly for the future quality of the HFEA’s decision-making on the fate of human embryos when its principal officer is so poor in doing her homework on a matter so easily researched.

The problem almost certainly does not lie with the intelligence of Lisa Jardine – which is well-evidenced. The problem lies with the very low standard of decision-making expected of the HFEA by the legislators who established it under the 1990 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act.

Under her predecessor, the HFEA published its decisions on two license applications regarding human-animal hybrids and the minutes of those decisions can be found here. (The press release is wrongly dated 2007. It was published on 17th January 2008.)

James L Sherley, MD, PhD, a leading stem cell biologist, has commented that the HFEA meets only a joke standard for granting human-animal embryo licences. Dr Sherley is a senior scientist in Programs in Cancer and Regenerative Biology at Boston Biomedical Research Institute, Watertown, Massachusetts, USA. He visited London recently as a guest of the Catholic bishops' conference of England and Wales and participated in a two-hour debate titled Science, Ethics, and Faith: A Conversation About the HFE Bill sponsored by the Wellcome Trust on Friday May 16.

Dr Sherley writes: "The standard upon which the HFEA can license human embryo research is quite disingenuous. The HFEA proceedings for these license applications paraphrase the statute that gives the HFEA its licensing authority: as requiring only that the research 'appear to be either necessary or desirable' for the purposes: 2.2.a to increase knowledge about the development of embryos 2.2.b to increase knowledge about serious disease 2.2.c to enable any such knowledge to be applied in developing treatments for serious disease

"'Necessary' can be satisfactorily defined for the purpose of critical and objective evaluation. On the other hand, defining 'desirable' is preposterous. This standard is certainly too subjective for credible application. Yet, it is given equal weight to the 'necessary' standard, because currently meeting either is a sufficient basis for the HFEA to award a license. Certainly, at its very core, this HFEA licensing standard is a mean joke against UK citizens who respect innocent human lives and seek to protect them.

"The 'desirable' standard should be rescinded, because it lacks exactness and is easily abused. Thereafter, the 'necessary' standard requires a reckoning, too. If purposes 2.2.a-2.2.c cannot be accomplished without a given type of research, then that research can appropriately be deemed 'necessary'. Human-animal cloning research does not meet this standard. In a invalid attempt to justify their decision, the HFEA proceedings emphasized the idle promises of cloned human embryo research and completely excluded any assessment of the very real pitfalls of human-animal cloning experiments.

"Putting the human genetic material into animal eggs is certainly not necessary per se to increase knowledge about serious disease. Even suggesting that these experiments will somehow lead to improvements in making cloned human embryonic stem cells with human eggs is unsupportable on scientific grounds. Because of the biological aberrations and incompatibilities of inter-species mixing, human-animal embryo research will produce many misleading artifacts that have nothing to do with human development or human disease. For example, it is well known that when mature human cells are fused with mature rodent cells, the viable hybrid cells spit out most of the human chromosomes. Inter-species cloning experiments will add little or nothing to ongoing experimentation in uncontested animal-animal embryo cloning research (e.g., cloning of mouse embryonic stem cells), which has provided many insights into human development and human disease. In fact the current advances in induced pluripotent stem cells (iPS cells) are due to research with mouse embryonic stem cells, not human ones. The HFEA position on inter-species cloning also ignores countless examples of non-stem cell research and adult stem cell research that continue to increase knowledge about serious disease.

"So, it is truly a wonder that the petitioning knowledgeable scientists actually want to undertake this unsound research. What is really motivating them? Perhaps, the answer lies in the following statement found in the public transcript of the HFEA evaluation proceedings (November 28, 2007) for the license application of Dr. Stephen Minger of the Stem Cell Biology Laboratory, Wolfson Centre for Age-Related Diseases, Kings College London: '[Dr. Minger] acknowledges that further equipment and staff will be needed pending approval of the application and subsequent funding decisions.' So, here it is again, just in a different guise: Innocent human lives created and destroyed for the benefit of others, but this time for others who have few redeeming qualities, if indeed any at all."

