Obamania is a condition linked to Tonyblairmania

I expressed concern the other day that Bishop Cripian Hollis, the bishop of Portsmouth (pictured), had posted a special message on his website rejoicing at the election of Barack Obama, the most pro-abortion and anti-life President-election in US history.

Bishop Hollis has since placed a "clarification" on his website in which he says:

"I would like to add some words to the statement that I issued last week on the election of Barack Obama as President of the United States of America.I genuinely welcome his election because he represents such a different political profile from that of President Bush. America – and the world – needs that political change and will benefit from it.However, I am aware of what he has said about abortion and about the so-called freedom of choice and I deplore his words. There is no way in which I endorse his position on these crucial “life” matters, nor, as a Catholic bishop, could I ever do so.Perhaps it’s naïve to say this but I hope and pray that the realities of the political process will mean that he has to temper his personal policies on these all important life issues and pay serious attention to the outrage with which many view his “life” agenda."

With all due respect, this clarification is yet another example of Obamania, a condition linked, I think to Tonyblairmania, the symptoms being much the same: In Barack Obama's case a person welcomes his election even though he is committed to extreme pro-abortion, anti-life policies; Tonyblairmania involves welcoming Tony Blair's reception into the Catholic Church even though he refuses to repudiate his political record on pro-life matters.

I will ask Bishop Hollis whether if, instead of being required to agree to kill babies on demand, doctors were required by Barack Obama's policies to agree to kill, for example, Catholic priests, would the bishop continue to insist on welcoming his election?

A "must-read" for those campaigning against decriminalization of assisted suicide

Alison Davis, the leader of No Less Human, a group within SPUC, has sent me her review of a new publication which looks like a "must-read" for those concerned about new calls from Parliamentarians for the decriminilization of assisted suicide by lethal dose, on which I have blogged recently.

Alison writes:

"I've just finished reading "Against Physician Assisted Suicide - a palliative care perspective" by David Jeffrey.

"Overall I think it's an excellent introduction to the subject. It's readable, in easy 'chunks' and introduces all the main aspects of the subject in comprehensible short chapters. He gives a good background to the history of PAS in Oregon and Switzerland, and doesn't baulk at the "difficult" subjects like that of unrelievable pain and depression.

"The book gives an excellent overview of the Joffe bill in the UK and various attempts in England & Wales & Scotland of attempts to change the law to allow PAS, noting clearly the differences and similarities between PAS and euthanasia.

"I feel that some of the examples he gives near the end of the book of "Three Patients" who represent a blend of true cases, is somewhat simplistic, but it will be news to many people, both those who are beginners to the issue and those who haven't (yet) read widely on it.

"I would thoroughly recommend it as an introduction to the subject, and for anyone who wants to brush up on their knowledge."

Click on the link for the book above for details on how to order.

Some human beings are more equal than others, according to MPs praising Obama

I've received a notification that Jim Dobbin MP, chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Pro-Life Group (APPPLG), has withdrawn his signature from a pro-Obama parliamentary motion (I blogged about this last week, pointing out the President-elect's extreme pro-abortion/anti-life political record and intentions). I'm very grateful to Mr Dobbin for withdrawing his signature.

I note with disappointment, however, that APPPLG vice-chairmen Claire Curtis-Thomas MP and Dr John Pugh MP, have signed a different pro-Obama motion, the wording of which is flawed.

Of course, it's perfectly normal and diplomatically desirable for politicians, Governments - and even for the Pope - to send messages of congratulation to new heads of state, not least the new head of state in the US. But it matters a lot what the message actually says.

Pope Benedict's message is personal and the full text is not available. CNS news reports that the Holy Father assured the President-elect of his prayers that God would help him with his high responsibilities for his country and for the international community - and I've no doubt we all say "Amen" to that.

However, the Early Day Motion signed by Claire Curtis-Thomas and John Pugh says, among other things:

"That this House [of Commons]... notes that even a few years ago it would have been unimaginable for an African-American man to run for President let alone win; [and] identifies [Mr Obama] as a shining example of how far America has come in respect of integration and equality".

What about the integration and equality of unborn children, both black and white, who will be killed in greater numbers under President Obama? Or are some human beings more equal than others, according to British MPs?

Anthony Ozimic, back from last week's MaterCare workshop in Rome, reports a particularly apposite comment made by Nicholas Nikas (pictured), a leading pro-life lawyer from the United States. Mr Nikas said:

"The world sees the first black man as president, which is a wonderful thing: but at what price? Martin Luther King Jnr had a dream, a nation where people will not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character. What is the content of the character that does not see partial birth-abortion as a problem?"

