Vatican backs Bishop of Lancaster in his stand against the culture of death

In a timely Vatican statement, Bishop Patrick O’Donoghue has received the strong endorsement of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Rome (CDF) for his teaching document, Fit for Mission? Church which called on schools and parishes "to protect our young from the cultures of death that seek to corrupt and exploit them".

Archbishop Luis Ladaria S.J. , Secretary to the Congregation, (pictured) expressed the hope that not only the faithful of Lancaster, but also 'Catholics throughout Britain, will find hope and encouragement' in Fit for Mission? Church.

If I may say so, Your Excellency, non-Catholics throughout Britain also find hope and encouragement whenever Bishop O'Donoghue raises his prophetic voice against prevailing trends in England and Wales!

Vatican endorsement of Bishop O'Donoghue's stand against the culture of death being promoted in schools could not come at a more important time, particularly when the position of the Catholic Education Service regarding the government's anti-life policy in schools is giving rise to such concern.

The government and its policy advisors are now promoting access to abortions through schools in the following ways: establishing school based health & sex clinics in all secondary schools; appointing ‘teenage pregnancy’ monitors – whose job is to keep down teenage births; giving school nurses and advisors (such as Connexions ‘personal advisors’) a clear remit to refer for abortions without informing parents; contributing to the early sexualisation of children by making sex education a statutory subject in all schools starting from age 5.

Earlier this year Cardinal Renato Martino, President, Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, and Archbishop Mauro Piacenza, Secretary, Congregation for the Clergy, congratulated Bishop Patrick for his challenging document promoting an authentic Catholic identity for today’s Church. First published in August 2008, in response to popular demand Bishop Patrick brought out an expanded edition with the Catholic Truth Society in October.

In March 2008 Cardinal Levada, Prefect to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith wrote a foreword to Bishop Patrick’s expanded edition of Fit for Mission? Schools. (CTS Do 779).
In the light of the recent controversy widely reported in the press concerning Fit for Mission? Church, Bishop Patrick is particularly encouraged by the CDF stating so clearly, ‘You and your collaborators are to be congratulated for alerting the faithful to the dangers of secularism and hedonism’.

Bishop Patrick expressed his delight at receiving Archbishop Ladaria’s letter on behalf of the CDF:

‘I would just like to express my heartfelt thanks to the Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith for supporting the programme of renewal I have now fully set out in Fit for Mission? Church, and Fit for Mission? Schools. At the heart of both documents is the urgent appeal to Catholics throughout our country to reject the misinterpretations of the Second Vatican Council that have become so wide-spread. Once again we must commit ourselves without reservation to the fullness of doctrinal, moral and liturgical truth safeguarded by Peter!’

The Catholic Truth Society's expanded edition of Bishop Patrick O'Donoghue's "Fit for Mission? Church" is available at: http://www.cts-online.org.uk/

Further details:

Rt Rev Patrick O’Donoghue
Bishop of Lancaster
Bishop’s Office
The Pastoral Centre
Balmoral Road
LANCASTER

Tel: 01524 596050

I'm sure that readers may wish to write to Bishop O'Donoghue to congratulate him on the backing he's receiving from the Vatican for his brave stand against the culture of death.

False idea of academic freedom no defence for inviting Cherie Blair

As I blogged last week, Cherie Blair has been invited to speak this Friday at the Angelicum, a leading Catholic university in Rome, on the subject of women and human rights. Mrs Blair has a long-track record of supporting anti-life and anti-family causes, in opposition to Catholic teaching. Sister Helen Alford, the dean of the Angelicum's social sciences faculty, has replied in response to the more than 200 complaints made to the Angelicum demanding Mrs Blair's invitation be cancelled. The first part of Sister Helen's reply reads:

"By inviting Mrs Blair, we, as a faculty of social sciences, are following the example of the Pope’s own social sciences institute, the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, based in the Vatican itself. Mrs Blair was invited to make an address to its 2006 plenary assembly, which focused on children and young people ... Obviously, in doing so, neither the Vatican as a whole, nor the Pope personally, was in any way endorsing a pro-abortion point of view, and neither are we."

Whom the Pope meets in audience is an entirely separate matter. Everyone knows that any Pope must meet a wide range of prominent public figures in order to carry out effectively his pastoral ministry and diplomatic role.

In contrast, it was not justified of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences to have invited Mrs Blair to speak in 2006, nor is it justified of the Angelicum today. Let us suppose that, in the 1930s a lawyer had hosted, celebrated and endorsed organisations which promoted, performed and/or demanded the killing of Jews. Would it have been right for Catholic universities and academies to have invited such a lawyer to be a featured speaker? There is no moral difference between the killing of Jews and the killing of unborn children. Whatever the views of the Angelicum, the Angelicum's invitation to Mrs Blair to be a featured speaker implies that the killing of unborn children is less morally significant than the racist killings of born people.

The second part of the Sister Helen's reply basically says that the presentation of the other featured speaker at the conference, Professor Janne Haaland Matlary, will be strongly pro-life. I'm delighted to hear it, but that fact doesn't make the invitation to Mrs Blair any less unacceptable. In the 1930s, inviting an anti-Holocaust speaker would not have made inviting a pro-Holocaust speaker any less unacceptable. It should be noted that Friday's event at the Angelicum is not a debate between Prof. Matlary and Mrs Blair but a conference with featured speakers.

Nothing has been said in advance about what Mrs Blair will say in her presentation "Religion as a Force in protecting Women's Human Rights", though there is nothing to prevent her using her speech to oppose Catholic pro-life/pro-family teaching. The Angelicum says the conference will celebrate the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, "remember that the full recognition of the rights of women is still a goal to be achieved" and "examine the dangers that relativistic thinking poses for the future of human rights". Yet the anti-life/anti-family organisations that Mrs Blair has endorsed all believe abortion to be a universal human right yet to be achieved, and are the world's leading promoters of the very same relativistic thinking which endangers the future of human rights. The Cherie-endorsed IPPF and FPA UK both endorsed the failed campaign to remove the Holy See from the United Nations. (Mrs Blair is pictured above cutting a special 75th anniversary birthday cake for FPA and offering the cameraman a condom.)