Tony Blair "did not strictly follow the Catholic line" on abortion! says Our Faith on Sunday

Many Catholic parish priests reproduce reflections entitled "Our Faith on Sunday" on the reverse side of their weekly bulletins. Fr Stephen Boyle (picture right), parish priest of The Good Shepherd, in New Addington, Surrey, contacted me to ask for my comment about this week's edition - on the feast of the Visitation.

This Sunday, the author of "Our Faith on Sunday" refers to Ann Widdecombe MP's "begrudging comment" about Tony Blair's reception into the Catholic church and to her concern that Mr Blair had not strictly followed the Catholic line on a variety of issues in his voting record as Prime Minister, most notably on abortion.

"Not strictly followed the Catholic line?" Frankly, that's putting it mildly - and a lot more mildly than Ann Widdecombe rightly put it.

In my letter to Tony Blair (11th January 2008) on behalf of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, I wrote:

We would...be most grateful if, in the light of your reception into the Catholic Church, you would tell us if you now repudiate:

• voting in 1990 for abortion up to birth three times during Parliamentary debates on what became the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990;
• personally endorsing your government’s policy of supplying abortion and birth control drugs and devices to schoolgirls as young as 11 without parental knowledge or consent;
• your government introducing legislation which has led to a lawii which allows, and in certain circumstances requires, doctors to starve and dehydrate to death vulnerable patients;
• your government’s commitment to the promotion of abortion on demand as a universal fundamental human right.
• personally championing destructive experiments on human embryos."

The author of "Our Faith on Sunday" asks "Is a Catholic politician bound to vote as illegal everything of which the Catholic Church disapproves?" to which the answer is clearly "No" . However, on abortion the Church teaches that Catholic politicians are morally bound to vote against it.

Pope John Paul II writes in Evangelium Vitae:

In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to 'take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it'*.

"Our Faith on Sunday" finishes by suggesting that insisting that politicians have a moral obligation to vote to make abortion illegal "could be counter-productive".

I encourage Catholics who read "Our Faith on Sunday" to write to the author to ask the following question: If Tony Blair had voted for laws permitting the killing of Catholics or Jews or people from ethnic minorities or lethal experimentation on them, would Catholics be right to expect him publicly to renounce such laws and to repudiate his role in passing such legislation before being received into the Church? Is it counter-productive to insist that politicians like Tony Blair vote to make such killings illegal?

By the way, what a way for "Our Faith on Sunday" to celebrate the feast of the Visitation, when the unborn St. John the Baptist leapt for joy in his mother's womb - greeting the unborn Jesus Who may not even have implanted in the lining of Mary's womb! Jesus may have been the same age as the embryos upon whom lethal experimentation is carried out under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act for which Tony Blair voted in 1990 - and which he continued to champion shortly before being received into the Catholic church.

*Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration on Procured Abortion (18 November 1974), No. 22: AAS 66 (1974), 744.

Pope Benedict's Humanae Vitae address in full

I blogged earlier this month on Pope Benedict's ringing endorsement of Humanae Vitae.

The full text of his address to participants at the International Congress on Paul VI's Encyclical Humanae Vitae and its relevance today has now been published.

My thoughts on the supreme importance of Humanae Vitae for the pro-life movement, no matter what our faith may be, are here.

Beware of playing abortion party politics

Some of the media have been spinning the story that, under a Conservative government, there might be restrictions to the abortion law. Pro-lifers need to be very wary of such spin. It may end in tears.

One of the main protagonists for reducing the upper limit for abortion in the recent parliamentary debates was Nadine Dorries, the Conservative MP for Mid-Bedfordshire. She is openly pro-abortion in the early months of pregnancy. In the House of Commons abortion debate on 20^th May, she said: “I should like to make my personal position clear, because it has been misrepresented in the past few days. I am pro-choice. I support a woman’s right to abortion – to faster, safer and quicker abortion than is available at the moment, particularly in the first trimester. That is my position.”

