US administration gets cold feet on abortifacient birth control

The US administration seems to be getting cold feet on defining certain types of birth control as abortifacient. A draft directive on medics' conscientious objection mentioned the provision of drugs and procedures that terminate human life "before or after implantation". Mr Mike Leavitt, health secretary, now says that what people saw was an early draft that he'd not yet looked at. This draft: "contained words that lead some to conclude my intent is to deal with the subject of contraceptives, somehow defining them as abortion. Not true." He goes on to say that the proposed measure – which would withdraw funding from institutions which would not comply – is mainly about conscientious objection.

Well, yes. It is. No-one disputes that. Where there may be a misunderstanding is on what contraception is. As many of my readers will know, some types of birth control may be both contraceptive and abortifacient. Hormonal pills and intrauterine devices are like that. And the draft directive goes out of its way to mention human life from conception – it doesn't just talk about surgical abortion.

Mr Leavitt seems to have come under pressure from the population control lobby after the text was allegedly leaked. However, he shouldn't be tempted to back down. Pro-life medics will have conscientious problems with providing any drug, device or procedure that terminates human life at any stage.

Mr Leavitt is quoted as saying: "The Bush Administration has consistently supported the unborn." He's right; that government has done some good things at home and abroad. Now, in its last months, it can seal its legacy by ensuring that American medics can, without fear of retribution, refuse to take part in any action, direct or indirect, that threatens unborn children, regardless of their developmental stage.

Dangerous Philippines bill makes progress

On Monday I blogged on the reproductive health bill in the Philippines. This measure could pave the way for legal abortion and promote contraception, sex education and reproductive technology. It also contains coercive elements. Sadly, it was yesterday passed by the parliament's appropriations committee, which is actually chaired by one of the bill's sponsors.

Mrs Fenny Tatad, executive director of the Bishops-Legislators Caucus in Quezon City, kindly tells me that the next stage is the rules committee. The bill would then be scheduled for plenary discussion by the House of Representatives. That would be the major battle. Before it gets to that stage, though, the senate would need to pass its own version of the bill. That house has a great deal of other business to consider.

Both houses, Mrs Tatad tells me, are also considering a Magna Carta for Women. While this doesn't mention reproductive health (a phrase used to cloak the promotion of abortion and other unethical practices), it does talk about "comprehensive health care services" which could cause problems. As a result, Mrs Tatad's caucus are keeping a close eye on the measure.

Proposal to widen a patient’s “best interests…beyond the purely medical”

Alarm bells began ringing for me earlier this week when The Times reported that Chris Rudge, the new National Clinical Director for Transplantation, favours defining a patient’s “best interests” more widely to encompass aspects “beyond the purely medical” with a view to honouring a patient’s wish that his or her organs can be used to help others.

The Times says: “He believes that broadening the definition would … enable a critical care doctor to keep a patient alive for an hour or two longer, even when hope of recovery was gone, to enable organs to be collected”

And Mr Rudge observes: “We may need to seek legal advice. The Mental Capacity Act doesn’t define the phrase clearly.” Exactly, Mr Rudge. And that’s when the alarm bells got pretty deafening.

As SPUC’s adviser on bioethics, Dr Greg Pike, put it to me: “I think one of the concerns about too widely construing best interests is that there is currently a strong drive to implement living wills in practice and in legislation. One of the key problems with living wills is their application in circumstances where it would obviously be contrary to best medical practice enacted in the best interests of the patient. It is no surprise that the pro-euthanasia people are very interested in living wills because they see an opportunity to use the denial of treatment - that would be encouraged as the content of a living will - as a form of soft euthanasia.”

Kimberley Pfeiffer, a research officer at Southern Cross Bioethics Institute, offers another perspective on Chris Rudge’s comments: “This article suggests changes should be made to the life support laws so that organ donors’ wish to donate their organs can be granted – because removing organs for transplant may be in a donor’s ‘best interests’.

“The central issue here is - is it in the best interests of an organ donor to have their organs donated when they die? Organ donation is a wonderful gift of life to another, but a gift must be freely given (donated) and is only ‘useful’ if a matched transplant recipient is willing and able to receive the donation.

“It is bizarre to suggest that the giving of organs will benefit the giver so much that it is essential - in their best interest - when they are dead. The needy recipient of an organ is the only one who benefits from this type of donation. If the donor were living, they too may benefit because they might find joy in the service they have done for the other person (gift giving) but this is a secondary good and is a side effect of the primary good (the recipient’s gift). The family of a dead organ donor may find joy in the gift their deceased loved one gave to an organ transplant recipient, but this too is secondary to the primary recipient’s benefit. This backward concept of ‘gift-giving’ seems to be a self-interested perspective of altruism, not the Judaeo-Christian altruism which holds a concern for others for the sake of themselves.

