SPUC plans to intervene in assisted suicide case

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Barry Gardiner MP praises China’s crimes against humanity

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

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

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

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

Global warming no excuse for anti-life measures

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

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

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

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

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

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

How is this relevant to the UK?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Brazilian bishops affirm wrongness of all embryo destruction and abuse

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

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

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

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

and therefore

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pope John Paul II writes in Evangelium Vitae:

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

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

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

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

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

Pope Benedict's Humanae Vitae address in full

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

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

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

Beware of playing abortion party politics

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MPs’ growing intolerance to religious or ethical considerations – Catholic bishop of Lancaster

Bishop Patrick O'Donoghue issued a statement yesterday on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. His compelling reflection on the House of Commons’ “flawed and selective approach to science” entirely complements the article sent me last week by Dr Sherley, a Senior Scientist at Boston Biomedical Research Institute in the U. S. who recently visited London as a guest of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales.

Bishop O’Donoghue says:

"Listening to the second reading and debate on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill in the House of Commons, I was saddened beyond measure. It has been said that the House of Commons is at its best when debating issues of conscience, but do I detect here a growing intolerance to listening to religious or ethical considerations? Again and again the justification given to experimenting on embryonic human beings or killing the unborn was an appeal to ‘science’ or ‘scientific research’ as if it were the only source of objective, rational knowledge. It seems that millennia of ethical and religious thought are lightly dismissed as subjective and discredited.

"In contrast to the language of utilitarianism in the parliamentary debate that sought to justify the exploitation of the unborn for our economic and medical gain there arises in my heart the words of Scripture that speak prophetically of the dignity of the unborn child:

‘You created my inmost self,
Knit me together in my mother’s womb.
For so many marvels I thank you;
A wonder am I, and all your works are wonders.
...Your eyes could see my embryo.’ (Psalm 139:13-14, 16).

"Every embryonic human person is a wonder of creation, who possesses the inherent right to realise his or her potential for creativity, love, self-sacrifice, and joy. However, our society has so cheapened and violated human life that it does not hear or understand the language of wonder about the unborn.

"A dangerous myth appears to be growing that the only knowledge that can inform policy- making is scientific research. Discourse and reason are impoverished when science is used to exclude other branches of knowledge, such as reasoning based on natural law. Not only this, but we witnessed a flawed, selective approach to science, with the House choosing to ignore the hard scientific evidence provided by adult and umbilical cord stem cell research, that proves that unethical research on embryonic human persons is unnecessary. What we saw last week in the House of Commons was the misuse of science to justify the continued exploitation and disposal of society’s most vulnerable members – embryonic and foetal human persons.

"As I understand it, there is not a shred of scientific evidence to support those who promote the benefits of creating human-animal hybrids. What we witnessed in the vote allowing the creation of human-animal hybrids was a partisan act of faith that experimentation on embryos will at some distant time result in cures for Alzheimer’s, MS and other diseases.

"We all hope and pray that medical science will find cures for these diseases that cause such dreadful suffering, but not at the cost of de-personalising the unborn and treating them as things to be manipulated and dissected. Compassion cannot result in the exploitation and destruction of unborn human persons. It is also a misuse of science to employ medical judgements concerning the ‘viability’ of the unborn child’s development as the only consideration that grants the most fundamental of human rights – the right to life.

"It’s farcical to think that the definition of a human person depends on being able to exist on one’s own. Human life is a series of inter-related dependencies at all stages of our existence. The State has no moral right to exclude the most vulnerable stage of dependency from the legal protection granted to human life. Any State that accepts the arbitrary use of power over others is immoral. As I see it, last week’s vote in the House of Commons perpetuated the immoral use of power over the unborn.

"How can it be reasonable that a 12 week old foetus is treated as an unborn child or disposed of as a thing depending on the choice of the mother? Being a person is not something granted by the choice of another, but is an inherent right dependent on the fact of existence. From the moment of conception, the unborn human being is genetically unique from his or her mother and father. The unborn child is a completely new and different living being.

"The Catholic Church truly cares for the well-being of women, particularly those agonising over the decision whether to continue with a pregnancy or to have an abortion. I can only imagine that the trauma of rape or the anxiety of a mother unable to cope can feel unbearable. However, I have been told that the grief and distress that many women suffer following an abortion is also unbearable. Confronted with this suffering, we must all do more to support the work of Pro-Life groups that offer counselling and practical support to women who are considering abortion or are struggling to cope after an abortion.

"In its strong stand against abortion or experimentation on embryonic human persons, the Church is not saying all who have an abortion or all those who voted for this legislation are evil. But it is the Church’s duty to constantly remind society that the act of intentionally killing the unborn embryo or child is always of itself evil.

"I would like to personally thank all those Members of Parliament who tabled amendments and voted in defence of unborn human life. I call on all people of faith – Muslim, Jew, Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh, and Christian – who believe in the sanctity of unborn human life to join with the Catholic Church in redoubling their efforts in the continuing campaign for a change in these laws.

"During the 19th century, slavers said black people weren’t human. They were wrong. During the 20th century, the Nazis said Jews weren’t human. They were wrong. Since 1967, the House of Commons has said the unborn are not human. They, too, are wrong."

+Patrick O’Donoghue, Bishop of Lancaster Sunday, 25 May, 2008

Claire Curtis-Thomas should resign as a vice-chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Pro-life Group

In last night’s Commons debate on abortion, Mrs Claire Curtis-Thomas, Labour MP for Crosby and a vice-chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Pro-Life Group (APPPLG), said the following:

"For the record, and contrary to many of the statements that I have read this week which purport to know my views, I am not opposed to abortion. I believe that women should have the right to choose; I just hope that they do not choose to have an abortion."

Later in the debate, she also said:

"I would be much happier with 12 weeks—that is where I stand. Let women have the choice, but make it at 12 weeks. "

There is no defence for her comments – they are clear statements that not only should abortion be allowed in law, but that abortion is a woman’s right. She should resign immediately as a vice-chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Pro-life Group.

Abortion weeks amendments rejected, attack on unborn babies expected to intensify

SPUC expresses grave concern at the large numbers of MPs who voted with the pro-abortion lobby tonight in the House of Commons. MPs were voting on proposed changes to the Abortion Act 1967 via amendments to the government's Human Fertilisation and Embryology bill.

None of the amendments seeking to lower the 24 week time limit, which applies to most social abortions, was passed. The number of MPs voting with the pro-abortion lobby exceeding 390. Amendments to widen access to abortion very considerably are expected to be tabled at the bill's report stage. Some pro-abortion amendments had been tabled before tonight's committee stage, but were withdrawn prior to tonight's debate.

Pro-lifers must now redouble their efforts to stop pro-abortion amendments being incorporated into the government's embryo bill at its report stage. These amendments may include removing the requirement for two doctors to certify medical grounds for an abortion, and promoting nurses as abortion practitioners. More babies will die if such amendments are passed.

SPUC has for many years warned MPs not to table amendments seeking to lower time limits on abortion, in the light of the current Parliament's overwhelming pro-abortion majority. Contary to erroneous media reports, the upper time limit for all abortions is not 24 weeks, as abortion up to birth has been allowed since 1990 where an unborn child has been deemed to be seriously handicapped or in certain other circumstances.

MPs voted to reject lowering the 24 week social abortion limit to:

12 weeks - rejected by 393 votes to 71

16 weeks - 387 to 84

20 weeks - 332 to 190

22 weeks - 304 to 233

An amendment to require information to be offered to mothers prior to the abortion of a disabled child was also defeated by 309 to 173.

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.