Anthony reports another similarly apposite comment, made by Fr Thomas Williams of the Regina Apostolorum university. Fr Williams said that abortion was the central issue of social injustice of our time, by which individuals are oppressed in their most fundamental right; and that in the light of the American election results, Catholics may be considered unfit to work in certain areas or in certain jobs, because they hold pro-life and pro-family beliefs (as a result of the Freedom of Choice Act which Barack Obama has promised to sign as the first act of his presidency).

How do Mrs Curtis-Thomas and Dr Pugh (both Catholics) square that danger of segregation and discrimination with the "integration and equality" they claim Mr Obama's election represents?

Obamania spreads to Catholic bishops

Bishop Crispian Hollis (pictured) has posted a special message on the Portsmouth diocese website in which he rejoices at the election of Barack Obama - the most pro-abortion and anti-life president-elect in American history. The full message reads:

“With millions of others, I have been thrilled by Barack Obama’s victory and I thank God for it. For me, it represents a rare moment of hope and optimism which shows American democracy at its best and it is of seismic significance and potential for the whole global community. And so, more than ever now, he deserves and needs us to keep him in our prayers.”

I am increasingly concerned by the numbers of people who have endorsed Mr Obama. I suspect many of them are caught up in an unthinking Obamania.

Has Bishop Hollis overlooked the fact that the unborn are part of the whole global community? The only "potential" for the unborn under an Obama presidency will be that more of them will be killed. What "hope and optimism" can Catholic medics have following Obama's election, who will abolish conscientious objection to abortion, thereby threatening to destroy Catholic healthcare in the US? Can Bishop Hollis explains to Stephan Karanja, the leader of Catholic doctors in Kenya, why he also should be "thrilled" by Obama's victory? Is the poor doctor labouring under a misunderstanding when he says:

“[Americans] have no business electing a person who is going to destroy our countr[y] ... The truth is that they have put a bad man in the most powerful office in the whole world ... [T]his administration of Obama, is going to be a nightmare for our people."

I will be writing to Bishop Hollis, putting these and other questions to him.

Mental Capacity Act creates impetus for lethal dose assisted suicide

I blogged yesterday about Evan Harris MP and his attempt to mislead people by inventing a false distinction between assisted suicide and the taking of lethal doses by Britons who travelled to the Dignitas centre in Zurich, Switzerland. There are other aspects of Evan Harris's disgraceful speech yesterday which demand commentary. Evan Harris said:

"Each year, a number of terminally ill people resort in desperation to violent and often botched suicides, and a number of people find that they have to refuse food and water to exercise control over their time and manner of death. They use their ability to refuse treatment because the fairest and most humane way of exercising control is not available to them ... I do not have time to go into the case of people who refuse food and water, but again it means a more protracted death than the painless one that is available through assisted dying."

Elsewhere in the debate, Evan Harris said that, because patients have a legal right to refuse medical treatment, they should also have a right to receive assistance to die (i.e. to commit suicide by lethal dose): "The end result is the same, and the wish is the same; it is only the activity or passivity that is different."

SPUC has frequently quoted Dr Helga Kuhse (pictured), the utilitarian bioethicist, who as then-president of the World Federation of Right to Die Societies, said in 1984:

"If we can get people to accept the removal of all treatment and care--especially the removal of food and fluids--they will see what a painful way this is to die and then, in the patient's best interests, they will accept the lethal injection".

SPUC has also warned that the Mental Capacity Act 2005, which in certain circumstances gives legal force to killings by denial of food and fluids, will lead to calls for killings by lethal dose.

Lord Joffe has said recently that he will re-introduce his bill to decriminalise assisted suicide by lethal dose, which after several attempts was rejected by the House of Lords in 2006.

It is particularly to be lamented that the spokesman for the Conservative party in yesterday's adjournment debate, Edward Garnier, said:

"The present state of affairs is increasingly under attack, but no statutory answer to the problem has been found. ... [F]rom my party’s point of view it is a question with which we shall have to come to grips, if not today then over the next few years."

As I have warned before, pro-lifers should not put their faith in a future Conservative government on pro-life matters.