“Chris Rudge suggests that donors' best interests should be ‘drawn more widely, to include honouring a wish that his or her organs should be used to help others’. Is honouring a dead or dying person’s wishes the same as serving the donor’s best interests? Practically speaking, these changes could lead to a donor being held on life-support for an indefinite period of time until organ transplantation can be arranged. But what can be said about this state of limbo between life and death? Are they physically dead if brain death has been declared – yet have their living organs preserved?

“It should be the dying donor’s best interest to be honoured and respected in life and death because of their inherent human dignity. And if this is contradicted by manipulation or exploitation of the dead person’s body in order to harvest organs, then it is not in the best interest of the donor to have their organs donated. It is worrying that this ‘best interest’ language could be used to trade-off respect for the dead and harbour living ‘dead’ cadavers in order to increase organ donation transactions.”

Bernard Farrell-Roberts of the Maryvale Institute, whose serious concerns on presumed consent for organ donation I blogged on last week, also told me he’s worried: “Alarm bells rang when I read ‘I would like to see a recognition that a patient’s best interests can encompass aspects beyond the purely medical’ Another slippery slope I fear. I … understand what Chris Rudge is trying to achieve, but I believe a change such as this would be extremely dangerous. A move away from ‘purely medical’ would open a real can of worms.

“Living wills, euthanasia (Holland springs to mind here as having something similar), etc. would all be made much easier to introduce. Abortions too up to full term, and even infant killings could be justified under such a policy. Who would judge the global best interest of a patient? A doctor, a panel ... ? And would anything written or expressed then become legally the patient's best interest, or even legally binding, even though in reality it isn't? At a time when the state wishes to take control over our bodies [see my earlier post] and has made consistent progress in this direction for years now, it would be so easy for them to further their aims if this were to become the norm. I feel that Chris Rudge is thinking one-dimensionally at present, and doesn't seem to have considered the broader picture yet.”

BPAS is first winner of John Smeaton, SPUC director blog's George Orwell Prize

It was George Orwell who said: “Political language ... is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” I cannot help feeling that this statement accurately describes the tactics used by the abortion lobby to promote their ideology among the general public. Over the forthcoming weeks, I will be awarding regular George Orwell Prizes to abortion promoters and/or providers who make the most misleading, euphemistic or blatantly dishonest statements.

There is no better place to begin than with the ugly reality of the abortion procedure itself. For a movement that claims to believe in a woman’s right to choose, the abortion lobby shows a distinct unwillingness to allow women to make an informed choice about abortion. I looked at materials put out by the Brook Advisory Service, BPAS, Marie Stopes, FPA and IPAS to see whether any of them had the courage and honesty to describe what actually happens during an abortion.

There are certain misleading words that are common to virtually all abortion providers when describing abortion, such as speaking of "the pregnancy" instead of unborn child, foetus, baby or embryo. For example, Marie Stopes claims that “gentle suction is used to remove the pregnancy from the uterus” when describing surgical abortion, FPA talks about “taking pills to expel the pregnancy” and BPAS, when describing a late term dilation and evacuation, states: “Forceps are used to remove the pregnancy.”

It takes very little knowledge of obstetrics and gynaecology to notice that the word "pregnancy" refers to (in the words of the Oxford English Dictionary) "the condition or period of being pregnant", not the unborn child whose life is ended in the womb by abortion. However, abortion providers do not seem to feel that women have a right to know this.

The other way abortion providers get around the inconvenient truth of abortion is to describe the unborn child as a mere "product", i.e. abortion removes "the products of conception" or to speak of the unborn child as though he or she were simply filling up space in the womb that it has no business to occupy. So we have BPAS describing manual vacuum aspiration in the following terms: “The uterus is emptied using a gentle manual or electric vacuum.” Emptied of what?

The runner-up for the George Orwell Prize this week is IPAS, the international abortion promoter, which uses virtually every euphemism possible in its literature; ‘uterine-evacuation procedures’ , ‘contents of the uterus', ‘products of conception’ etc. However, the overall winner is BPAS, which promises women who undergo a late abortion: “All tissue from abortion procedures is disposed of in a sensitive way. However, if you have specific wishes about the disposal of your fetal tissue, please discuss this with a member of staff before the procedure.”

When describing medical abortion between nine and 23 weeks, BPAS informs women: “The doctor will put a needle into the uterus and inject medicine to stop the fetal heart.” [ibid.] Medicine does not deliberately stop a beating heart. Maybe the word they were looking for is poison.

