NI cross-party unity on abortion

The leaders of the four main political parties in the Northern Ireland Assembly have signed a letter to all Westminster MPs urging them to vote against any measure which would extend British abortion law to their part of the UK. The signatories are Mr Gerry Adams, Sinn Féin, Mr Mark Durkan, SDLP, Sir Reg Empey, UUP, and Dr Ian Paisley, DUP.

Liam Gibson of SPUC Northern Ireland writes: "It would be difficult to overestimate the significance of the letter from the leaders of Northern Ireland’s major political parties. A joint statement of this kind, signed by all four of them, is unprecedented. Together they represent 90% of the members of the Northern Ireland Assembly, which demonstrates the level of determination in the Province to resist threats to extend the Abortion Act. Although Parliament has the political power to impose the Act, the moral authority clearly rests with the Assembly. The party leaders are asking MPs to respect that.

"The leaders of Northern Ireland’s major Christian denominations have also written to MPs asking them to acknowledge that any change to abortion legislation ought be the responsibility of the Assembly.

"On 22 October 2007 Assembly members from the four parties gave overwhelming support to a motion rejecting 'any attempt to make abortion more widely available in Northern Ireland.'

"The people of Northern Ireland still recognise the right to life of the unborn child – a right affirmed by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. They are also concerned by the evidence of the harm abortion does to women. While the law in Northern Ireland protects unborn children, it protects women as well."

Government hardens embryo bill stance

MPs tonight rejected proposed curbs on the expansion of embryo research law. The Commons blocked amendments to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill which sought to prevent or otherwise limit the creation of human-animal hybrid embryos and ‘saviour siblings’. This reflects the government’s resolve to allow new abuses of human embryos and human reproduction. Ethically-conscious MPs must now throw out the government’s embryo bill. We expand on this in an SPUC media release.

SPUC asks Archbishop Nichols to correct and clarify his statement on the value of embryonic human life

It is dismaying for pro-lifers, of all faiths and none, to hear the words of Vincent Nichols, the Catholic archbishop of Birmingham, today on BBC Radio 4's World at One. He said: “…What we’ve been trying to say all along is ‘What is the value that we give to human life in its first beginnings?’ Now clearly it’s not the same as we would give to another adult sitting next to me…”

As a Catholic, and as a pro-life campaigner, I am naturally familiar with Pope John Paul II's presentation of church teaching on the value of pre-natal life, which is completely contrary to the position set out by Archbishop Nichols.

Pope John Paul II writes, for example, in Evangelium Vitae (61) : "Human life is sacred and inviolable at every moment of existence, including the initial phase which precedes birth..."

Elsewhere, quoting Donum Vitae, the Holy Father said: "'The human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception; and therefore from that same moment his rights as a person must be recognized, among which in the first place is the inviolable right of every innocent human being to life'" (Evangelium Vitae 60)

With great respect, and especially in the light of the current debate and MPs' votes on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, a bill which shows such complete contempt for prenatal human life, I do sincerely hope and pray that the archbishop will reconsider what he said and issue a correction and clarification.

Archbishop Nichols also said to his interviewer: “In your introduction I think you quite rightly said that these [the question of saviour siblings] are painful dilemmas and I don’t believe there are black and white answers.”

I am asking the archbishop if he will make it clear that the practice known as “saviour siblings” is opposed by the Catholic Church for a number of reasons.

According to Donum Vitae, published in 1987 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, in-vitro fertilisation is in itself illicit and in opposition to the dignity of procreation and of the conjugal union, even if everything is done to avoid the death of the human embryo.

Furthermore, the creation of “saviour siblings” necessarily involves the testing and discarding of human embryos who may either carry the same genetic problem as their sibling, or they may not be a good tissue match.

Finally, creating a human embryo in order for him or her to become a tissue donor for a sibling is contrary to the human dignity of that embyo.

MPs’ amendments will increase access to abortion throughout pregnancy

Pro-abortion amendments tabled at the last moment last Friday will make abortions in Britain more easily available throughout pregnancy. The amendments have been tabled by Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat, pictured), Chris McCafferty (Labour), John Bercow (Conservative) and Katy Clark MP (Labour).

The amendments set out new circumstances under which only one doctor approves an abortion, both before and after the upper limit for most abortions. Also, medical practitioners will no longer have to form their opinion 'in good faith' which applies all situations under the current abortion law. There are other changes proposed by the MPs which reduce accountability on the part of doctors. These amendments will send the message to doctors: ‘when you decide a woman should have an abortion, you don’t need to justify your decision or worry about what other doctors will think’. If MPs vote for such amendments they will show they care as little for health and welfare of women as they do for unborn children.

It’s essential to contact your MP to ask them to vote against these and any other pro-abortion amendments tomorrow, Tuesday, 20th May. You can contact your MP via http://www.spuc.org.uk/mps

Disabled leader: human embryo research unethical and unpromising

There’s been vast amounts of media coverage featuring disabled people saying how essential the passage of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill is, to seek cures for disability, and its proposals regarding the creation of, and destructive research on human embryos and human-animal hybrids.

Alison Davis, the leader of No Less Human, a group within SPUC, has spina bifida and several other disabling conditions. She has a letter in yesterday’s Telegraph opposing such views from both an ethical and pragmatic perspective.

New video on stem cell science

The Scottish Catholic Media Office has posted a new video on YouTube about the science of stem cells, presented by Professor Colin McGuckin, professor of regenerative medicine, University of Newcastle.

Comprehensive stats on life and family in Europe

The Institute for Family Policies has produced a very helpful, though worrying, report on the current state of the family within and across the 27 member-states of the European Union (EU). The president of the institute's European network is a young Spanish woman, Lola Velarde, who with SPUC and other groups, was part of the pro-life opposition to the pro-abortion 'Women Deliver' conference in London last year. The report, "The evolution of the family in Europe 2008" uses a great number of statistics and finds that abortion is the largest single cause of death within the European Union (EU), with an unborn child being aborted almost every 30 seconds. Almost one in every five pregnancies ends in abortion, and that only includes recorded abortions, not the countless newly-conceived embryonic children who may be killed in the first hours of their lives by abortion-causing birth control drugs and devices as well as through IVF procedures. Almost one million fewer babies were born inside the EU last year than in 1980. Do read the report and use it to spread the message that Europe must embrace human life and the family if it is to survive.