Evan Harris given a special lifetime Orwell award

In Parliament this morning Dr Evan Harris MP (pictured) led an adjournment debate (a brief ad hoc debate, not followed by voting) on the subject of so-called assisted dying. Dr Harris is one of Parliament's leading devotees of killing the innocent. Dr Harris described the situation in Britain thus:

"Assisting someone to die is punishable with 14 years of imprisonment ... and that seems to me to be inappropriate with the sort of cases that we're dealing with at the moment. We all know the examples of where people are seeking assistance to die, and that is different to assisted suicide ... What we are not talking about here clearly is assisted suicide. Assisted dying is for people who want to live, not for people who want to die in the case of assisted suicide, so I have no difficulty with the current law which criminalises assisted suicide, where people are suicidal and they are helped through websites or indirectly ...

Dr Harris went on to say that "Dignitas as we know helps people with incurable illnesses to die ... and over 100 [British citizens] have travelled to Switzerland have an assisted death since October 2002."

I invite Dr Harris to visit the website of Dignitas, where he can read a recent speech by Dignitas founder Dr Ludwig Minelli, in which he said:

"By accepting the idea of suicide in principal (sic) and by being prepared to offer professional help with suicide, DIGNITAS is recognised as a credible and trustworthy source of help for people in suicidal situations ... We must be prepared to offer professionally-supervised assisted suicide to those people whose problems cannot be solved ... As long as residents of those countries have to travel to Switzerland for assisted suicide because the law of their own country does not allow them to ask for it at home, neither their freedom of choice nor their right to suicide can be said to correspond with the guarantees of the European Convention on Human Rights." (my emphasis)

The pro-suicide movement championed by Dr Harris rivals the pro-abortion movement in its use of “political language ... designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” (George Orwell) And so, both for his claims in his speech this morning and for his record of other outstandingly deceptive claims, I am today giving Dr Harris a special lifetime Orwell Award.

Cardinal’s approval of ethical code which fails to ban abortion referrals a “grave scandal”

I wrote recently about the approval by Cardinal Murphy O’Connor, Archbishop of Westminster, of a new ethical code at St John and St Elizabeth’s Hospital, London, which fails to ban abortion referrals, unlike the previous code approved by the hospital board in 2007.

I link again today to the new 2008 statement of ethics and to the 2007 code which, as readers can see for themselves, clearly fails to prohibit referrals for abortions and other procedures, which were so firmly prohibited by the 2007 Code.

In the light of this, I was surprised to hear from a reader of my first post on this matter that the Cardinal’s office had sent him the following message: “The Cardinal has asked me to write concerning your email about the new Code of Ethics at the Hospital of St. John & St. Elizabeth. It should be understood that there will not be any formal referrals of abortion at the hospital.”

Luke Gormally, honorary fellow of the Linacre Centre for Healthcare Ethics, tells me: “The Cardinal is in no position to offer such a reassurance. Practitioners at the Hospital have been asked to sign up to a Code from which the prohibition of referrals for abortion has been deliberately omitted. Those practitioners therefore have made no commitment to refrain from referring for abortion. I know from having met the Medical Advisory Committee that they were vehemently opposed to any attempt to prevent them from referring for procedures which they deemed to be in the interests of their patients. The new Code was designed precisely to accommodate their wishes.

“The Cardinal may wish – as he surely does – that doctors practising at the Hospital do not refer for abortions, but the Code that he has approved clearly does not prohibit them from doing so. It also clearly omits the prohibition in the 2007 Code of the prescribing of contraceptives.”

Luke Gormally explained the history of what he rightly called a “grave scandal” in a comment published in full on Fr Finigan’s blog last month.

Professor Gormally takes up the issue again in the letters pages of last Friday's Catholic Herald in which he dismisses as “a PR smokescreen”, a letter to the Herald from Mark Thomas, PR consultant to St. John and St. Elizabeth, who stated that absence of any mention of referrals for abortion in the hospital’s 2008 code of ethics should not be taken to imply that they are permitted at the hospital.

Luke Gormally writes: “Comparison of the 2008 with the 2007 code makes clear that the former has deliberately deleted from the latter the prohibition of referrals for abortion and other immoral procedures, as well as the prohibition of the prescribing of contraceptives.

“The deleted prohibitions are precisely what the wholly non-Catholic Medical Advisory Committee of the hospital had objected to in the 2007 code. They have had their way.

“Physicians and surgeons at the hospital who are now invited to sign the 2008 code know that it leaves it open to them to refer for immoral procedures, including abortion, and to prescribe contraceptives.”