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

Philippines reproductive health bill has totalitarian elements

A bill before the Philippines parliament, due to be discussed tomorrow by the Appropriations Committee of the House of Representatives, could pave the way for legal abortion, as well as promoting contraception, sex education and reproductive technology. Southern Cross Bioethics Institute of South Australia (logo shown here) have written a commentary on the bill and I've used it for this blog. In it they say: "The Bill proposes a heavy handed approach to dissenters, and elements of the Bill appear to be totalitarian".

Much of the bill covers areas, such as the elimination of violence against women, which are subject to existing laws. Although the Philippines presently has pro-life laws, this proposed bill, with its "reproductive rights" language, could lead to conflict. Such conflict might lead to case law in this area.

The bill would permit abortifacient birth control even though the constitution says that the state will protect people from conception. It defines birth control drugs and devices as medicines, yet they do not treat illnesses and can actually terminate young lives.

The proposed measure severely restricts conscientious objection to its provisions and, where it does allow such objection, requires practitioners immediately to refer the enquirer to medics who will provide the unethical service. For some health workers, this will itself go against their consciences.

It also recommends two-child families and, while it doesn't mention coercion, couples could come under subtle pressure. The bill could be amended to include coercion. Couples wanting to marry would need a certificate showing they had been instructed in family planning. The bill would punish people who are deemed to have misrepresented what it contains, a significant threat to free speech and a potential weapon against pro-lifers.

Overall, this proposed measure is an intrusion by the state on couples' rights to have families in accordance with their beliefs and it advances the international sexual health agenda which is part of the campaign for widespread birth control and abortion.

[Commentary on the Philippines Reproductive Health Bill, Southern Cross Bioethics Institute, August 2008]

Fertilisation is ethical, scientific and legal starting point of the life of a human being

There’s a helpful article by Dr David Albert Jones in the Observer on human embryo research. It puts into clear perspective the Catholic church’s teaching on the inviolability and dignity of human life from the moment of its conception (which is also SPUC's position).

He points out the unchanging nature of the church’s teaching – refuting Lisa Jardine’s claim (the new chair of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority) that protection of the embryo from the beginning was an invention of 21st century Catholicism. He also shows how the church’s position is rooted in science and is even reflected in the very UK legislation which permits human embryo experimentation: “According to UK law brought in to allow experimentation on human embryos, "references to an embryo include an egg in the process of fertilisation". This starting point is maintained in the bill currently going through parliament…”

The hypocrisy of Tony Blair

Tony Blair is in China tomorrow (Monday, 4th August) as he puts it on MySpace, “answering questions from MySpace users about the global challenges we face, in particular related to our campaign to show how people of faith can help the world achieve its Millennium Development Goals. How we can join together as global citizens both of faith, and of none, to tackle the great social ills that we face today and provide the opportunity for young people to make a real difference?”

As Anthony Ozimic, SPUC’s political secretary put it to me, what about the great social ill of abortion?

Since giving up the premiership (and being received into the Catholic Church) Tony Blair has repeatedly refused to repudiate the strongly pro-abortion, pro-human embryo research and pro-euthanasia by neglect policies he and his government pursued.

Under Tony Blair’s government, the UK was the world’s fourth highest donor country to the UNFPA, giving just under $US38 million in 2006. The UNFPA’s well-documented involvement in China’s one-child policy has been described as “arguably the greatest bioethical atrocity on the globe”. To their credit, earlier this month, President Bush's government withheld some $40 million from UNFPA, making a total of $235 million withheld over seven years on the grounds of the UNFPA’s participation in a programme of forced abortion and sterilization. See my post last week on this topic.

When Tony Blair goes to China to explain to global citizens how to tackle the great social ills that we face today, will any Chinese citizens be able to ask him any questions, who have been fined, had their property destroyed, imprisoned or tortured for resisting forced abortion, or forced sterilization, a policy funded by his government?

In-depth information about China's one-child policy can be found in SPUC's February 2004 submission to the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee.

The hypocrisy of Tony Blair takes some beating.

BBC says it aims to provide balance of opinion on abortion

When Ms Diane Abbott MP announced her intention to amend the Human Fertilisation and Embryology bill to extend British abortion law to Northern Ireland, BBC Radio 4 gave her a pretty clear run. According to one of our supporters, she was on the Today programme on the 23^rd of last month and there was no-one there to put the opposing view. Mr James Naughtie, the interviewer (pictured), was apparently neutral on the matter.