Shame on Andrew Lansley, Tory shadow health secretary

I take issue with Andrew Lansley, the Tory shadow health secretary (pictured), who told MPs on Monday: “If a woman needs an abortion…then it must be better for that to be an early and medical abortion, rather than later and surgical.” He seemed to be following Professor Stuart Campbell’s line (Telegraph, 1st May 2008) who said: "no one seriously disputes that the earlier a termination is carried out the better and safer it is." Mr Lansley, like Professor Campbell, himself, is calling for the abolition of the current requirement for a second doctor to authorise an abortion.

Earlier terminations are better for whom?

Are they better for young women for whom, at the end of a 'long line of non-choices', abortion becomes the only “choice”.

How many young women have been deceived by their school sex ed classes, telling them that by using contraception and being empowered by information, they would be 'safe'. There's not much recognition, in sex education, that many girls experience a power imbalance in their relationships with older, stronger, more persuasive men.

Girls are often told that sex is a normal part of teenage relationships, thereby applying the pressure of the 'norm' to give in to men. Apparently, only freaks don't have sex with their boyfriends. The fact is, girls fall in love and are eager to please and to be seen as normal.

And when teenage pregnancy is so frequently condemned by political leaders and in the media and elsewhere, who can blame a teenager for feeling shocked and unreal when she gets pregnant? Who can blame her for being completely unable to visualise herself as a mother and a happy, successful woman at the same time?

So because she can't see any path other than abortion, she may have that to grieve for her child for the rest of her life. Feeling powerless, avoiding thinking about the moral aspects of abortion, and being young will all contribute to an increased risk of psychological problems after abortion, including depression, anxiety, and substance abuse. And yes, this includes women who have early abortions.

And is early abortion better for the foetus? Obviously no abortion is good for any foetus.

We also doubt that rushing women through the abortion process can be an all-round good thing. A study in Sweden found that one in ten women changed her mind after seeking abortion. Lucky these women had time to back out. Ambivalence and doubt about the decision are normal - and research shows very clearly that ambivalence is a predictor of negative psychological responses to abortion. Often women are waiting for someone to show some real support (not "it's your choice" which is essentially abandoning them to their own circumstances) and to say "yes, I believe you can do this". Women need space to step back from the panic and listen to their own inner voice, not the clamour of what everyone else thinks or what our culture is telling them.

But earlier abortion might be good for some other people.

Of course, quick and early abortion might be in the interests of abortion clinics.

Maybe quick, early abortion is better for the doctors who dislike the thought of killing a foetus that can suck its thumb and do somersaults and who deny to themselves that the baby is a living, growing human being from conception/fertilisation. Perhaps removing the requirement for two signatures will allow abortion doctors to sleep a little easier at night.

Maybe quick, early abortion is easier for men who would prefer women for short-term sex rather than for long-term love and having families.

But it certainly doesn't do anything to address our culture that has made quick, early abortion the easiest option for most young women. So shame on Andrew Lansley, the Tory shadow health secretary.

Professor Campbell's emotional manipulation

Andrew Lansley, the Tory shadow health secretary (see my post above), seems to have read the recent article by Professor Stuart Campbell about abortion law. It is a clever work that uses emotional manipulation combined with obfuscation to argue for changes to abortion law that provide even easier access to abortion. Easier access, contrary to Campbell’s claims, will not serve women well and is likely to increase the numbers of abortions. It will also neatly serve the purposes of those who want to establish abortion as a human right.

Campbell first creates an image that is emotionally powerful. Using the 3D imaging technique he developed, we immediately identify with the unborn child behaving in very human ways, like smiling, yawning, crying and sucking its thumb. We even hear of doctors who do not want to abort this child, and that to do so would be “almost barbaric”. This part of the article is clear and easy to follow, even though its most obvious failing is to apply this only to the child of 20 weeks or more. The arbitrariness in choosing this time leaps from the print.

But the reader has been primed. Primed for the real intent of the article, which is to make abortions easier prior to 12 weeks, and in doing so creep closer to accepting that abortion is just like any other medical procedure. When that is accepted it is a simple step to claim that, like the right to health care, abortion is likewise a right.

This is where the obfuscation begins.

Campbell wants the existing rule that two doctors must sign for an abortion to be abolished. It is true, as Campbell notes, that the ‘two-doctor rule’ was “introduced to avoid frivolous…abortion”, but why use the fact that “99 percent of abortions are carried out for social reasons” to support abolishing the two-doctor rule? Does Campbell think that thousands of abortions for social reasons are frivolous abortions? And does he think that abortions for frivolous reasons are okay? It is unclear.

Campbell also says the two-doctor rule has become “something of a farce”, and that “it is almost routine”. Yet this routine farce apparently involves “the laborious formalities of seeking independent signatures”, causing delays of 2 to 3 weeks. Which is it? We must presume the latter, because what immediately follows is emotional blackmail; the message being that women must have an abortion quickly, because the longer the decision is left the more chance they will be guilty of aborting a ‘real’ child. Given that there is sound evidence that a significant proportion of women remain ambivalent about their decision to abort, pressure to abort earlier rather than later on the grounds that their child is ever more human as time goes by, is cruelly manipulative.

The reader of Campbell’s article is being asked to support a legislative trade-off. Change the law on late-term abortions from 24 weeks to 20 weeks, but remove the two-doctor rule for earlier abortions. The outcome will be unfair pressure on the decision-making process in favour of abortion and an increase in the overall number of abortions. It may also support the clamour by some for ‘reproductive rights’. That some 21-24 week old unborn children will be aborted a few weeks earlier is cold comfort.

Urge MPs to vote against pro-abortion amendments

At the first debate ("Second Reading") on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology (HFE) bill in the House of Commons on Monday 12th May, MPs voted 340 to 78 for the bill. (Please note that certain media e.g. the Telegraph reported the vote numbers incorrectly). We had not expected to win - but this is nonetheless a very heavy blow to us all. It now goes to its committee stage.

There are more battles we must fight over the bill in coming weeks and months.