Luke Gormally’s letter to the Catholic Herald concludes: “A statement has been issued that the Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster has approved the 2008 code, presumably exercising the role he has in the constitution of the hospital of determining the conformity of the hospital’s code with Catholic moral teaching. The Cardinal has not repudiated this claim about his approval of the code.”

Barack Obama offers no hope for the future

See also my previous post New President Most Pro-abortion in US history.

New President Most Pro-Abortion in US History

I wrote on Wednesday that the Barack Obama's election to become, later this year, US President, represents an incalculable setback for humanity.

Life Issues Institute,* one of the leading pro-life educational bodies in the US, has issued a statement which powerfully puts into perspective the significance of Senator Barack Obama's election. I reproduce here in full:

New President Most Pro-Abortion in Nation's History

"Voters have made this election a first for America by electing the most pro-abortion president in the history of our nation. Senator Barack Obama will assume the power of the presidency, defined as the most powerful position in the world.

"During his political career, Barack Obama has consistently voted against innocent preborn children. He has repeatedly voted to deny basic medical care to babies who survive late-term abortions, and voted against efforts to end the gruesome partial-birth abortion procedure. As a candidate for president, Senator Obama had pledged to sign the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) which would override any and all restrictions on abortion throughout nine months of pregnancy. It would also force taxpayers to fund abortion-on-demand.

"Of equal concern is Senator Obama’s pledge to appoint only judges who support Roe v. Wade, which could effectively impose the death penalty on future generations of America’s innocent unborn children.

"In addition, pro-abortion Democrats retained control of the US Senate and House of Representatives. Undoubtedly, American citizens can expect a radical pro-abortion agenda from its newly elected leaders.

"Bradley Mattes, Executive Director of Life Issues Institute, said, “With federal legislation no longer an option for a minimum of two years, pro-life education is absolutely central and critical to our future efforts of ending abortion. The key to countering this devastating political loss is to change the hearts and minds of Americans on abortion and related life issues. That can only be done through effective pro-life education.”

"Mr. Mattes added, “Pro-life education is the foundation on which we must build future political and legislative victories to protect unborn babies. We will not give up and we will not waiver in our resolve and determination to end this modern-day holocaust of abortion.”

*The President of Life Issues Institue is Dr Jack Willke, the legendary "Father" of the US pro-life movement. Please pray for his wife Barbara who's not well. Jack and Barbara have travelled the world for decades spreading the pr0-life message and their many books have been published in dozens of languages.

Humanae Vitae must inform the way Universal Declaration of Human Rights is implemented, says top Vatican official

Monsignor Pietro Parolin, the Vatican's under-secretary of state for relations with states, put the implementation of Humanae Vitae at the top of the Church's political agenda at a major international medical workshop in Rome last night.

Anthony Ozimic*, SPUC political secretary, is currently in Rome attending a workshop held by Matercare a Catholic organisation of medical and bioethical professionals at the cutting-edge of Catholic thought and practice on maternal health.

The first talk of the workshop was given last night by Monsignor Pietro Parolin (pictured above) under-secretary for relations with states, Office of the Secretary of State of the Holy See.

Monsignor Parolin reminded workshop participants that 2008 is an important year because of two anniversaries: the 40th anniversary of Humanae Vitae (Pope Paul VI's encyclical on human life) and the 60th anniversary of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

He said that Humanae Vitae should inform the way in which the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is to be implemented and that the right to life gives meaning to the presence of the Holy See in the world: to stop the spread of the culture of death. He reminded doctors that Pope Paul VI had said that Catholic doctors must conduct their profession in accord with faith and right reason. Finally, he warned that ambiguous language is increasingly used by certain groups to claim rights with no reference to natural ethics, in order to justify acts against the right to life, e.g. the term reproductive rights to include abortion.

The Vatican's placing of Humanae Vitae at the top of the international political agenda could not be more timely. With the Catholic Church in England and Wales making it clear that it will collaborate with Government plans for statutory sex and relationship classes in primary and secondary schools, as I blogged last month, we see the fulfilment of the prophecy of Pope Paul VI regarding artificial birth control in ways that even he did not predict: i.e. the complicity of Catholic authorities with the imposition of secret provision of birth control drugs and devices, including abortion, to schoolchildren under the age of 16, without parental knowledge or consent.

Monsignor Parolin's message to doctors - to conduct their profession in accord with faith and right reason - underlines the importance of lay professionals, parents and other citizens, standing up to the state and religious authorities when their fundamental human rights are being threatened.