Our supporter wrote to the BBC to ask about their supposed commitment to editorial balance. They replied: " … our aim isn't to provide a balance of opinion within a single news report or programme, but to do so over a period of time across our entire radio, television and internet news output."

Well, on many items that are far less important than abortion and Northern Ireland, you'll find the BBC getting people into the studio, or down the line, or in the radio-car to give the other point of view. Even if we take the BBC at their word, I wonder just how balanced the coverage they give to this matter will be, between now and the autumn when the bill comes back to parliament. If you see or hear the BBC reporting on abortion and Northern Ireland during the next couple of months, tell me if you think their reporting was fair.

The kind of thing to watch out for is untrue claims going unchallenged like Diane Abbott claiming, as I blogged recently, that there is a terrible backstreet abortion problem in Northern Ireland when, in reality, it has the lowest maternal mortality rate in the UK. A pro-life spokesperson, as well as providing the facts which expose Diane Abbott's claim, could point to the recent statement from former abortionist Bernard Nathanson, reported by Pat Buckley last week, repeating the admission Nathanson made in his book "Aborting America": "We claimed that between five and ten thousand women a year died of botched abortions," he said. "The actual figure was closer to 200 to 300 and we also claimed that there were a million illegal abortions a year in the United States and the actual figure was close to 200,000. So, we were guilty of massive deception." These kinds of false claims have played a massive role in persuading politicians around the world to legalize abortion - and the BBC, in SPUC's experience, is one of the worst offenders in promoting such claims. Let's see how they get on in providing a balanced opinion in the run-up to possible votes in Parliament in October which could strip the unborn child throughout the whole of the UK of the virtually the last vestige of protection.

Serious concerns over organ donation

Organ donation is on the political agenda and, in particular, the matter of donors' consent. At present, you need to indicate that you'd be happy for your body-parts to be used for transplantation when you die. This is reasonable and makes sense. Organ donation can be a good thing, but it's not a duty on all of us to do it. The pressure is now on, however, for people's consent to be assumed. The British Medical Association (BMA) are among those calling for this. If you didn't want to have your organs re-used, you'd have to make a statement to that effect. And if you didn't know anything about the issue, your organs could just be used. The BMA recently expressed disappointment when Welsh politicians decided against such presumed consent.

The current Faith magazine includes an article on organ donation by Mr Bernard Farrell-Roberts of the Maryvale Institute, a Catholic college in Birmingham, England. He points out that the Catholic church says that explicit consent is needed, and that John Paul II warned prophetically in 2000 that a shortage of organs could mean that there would be calls for presumed consent.

If consent is presumed, Mr Farrell-Roberts says, the state has rights over our bodies after death. If that same state changes the definition of death, we could end up having organs taken from us while we're still alive. In Brazil, the number of available organs actually dropped once presumed consent was introduced. The article describes the problems associated with ascertaining when a person is dead.

Brain death is one criterion used for harvesting organs, but Mr Farrell-Roberts points out that Dr David Jones of St Mary's College, Twickenham, Middlesex, and others increasingly dispute that someone can be brain-dead yet have a beating heart. There is even talk of recovery after brain death. Other research suggests that life endures for a good while longer than assumed by at least some transplant surgeons. The author writes: "… the possibility of recovery may well still exist when organs are being removed for donorship."

Mr Farrell-Roberts concludes that there is much uncertainty about when a person is truly dead. Testing for death could even cause it! He points to new scientific advances, such as adult stem cell research, which could mean that fewer donated organs are needed.

His most chilling conclusion is that we can't presently be sure that, if we are donors, we can be confident that our organs and tissue will be removed following our deaths in an ethically acceptable manner. This means it's crucial that:

• we oppose all attempts to presume consent to organ donation
• researchers find better ways of ascertaining death
• governments legislate to protect the sanctity of life.

I can't do the article justice, so do read it here.

The abortion president would gravely damage America's reputation worldwide

Senator Barack Obama, de facto Democrat candidate for US president, has said he will reinstate American funding for the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). Such spending is presently prevented by the 1985 Kemp-Kasten Amendment which, according to the Population Research Institute "forbids U.S. funds from going to any organization or country that participates in a program of forced abortion or sterilization." Earlier this month, President Bush's government withheld some $40 million from UNFPA, making a total of $235 million withheld over seven years.

Reinstating funding for UNFPA will gravely damage America's reputation worldwide. Under the current president, the US has done a lot of good work to protect the unborn overseas and an Obama victory would throw all that away. He will also do immense damage in his own country. Mr Obama has said that, if elected, he will immediately sign the Freedom of Choice Act which would enshrine abortion in US law and overturn all state-based restrictions. No wonder the Christian Defense Coalition has called him the abortion president.