Next week there will be debates on Monday and Tuesday. Please urge your MP to attend and vote against anti-life measures on Monday and Tuesday, and ask others to do the same. We must ask sympathetic MPs particularly to attend the abortion debate on Tuesday the 20th. MPs should be asked to VOTE AGAINST PRO-ABORTION AMENDMENTS - whatever else they do on any other amendment. The most important thing is to vote against the pro-abortion amendments. Visit http://www.spuc.org.uk/mps for how you can contact your MP. (Please also visit SPUC's HFE bill campaign page http://www.spuc.org.uk/lobbying/hfe/ )

During the debate on 12th May, the Conservative health spokesman (Andrew Lansley) indicated that he would vote to abolish the need for two doctors to authorise an abortion, and to allow nurses to provide drug-induced abortions. These amendments would lead to more abortions than ever. Although the Conservatives are not whipping MPs to support these pro-abortion amendments, the personal backing of their health spokesman is a major factor. Labour are not imposing a whip next Tuesday either, but it was already known where the Labour health secretary Alan Johnson stands. It is equally important to urge MPs of all parties to oppose the pro-abortion amendments.

After next Tuesday, letter writing and leafleting against the bill should continue.

The chances of defeating the bill are clearly slim. Please urge all people of faith to pray that it will fall. Politics is an uncertain business, and if anything happens in the next few weeks to destabilise the government any more (e.g. poor opinion poll ratings, etc), the government could become nervous of the bill, especially if people like Cardinal O'Brien and Bishop O'Donoghue keep speaking out.

Please keep fighting with us in these dark days.

HFE bill: the next steps

MPs tonight voted for the government's Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill during its second reading. There were 340 votes for and just 78 against. Although this is by no means the end of the matter, the outcome is disturbing.

In tonight's debate we heard yet more promises of therapies that could come from such research. In 1990 we were told that breakthroughs were imminent and yet nothing has been achieved save the destruction of countless human embryos.

There were also threats tonight from some MPs that they are prepared to use the bill to widen access to abortion. Although the government has stated that it would prefer not to have abortion amendments in the bill, it has not taken steps to stop this from happening. If pro-abortion MPs succeed in making access to abortion more widely available and imposing it on Northern Ireland, the government will share in the responsibility.

SPUC strongly urges everyone to ask their MP to oppose pro-abortion amendments. We do not recommend asking MPs to support time limit amendments in the bill. Why not?

Some MPs are already talking in terms of a “trade off”; that is, supporting some “pro-life” amendments and other pro-abortion ones. This would be disastrous. The time limit amendment would become a bargaining chip for our opponents to use to gain support for the pro-abortion amendments.

SPUC recognises the good intentions of many who support time limit amendments, but we have consistently opposed calls for time-limit amendments in the current Parliament.

SPUC’s briefings on the bill (available from SPUC HQ or on our website) explain the objections to time-limit amendments in more detail.

Pope Benedict's ringing endorsement of Humanae Vitae – a call for action for the pro-life movement worldwide

Over the weekend, Pope Benedict made a statement on the forthcoming 40th anniversary (25th July) of the papal encyclical letter Humanae Vitae. Pope Benedict’s statement is of huge significance for the world and for the pro-life movement.

His endorsement of the truth of the teaching of Humanae Vitae could not be more emphatic. He writes: “The truth expressed in Humanae Vitae does not change; rather, in light of the new scientific findings, its teaching becomes even more up to date and induces reflection upon its intrinsical value.”

The pope's sense of urgency about spreading the truth of Humanae Vitae is palpable and must provide a call for action for the pro-life movement, in particular, worldwide. He says: “The concern for human life and the safeguard of the dignity of the person impose upon us not to leave anything untried so that it may be shared with all people the genuine truth of responsible conjugal love in full adherence to the law written in the heart of every person.”

See my post on 14^th February to understand why I think Pope Benedict’s statement is of such supreme significance for the pro-life movement.

Ray of hope for the pro-life movement

From Northern Ireland comes a real ray of hope for the pro-life movement as the four main political parties unite to oppose the extension of British abortion law to the province. Leaders of the Democratic Unionists, Sinn Féin, the Social Democratic and Labour Party and the Ulster Unionists are co-signatories to a letter to MPs opposing the the extension of the British abortion law to Northern Ireland.

Liam Gibson of SPUC Northern Ireland writes: "On 22 October 2007 Assembly members from the four major political parties gave overwhelming support to a motion rejecting 'any attempt to make abortion more widely available in Northern Ireland.' The letter from party leaders reflects that overwhelming view of the Assembly.

“The people of Northern Ireland recognise the right to life of the unborn child – a right affirmed by the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. They are also increasingly concerned by the evidence of the harm abortion does to women. It is vitally important that people write to the Prime Minister asking him not to allow the House of Commons to impose the Abortion Act on the Province but let this matter be decided by our elected representatives in the Assembly."

Mr Brown is, of course, at 10 Downing Street, London, SW1A 2AA, and you can contact him online here.

SPUC petition against embryology bill

Today I was at the Houses of Parliament in London to deliver SPUC's petition against the government's Human Fertilisation and Embryology bill. We gave the sheets bearing more than 45,400 signatures to Mr David Burrowes, Conservative MP for Enfield Southgate, who will later present the petition to the House of Commons.

As he received the petition as Big Ben struck noon, Mr Burrowes movingly recited a prayer that is inscribed on a plaque in parliament's clock tower. The words are: "All through this hour, Lord be my guide, and by thy power no foot shall slide."

The petition says: " … that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill (2007) proposes to endorse the creation of human-animal hybrid embryos in the laboratory; the widening of the scope for experiments on human embryos, and the creation of human embryos for other purposes without regard for the welfare and status of such embryos.

"The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons vote against the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, and urge the Government to change its policy towards endorsing the creation of human-animal hybrid embryos in the laboratory; the widening of the scope for experiments on human embryos, and the creation of human embryos for other purposes without regard for the welfare and status of such embryos."

The bill's Commons second reading begins today. It has already been passed by the House of Lords.

Pictured outside parliament today are (from left) myself, Linda Davidson, SPUC's enquiries officer, Mr David Burrowes, Conservative MP for Enfield Southgate, and Mrs Kay O'Brien, an SPUC supporter who lives in Mr Burrowes' constituency.

Last call to oppose HFE bill 2nd reading

This is a reminder that the first main debate ("Second Reading") and vote in the House of Commons on the government's Human Fertilisation and Embryology (HFE) Bill is on Monday (12 May).

Please email or telephone your MP between now and Monday morning (preferably today as soon as possible!) to ask him/her to vote against the Bill on Monday. The HFE Bill is the most serious legislative threat to early human life since the 1990 embryology law.

You can email your MP via http://www.spuc.org.uk/mps (If you're not sure who your MP is, you can find out at that link) It is not usually worthwhile to write to any other MP than your own. Please write messages in your own words, and keep them brief and courteous.