Mrs. Blair's failure to defend Catholic pro-life teaching is explained by her strong, personal endorsement of anti-life/anti-family organisations. She has said explicitly on a number of occasions that she rejects Catholic teaching on sexual morals. And when asked in May by the Catholic Herald newspaper what she thought of her husband's voting record in favour of abortion, she was reportedly stuck for an answer, saying: "I think that...", pausing before replying: "I don't think I want to answer that."

Some people may say withdrawing the invitation to Mrs Blair would be to suppress academic freedom. The good of academic freedom is not absolute, nor it is equal to the good of human life and its defence. There is a massive difference between Catholics researching the anti-life/anti-family movement in order to combat its arguments, and giving a platform to an active supporter of the anti-life/anti-family movement, a platform which she (or he) can use to espouse those arguments. The truth of the sanctity of human life is not a relative concept, to be equated with the anti-truth of abortion, as if the former was just an opinion and the latter a viewpoint one may dislike.

In any case, there are many other experts on women and rights whom the Angelicum could invite instead, who are totally pro-life and pro-family. Just because a speaker has expert knowledge in a particular area doesn't mean all other considerations are irrelevant. Why not invite Osama bin Laden to speak on Middle East politics or pro-infanticide bioethicist Peter Singer to speak on neo-natal medicine?

Dietrich von Hildebrand, the Catholic intellectual, wrote a popular book entitled "Trojan Horse in the City of God", which explained how certain figures were undermining the Church from within. I can think of no better description of Cherie Blair (or her husband). Defenders of life and family must re-double the pressure upon the Angelicum to withdraw Mrs Blair's invitation. You can contact the following relevant persons at the Angelicum:

Sister Helen Alford O.P, dean of the Angelicum's Faculty of Social Sciences
Email alford@pust.urbe.it
Tel +39 06 67 02 353

The Angelicum's Faculty of Social Sciences
Email fass@pust.urbe.it
Tel: +39 06 67 02 402, fax +39 06 67 02 417

The Angelicum's secretariat, email segreteria@pust.urbe.it

You may also like to contact His Eminence Zenon Cardinal Grocholewski, Prefect of the Congregation for Catholic Education:

by fax: +39 06 69 88 41 72
by post: Congregation for Catholic Education, Palazzo della Congregazioni, Piazza Pio XII 3, 00193 Roma, Italia

Concern about government plans to clarify the suicide law

It has been reported that the government plans to use its Coroners and Justice bill to clarify the law on assisted suicide. SPUC is calling on the government to give an assurance that its plans are limited to its stated aims of preventing the online promotion of suicide and suicide methods. We are concerned that radical, so-called right-to-die MPs or peers - urged on by media coverage for assertions that some elderly people have a so-called duty to die - might seek to use the bill to weaken the legal protection of the right to life. We are therefore also calling upon the government and parliamentarians to block any attempts to use the Coroners and Justice bill to weaken in any way the Suicide Act 1961 and the existing legal prohibition on assisted suicide.

FPA DVD for schoolchildren is a glorified advertisement for abortion

Fiorella Nash (pictured) has sent me the following review:

"The Family Planning Association (FPA) in the UK has produced a DVD entitled Why Abortion?, intended for schoolchildren as young as 14. In some respects it contains few surprises. The scenarios used in the DVD are intended to portray abortion as a sensible, altruistic decision, whilst the arguments against abortion are not mentioned at all. Pro-lifers are demonised as angry, sneering individuals who wave banners displaying the word 'Murderers', or who accuse their friends of being murderers when they announce that they have had an abortion. An accompanying leaflet claims that 'in countries where abortion is legal, some individuals and groups violently oppose abortion. 'In one scenario, a religious girl who has always been pro-life declares to her pro-life boyfriend: 'It’s not about beliefs and ideals any more, it’s about realities. I just don’t want this baby', whilst the group of teenage commentators argue that 'churches shouldn’t moralise or dictate', 'no matter what your religion you have to do what’s right for you' and 'you never know how you’re going to feel about something like this until it happens.'

"Pro-life doctors come off worst of all. Young people are asked: 'Some doctors and nurses are anti-choice. Is it okay for them to promote their personal, moral viewpoints?' Not one of the teenagers in the scripted discussion supports the pro-life position. The reasons why doctors refuse to be involved with abortion are not explained. Women are encouraged to check the views of doctors beforehand and 'vote with their feet.'

"Young people are warned about pro-life counselling services. The DVD is peppered with the usual arguments for abortion, backstreet abortion (see some counter-arguments here), a woman’s right to choose etc, with no attempt being made at all throughout the DVD to confront the real moral arguments surrounding abortion. Prenatal development is not mentioned once, and the potential risk of breast cancer and post-abortion trauma are dismissed as 'myths', as is the fact that so-called emergency contraception is abortifacient.

"Most insidiously, the DVD was developed in Northern Ireland, and the teenage commentators are clearly based in Northern Ireland to give the impression that the people of Northern Ireland want the Abortion Act extended there, when the reality is completely different. The lack of abortion on demand in Northern Ireland is portrayed as a crass injustice, rather than the will of the people to protect life.

"This so-called resource contains information on private abortion facilities such as BPAS, which constitutes little more than product placement in the classroom. In an all-too characteristic display of hypocrisy, this glorified advertising campaign for abortion is dressed up as 'balanced and accurate information' designed 'to contribute to a more open and less judgemental debate'. Parents must fight this DVD being shown at their children’s schools as a matter of urgency."