While SPUC never endorses candidates, least of all those in other countries, an Obama presidency would have bad effects throughout the world, so it is a legitimate concern for us and our pro-life colleagues elsewhere to know that a new administration would fund UNFPA. Obama's neo-colonialist abortion policies will kill unborn children, destroy the lives of women and families overseas, and gravely damage the good name of the US.

On a related note, the Democratic and Republican parties have yet to choose their candidates for US vice-president. The choice is an important one, because vice-presidents sometimes succeed the incumbent (e.g. Lyndon Johnson succeeded JFK; Gerald Ford succeeded Nixon) or can become influential, either while vice-president (e.g. Dick Cheney) or in later life (e.g. Al Gore). It stands to reason that Mr Obama's running mate will probably share his anti-life positions. John McCain, Mr Obama's Republican rival, said recently that his running mate should share his "values, principles, and priorities." Among those speculated as a possible running mate for Mr McCain is Condoleezza Rice, the current Secretary of State (equivalent to the British Foreign Secretary). It would seem that Miss Rice does not share what is reported to be Mr McCain's position on abortion.

Reproductive Health Bill in the Philippines to resume hearings next week

On Saturday I blogged about a bill in the Philippines' house of representatives which would pave the way for abortion, and which promotes abortifacient birth control and sterilisation. The proposed law would over-rule medical staff's conscientious objection to being involved in such practices. I now hear from a contact in the Philippines that the appropriations committee will resume hearings on the measure a week from today (6 August). May I ask those of you who read this blog and who are religious believers kindly to pray earnestly that no part of this measure will pass into law.

29,000 reports of serious incidents relating to poor nutrition – the problem is the law

The Telegraph reported yesterday that there were more than 29,000 reports of serious incidents relating to poor nutrition in England during last year. Stephen O’Brien (Conservative), the shadow health minister, is reported as saying:

"This is a further disgraceful statistic from a Government which has failed patients and the public. People go to hospital expecting to get better, yet in 2007, 29,000 people suffered unnecessary and completely avoidable harm from poor nutritional care.”

The range of incidents included badly-fitted feeding tubes, frail patients who cannot reach a glass of water and deaths due to dehydration and choking.

According to The Telegraph, Stephen O’Brien went on to say "Nutrition is central to health and dignity – how many more patients must suffer at the hands of this inept Government?"

Given Mr O’Brien’s concern, which I’m sure is genuine, it’s a pity that he failed to vote on either the second or third readings of the Labour Government’s Mental Capacity Act.

Under the Mental Capacity Act, assisted food and fluids (e.g. tube-delivered) is regarded as medical treatment. Indeed, treatment is defined so broadly in the Mental Capacity Act that other elements of basic care, maybe even spoon-feeding, may be withheld from patients – as SPUC’s lobbyists warned MPs and Peers when the law was introduced into Parliament.

Moreover, the checklist for how to determine a patients' best interests in the Mental Capacity Act is dangerous. The checklist includes many woolly and subjective non-medical factors which serve to undermine protection for the patient’s life or health - clear and objective medical factors which used to be the principle criteria for determining a patient's best interests. A doctor can thus over-ride life and health when considering a patient's best interests.

The legislative environment is thus ripe for euthanasia by starvation and dehydration to flourish.

There is a connection between today’s report of poor conditions in hospitals and nursing homes and euthanasia by neglect. SPUC’s Patients First Network receives calls from distressed relatives saying that their loved ones are not being fed properly. Vulnerable patients are made weaker by lack of food and relatives often feel this is contributing to the premature death of their loved ones. Patients First Network is a support group which promotes good medical care until natural death. Anyone concerned about a friend or relative can call the Patients First Network confidential telephone support service on 0800 1691719.

The Telegraph report tells us that Dr Kevin Cleary, medical director of the National Patient Safety Agency, said:

"We recognise that good nutrition and hydration is essential for the recovery of patients and we support clinicians with guidance to ensure that learning from reported incidents is provided."

Dr Cleary may recognize the importance of good nutrition and hydration to aid the recovery of patients. The problem is the law, however, under which food and fluids can be withdrawn with the intention of ending the patient’s life.

Welsh assembly reluctance over organ donation consent

Members of the Welsh assembly have rejected calls for people's consent to organ donation to be presumed. Instead, the assembly's health committee wants potential donors to be encouraged to register their intentions. The British Medical Association is disappointed. Regrettably, the committee has not completely ruled out so-called presumed consent but one should be grateful for small mercies.