You can telephone your MP via the parliamentary switchboard 020 7219 3000.

Please remember to let SPUC know about any responses you receive by email to political@spuc.org.uk

For more information, visit SPUC's HFE bill campaign page at http://www.spuc.org.uk/lobbying/hfe/

SPUC has written to MPs, reminding them the HFE bill rests on principles that are unjust, irrational and contrary to the intrinsic human rights and dignity of the person. SPUC also sent MPs a summary briefing which can be read here.

Lord Tebbit presents our student essay prizes

Today I was at the Houses of Parliament for the presentation of the Robin McNair Prize. This annual competition is jointly sponsored by the SPUC Education and Research Trust and the family of the late Squadron Leader McNair, one of Britain’s leading fighter pilots in the second world war and an SPUC member. Contestants aged 14 to 18 write essays on bioethical issues.

Rt Hon Lord Tebbit, the former Conservative minister and party-chairman, was today presenting the 2006 and 2007 awards. The winning students had written about abortion, cloning and the rights of the disabled.

Young prizewinners and others pictured at today's McNair awards, from left to right: Mr Tony Kieran, chairman of the SPUC Education and Research Trust, Tanya Stockting, Patrick McNair, Mr Duncan McNair, Sarah Appleton, Lord Tebbit, Thomas Woloshyn, Miriam Cantwell and myself.

Lord Tebbit spoke about his political career during which he had sometimes had to take a stand on controversial issues. He was gravely concerned about moral relativism in public life. The House of Lords had debated the Human Fertilisation and Embryology bill fully and well, but he feared that the Commons would rush it through. It was important to keep defending matters of principle because, where some led, others would follow. He praised the winning essays. The authors had plainly grappled with the issues at stake.

Lord Tebbit voted with the pro-life lobby on 25 occasions since entering parliament in 1990, and made a good contribution to the parliamentary debate on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology bill. Not only had Lord Tebbit pressed ministers to define hybrid embryos, but he had stood up to the IVF “technologists”, such as Lord Winston, insisting that, on the moral use of technology, every member of the House of Lords has an equal standing in expressing a view.

In recalling Squadron Leader McNair, I spoke of G K Chesterton's description of his brother who had "the courage of the forum and of the field." A war-hero, Robin McNair also defended the unborn in the public sphere. Lord Tebbit, who was presenting the prizes, shared those same qualities – showing valour as an RAF pilot and telling the truth in politics.

Mr Duncan McNair, youngest son of Squadron Leader McNair, pointed out that this was the eighth year in which the prize had been awarded. There had been a record number of entrants in the 2007 competition. His father had been among those who had campaigned against the passage of the 1967 Abortion Act. Squadron Leader McNair had also worked to help displaced persons and other members of society who had suffered. Although a military man, he showed compassion.

Mr Duncan McNair feared a new dark age in which human life was increasingly at risk. Also praising the successful entries, he said that, with talent, also came the responsibility to ensure that these issues were debated and understood. He wished the prizewinners every success in life.

Our website has more details of the winners and more pictures.

Let’s focus on opposing HFE bill – it’s time to drop the upper limit issue

The government has just announced that the first main debate (termed the “Second Reading”) in the House of Commons on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology (HFE) Bill will be held on Monday 12th May. A Second Reading is a debate on the principle of the Bill. No amendments are debated at this stage. It is expected that there will be a vote on the Bill as a whole. The immediate priority is to ask MPs to speak and vote against the Bill at Second Reading. We must also alert others to the nature of the Bill to help swell opposition to it. Please visit SPUC's HFE Bill campaign page for guidance about how to take action.

Meanwhile, Lord (David) Steel, the author of the 1967 Abortion Act, has now explicitly rejected lowering the 24 week limit on 'social' abortions. In 2004, Lord Steel made deceptively ambiguous comments which were reported as calling for the 24 week limit to be lowered. SPUC warned at the time that Lord Steel's comments had been misinterpreted, and that he and other pro-abortion public figures were raising the issue of late-term abortion as a cover for a campaign to make abortion more easily available generally. Professor Stuart Campbell, who produced the ‘walking in the womb’ 3D ultrasound images, has today renewed his call for the law to be changed to allow easier and faster access to abortion in early pregnancy, while still calling for a reduction in the 24 week limit.

Making abortion in law and practice no "different from any other treatment" (as pro-abortion MP Dr Evan Harris describes it) is essential to the campaign to have abortion declared a universal, fundamental human right. David Steel has long wanted to widen his Abortion Act. It's time that wishful thinking about David Steel regretting the consequences of the Abortion Act he sponsored is consigned to history, along with the idea that it's possible to work with him to restrict the law. David Steel appears to be more openly pro-abortion than he was 41 years ago.

It really is time for the idea of trying to restrict abortion via the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill to be dropped. Even if a nominal adjustment to the current 24 week threshold (which applies only to one clause in the Abortion Act) were to be agreed by Parliament, this would almost certainly be accompanied by a widening of the grounds for abortion before, and possibly after, that new threshold. There is an substantial pro-abortion majority in Parliament. Introducing amendments aimed at restricting abortion will not only fail, but will simply increase the pressure upon the government and those as yet uncommitted parliamentarians to support an 'updating' of the abortion law - an 'updating' that will result in the law increasing the number of abortions.

Any change to the abortion law that we promote must be ethically sound (not entailing, for example, a trade-off of some lives in the hope of saving others) and it must be politically prudent – to minimise the danger of the kind of negative outcome that resulted from the well-intentioned efforts of 1990.

SPUC does not take the view that the only way forward is to repeal the whole Abortion Act in one go. However, there are many ways, other than highlighting late-term abortions, in which abortion can be challenged both within Parliament and in other arenas.

Those motivated by pro-life concerns already have their work cut out for them opposing the HFE Bill and defeating the pro-abortion amendments Evan Harris is due to table. The best result on abortion we can hope for realistically in the current Parliament is a consensus that the HFE Bill is not the appropriate vehicle for changing the law on abortion.

floral tribute to unborn lives lost

Another picture, courtesy of William Jolliffe, taken at the service of prayer at Westminster Abbey, London, on the 40th anniversary weekend of the implementation of the 1967 Abortion Act (27th April 1968). It shows a simple floral tribute in memory of nearly seven million babies aborted under that legislation. It was laid at the Memorial to Innocent Victims to the left of the West Door built into the pavement surrounding the Abbey.