Tony Blair continues to manipulate the Catholic Church

Tony Blair has written an article in the latest edition of The Tablet, which describes itself as an "international Catholic weekly". The article's subject is the work of Mr Blair's Faith Foundation in promoting the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). Mr Blair neglects to tell Tablet readers that his government interpreted the MDGs to include a universal right to abortion on demand which, along with other anti-life policies he pursued, he has refused to repudiate since being received into the Catholic Church (see below). Mr Blair quotes Cardinal Oscar Rodríguez who has said that "the needless deaths of nearly 10 million children a year are an abomination that cannot be tolerated". Cardinal Rodriguez was referring to the deaths of born children from disease. Interestingly, Mr Blair does not quote Cardinal Rodriguez's call for life and the family made to politicians and legislators in 1996, the year before Mr Blair became prime minister:

"Abortion is a primordial evil and one of the fundamental problems of our age ... We call for a massive international effort by politicians and legislators in favour of human life ... We call for legal protection for the unborn child from the moment of conception. We recommend unequivocal pro-life legislation on embryo experimentation and genetic engineering ... We call for an end to the 'contraceptive imperialism' of population control promoted with the use of abortion, sterilization and contraception."

Nor does Mr Blair quote what Cardinal Rodriguez said about politicians who support abortion, shortly before Mr Blair was received into the Catholic Church in 2007:

"A politician who publicly supports abortion, he excommunicates himself ... [T]hat person himself is doing an act that is inconsistent with what he says he believes. That is, we're talking about a person who...is doing something that is a lie."

Since being received into the Catholic Church shortly after leaving office, Mr Blair has refused even to comment upon, let alone repudiate, the swathe of anti-life laws and policies he supported as prime minister and as a parliamentarian.

Mr Blair goes on to praise Pope Paul VI's encyclical Populorum Progressio on international development. Yet Mr Blair makes no reference to certain other of Paul VI's words:

• "It is inadmissible that those who have control of the wealth and resources of mankind should try to resolve the problem of hunger by forbidding the poor to be born." (address to UN Food and Agriculture Organisation, 1974)
• "[I] declare that the direct interruption of the generative process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children." (Humanae Vitae, 1968)
• "[W]hatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia or wilful self-destruction...are infamies indeed. They poison human society" (Gaudium et Spes, 1965)

Mr Blair explains the Faith Acts Fellowship programme that his Faith Foundation is running in partnership with the InterFaith Youth Core, but neglects to inform Tablet readers that the Interfaith Youth Core is bankrolled by pro-abortion foundations and that the Faith Acts Fellowship works with World Vision, which is calling for abortion on demand to be legalised in the world's poorest nations. Mr Blair says the programme's fellows will need "compassion in the face of needless suffering and death" - yet what compassion has Mr Blair shown for the needless suffering and death of the unborn and the vulnerable caused by the laws and policies he promoted?

Mr Blair, stretching to his full moral stature, preaches to us: "[S]ins of omission can vary in their gravity, and the worst can be more grievously damaging than sins of commission." Indeed - omitting to repudiate anti-life laws and policies for which one is mainly and personally responsible, and refusing to witness to the sanctity of human life.

Mr Blair predictably reminds Tablet readers that "countering climate change [is] the greatest moral challenge of this century." So, Mr Blair, is countering climate change the greatest moral challenge of this century, or abortion? Was Pope John Paul II wrong to tell pro-life leader Fr Paul Marx that he was "doing the most important work on earth"?

Tony Blair, and his anti-life wife, is undermining the faith of the church into which he has been received.

Supposing Tony Blair had pursued throughout his political career, policies in support of killing bishops or the lay faithful of, say, the Catholic Church or the Anglican Communion? And, supposing, having been received into the Catholic Church, he refused to repudiate such policies? Would The Tablet give him free rein to present his thinking on religious matters? If not, why not? What distinctions does The Tablet draw between unborn children and the respect due to their right to life, and the right to life of Catholic and Anglican bishops and lay faithful?

Urge Catholic university to withdraw Cherie Blair invitation

Cherie Blair (pictured) has been invited to speak next week at a conference on women and rights organised by the Pontifical University of St Thomas, otherwise known as the Angelicum, one of the world's leading Catholic universities.

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. Mrs Blair has endorsed CEDAW (the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women), specifically mentioning CEDAW's affirmation of women's so-called 'reproductive rights', which is both a technical term and a euphemism for abortion on demand. The CEDAW convention and the committee which implements it are the vehicles for one of the most radical pro-abortion campaigns ever. Mrs Blair has also endorsed the radical pro-abortion organisations the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), the Family Planning Association (FPA) UK and Human Rights Watch. (Mrs Blair is pictured here at FPA's 75th birthday party, where she cut a special birthday cake.) 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 has been invited to speak, not just at a pontifical university in Rome, but at a conference on women and rights. What about the rights of the countless unborn girls killed because of the pro-abortion groups Mrs Blair has endorsed? What about the countless millions of women suffering from post-abortion trauma?

Organisations associated with the Catholic Church (or indeed any group, religious or secular, opposed to abortion) should not invite Mrs Blair (or her husband) to their events. I urge people to contact the Angelicum immediately to protest against Mrs Blair's invitation and demand it be withdrawn. You can contact the following relevant persons at the Angelicum:

• the organising secretariat of the conference, email convegno@pust.urbe.it
• the deanery of the faculty of social sciences, email fass@pust.urbe.it
• the secretariat of the university, email segreteria@pust.urbe.it

You may also like to contact His Eminence Zenon Cardinal Grocholewski, Prefect of the Congregation for Catholic Education:

• by fax: +39 06 69 88 41 72
• by post: Congregation for Catholic Education, Palazzo della Congregazioni, Piazza Pio XII 3, 00193 Roma, Italia

Hillary Clinton's appointment tops unprecedented pro-abortion line-up

The appointment of Hillary Clinton as US Secretary of State is confirmation that Barack Obama's administration will be the most anti-life in American history. In addition to Mrs Clinton's appointment and other anti-life Obama appointments which I blogged about recently, Mr Obama has appointed:

Susan Rice, who worked in Bill Clinton's anti-life administration, to be a US ambassador to the United Nations

Ellen Moran, executive director of pro-abortion group EMILY's List, to be White House director of communications

Dawn Johnsen, former legal director of pro-abortion group NARAL, to be a member of his Department of Justice Review Team.