As I blogged in January, there is a risk that eager medics could hasten patients' deaths to get fresh organs for a person in need - well-intentioned but wrong. Earlier this year, a patient in Paris, presumed dead, revived as surgeons began to remove his organs. The International Forum on Transplant Ethics proposed that certain patients to be given lethal injections so that their organs are in better shape for transplant.

Presuming consent isn't the same as obtaining it, so it's not really consent at all, and such an presumption effectively nationalises everyone's bodies. Some countries which presume consent actually get fewer organs that are obtained in this country where consent is still needed. Mr Jonathan Morgan AM, health committee chairman, rightly points out that it's difficult asking grieving relatives to make decisions about a patient's body-parts. While organ donation can be a generous act, none of us is morally required to do it and government has no right to require it of us.

Also in January, I blogged on the dangers of defining tube-feeding as medical treatment and its implications for organ donation. We're keeping an eye on this issue of organ donation and our Patients First Network continues to watch out for the interests of people in hospital.

Huge drop in abortions in Poland - Fascinating interview in Zenit

Antoni Zieba (pictured right) the secretary of World Prayer for Life, and vice-president of the Polish Federation of Pro-life Movements, was interviewed in Zenit yesterday. He provides fascinating insights into the reasons for the huge drop in the number of abortions currently being experienced in Poland and into the history of abortion in Poland - first legalized by the Nazis in 1943. "They wanted to eliminate Poles with abortion", says Mr Zieba.

In his role as secretary of World Prayer for Life, he recently proposed making March 25 the World Day for the Protection of Life, but without giving up the national Pro-Life Day. Quoting Pope John Paul II's Evangelium Vitae (#100), Antoni Zieba says that a great prayer for life should be made throughout the year "but I am convinced that March 25, feast of the Incarnation -- of Jesus' conception in Mary's body -- must become a world day of prayer for the defence of life".

As joint vice-secretary of the World Prayer for Life, naturally I support Antoni's proposal. In addition, I support a suggestion made closer to home here in England for a world fast day of prayer on 14th August - particularly in view of the terrible threat posed by the Human Fertilisation & Embryology bill, due to be debated again in Parliament in October and the appalling bill currently before the House of Representatives in the Philippines.

A tale of two judges

The European Court of Human Rights is going to decide whether Ireland's restrictive law on abortion is unfair to women. Three anonymous women claim that Ireland's constitutional ban on abortion violated their human rights because it discriminates against women, and because it subjected them to inhuman and degrading treatment by forcing them to travel to obtain an abortion. The Irish judge on the court, which sits in Strasbourg, France, has withdrawn from the case. It may be that Dr Ann Power SC has done so because she represented the Irish Catholic bishops at a parliamentary hearing on abortion. It is quite understandable that a judge might be disqualified because of previous involvement as an advocate in a related case.

Meanwhile, the United Nations general assembly has unanimously approved the secretary general's nomination of Ms Navanethem Pillay of South Africa as the UN's new human rights commissioner. The United States began by resisting her appointment and, under President Bush, America has pursued some enlightened pro-life policies such as refusing to fund agencies involved in performing abortions overseas or to finance bodies, like the UNFPA, which are involved in forced abortion and forced sterilisation in China.

According to one source, Ms Pillay was interviewed in 1994 and spoke about how the South African constitution mentions unborn children's rights. She reportedly said: "I wondered why the right to life was stated so explicitly. It is going to open up huge debates on the right of the fetus and so on. … that is the one clause [the pro-life lobby] are going to latch on to for their cause ..."

It would appear that Ms Pillay has a view on the rights of the unborn and it's not a very sympathetic one. However, the United Nations' 1959 Declaration of 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." If Ms Pillay still has problems with unborn babies' rights, she's in no position to defend them – in accordance with a UN resolution – as human rights commissioner.

Diane Abbott MP misleads British public about "backstreet" abortion in Northern Ireland

Addressing the House of Lords last November, Baroness Paisley, wife of the former First Minister of Northern Ireland (pictured together), said: “Northern Ireland will not be bullied by political activists whose ideas and actions have brought about the massacre of more than seven million innocent unborn children in the years that this [Abortion] Act has been in operation...”

Such sentiments, however, don't stop Diane Abbott, MP for Hackney North and Stoke Newington, believing that she can impose the Abortion Act on Northern Ireland despite the fact that, in addition to Baroness Paisley, Northern Ireland's devolved Assembly, 90% of its elected representatives and all four main Churches in the Province, have told Ms Abbott and her colleagues that they don't want Britain’s abortion law.