*Anthony Ozimic, who has a master's degree in bioethics, is speaking at the MaterCare workshop on the effects of abortion on the moral character of the provider.

MPs' pro-life leader gives perplexing support to Obama

In the light of the result US presidential election, which represents an incalculable setback for humanity, the following UK parliamentary motion is of particular interest:

EDM 2316 US PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION

That this House looks forward to the election of Senator Barack Obama as President of the United States of America.

Our pro-life friends and colleagues in the US may well be as perplexed as I am when they learn that among the signatories is Jim Dobbin, chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Pro-Life Group (APPPLG) in the UK parliament.

In the light of Barack Obama's radical anti-life record, position, and intended policies, on which I blogged earlier this week, I am seeking a meeting with Mr Dobbin to ask how his support for this Early Day Motion can be justified in view of his position as a leader of a pro-life group. I also blogged this week on the completely untenable position of Claire Curtis-Thomas as a vice-chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Pro-Life Group - who confirmed her anti-life position in a letter to a SPUC supporter in her constituency, having made her pro-abortion position clear in May.

Please say an extra prayer today that US voters reject Obama

I have written about Senator Obama's extremist anti-life credentials before on this blog (7 July, 27 July, 31 July, 29 August, 30 August, 1 September and 7 October). National Right to Life Committee (NRLC) have produced an easy-to-read guide comparing the stances on abortion of the presidential and vice-presidential candidates. Senator Obama has promised that his first act as president will be to sign the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA). Michael Moses, a lawyer for the American Catholic bishops, has warned that FOCA would force all Catholic hospitals and medical professionals to provide abortions, with no opt-outs or rights of conscientious objection.

On this last point, one is reminded of legislation and policies introduced by Tony Blair and his government: under his government's Mental Capacity Act, for example, doctors who refuse on clinical or other ethical grounds to implement an advance refusal of treatment face litigation and possibly criminal conviction; and Tony Blair personally endorsed his government's policy of providing schoolchildren under the age of 16 with abortions and birth control drugs and devices without parental knowledge or consent.

A reader reminded me today of an illuminating letter earlier this year in The Independent from Stephen Dorril, Sir Oswald Mosley's biographer, who wrote: "I thought I was being irrational in my total dislike of Barack Obama, but now realise, having read Dominic Lawson's excellent analysis of the Obama cult (26 February), that there are others who are also very wary of a populist politician who seems to be veering towards fascism." He goes on to compare him with Tony Blair. It's worth a read. I wish it could be widely read and understood on the other side of the Atlantic. Please say an extra prayer today that US voters reject Obama - for America's and for all our sakes.

Pro-life MPs must sack Claire Curtis-Thomas

Claire Curtis-Thomas (pictured), the Labour MP for Crosby and a vice-chairman of the All-Party Parliamentary Pro-Life Group (APPPLG), has confirmed her anti-life position in a reply to a SPUC supporter in her constituency. Mrs Pat MacDonald wrote to Mrs Curtis-Thomas to ask her to vote against the Human Fertilisation and Embryology (HFE) bill at third reading on 22 October, which was the last chance for MPs to vote on the bill. (As expected, no pro-life amendments to the bill had been passed before third reading, the Commons passed the bill at third reading and no pro-life amendments were made the House of Lords following Commons third reading. The bill is expected to receive Royal Assent in the next few weeks.)

Mrs Curtis-Thomas said in her reply to Mrs MacDonald:

"Thank you for your concern. You have, however, missed the point. Voting against the whole of the bill would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater. There are many clauses in the bill which are very necessary and welcome. As co-chair of the all party pro-life group, I am clear on my responsibilities and will continue to vote against those parts of the bill which I find morally objectionable. Regards Claire."

Mrs MacDonald replied: "If you are clear on your responsibilities as co-chair of the all party pro-life group, then it is unacceptable that you were not present, or took part in this vote ... It is time you either resigned from the All Party Pro-Life group, or start taking your responsibilities seriously and act with moral conviction. Your duplicitous behaviour is unacceptable."

Mrs Curtis-Thomas replied: "Thank you for your comments. Kind regards, Claire."

As Mrs MacDonald has commented to SPUC, "As usual [Mrs Curtis-Thomas] cannot reply to what was asked of her."

I personally find it sickening that Mrs Curtis-Thomas has said that voting against the bill would have been "throwing the baby out with the bathwater", when so many innocent unborn children will be abused and killed under the bill. I am unaware of any arguments presented by Mrs Curtis-Thomas as to which clauses in the bill "are very necessary and welcome", nor how those clauses could possibly outweigh "those parts of the bill which [she] find[s] morally objectionable".