Pro-life groups come together in 40th anniversary witness and prayer

Yesterday, in Parliament Square, London, eight brave people spoke to hundreds of listeners and thousands of passers-by about their personal abortion experiences on the 40 anniversary weekend of the implementation of the Abortion Act 1967 (on 27th April 1968). Their voices and stories are changing the nature of pro-life work in the UK and in other parts of the world. Their defence of life, summed up in their simple statement, is unanswerable : "I regret my abortion".

The event was organized by the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children and British Victims of Abortion.

Last month the Royal College of Psychiatrists confirmed that women may be at risk of developing mental problems as a result of having an abortion. Margaret Cuthill, national co-ordinator of British Victims of Abortion, BVA, commented: "This latest evidence-based research confirms what post-abortion counsellors have been saying for years.

"Without exception, all the clients I've counselled over 20 years say they were given no indication of how they might be affected by physical, emotional, and psychological problems after abortion. These traumas dramatically affect the quality of their lives after the initial period of relief, which generally follows abortion, passes."

BVA provides literature and advice to address the present imbalance in the information being given to women, and welcome the College's suggestion that more is needed at the first point of contact.

"Numbers contacting BVA for help are increasing, and more needs to be done because the blanket approach of abortion being the only solution to crisis pregnancy does not address women's needs. "Women deserve better than abortion." BVA is a post abortion helpline and counselling service, providing free help and support to women in crisis pregnancies or suffering Post Abortion Trauma. More information on BVA can be found at http://www.bvafoundation.org/

After the talks, SPUC supporters joined a Choose Life service of prayer and worship at Westminster Abbey organized to mark the same anniversary. The service took place at the Memorial to Innocent Victims built into the pavement area immediately outside the West Door of the Abbey. It followed a week of prayer and fasting in preparation for the event.

In the pictures (courtesy of William Jolliffe) below, Bishop Thomas McMahon, is sharing a moment with Paul Tully, SPUC general secretary, after the service - and I am speaking to Lady Salisbury to thank her for organizing the event.

After the prayer service, we went back to join other SPUC supporters who'd stayed behind to spread the message about abortion's aftermath to the general public in the heart of London, forming a pro-life chain. 50 other such events were simultaneously held by SPUC branches in towns and cities throughout Britain.

Do you provide a salt abortion?

I came into the office early this morning to prepare my talk for the Family Life International conference this afternoon in Clapham, south London. I am speaking at the conference on the implications of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill currently before Parliament.

A few minutes ago, I took a telephone call from an anxious-sounding young man asking if we can provide a salt abortion. I quietly spoke to him about SPUC's work in relation to abortion, the nature of abortion and the harm it can do to mothers and to others. Although I knew I was detaining him I tried to keep talking in order to explain the help that's available. He was a naturally polite person and listened for a little while. He said: "We know the baby deserves to be protected but sometimes it's just not convenient...". Finally, he said: "OK, I've got to go..." and we said goodbye.

This weekend is the 40th anniversary of the Abortion Act 1967 coming into effect - on 27th April 1968. If you believe in prayer, say a prayer about everyone involved in the situation described to me by this young man asking if we could provide a salt abortion. There have been nearly 7 million abortions under the legislation passed by the British Parliament over 40 years ago. Pray that new casualties - casualties of inconvenience - can be prevented.

It's situations like this which I'll be thinking about when I give my talk this afternoon. One of the implications of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill is that it might be used to widen even further British abortion legislation, making abortion even more easy to obtain. Sadly, there's a substantial pro-abortion majority in Parliament. I sincerely hope that when the Government's states that it has no plans to change the abortion law, it will seek to promote a consensus that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill is not used to open up the Abortion Act on the floor of Parliament.

Tibet: more evidence of coercive population control

It is very important that the issue of China's coercive population control programme, often ignored in the anti-life West, is kept before the public eye. I'm therefore very grateful to Bishop Joseph Devine of Motherwell, Scotland for a recent sermon. Bishop Devine said: “[In Tibet], as in China itself, Chinese communist rule directs state-sponsored killings, forced abortions and sterilisation of women more often than not without the fuss of anaesthetics or medical treatment".

Channel 4's 'Dispatches' programme recently sent Tash Despa, a Tibetan refugee and now a British resident, to Tibet to travel undercover for 3 months to find out what life was like for ordinary ethnic Tibetans under Chinese rule.

Before entering Tibet, Tash interviewed a male Tibetan refugee, who recounted one occasion when "[t]he Chinese ordered us to attend a conference about Socialism. Its main purpose was to carry out sterilisation of women and to fine those who had more than 2 children."

Once in Tibet itself, Tash interviewed a male Tibetan torture victim. The programme's narrator explained: "Despite years of torture and imprisonment, this man is determined to continue to fight the Chinese. More recently he has been investigating the government's population control policies." The torture victim said: "There were 6 million Tibetans before Chinese rule. There are only about 5 million of them in the Tibetan region today. So there has been no population growth in this period. Yet now they are carrying out forced sterilisations in the Tibetan region. Those who refuse are punished. They are implementing this here and now. This is a violation of human rights."

The narrator continues: "Tash had made contact with a woman who claimed to have had personal experience of enforced sterilisation. She asked the team to arrive in the early hours of the morning, terrified of the consequences of foreigners being seen coming to her house."

Tash notes: "She's very nervous..."

Narrator: "She said she had a chilld out of quota under the terms of China's one child policy. As a result, she was given the choice of a fine she couldn't pay or sterilisation."

Woman: "Those who can't pay the fine have to have a sterilisation. If you have good connections you can buy a sterilisation certificate for around 1000 Yuan. But those who don't have any money have to have the sterilisation whether they like it or not. I was forcibly taken away against my will."

Tash: "Did you cry?"

Woman: "I cried when I was lying on the bed after the sterilisation. I cried thinking that I'd been forced to have a sterilisation when there was nothing wrong with me. I was feeling sick and giddy and couldn't look up. It was so painful. Apparently they cut the fallopian tubes and stitch them up. When they opened me up they pulled them out by the roots. It was agonising. They didn't use anaesthetic. They just smeared something on my stomach and carried out the sterilisation. Apart from aspirin for the pain there were no other drugs. And then from the day after the operation I had to look after myself. If I needed a drip I had to pay for it myself."

Tash: "Can you show me the scars from the sterilisation?"