It is therefore incredibly appropriate that Pope Benedict's prayer intention for this month is: "That, faced by the growing expansion of the culture of violence and death, the Church may courageously promote the culture of life through all her apostolic and missionary activities."

Courage means, for both Catholic and non-Catholic pro-lifers, not engaging in woolly wishful thinking that fails to oppose Mr Obama's pro-abortion government, naively allayed by his vague election-time promises to find "common ground" with pro-lifers in order to reduce abortions. Supposing Barack Obama supported the killing of, say, Catholic nuns ... Would right-minded citizens feel inclined to accept vague assurances that he would work with opponents of such killings in order to lower their incidence - whilst simultaneously promising to sign into law a draconian measure designed to extend such killings? What is the difference between the humanity and human rights of unborn children and Catholic nuns?

After the infamous Munich agreement in May 1938, Adolf Hitler said that he had no further territorial claims to make in Europe -and then went on to invade and control huge swathes of Europe. Hitler's words at Munich were believed by many wishful thinkers at the time, even though Hitler had set out clearly in Mein Kampf his belief that it was essential for Germany to occupy eastern Europe. Mr Obama has set out clearly his intention to sign the Freedom of Choice Act (FOCA) as his first deed as president, and to reverse the pro-life gains made under the Bush administration - yet some wishful thinkers, Chamberlain-like, remain in denial.

Many Germans of Hitler's time, and many people across the world, will have loved J.S. Bach's Advent chorale Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme (Sleepers, wake, the voice calls us). This Advent, let's rouse all those people we know are sleeping in apathy to awake and respond to Pope Benedict's call to courageously promote the culture of life.

Abortion increases risk of mental health problems says new 30 year study

According to a 30-year study published in the British Journal of Psychiatry abortion increases the risk of mental health disorders, whereas other pregnancy outcomes are not related to an increased risk of mental health problems. The researchers say: " ... abortion was associated with a small increase in the risk of mental disorders; women who had had abortions had rates of mental disorders that were about 30% higher. There were no consistent associations between other pregnancy outcomes and mental health. Estimates of attributable risk indicated that exposure to abortion accounted for 1.5% to 5.5% of the overall rate of mental disorders".

Britain's "apartheid" is still reflected in the killing of Down's syndrome babies

There has recently been a lot of press coverage rejoicing over the supposed fact that more babies with Down's syndrome are being born now than at any time since widespread pre-natal testing began in 1989. The claim made is that the trend towards aborting increasing number of babies with the syndrome has now been reversed. The articles in various national newspapers have suggested that this is because British society's increasing acceptance of allowing such babies to be born.

While this sounds like very good news, it has to be tempered with a very large dose of caution.

Just over two years ago, the Down's Syndrome Association pointed out that 62 per cent of all Down's syndrome cases are diagnosed while still in the womb and 92 per cent these babies are aborted.

And Rosa Monckton, who (with her husband Dominic Lawson) has a daughter Domenica, aged 13, who has Down's syndrome (both pictured above) sounded a cautionary note in her article in the Daily Mail (26th November 2008). She says: "These are the figures: in 1989 there were 717 babies born with Down's syndrome, and in 2006 there were 749. This does not seem to be to be such a huge sea change ... "

Whilst well over half of babies with Down's Syndrome are sought out before birth, and then the vast majority of those are killed, British attitudes towards the disabled, including the parents and families of the disabled, born and unborn, arguably remain as enlightened as those towards the majority population in South Africa under apartheid.

Sick abortion group demeans Christmas to promote more child killing

The British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), one of Britain's main abortion promoters and providers, will be supplying morning-after pills free of charge this Christmas and sending women a Christmas pack containing the morning-after pill, condoms and leaflets. BPAS is promoting its campaign with sexually suggestive advertising which demeans Christmas and women. It is a despicable ploy which threatens unborn children, promotes promiscuity, undermines public health and insults the child-centred meaning of Christmas. The offensive sexual innuendo linked to Santa Claus is evidence of BPAS's morally bankrupt status.

A pattern has emerged of hard-core pro-abortion groups and associated companies insulting religious and other sensitivities and thereby generating extra publicity for their child-killing, women-abusing businesses. Planned Parenthood of Indiana, United States, are also running a Christmas campaign, selling gift cards and promoting them with the message: "Why not buy a loved one a gift this holiday season that they really need?" - a reference to abortion and birth control drugs and devices. In 2004 Schering, the manufacturers of the Levonelle brand of morning-after pills, ran a pre-Christmas campaign in 2004 entitled "Immaculate Contraception", which it withdrew following pressure from SPUC supporters and others.

The offensive nature of these messages reflect the offensive nature of abortion. In contrast, pictured is a real meaning of Christmas, positive and loving; centred on a child (Jesus), his mother (Mary), their family (represented here by St John the Baptist, who leapt for joy in his mother's womb at the presence of his relative the embryonic child Jesus) and their friends (represented here by St Nicholas, the real Santa Claus).

A more hopeful vision for Ireland

Here is the second part of Anthony Ozimic's (SPUC's political secretary) report from Ireland:

"Following Monday night's debate at University College Cork, UCC Students for Life organised a meeting, hosted by Kathy Sinnott MEP. The meeting was introduced by Jacinta Daly (pictured left), who reminded the audience that unethical embryo research is restricted not only in Ireland, but also in other countries e.g. Germany. The speakers were introduced by Mary O'Regan (pictured right), who said the issue of abortion touched her even as a seven-year-old during the 1992 Irish abortion referendum.