It was under a Conservative government that Parliament voted for abortion up to birth. David Cameron, the current leader of the Conservative party, is on record as saying with regard to such abortions that the current law should remain.

It was also under a Conservative government that the upper limit for abortions was raised for abortions generally; and human embryo research was legalized, backed by the then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher.

Today, David Cameron backs human animal hybrid embryos and “saviour siblings” whereby rejected embryos, who won’t provide an appropriate tissue match for their sibling, are destroyed.

People mistakenly claim that the time limit was reduced from 28 weeks to 24 weeks by the Conservative government’s Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. However, because of amendments to the law made by the 1990 Act, the previous limit, which was based on the capability of the baby to be born alive – not a fixed number of weeks (28) – was abolished and a 24 week time limit was introduced but only for certain cases. In other cases (including where the abortion is carried out on the grounds of disability) abortions can be and are now carried out right up to the time of birth.

Every child who had reached the stage of development of being “capable of being born alive” was protected by the pre-1990 law. Since 1990 that protection has been removed. So the effect of the 1990 Act was to increase the time limit for abortion in most instances and in many cases right up to birth.

It was pro-lifers who pressed for the 1990 Act to contain provisions relating to abortion, in the hope of being able to insert some restrictions, particularly early time limits. Sadly this tactic backfired, resulting in a less, not more, restrictive abortion law.

SPUC said at the time: “… Kenneth Clarke [the secretary of state for health] was … responsible for giving MPs a misleading concept of the clause allowing abortion up to birth when it was debated at the Report Stage of the Bill on 21^st June [1990] … He informed the House ‘the doctor will terminate a pregnancy while attempting to save the life of the baby if he can’. However, termination such circumstances has always been allowed but previously it has been described as ‘induced birth’. For the first time it can be legally categorised as abortion, and, whatever the claims of Mr Clarke, there is now no law compelling a doctor to save the life of the child.” (Human Concern, summer 1990)

Fast forward to 12^th May 2008, and the Second Reading of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. The shadow Conservative Secretary of State for Health, Andrew Lansley, demonstrated an equally frightening nonchalance towards the right to life of unborn children when he called for the law to be changed to allow early abortions to be made more easily available, as I blogged that week.

Dr Helen Watt, the director of the Linacre Centre for healthcare ethics, was right to say recently (in relation to the various life issues under consideration in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill): “We get the Parliament we deserve, and should all give a top priority at the next election to these issues, looking less to party affiliation and more to the voting records of individual MPs”. (Catholic News Agency report)

SPUC agrees. SPUC is political but not party political – and that will reflect our policy at the next general election.

Promises of cures from cloned human embryonic stem cell research misguided - Dr James L. Sherley

James L. Sherley, M.D., Ph.D. is a Senior Scientist at BostonBiomedical Research Institute in the U. S. He visited London recently as a guest of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of England and Wales. Last week, he sent me the following reflections on his visit and on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill:

"When I listened to the BBC's 45-minute re-broadcast titled 'Embryology: The Science and the Ethics' [17th May 2008] back in my own home inBoston in the United States, I hoped that MPs debating and voting on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology (HFE) Bill this week in the UK were diligent enough to get and listen to the full 2-hour debate titled, "Science, Ethics, and Faith: A Conversation About theHFE Bill," sponsored by the Welcome Trust on Friday May 16. Even the 2-hour "conversation" is inadequate, but at least it does not have the added deficits of the editing knife.

"There are many more crucial issues that MPs should weigh with reason, before they vote on this landmark human rights bill. My arrival in London Wednesday night was clouded with a sense of déjàvu. Just 19 months earlier, I made a very similar trip to the Australian Parliament in Canberra. I was impressed by the MPs that I met there who were working diligently for their constituents to better understand human embryo cloning research, whose fate in Australia they decided soon thereafter.