The woman shows Tash her scars, recounting how "I was so frightened. I can't even remember how I felt. I wasn't the only one. About half a dozen women in our village had to undergo sterilisation."

Tash: "Forcibly?"

Woman: "Yes, forcibly. No one would have done it willingly. They come to the door to fetch you by force. They threaten to confiscate stoves and anything valuable from the house. So people get frightened and go for the sterilisation. Some people were physically damaged by the operation. They have limps and have to drag their hips. Since then people are too scared to have many children."

The narrator resumes: "The Chinese government says that the one child policy does not apply to Tibetans. But this woman's experience is far from unique. In 2002 a UN special rapporteur said women in Tibet are subjected to forced sterilisation, forced abortion, coercive birth control policies and the monitoring of menstrual cycles."

Last month I blogged about the false claim that the one-child policy doesn't apply to Tibetans.

Please register your protest against coercive population control in Tibet and in China with the Chinese Embassy in London, 49-51 Portland Place, London W1B 1JL, email: press@chinese-embassy.org.uk

Click below or here to view the whole Dispatches programme "Undercover in Tibet".

Find more videos like this on www.truveo.com.

Cardinal Lopez Trujillo's courage in defence of non-negotiable values of human life: Pope Benedict

Dr Tom Ward, a member of SPUC and president of the National Association of Catholic Families (NACF), attended the funeral of Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo (to whom I paid tribute on Sunday) in St. Peter’s Basilica, Rome, this morning, on behalf of the NACF and SPUC. The funeral mass was celebrated by Cardinal Sodano, the dean of the College of Cardinals, and the homily was delivered by Pope Benedict XVI.

Dr Ward told me: “The Holy Father spoke powerfully about Cardinal Lopez Trujillo’s zeal, passion and indefatigability in his promotion of marriage and the family and he spoke of the courage with which the cardinal defended the non-negotiable values of human life. He praised his tenacity in defence of family life, his love of the truth of the family and his love of the Gospel of Life. Pope Benedict stressed that the cardinal dedicated his life in Rome to the defence of the family and of life as a collaborator of the Holy Father.

“Pope Benedict praised Cardinal Lopez Trujillo’s strength – saying that he always had great generosity to children and that he exhausted himself for children and for the family.”

The Catholic News Agency reporting on the papal homily says: ‘“Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, whose motto was "Veritas in caritate", dedicated "his entire life to affirming the truth", said the Pope.’

Dr Ward’s conclusion regarding Pope Benedict’s homily was: “The Holy Father presented Cardinal Lopez Trujillo with his motto “Veritas in caritate” as the exemplar for the church and for those in the pro-family and pro-life movement”.

An interesting obituary on the late cardinal appeared in today's London Times.

alarming new artificial reproduction technique

According to a report in The Times today artificial reproduction may be performed in a capsule in women's bodies rather than in a laboratory vessel. BioXcell, the US-based company which has developed the device known as the Invocell technique, has applied for approval from American regulators. It involves the mixing of eggs and sperm in a container which is placed in the vagina for three days. Any resulting embryos are screened for quality and implanted in the womb.

The Times report is frightening. It refers to ‘fertilised embryos’ being ‘examined for quality’ and the ‘best one or two’ being transferred to the womb. Dr Ranoux, of BioXcell, said the company hopes to "market" their device in Europe, including Britain, later this year. These are our fellow human beings and they are treated as disposable commodities created via a manufacturing process to be sold to the highest bidder.

The pro-life movement must work tirelessly to build public opposition to this kind of reproductive technology in which human subjects are treated as things. Compassion for childless couples should prompt funding for fertility treatments which respect the inalienable dignity of unborn human life and which also offer real hope of success, such as naprotechnology.

Cardinal López Trujillo on David and Goliath

On the death of Cardinal Alfonso López Trujillo, I am reminded of his profoundly stirring words at the end of his address on "Evangelium Vitae and the pro-life movement".

Speaking at a meeting organised by SPUC at Central Hall Westminster on 23 March 1996, he said: "Young people and their energies lead me to conclude with a reflection about a brave young man. Outside my study, in the offices of the Pontifical Council for the Family in the Vatican, I have set up a bronze statuette of the shepherd boy who became King David. He is putting the sword back into its sheath having cut off the head of Goliath the Philistine. The head rests beneath his feet. I deliberately chose that statue to be a sign to all who work in and with our pontifical Council for the Family. The message is clear. In fighting for life, for the family, we face a giant Goliath, that Philistine culture of death, with all its wealthy foundations, its powerful political and business connections and its propaganda agents.

"Like David, we have a few small stones and a slingshot, or so our limited resources often seem to us when we face such powerful forces. But we have God with us, the same God who guided David's smooth stone to its mark. Like David the shepherd boy, we are not afraid, because we know that the Lord of Life is with us. We know that we can bring down that evil Goliath! We must bring him down and we will!"

The complete text of his speech is on the EWTN website.

Cardinal Alfonso Lopez Trujillo, defender of the family and human life, dies

Cardinal Alfonso López Trujillo, one of the world's greatest defenders of the sanctity of human life, died yesterday.

In 1994, when the United Nations threatened to reach an international agreement supporting the right to abortion, the cardinal sparked a lightning storm of activity around the world which transformed the pro-life battle at an international level. As president of the Pontifical Council for the Family, his response to Pope John Paul II's urgent appeal concerning the dangerous situation at the United Nations, changed pro-life history.

He and his indefatigable staff in Rome held international meetings of experts and activists, published authoritative works on key questions such as population trends and on Catholic church teaching on the transmission of human life in Humanae Vitae, and urged bishops worldwide to follow his fearless leadership.

Hundreds of delegates from pro-family and pro-life NGOs from around the world, including the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, personally encouraged by the Cardinal, went to the United Nations Conference on Population and Development in Cairo to lobby. The pro-abortion lobby's objectives for the Cairo conference were defeated.

Since then, the cardinal never failed to support the efforts of pro-life and pro-family movements around the world, continuing to publish authoritative documents and to bring together the world's foremost experts and activists working in the service of life and the family. In so doing, he introduced the leaders of the pro-life world to each other and helped to forge a genuinely worldwide pro-life movement.

His Truth and Meaning of Human Sexuality definitively presents Catholic church teaching on the anti-life, anti-family sex education which tragically prevails in so many schools, sadly including Catholic schools, throughout England and Wales. Happily, in the UK, Bishop Patrick O'Donoghue has picked up the Cardinal's baton in Fit For Mission: Schools? in the diocese of Lancaster, as I posted earlier.