"William Reville (pictured), associate professor of biochemistry at UCC, explained in-depth the science and the ethics of stem cell research. He pointed out how arbitrary it is to conclude that humanity only starts at some point later than conception. He also said that history of medical research suggests embryonic stem cell research may never work even after many decades and trillions of dollars are spent on it. The newly-discovered ethical alternative technology of induced pluripotent stem cells is far more promising and is already being enhanced.

"I described (pictured) the universal calling to be pro-life as positive, inclusive and in harmony with today's concerns for a better future based on human rights. (I had also spoken to students on Sunday night in Hull, northern England, where I shared the same vision from within a Catholic theological perspective.) I also encouraged the audience to sign and/or promote the scientists' and physicians' declaration promoted by Amnesty for Babies.

"Kathy Sinnott MEP (pictured) started by referring to her own miscarriage in earlier life, and that women naturally know their early or unimplanted embryos to be babies. She explained how destructive embryo research has little to do with embryology but a lot to do with vested commercial and academic interests, and gave advice on how pro-lifers could oppose UCC's decision to allow embryonic stem cell research.

"In conclusion, Tuesday's meeting presented a far more hopeful vision for Ireland than the one offered by Baroness Warnock during Monday night's debate."

Warnock tells the Irish - Destructive research on human embryos a moral duty

Anthony Ozimic, SPUC political secretary, sends the following report from Ireland:

"On Monday night University College Cork (UCC) Philosophical Society held a debate on the motion "That this House supports UCC's decision to use embryonic stem cell research." The catalyst for the motion was the decision by UCC to conduct embryonic stem cell research using surplus IVF embryos. Among others, the society had invited Baroness (Mary) Warnock to speak. Prior to the debate, the projection screen (pictured) advertised a forthcoming debate about the 1916 Easter Rising, subtitled: "Wanted: for crimes against the Irish State", which I felt neatly summed what many Irish feel about the influence of British and other foreign anti-lifers in Ireland!

Baroness Warnock (pictured) said that:

• there is an “absolute moral obligation” to conduct embryonic stem cell research, and a scientist who chose not to conduct it would be "failing in their moral duty". I think we can see in this claim a clear threat to conscientious objection.
• UCC's decision to allow embryonic stem cell research is means Ireland is "at the beginning”. Of the slippery slope?
• there was “no precise moment” at which a human embryo becomes a human. This is a really pathetic argument, so amateur that it would be laughed at in any other field.
• human-animal hybrid embryos are not hybrid animals because they won’t be implanted and therefore won't develop into animals. Her claim mirrors the bizarre idea that only a human being which is viable (i.e. likely to live) constitutes human life, and therefore non-viable human beings are only potential life. This idea would justify the killing of the terminally-ill, which Baroness Warnock is notorious for promoting also.
• embryonic stem cells are better than adult stem cells because they are able to turn into all 200 tissue-types of the human body. Such totipotency, however, is in fact a disadvantage, because it makes embryonic stem cells uncontrollable.

Also speaking in the favour of the motion was Dr Tom Moore (pictured), the scientist who is conducting embryonic stem cell research at UCC. Among other things, Dr Moore said:

• everyone is agreed that all forms of stem cells hold enormous potential. This is a completely misleading claim, as years of human embryonic stem cell research have failed to benefit even one patient, and this absence of results may well be because it has no intrinsic potential. In fact, Dr Moore contradicted himself later when he admitted that embryonic stem cells were too dangerous to use in therapy and could only be used as a research model.
• there is no reason why Ireland should not allow embryonic stem cell research using surplus IVF embryos, because Ireland already allows IVF and the morning-after pill (which Dr Moore pointed out was abortifacient), as well as allowing the use of cells from foetuses aborted overseas. In fact, he said that destructive experimentation upon embryos is an inevitable part of IVF.
• the knowledge of how to reprogramme adult cells was gained, and could only have been gained, through embryonic stem cell research. What Dr Moore didn't tell the audience was that this knowledge was gained not through using human embryos but mouse embryos. In any case, as Dr James Sherley has pointed out, embryonic stem cells are not only unnecessary but not helpful for learning about adult cell reprogramming.

Dr Donal O Mathuna (pictured right), Professor Tommy McCarthy (pictured below), and others in the floor debate later, spoke valiantly in defence of embryonic children. They highlighted how anti-life bioethicists have manipulated public consultation in Ireland in order to bolster and promote the failed science of destructive embryo research. Sadly the motion was carried by about two to one."

Family Planning Association does Government's and Connexions' dirty work

The Daily Telegraph reports today that schoolgirls as young as 14 could be forced to watch a film that teaches them they have the right to choose an abortion.

This is worrying because a review of FPA's educational material on abortion shows it to be an insult to women, particularly to women who have had an abortion.

I will get hold of a copy of the FPA's film as soon as I can and let readers know whether there's been any improvement.

However, in teaching children under the age of 16 about how to access abortion, the FPA is doing the work of the government. In its "Best Practice Guidance for doctors and other health professionals on the provision of advice and treatment to young people under 16 on contraception, sexual and reproductive health", the Department of Health says:

"Doctors and health professionals have a duty of care and a duty of confidentiality to all patients, including under 16s. This guidance applies to the provision of advice and treatment on contraception, sexual and reproductive health, including abortion ... The benefits of informing their GP and the case for discussion with a parent or carer. Any refusal should be respected. In the case of abortion, where the young woman is competent to consent but cannot be persuaded to involve a parent, every effort should be made to help them find another adult to provide support, for example another family member or specialist youth worker."

This is exactly the message that Connexions advisers are trained* to deliver in our nation's secondary schools.