"In my capacity as a practising stem cell biologist, my message was simple. Human embryonic stem cells, whether extracted from cloned embryos or fromIVF embryos, cannot work in the bodies of children or adults. Like the UK, in Australia, research with IVF embryos was already permissible. So, against that precedent, the added truth that cloned embryos, like cloned animals, were too defective to be used to develop medical therapies designed to work inside or outside patients' bodies did not prevail. So now, 19 months later, Australian scientists are still actively destroying nascent humans while wasting research dollars on studies that are flawed in concept and practice.

"My visit to London, as to Canberra, was at the invitation of citizens there concerned about both the disregard by some for the humanity of human embryos and the needs of UK and world citizens who suffer from debilitating ailments for which there are currently no effective treatments. I was asked to share additional expertise and insights to MPs as they approached their vote on the HFE Bill, which if approved would allow scientists to make "admixed" embryos by putting the human genetic material into the eggs of animals like cows, monkeys, and rabbits.

"The guiding principle for previous public deliberations on permission for these experiments has been whether they are 'necessary and desirable.' Supporters of the HFE Bill argue that the experiments are necessary to address the shortage of human eggs that limits embryonic stem cell cloning research, and desirable because it keeps alive the possibility of cures from cloned human embryonic stem cell research.

"I came to London to empower MPs and the UK public to act responsibly (to themselves, to their loved ones, and to nascent humans) about what they already know or at least suspect. There are serious flaws in the stated motivation for the argument to pass to HFE Bill.

"The promises of cures from cloned human embryonic stem cell research are indeed misguided. Whether extracted from IVF embryos or cloned embryos, embryonic stem cells are unable to mend tissues and organs. Only adult stem cells have this ability, and they possess it naturally. This special property of adult stem cells is the reason that all current effective human medical therapies based on stem cells utilize adult stem cells, and none utilize embryonic stem cells. This was true 19 months ago when I visited Canberra, and it is still true now. I remind everyone, including my scientist colleagues, that the best test of the worth of the promises of scientific reports, like all other promises, is time. Many more years from now, this picture will not change. Embryonic stem cells lack the natural biological properties required for repair of non-embryonic tissues.

"Beyond the motivation by cloned embryonic stem cell research being a basic flaw, there is a baser problem with the admixed human embryo experiments that would be promoted by the HFE Bill. They are scientifically unsound and absurd. Frankly, I am quite amused (and many other scientists are too!) that anyone wishing to present themselves as scientifically excellent and socially responsible would promote such experiments. Perhaps, they have just lost their way or are blinded by a light that only they see.

"Animal cloning is quite inefficient. It is very difficult to get an egg, which has had its own genetic material extracted, to correctly translate the genetic material of a body cell of the same exact animal type. Human cloning, which has now been attempted by several groups, has proven formidable. So, no one needs a scientific degree to know just about how likely an animal egg is going to be able to correctly translate genetic material from a human body cell. Most likely, not at all.

"Yet, the scientists and physician MPs (like Evan Harris, whom I had the dubious distinction of meeting), who push for the HFE Bill, tell us that these admixed embryos will help us to improve human cloning and better understand human diseases. Really?! The question that the UK public and other MPs need to put to these scientists and this physician MP is, "What is really motivating your vacation of reason?" Of course, ridiculous scientific investigations are only symptoms of the diseased nature of the HFE Bill.

"Many UK citizens, including my hosts, are concerned about the moral gangrene promoted by the bill. I am as well. In countries like the U.S., Australia, and the UK, that have legalized abortion of fully-formed unborn children, it is a difficult, but not impossible, undertaking to raise public awareness and concern for the deaths of the nascent humans conceived by embryonic stem cell research. If approved, the HFE Bill will accelerate the rate of deaths of all immature humans, including experimentally disfigured admixed human embryos, IVF embryos, and fetuses.

"Already there are papers in the scientific literature from groups reporting admixed human-rabbit and human-cow embryos. It is noteworthy that, for these troubling experiments, women's rights issues do not apply. Surely, these nascent humans must be given a different kind of hearing than fetuses have been given. There is neither a moral nor a scientifically acceptable reason for their conception, which is entirely avoidable; and they cannot provide faithful models for our human ailments. They will just die from their own unique ailments that were given to them by their scientist masters."