He visited the UK twice at the invitation of SPUC - the second time in association with the Guild of Catholic Doctors to speak on sex education.

"Sad day for the unborn child in Europe, but the fight goes on"

A resolution calling for unlimited access to abortion throughout Europe (see my blogs of 18th March and 6th April) was today rushed through the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. The Assembly passed the resolution with 102 votes in favour, 69 votes against and 14 abstentions. Amendments seeking to make the resolution less extreme in its promotion of abortion were rejected.

Pat Buckley of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), who was present at today's debate, commented: "Today is a tragic day for Europe, not least because this report in favour of even more killing of unborn children was rushed through the Assembly without proper scrutiny. Plenary session speeches were limited to three minutes, amendment speeches to 30 seconds and scrutiny by the Assembly's legal affairs committee denied. It was disappointing to see that only 185 members out of 318 thought the issue important enough to be present. The only consolation is that the resolution is not legally binding."

Mr Nigel Dodds, MP and MLA for Belfast North, deputy leader of the Democratic Unionist Party and a minister in the Northern Ireland executive, said: "It's a sad day for the unborn child in Europe, but the fight goes on."

Read SPUC's release on today's vote here. You can find out how Assembly members voted here.

Pat Buckley (left) also spoke to me about the debate: "Mrs Gisela Wurm, a socialist deputy from Austria who prepared the report, claimed that refusal of abortion was violence against women.

"Mr Christos Pourgourides of Cyprus, on behalf of the conservative (EPP/CD) group, asked for the report to be referred to the legal affairs committee. This committee customarily looks at all human-rights related material. However, this request was rejected by the chair and without a vote. If the report had gone to the legal committee, it would actually have fallen from the assembly's future agenda.

"Senator Terry Leyden of Ireland's Fianna Fáil party, and vice-chair of the assembly's liberal group, said the resolution was partisan, one-sided and based on flawed logic. Ireland, which did not have widespread abortion, had the lowest maternal mortality in Europe. Other speakers were allowed to exceed their allotted time, but Senator Leyden was promptly stopped from speaking.

"Mr Joe Costello TD of the Irish Labour party went against the socialist consensus by voting pro-life. Maltese delegates also spoke in favour of protecting unborn life. There were 69 amendments proposed.

"Tragically, this is the first time that any international document has asserted a right to abortion."

New pro-life video

Fr Frank Pavone of Priests for Life has presented a new video explaining, without sensationalism, a common procedure used for late-term abortions.



Fr Pavone is an outstanding pastor of the Church with a special ministry to those who have been damaged by their involvement in abortion or in other anti-life practices. His greatest gift as a defender of life is his ability to make the Catholic Church’s position seem both understandable and compassionate to Catholics and to non-Catholics alike. Fr Pavone argues that the Catholic Church’s authentic humanism is so often caricatured and distorted. His voice as the leader of Priests for Life unmistakably conveys the truth of Catholic teaching on life in all its human richness and compassion.

Tony Blair continues to avoid the questions

Tony Blair’s office has replied to me (see my 4^th April blog Blair in the cathedral and the “universal right to abortion” ).

In my original letter to Mr Blair I asked him if, in the light of his reception into the Catholic church, he would tell us if he now repudiates:

• voting for abortion up to birth three times
• personally endorsing his government policy of supplying abortion and birth control drugs and devices to schoolgirls as young as 11 without parental knowledge or consent
• his government’s commitment to the promotion of abortion on demand as a universal fundamental human right
• personally championing destructive experiments on human embryos
• his government introducing legislation which has led to a law which allows, and in certain circumstances requires, doctors to starve and dehydrate to death vulnerable patients;

He has refused, point blank, to comment on, still less to repudiate, these positions.

Here is the reply in italics, interspersed with my comments on it:

9^th April 2008

Dear Mr Smeaton

Thank you for writing about the important issue of pro-life.

Mr Blair recognises that this is a subject of great concern to many people around the world and on which a variety of deeply held convictions are held.

This kind of statement from a public figure all too often prefaces a letter which does not answer the questions raised.

However the Foundation inevitably has to focus on a limited number of issues, especially as it develops its thinking and builds up its resources.

I didn’t write to Mr Blair’s Foundation or to Mr Blair about his Foundation. I wrote to Mr Blair, at his office, to ask him whether he repudiates his anti-life record in parliament and government.

It plans to concentrate initially on the following four areas: how the different faiths might work more closely together to help achieve the Millennium Development Goals;

I did ask Mr Blair about the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), specifically how the Labour government under his premiership (and under his successor) interprets the MDGs to include a right to abortion. Why can’t Mr Blair comment on that aspect of the MDGs, if the MDGs is one of the focuses of his Foundation?

educational projects, especially producing good material for school children here and abroad; an annual course at Yale University on faith and globalisation, with links to other institutions;

Can Mr Blair tell us whether this educational material and his course will teach students that almost all world religions not only recognise the intrinsic value and sanctity of human life but condemn, in general, abortion and euthanasia?

and support for The Co-Exist Foundation's plans to establish Abraham House, a meeting place for the Abrahamic faiths in central London. This means that, at the moment, the Foundation will not be able to address the issue of pro-life, weighty though it is.

Again, I didn’t ask the Foundation to address pro-life issues – I asked Mr Blair to address them.

Nor, I am afraid, will Mr Blair be able to enter into correspondence on his personal beliefs on this or indeed other issues.

I did not ask Mr Blair to enter into correspondence on his personal beliefs. I asked him, a public figure, about his public record on matters of current public policy – under which hundreds of thousands of unborn British people, and unborn people in developing countries, are killed every year. As I have mentioned before, as a Catholic myself, I do not believe that public figures can be allowed to protect themselves from public scrutiny simply by being received into the Catholic church.

I am very sorry to have to send you what you will probably find a disappointing reply

Yes, no reply at all is pretty disappointing.

but I hope that the above explains the reasons for it.

The letter singularly fails to explain the reasons for such a non-reply.

Cardinal O'Brien goes on YouTube

The Archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh speaks out once more against human-animal hybrids and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill.

Dana to sing for the Pope

Dana, the Irish musician and politician, is to sing for Pope Benedict at Yankee Stadium, New York City, during a concert before Mass on Sunday-week (20 April). As well as the Pope, there will be 60,000 people representing the 195 dioceses in America. Dana, in real life Mrs Rosemary Scallon, performed for Pope John Paul II in 1987 when she led 86,000 young people in singing her own song Totus Tuus in the New Orleans Super Dome. She sang for him on other occasions, including the 1993 World Youth Day in Denver, Colorado.