*Young People and Sexual Health, A Reader for those participating in the Connexions training programme. Let me know if you want a copy. Contact me at johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk

Bishop prepared to sacrifice his life to end abortion

Bishop Robert Hermann of St Louis, Missouri, drew applause from his brother-bishops when he stated at a recent meeting: “I think any bishop here would consider it a privilege to die tomorrow to bring about an end to abortion."

Explaining his comments to a journalist afterwards, he added: “Very simply: If American youth are willing to go to war and lay their life down to defend our freedoms, then every bishop should be willing to give up his life, if it meant putting an end to abortion.

"And if we're willing to do that, then we should be totally fearless of promoting this cause without being concerned about political correctness, without trying to build coalitions with pro-choice people."

I applaud this courageous stand - spoken like a true man of God and expressed in terms which merit careful attention. We should all be prepared to lay down our lives for the sake of the most innocent rather than do deals which hand over the innocent for destruction.

"I drove my daughter to the abortion clinic like a lamb to the slaughterhouse ... "

Here's a story in the press which, for once, tells the unvarnished truth about abortion - and, in particular, about abortion on a girl of 12. Let's get this story to every school in Britain in the light of the government's abortion policy for the under-16s which is likely to stepped up in the months ahead.

It begins:

"TEARS FLOWED freely in Gordon House yesterday during a gripping presentation by a foreigner, now living in Jamaica, who recounted a tale of how she forced her daughter to carry out an abortion.

"She has been haunted by the grave decision more than two decades later. Members of the public seated in the gallery and even parliamentary staff were moved to tears following the touching submission to the joint select committee considering the report of the Abortion Policy Review Group.

"Anne Arthur, a grief counsellor, was overcome with emotion as she shared the story with the committee of how her instructions to abort her then '12-week-old granddaughter' had left an indelible scar on her mind.

"'I drove my daughter to the abortion clinic like a lamb to the slaughterhouse, against her will', she lamented ... " Read the full story here. We need to get this tragic story to every school in the country, including faith schools which are also hit by the government's abortion policy, as the government & sex education establishment intensify their efforts to provide confidential abortion and birth control advice and services to schoolchildren under the age of 16.

Vultures gather for America's new dawn

Barack Obama announced a new dawn for America. It's a dawn that millions of Americans and countless millions around the world may never be born to see - as a direct result of his policies. Check out the following stories - which represent a small sample of the news emerging in recent weeks:

Activists hope Obama acts on abortion rights

Obama selects vocal pro-abortion leader as Communications Director

Condoms trump abstinence in Obama global AIDS policy

Obama Names Pro-Abortion Lawyer, Ex-NARAL Staffer to Judicial Team

Obama picks abortion supporter Daschle to head HHS

Pro-life resistance must be strong as Obama appoints anti-lifers

The vultures are gathering for America's new dawn.

Zero tolerance for pro-life dissent is on the cards in Europe and must be resisted

These are very dangerous times for families, unborn children and other vulnerable people in Europe. I blogged in September on how the rights articulated in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are under threat in the continent. Pro-life and pro-family campaigners must expect to see the publication of documents, funded by the European Union, which promote abortion, euthanasia and other anti-life and anti-family practices - with a special emphasis on zero tolerance for dissent.

• Last week the United Nations published a report promoting the legalization worldwide of immediate access to abortion services
• Prominent Catholic figures such as Cherie Blair, the wife of Tony Blair, the former British Prime Minister, endorses the radical pro-abortion agenda of the United Nations - and Tony Blair, who refuses to repudiate his political record on pro-life matters despite his reception into the Catholic Church, has founded the Tony Blair Faith Foundation which has deep pro-abortion roots as I reported in October; strongly pro-abortion US vice-president, Joe Biden, is also a Catholic who uses his position to misrepresent church teaching on abortion as "a personal and private matter" of religious faith
• Morten Kjaerum, the first director of the EU Agency for Fundamental Human Rights, was a member of the EU Network of Independent Experts which published a Legal Opinion challenging the right of medical professionals to conscientiously object to certain practices such as abortion and seeking, without any foundation, to promote the "right" to abortion. The objective of the Agency is to provide EU member states and institutions assistance and expertise on fundamental rights.
• The EU Network's Legal Opinion (to which I refer above), prepared at the request of the EU Commission on the right to conscientious objection, links rights relating to sexual orientation to other supposed rights, including the “right” to abortion and the “right” to euthanasia and assisted suicide. The document quotes, in part, the Diversity and Equality Guidelines of the Catholic bishops of England and Wales in a generally approving way. The bishops’ guidelines and the EU experts’ document clearly agree that, subject to limited and narrow exceptions, Catholic organisations must ensure that no job applicant or employee receives less favourable treatment than another on the grounds of sexual orientation.
• UK Fundamental Rights Reports (FRALEX) has won a contract to advise the EU Fundamental Rights Agency. According to Public Interest Law Network (PILN), in its February edition, most of the previous members of the radically pro-abortion/anti-life/anti-family EU Network of Independent Experts combined to bid successfully for the FRALEX contract.
• Professor Michael O'Flaherty (pictured above) is joint co-director of the Human Rights Law Centre which forms part of FRALEX. He was rapporteur to the meeting which produced the infamous Yogyakarta principles which, amonst other things, called on States to "ensure that all sexual and reproductive health, education, prevention, care and treatment programmes and services respect the diversity of sexual orientations and gender identities, and are equally available to all without discrimination"; according to the World Health Organisation's definition "sexual and reproductive health" services includes the provision of abortion on demand
• EU "experts" like Professor Michael O'Flaherty and the FRALEX team will doubtless be gleefully awaiting Barack Obama keeping his pledge 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.