The truth of the matter is that:

• the HFE bill is intrinsically evil - not just as a whole, but also in all its parts;


• Mrs Curtis-Thomas also made her pro-abortion position clear in May;


• the APPPLG must remove Mrs Curtis-Thomas immediately from the APPPLG.

It should also be noted that Mrs Curtis-Thomas is a Catholic. Organisations associated with the Catholic Church (or indeed any group, religious or secular, opposed to abortion or embryo-killing) should not invite Mrs Curtis-Thomas to their events. Would such organizations invite a Catholic to their events who was not opposed to the killing of members of ethnic minorities? The unborn child has the same human dignity as everyone else and must be given the same respect.

Well done to Pat MacDonald for again holding Mrs Curtis-Thomas to account!

Embryo bill passes parliament, ethics abandoned

This week the British parliament finally passed the government's Human Fertilisation and Embryology bill, following a House of Lords (pictured) debate on changes made to the bill by the House of Commons.

Anthony Ozimic, SPUC political secretary, who was at the debate, reported:

"A number of Lords were particularly concerned by the denial of legal fatherhood as a means of giving equal parental rights to lesbians. They were also concerned by the bill's permission to use, without consent, archived genetic material in research, including for the creation of embryos. The government, however, used its majority to crush even the most modest attempts to restrict some of the bill's most radical proposals."

Anthony commented further:

"The whole bill and the way it has been passed through parliament represent a suppression of ethics and human nature by utilitarian extremists among the science lobby. This is why concerned scientists and physicians have acted to try to stop such a suppression happening again, by presenting a declaration to UNESCO." (I blogged earlier this week about this declaration.)

Intervener SPUC relieved at defeat of Purdy assisted suicide legal challenge

Debbie Purdy's legal challenge thankfully was rejected on Wednesday by the High Court.

SPUC was an intervener in the case, submitting written evidence to the court.

Mrs Purdy, who has multiple sclerosis and is backed by the pro-euthanasia group "Dignity in Dying", challenged the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) regarding his approach to assisted suicides by Britons at the Dignitas centre in Zurich, Switzerland. Mrs Purdy has said that she may wish to commit suicide in Switzerland and wishes to know whether her husband is likely to be prosecuted if he assists her. Assisted suicide is illegal in the UK.

Mrs Purdy is pictured above with her husband Omar, with Sarah Wootton and another representative of Dignity in Dignity standing behind them.

Anthony Ozimic, SPUC political secretary, said outside the High Court:

"Firstly, we extend our compassion to Mrs Purdy and her husband and hope that instead of assisted suicide, she will receive all the palliative care and other assistance she requires. Mrs Purdy's life is worth living to its natural end. She is not better off dead.

"Secondly, we are relieved that the court has rejected the claims made by Mrs Purdy's lawyers. The underlying objective of the case, brought by the pro-euthanasia lobby, was to undermine the law on assisted suicide. The ban on assisted suicide protects the value and dignity of human life.

"The death-for-disability lobby are a lethal threat to vulnerable individuals. Allowing assisted suicide would create pressure, either real or perceived, upon the vulnerable. Allowing suicide does nothing to address the medical, psychological or other needs of the terminally-ill."

Fellow MS sufferer, SPUC member Mary Corrigan said: "MS is a terrible disease, and major depression and suicide are more common among MS people than most other groups. It is important that the court got the full picture of what this case could have lead to, and that is why SPUC intervened."

In May 2006 Parliament rejected a bill to allow assisted suicide.

Cherie Blair endorses radical pro-abortion UN agenda

A quick visit to Cherie Blair's website reveals that she endorses a radical pro-abortion agenda by the United Nations.

In the section About this site, Mrs Blair writes:

"This website is dedicated to the issues that concern me, to helping improve the position of women throughout the world by sharing information and by safeguarding and promoting human rights. At the heart of the website is the Women of the World section."

On a page in the Women of the World section, Mrs Blair says:

"The [United Nations] Convention [on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) ... is the only human rights treaty which affirms the reproductive rights of women".

"Reproductive rights" is a term commonly used to include abortion on demand.

The page ends by linking to the CEDAW committee, which is responsible for monitoring the implementation of the CEDAW convention. The CEDAW committee is notorious among pro-lifers for using the CEDAW convention to bully countries into allowing abortion, even though the convention doesn't mention abortion. Most recently, the CEDAW committee issued a report calling upon the UK government to decriminalise abortion in Northern Ireland.