Dana and Damien Scallon, her husband, have always been alongside us in SPUC in the fight to protect the most vulnerable of the human race. As an independent member of the European parliament for Galway, she ably served the cause on the international stage.

Sunday-week will not be her first meeting with Pope Benedict. She met him in 2004 when he was Cardinal Ratzinger. He congratulated her as she became the first woman to receive the San Benedetto (St Benedict) Award in Subiaco, Italy, for her pro-life and pro-family work as an MEP. Cardinal Ratzinger received the award the year after.

Do charities know what's being said on their behalf?

The Association of Medical Research Charities (AMRC) is lobbying MPs to support the government's Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, as I blogged last month. One of our supporters expressed his concern to the Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation, which belongs to the AMRC. Mr Mike Unger, chief executive, replied: "While we are very happy to be a member of the AMRC, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill does not affect the research we fund and as such I have had no comment to make to the AMRC or indeed any other body." I wonder how many of the member charities of the AMRC were asked if they agreed with the content of the letter reportedly signed by Mr Simon Denegri, the AMRC director.

Anti-life strategy emerging against HFE bill opposition

A strategy is emerging in the debate on the government's Human Fertilisation and Embryology bill: attacks on the credibility of Church leaders by prominent scientists. Sir Martin Evans, a leading embryonic stem cell researcher, has today described Cardinal O'Brien's opposition to the creation of human-animal hybrid embryos as ignorance, misinformation, exaggeration, fuss and hype.

We have already seen how Lord Winston, the IVF pioneer, has accused the Catholic Church of lying about the HFE bill.

This strategy is known, not just as 'ad hominem', but also as 'obscurantism' - obscuring the facts of the matter to distract people away from the real issue. The real issue is the status of the embryo at the point of conception and the implications of embryo creation techniques for human dignity. Sir Martin claims that human-animal cell hybrids have been produced for many years, and accuses Cardinal O'Brien of ignorance for questioning the ethics of such work. Yet what the HFE bill proposes is not simply mixing human and animal cells to create more cells but creating whole living beings - embryos - which are genetically part-human and part-animal, in different proportions. Sir Martin seems to be using the classic anti-life line that early embryos are just clumps of random, disorganised cells, not whole individuals. Even Sir Martin, however, cannot successfully obscure the truth - he is forced to refer himself to 'embryos', 'embryo form' etc.

We should not be patronised by Sir Martin or cowered by his prominence. There are other experts in the field of stem cell biology with well-founded ethical and scientific objections to the HFE bill. This is not a debate of science vs religion, of academics vs churchmen. This is a debate within ethics, within science and about humanity.

Help to block abortion in Europe

Further to my recent post urging you to help block the Council of Europe endorsing abortion Europe-wide, I am happy to be able to provide you with two in-depth briefings to help you when writing to members of the Council's Parliamentary Assembly. The first briefing, produced by SPUC, is entitled Abortion law and the Council of Europe and can be downloaded as a PDF at http://www.spuc.org.uk/pace1.pdf The second briefing, produced by the Southern Cross Bioethics Institute (SCBI), is entitled Response to draft report on abortion by the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe's Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men and can be downloaded as an PDF at http://www.spuc.org.uk/response.pdf Both of these briefings plus our original alert can be found on our Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe campaign page http://www.spuc.org.uk/pace

Political furore in Tyneside over killing children "joke"

It has been reported that a member of North Tyneside council has resigned his seat after being suspended from his party. The furore arose because the councillor had suggested at a finance sub-committee meeting that euthanasia could be a means of cutting the cost of caring for vulnerable children.

The councillor said his remark was “misplaced humour” and that he regretted it as soon as he had said it. Even so, a statement from North Tyneside Conservatives noted that his comments were “totally unacceptable” and “out of line with the view of the party at large.” The deputy mayor, a Labour councillor, said “whether he says it was humour or whatever, it is something we cannot really, as a human being, tolerate."

Alison Davis, the leader of No Less Human, SPUC's disability division, makes the following observations about this story:

• Such condemnation across the political spectrum, for suggesting death is a way of saving money, is in sharp contrast to the silence which greeted an announcement last month from members of Belgium’s coalition government. They stated that teenagers should be given the right to medically assisted suicide, and that the parents of terminally ill children should be given the right to choose euthanasia for them.
• Euthanasia is already allowed on infants in Belgium, and more than half of the Belgian babies who die before they are a year old have been killed by deliberate medical intervention. Meanwhile in neighbouring Holland, newborn disabled babies, particularly those with spina bifida, are legally killed under the so-called Groningen Protocol.
• Where is the political outcry over these equally “unacceptable” practices? Our politicians need to wake up to what is happening in our neighbouring EU countries, before the killing up to birth by abortion of disabled babies (in itself completely unacceptable), which is already allowed in the UK goes one logical step further and becomes the very thing the Tyneside politicians find so objectionable when it is merely a misplaced “joke.”

Blair in the cathedral and the “universal right to abortion”

Last night Mr Tony Blair, the former British prime minister recently received into the Catholic church, gave a talk at Westminster Cathedral, the primary Catholic cathedral in England and Wales.

The Times has the former PM describing the UN's Millennium Development Goals as the litmus test of the world's values. Mr Blair's Faith foundation, to be launched later this year, has these targets at the heart of its mission. However, the Millennium Development Goals were interpreted by the Blair government as supporting a universal right to abortion.

I have written again to Mr Blair to ask him if he will to reply to my letter of 11 January.

Amongst various other matters mentioned in my letter, I want to know whether he now repudiates his government’s commitment to the promotion of abortion on demand as a universal fundamental human right.

An SPUC colleague who was in the cathedral yesterday tells me that Mr Blair hedged everything "like a typical politician". The BBC quotes him as saying: "There is nothing I look back on now and say that as a result of my religious journey I would have done things very differently but that is expressly not to say that I got everything right." Old habits die hard.

As I said in my post of 4^th February, Tony Blair has reportedly got his eye on becoming president of the EU Council. While there’s a possibility of him running for public office in any part of the world, citizens have a right and a duty to challenge him on his political record on pro-life matters. As a Catholic myself, I do not believe that politicians should be protected from public scrutiny simply by being received into the Catholic church.