As I've mentioned before, we need to build a powerful, peaceful resistance movement to anti-life policies pursued by governments. Silence, or worse still, complicity with anti-life and anti-family policies are not only not an option - they must be vigorously opposed by those most intimately concerned and most directly threatened: mothers and fathers throughout Europe and their families.

Barbarous acts promoted through The Times again

A rather disturbing eugenicist article by Matthew Syed appeared in yesterday's Times newspaper. (I have blogged before about the radically anti-life agenda which The Times has been pursuing recently.) Mr Syed said, among other things, that:

• "the belief that humanity is the ultimate expression of moral worth" is absurd;
• "anthropocentric reasons" are not "moral reasons";
• while "animals and humans are importantly different" (Mr Syed doesn't explain how) we humans have a "preposterously overblown sense of species pride";
• "blurring the distinction between humans and animals [is] a positive blessing";
• "the human genome is [not] ethically special" and that "humans are precious ... because of our capacities, not our genes".

Mr Syed's motivation for his assault on the sanctity of human is clear from some of this other comments, that:

• through human genetic engineering "[i]t may be possible to enhance capacities such as perception, intelligence, even lifespan", and hopefully "of enjoying life free from disease";
• genetic engineering of human beings is no morally different to natural means of improving children's exam results;
• "we can have no principled objection to even radical genetic modifications providing that they improve lives or reduce suffering";
• there is no moral difference between creating human-animal hybrids and transplanting animal organs into humans.

On that last point, Mr Syed has confused the adding to a whole human being of a small amount of tissue containing animal genes - an action which doesn't change the recipient's totally human genetic identity - with the creation of a new being of a genetic identity which is dubious (more or less depending on the extent of the human-animal mixing).

More generally, Mr Syed should be told that the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights was created three years after the second world war because "disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind" (preamble). And which barbarous acts did the declaration's authors particularly have in mind? The ones which had only just ended, those perpetrated by Nazism. Those barbarous acts included medical experiments (pictured) aimed at enhancing human capacities, in which certain groups of human beings were treated worse than animals. In Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler argued that it is essential for human progress that some humans be treated worse than animals:

"[F]or the formation of higher cultures the existence of lower human types was one of the most essential preconditions, since they alone were able to compensate for the lack of technical aids without which a higher development is not conceivable. It is certain that the first culture of humanity was based less on the tamed animal than on the use of lower human beings ... Only pacifistic fools can regard this as a sign of human depravity."

In debates about euthanasia and assisted suicide, it is sometimes argued that it should be allowed for suffering humans to be put down, just as it is allowed for suffering animals to be put down. (I have blogged before about the danger to humans of equating humans and animals.) It is interesting to note that:

• the German euthanasia programme, in which those deemed to lack adequate physical or mental capacities were put down, was started by eugenicists before the Nazis came to power;
• the Nazi regime actively promoted assisted suicide e.g. through a propaganda fiction film centered on the woman with multiple sclerosis (like Debbie Purdy and her husband);
• Hitler himself issued the first order for a so-called mercy killing on request (a father had petitioned for his disabled son to be killed);
  
• the use of gas in Auschwitz was a direct import and extension of the euthanasia programme (the gassings were described as "medical matters" in one war-crimes trial).

In conclusion, if we are going to uphold human rights and avoid more repetitions of the barbarous acts of the last century, we must must everywhere condemn the transhumanism of Mr Syed and his eugenicist ilk.

Pro-life resistance must be strong as Obama appoints anti-lifers

Barack Obama is reported to have made several appointments to his forthcoming administration:

• Tom Daschle (pictured with Obama) as secretary of health and human services. Mr Daschle is strongly anti-life, and, like all too many anti-life politicians, is a Catholic.
• Alto Charo, a bioethicist, also to the health and human services department. Charo has described pro-life beliefs as "the endarkenment" (the opposite of the Enlightenment).
• Rahm Emanuel, an anti-life Democrat congressman, as chief of staff.

It has been suggested that pro-lifers seek a rapprochement with anti-life governments like the future Obama administration, on the basis of those governments' alleged desire to promote better health care, welfare, adoption and other services for expectant mothers. Don't be fooled: it's a ploy to neutralise pro-life criticism of anti-life governments. It's also a way of caricaturing the pro-life movement as only being interested in moralising rather than actually helping people and changing public opinion. The pro-life movement, individual pro-lifers and the faith communities to which they belong, have been caring for decades for expectant mothers, as well as educating the public, passing laws, reforming policies and doing many other things which have served to reduce the likely numbers of abortions. The right response to anti-life governments' policies and legislation is ever-stronger resistance to the culture of death - the kind of resistance personified, for example, by the courageous politicians and people of Northern Ireland who by means of intelligent and determined opposition have succeeded, for over four decades, in stopping the imposition of the Abortion Act on the Province by the UK Parliament.

Euthanasia lobby rumbled in Lords debate

In a House of Lords debate yesterday, an attempt by the pro-euthanasia lobby to mislead people was rumbled by parliamentarians opposed to assisted suicide. "Dignity in Dying" (the euphemism which the Voluntary Euthanasia Society now uses for itself) has produced a charter, ostensibly on end-of-life care but thinly veiling its immediate objective of legalising intentional killing of the innocent. Anthony Ozimic, SPUC political secretary (pictured below), provides below a run-down of the debate:

"The debate was led by Lord Warner (pictured above), a former Labour health minister. Lord Warner started by declaring that he is a member of the British Humanist Association (BHA). That name sounds benign, even positive, but the BHA is a radical anti-life, anti-family campaigning organisation, headed by Polly Toynbee, Britain's leading pro-abortion commentator.

"Lord Warner said that assisted suicide 'should be available to us in a civilised society'. Suicide, however, is not civilised but often a hallmark of societies where human life and intrinsic human dignity have little or no value, such as ancient Rome and Nazi Germany.