“No-one in Northern Ireland voted for Diane Abbott, Evan Harris or any of the other pro-abortion extremists in Parliament and yet these MPs seem to think they are our colonial masters and that we must do as they say,” Liam Gibson, SPUC’s Northern Ireland organizer, said to me.

Ms Abbott claims that she wants equality for women in Northern Ireland but she adds insult to injury to the long-suffering people there when she tells the media that women in the Province are “facing conditions more reminiscent of the 19th century,” and that “[m]ost working-class women must take their chances with the backstreet abortionist.”

In reality, the maternal mortality rate in Northern Ireland is the lowest in the UK.

Is it possible that Ms Abbott actually believes her own propaganda? Interestingly, she did not make these claims to the media within Northern Ireland where she could easily be challenged. If anyone in the English press asked her to prove what she said about backstreet abortions in Northern Ireland she would be unable to find any evidence to justify her claims.

“Diane Abbott knows nothing about the women in Northern Ireland and it’s also clear that she doesn’t give proper attention to the standards of healthcare for women in her own part of the UK,” Liam Gibson said to me. “If she did, she would notice that the abortion law in Northern Ireland not only provides more protection for unborn children, but also helps to safeguard the health of women.”

People in England, Scotland and Wales should write to their MPs to tell them the truth about Northern Ireland and call on them to stop Diane Abbott and her colleagues from imposing their anti-life values on the people of Northern Ireland.

Organized parental resistance to compulsory sex education the only option

This morning we find the Independent Advisory Group on Sexual Health & HIV advising the Government to introduce compulsory sex education classes in the national curriculum including discussion about, and better access to, contraception and greater access to abortion.

Take a look at the membership and biographies of this so-called Independent Advisory Group, starting with the Chair, Baroness Joyce Gould (pictured), whose biography is not untypical of the other members. The Department of Health website entry reads: “Baroness Gould is a House of Lords Life Peer with a strong interest in sexual health. She is President of fpa (formerly named Family Planning Association) ... and also Chair of the All Party Pro Choice Group. She has extensive experience of chairing large groups and committees.” Baroness Gould is qualified to be a heroine of the pro-abortion campaign as well as to be a major enemy of parental rights and responsibility in their children's sound formation in human sexuality. This is the person chosen to be chair of the group announced by the government in March 2003.

The work of the Independent Advisory Group on Sexual Health and HIV is, of course, funded by the government. SPUC is researching just how financially dependent on government funding are the organizations with which those members are associated, or for which they work.

There’s only one possible response from parents to a very real threat of compulsion from an advisory group (which is no more independent of the government, and on issues of sexual health, than Pravda was independent of the Communist Party in the Soviet Union) and that’s organized resistance by parents in local schools the length and breadth of Britain and Northern Ireland. Contact SPUC’s Safe at School campaign by writing to me at johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk or phone SPUC at 020 7091 7091.

"Superhero" Obama boasts he has 100% pro-abortion voting record

The Telegraph today says of Barack Obama: "On his journey through Europe last week the US presidential contender garnered adulation fit for a superhero".

Millions of unborn children, if he becomes president, may never hear about this charismatic, super-heroic figure, because they will be dead.

On his website he writes: ""Thirty-five years after the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade, it’s never been more important to protect a woman’s right to choose. Last year, the Supreme Court decided by a vote of 5-4 to uphold the Federal Abortion Ban, and in doing so undermined an important principle of Roe v. Wade: that we must always protect women’s health. With one more vacancy on the Supreme Court, we could be looking at a majority hostile to a women’s fundamental right to choose for the first time since Roe v. Wade. The next president may be asked to nominate that Supreme Court justice. That is what is at stake in this election.

"Throughout my career, I’ve been a consistent and strong supporter of reproductive justice, and have consistently had a 100% pro-choice rating with Planned Parenthood and NARAL Pro-Choice America. "When South Dakota passed a law banning all abortions in a direct effort to have Roe overruled, I was the only candidate for President to raise money to help the citizens of South Dakota repeal that law. When anti-choice protesters blocked the opening of an Illinois Planned Parenthood clinic in a community where affordable health care is in short supply, I was the only candidate for President who spoke out against it. And I will continue to defend this right by passing the Freedom of Choice Act as president."

Check out what the National Right to Life Committee in the US say about him here.

Humanity under attack in the Philippines

No wonder 15 Philippino bishops led their people in a prayer rally in Manila yesterday opposing a population bill currently being considered by the House of Representatives in the Philippines. Reading it through one can only conclude that the Bill has been framed by the enemies of humanity - or the friends and supporters of International Planned Parenthood Federation.