Elsewhere on her website, Mrs Blair lists Human Rights Watch as one of the charities she supports. It should be noted that Human Rights Watch is one of the most radically pro-abortion international NGOs (non-governmental organisations).

Mrs Blair, like her husband Tony, is often listed as a Catholic. Yet like her husband, Mrs Blair has a long track-record of promoting anti-life and anti-family causes, in opposition to Catholic teaching. In July 2003, Mrs Blair endorsed the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), the world’s leading promoter and provider of abortion, by hosting a private reception at 10 Downing Street (the prime minister’s residence) for IPPF’s “Lust for Life” fundraising campaign. At the annual Labour party conference in September 2005, Mrs Blair celebrated the 75th anniversary of the Family Planning Association (fpa), the UK branch of IPPF, helping to cut a special birthday cake (and pictured here jokingly offering a condom to the camera-man.) Both IPPF and FPA endorsed the failed campaign to remove the Holy See from the United Nations.

It is therefore deplorable that an abortion-promoter like Mrs Blair was invited to speak last week at the Dominican University of California. The university describes itself as a "university of Catholic heritage", which "seeks to embody Dominican educational ideals" such as "deep respect for the dignity and worth of the individual" and "respect for the human person, with a concern for individual human rights". What about the unborn, whom Mrs Blair is conspiring against?

Organisations associated with the Catholic Church (or indeed any group, religious or secular, opposed to abortion) should not invite Mrs Blair to their events - or her husband, as I blogged recently.

Scientists and physicians defend embryonic children as UNESCO committee meets

Scientists and physicians from around the world have presented a declaration on human rights for nascent human beings.

The signatories include human-biology research scientists, obstetricians, gynaecologists, professors of a range of disciplines, doctors in general practice and nurses. They have joined together to declare the truth about the human embryo.

The signatories' action is a collective response to this week's meeting in Paris of UNESCO's international bioethics committee, which is discussing whether so-called therapeutic cloning should be banned worldwide.

The declaration among other things, says:

"We, in our capacity as members of society who undertake scientific discovery and deliberate on scientific knowledge, herein pledge to respect the inherent rights of human embryos and foetuses during our quest for beneficial knowledge, just as we respect the inviolable and inalienable rights of children and adults."

It also says: "We request the removal of all existing permissions and practices that enable negative discrimination against human embryos and foetuses. Chief among these are the legalisation of abortion and approval for research that harms or destroys human embryos."

The declaration adds: "We declare that every stage in the developmental continuum of human life has the same right to life and right to protection from harm as all others."

The full text and current list of signatories is on the web at http://www.amnestyforbabies.com/scidec The declaration remains open there for signing, and scientists and physicians are invited to sign it.

UNESCO is the United Nations Education, Scientific, and Cultural Organization. UNESCO's International Bioethics Committee (IBC) was founded in 1993.

The teaching of the Catholic Church is the same in England and Spain

There's a big contrast between the position adopted by the Catholic authorities in England and Wales and the Catholic authorities in Spain on government-imposed courses relating to human sexuality.

In England, the Catholic Education Service (CES), on behalf of the bishops, makes it clear that that it will collaborate with the government’s plans and that it hopes that parents will not choose to opt out by withdrawing their children from sex education.

In sharp contrast, Bishop Casimiro Lopez Llorente of Segorbe , the president of the Spanish Bishops’ Committee on Education, said last week that said last week parents have the right to conscientiously object to the controversial material included in the Education for Citizenship course which the government is imposing on all schools.

It's time that Catholic families in England and Wales were defended and encouraged by the Catholic authorities, as they are in Spain, rather than exposed to the insidious and determined agenda of the British government on matters relating to human sexuality and abortion, as I have said before on this blog. The teaching of the Catholic Church is, after all, the same in England and in Spain.

Government is behaving like the Nazis says Cardinal O'Brien

Cardinal O'Brien has just released an open letter to Gordon Brown, the British Prime Minister. It is characteristically forceful and prophetic.

If you've not already done so, visit SPUC's latest lobbying alert on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, take the action recommended and lend support to Cardinal O'Brien's splendid open letter:

OPEN LETTER TO THE PRIME MINISTER

28 October 2008

Dear Gordon

I write this open letter to you on a matter of immediate urgency, namely tomorrow’s debate in the Lords on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. Although I was relieved that last week’s debate in the Commons on the Bill did not address the issue of abortion, I remain convinced that the Bill is misguided and certain sections are potentially most harmful.