Read below Sections 21 and 22 of the bill, entitled "Prohibited Acts" and "Penalties":

"SEC. 21. Prohibited Acts. – The following acts are prohibited: a.) Any health care service provider, whether public or private who shall :
1. Knowingly withhold information or impede the dissemination thereof, and/or intentionally provide incorrect information regarding programs and services on reproductive health including the right to informed choice and access to a full range of legal, medically-safe and effective family planning methods;
2. Refuse to perform voluntary ligation and vasectomy and other legal and medically-safe reproductive health care services on any person of legal age on the ground of lack of spousal consent or authorization.
3. Refuse to provide reproductive health care services to an abused minor, whose abused condition is certified by the proper official or personnel of the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) or to duly DSWD-certified abused pregnant minor on whose case no parental consent is necessary
4. Fail to provide, either deliberately or through gross or inexcusable negligence, reproductive health care services as mandated under this Act, the Local Government Code of 1991, the Labor Code, and Presidential Decree 79, as amended; and
5. Refuse to extend reproductive health care services and information on account of the patient’s civil status, gender or sexual orientation, age, religion, personal circumstances, and nature of work: Provided, That all conscientious objections of health care service providers based on religious grounds shall be respected: Provided, further, That the conscientious objector shall immediately refer the person seeking such care and services to another health care service provider within the same facility or one which is conveniently accessible: Provided, finally, That the patient is not in an emergency or serious case as defined in RA 8344 penalizing the refusal of hospitals and medical clinics to administer appropriate initial medical treatment and support in emergency and serious cases. b) Any public official who prohibits or restricts personally or through a subordinate the delivery of legal and medically-safe reproductive health care services, including family planning c.) Any employer who shall fail to comply with his obligation under Section 17 of this Act or an employer who requires a female applicant or employee, as a condition for employment or continued employment, to involuntarily undergo sterilization , tubal ligation or any other form of contraceptive method; d) Any person who shall falsify a certificate of compliance as required in Section 14 of this Act; and e) [sic] f) Any person who maliciously engages in disinformation about the intent or provisions of this Act.

"SEC. 22. Penalties. – The proper city or municipal court shall exercise jurisdiction over violations of this Act and the accused who is found guilty shall be sentenced to an imprisonment ranging from one (1) month to six (6) months or a fine ranging from Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) to Fifty Thousand Pesos(P50,000.00) or both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court. If the offender is a juridical person, the penalty shall be imposed upon the president, treasurer, secretary or any responsible officer. An offender who is an alien shall, after service of sentence, be deported immediately without further proceedings by the Bureau of Immigration. An offender who is a public officer or employee shall suffer the accessory penalty of dismissal from the government service. Violators of this Act shall be civilly liable to the offended party in such amount at the discretion of the proper court."

Pat Buckley of European Life Network, one of SPUC's lobbyists at the UN and the Human Rights Council in Geneva, says of the Philippines population bill: "The act not only sets the scene for the introduction of abortion it is also aimed at substantially reducing the population by various means including abortifacient birth control and sterilisation. While some of the language is about choice there is also coercion. Medical personnel will be forced either to comply or to refer people to someone who will. This is a direct attack on conscientious objection. There are also a range of penalties if various people do not comply, from dismissal to fines and imprisonment. There is also a provision that says Any person who maliciously engages in disinformation about the intent or provisions of this Act shall be subject to penalties. This is a grave attack on freedom of speech and is aimed at the pro-life community and the Church. Many of the definitions are straight from the International Conference on Population and Development (ICPD, Cairo) document but the sections used have been cherry-picked to exclude the balancing areas. The ICPD is "soft law" only and is not enforceable. The other thing about ICPD is that it states clearly in the text that it does not create any new human rights."

A world day of fasting and prayer for the unborn has been proposed for 14th August. Humanity is under attack in the Philippines - and 40 years after Britain legalized abortion, there's a danger of a huge extension of the Abortion Act at report stage of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill in October, including its imposition on Northern Ireland. Let me know if you would like to organize a day of fasting and prayer in your area and I will send you some simple guidelines. Write to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk

UN body criticises Ireland on abortion

The United Nations' human rights committee says it is concerned about the restrictive nature of Ireland's abortion law and wants more of what it calls progress in this area. [Irish Times] Progress, for many UN agencies, involves eroding the rights of the unborn even though the Convention on the Rights of the Child defends them. Pat Buckley (pictured) of European Life Network in Dublin says the committee is exceeding its brief and following its own agenda. He blogs on the matter today.