Among these is Schedule 3 which has never been properly discussed in Parliament. It provides for taking tissue from incapacitated adults and children without their consent for the express purpose of creating embryos for research. It will be debated in the House of Lords tomorrow (Wednesday 29 October) with Government support.

The Bill could allow for the derivation and use of human eggs from the ovarian tissue of aborted baby girls, a proposal which was first aired by the HFEA in 1994. The HFEA public consultation at that time showed that 83.2% of the 9,000 respondents opposed the practice, and even the few in favour underlined the necessity of consent.

Should this Bill become law, removing tissue from incapacitated adults or children, without their specific consent in order to create animal-human hybrid or other embryos would be permissible, as would creating artificial sperm or artificial eggs from bone marrow or even cord blood.
The grotesque implications of these procedures are utterly horrifying. The proposals in this Bill represent a breach of 50 years of ethical medical research. They by-pass the Declaration of Helsinki, the Human Tissue Act, the Mental Capacity Act and the Human Rights Act. Removing parts of people’s bodies without their consent, utterly flies in the face of all BMA and GMC guidance on consent to research.

Such behaviour was last seen under the Nazis. Following the liberation of the concentration camps in 1945, the full horrors of the Nazi’s atrocities were revealed to a shocked world. The hideous savagery of their experiments convinced the civilized world that such practices must be outlawed forever. I am appalled that you are promoting a Bill which seeks, by stealth, to create a regime where extracting tissue and cells from human beings no longer requires their consent or involvement.

I am staggered that you would endorse legislation, which describes the creation of embryos from a person without their consent as 'non-invasive' and which enshrines the concept of ‘presumed consent’ in UK law. This legislation would set a nightmarish precedent, by allowing scientists to experiment on those lacking capacity - in the absence of explicit consent - largely as they see fit.

I urge you to amend Schedule 3 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill as a matter of great urgency and human decency.

Yours sincerely in Christ


+ Keith Patrick Cardinal O’Brien
Archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh

Philippines statesman challenges academics using Catholic status to promote population bill

In a measured and authoritative article on his blog, Francisco "Kit" Tatad, disposes of the pretensions of a group of academics from Ateneo university purporting to speak on behalf of the Catholic Church. They support a bill before the Philippines parliament, entitled An Act Providing For A National Policy On Reproductive Health, Responsible Parenthood And Population Development, And For Other Purposes.

I have blogged on the bill (Philippines reproductive health bill has totalitarian elements) and SPUC commissioned and published a commentary on it prepared by Southern Cross Bioethics Institute.

Kit Tatad, a former cabinet minister, senator, publisher, editor and newspaper columnist has been at the forefront of Philippines politics for over 40 years. When he was just 29, he was the youngest person ever to be appointed to the cabinet.

A Reading from 14 Ateneo Professors, Kit Tatad's article, begins: "Fouteen 'Ateneo professors' argue that the highly controversial reproductive health bill 'adheres to Catholic social teaching' and that 'Catholics can support it in good conscience.' They ask 'our bishops and fellow Catholics' not to block passage of House Bill 5043.

"How should a 'fellow Catholic' respond? With profound humility, I suppose, but with a firm resolve not to be misled. The 'professors' identify themselves as 'individual faculty' whose opinions 'do not necessarily reflect the official position of the Ateneo de Manila University nor the Society of Jesus.'

"It is a crafty disclaimer. If they truly wanted to speak as individual Catholics, they could have done so without using the Ateneo label. But they clearly did not mind cashing in on Ateneo’s Catholic reputation.

"Opposition to House Bill 5043 arises mainly from the fact that it seeks, among other things, to legalize a State program of contraception and sterilization that will require married couples to contracept or sterilize themselves before engaging in marital sex, and make available contraceptives and sterilization devices as 'essential medicines' even to unmarried individuals. It also seeks to impose a 'mandatory sex education' on all children, from Grade V up to high school, without parental consent, to prepare them for 'a safe and satisfying sex life' ... "

Read on here. It's important for Catholics to be alert to the growing phenomenon of those who use their membership of the Catholic Church, or their official position within it, to undermine the teaching of the Church on the sanctity of human life and to impose anti-life policies on Catholic families. Regular readers of my posts about the situation of Catholics in England will recognise this trend. Former Senator Kit Tatad provides a good example of how to challenge their deceptive work.