"Lord Warner, and Lord Dubs later in the debate, said that it was a matter of not denying people choice. Yet some choices are wrong. Some choices are false choices, because one has no right to choose to do certain things, such as killing the innocent, including oneself. Lord Warner's rhetoric is the same empty rhetoric of choice used by the pro-abortion lobby.

"The Earl of Arran claimed that allowing assisted suicide would provide 'greater protection for the vulnerable'. Allowing assisted suicide, however, will undermine protection for everyone, both the vulnerable and those of us not currently vulnerable, by lessening the value of human life.

"Lord Lester used a well-worn tactic deployed by anti-lifers, by claiming that the law on end-of-life treatment needs clarifying.

"Lord Hameed, a Muslim, pointed out that Islam and many other world religions both prohibit suicide and require doctors to care for patients regardless of terminal illness.

"The Anglican bishop of Exeter said: 'For many—and I declare an interest as a parent of a Down’s syndrome child—the promise of more choice has so often turned out to mean pressure to choose that which suits others'. He added that a law to allow assisted suicide 'by definition, would involve the state in affirming the view of an individual life as intolerable and not worth living'.

"Baroness Jay let the euthanasia lobby’s mask slip by referring to 'medically assisted suicide', rather the 'assisted dying' euphemism.

"Baroness Murphy claimed that '[a] change in the law to allow assisted dying … would immeasurably improve the trust that patients have in their doctors'. Yet when assisted suicide was legalised briefly in the Northern Territory, Australia, aborginals feared going to doctors or hospitals for fear of being killed.

"Baroness Knight, a veteran of the pro-life movement, led the charge in rumbling the euthanasia lobby:

“'Let there be no doubt whatever about the aims of those who are trumpeting this cause today … [The Voluntary Euthanasia Society] is trying to fool us … What we are actually talking about is encouraging people to kill themselves and, worse, opening the way for relatives to get elderly and sick people out of the way … [I]t is very easy to give an old lady or old gentleman the impression that their continued existence leads to great problems and great expense for their sons and daughters … Terminally ill but mentally competent people will, if the true aims of the Voluntary Euthanasia Society are realised, submit themselves to a lethal injection or a fatal dose, when it is made clear to them in a subtle or direct way that it is time that they shuffled off this mortal coil for the general good.'

"Baroness Finlay, a palliative care professor, assisted Baroness Knight:

“'The pro-euthanasia lobby’s approach in this document is reminiscent of Orwell’s 1984 and the Ministry of Truth … Why is the euphemism “assisted death” used? Midwives assist at birth and palliative care assists at death; assistance is supportive help, not accelerating death or cutting life short by months or years. Why not be honest? What are the authors of this document frightened of? What they are really proposing is aiding and abetting suicide or giving doctors a therapeutic option of killing their patients. Palliative and other end-of-life care is being used like bubble-wrap around a sharp and dangerous object in an attempt to assisted suicide by the back door.'

"Lady Finlay argued that '[p]atients die of their disease and deserve good care and support, not shortcuts in care to end life'.She also pointed out that '[i]n Oregon, one in six of those whose suicides were assisted had their depression missed by those assessing the request'.

"Lord Carlile QC asked: 'Do we not have to look at end of life with a quite different set of ethical values? If you assist a thief, the stolen goods can be returned. If you assist a suicide, only the body can be returned; there is no going back'.

"Baroness Emerton joined the assault on the euthanasia lobby, arguing that assisted suicide 'is not a health issue at all. It is one of justice and human rights—the right to life. None of us can escape death but we must have the right to have healthcare provided free from the risk of coercion to suicide.' She also pointed out the euthanasia lobby's 'sleight of hand' in trying to conceal its assisted suicide agenda within a charter on palliative care.

"Baroness Masham, president of the Spinal Injuries Association, reminded the House that '[t]here are only a few people who want to be assisted to be killed, but there are thousands of vulnerable disabled people who fear that if the law is eased, their lives will be put at risk'.

"Baroness Greengross potentially misled the House by claiming that:

“'Those who want to see, in exceptional circumstances, people openly being able to be helped to die are not seeking premature death for anyone; it should happen only at the very last stage of life when people are in intolerable pain.'

"But the whole point of assisted suicide is to bring about death prematurely. Lord Joffe's bill, which is due to be re-introduced, doesn’t just allow assisted suicide 'at the very last stage of life' but where a doctor predicts the patient has up to six months left to live. As we know, terminally-ill patients often live much longer than expected. Lady Greengross, Lord Taverne speaking before her and Lord Lester speaking earlier all misrepresented both the use of pain-relief and the principle of double-effect. Lord McColl, the Conservative health spokesman, rebutted those misrepresentations deftly later in the debate: 'The definition of a good drug such as a pain-relieving drug is that the dose required to relieve is a fraction of the dose required to kill'.

"Baroness Greengross also referred to people 'losing their dignity at the end of life'. But every human being, regardless of age or medical condition, has an inalienable and inherent dignity simply because they’re human. The effects of age or illness cannot touch that dignity, and are addressed by medical treatment and personal care.

"Baroness Howe of Idlicote argued that Baroness Warnock’s recent comments proposing a duty to die were proof of the slippery slope.

"Baroness (Jenny) Tonge described a lady in the advanced stage of motor neurone disease as 'helpless'.But no patient is helpless, even where medical treatment is no longer possible. If (as one hopes and assumes) the lady is receiving basic nursing and palliative care, pastoral attention, and the love of family and friends, then she is being helped, in ways often more important than medical treatment.

"Lord McColl presented the testimony of Alison Davis, convenor of No Less Human, a group within SPUC, whose outstanding life would have been cut short if assisted suicide had been available during her suicidal depression many years ago.

"Baroness Thornton, wrapping up the debate on behalf of the government, said:

“'[T]he Government have no plans to change the law in this area and we have it made very clear that we take a neutral stance when others seek to change the law. This means not standing in the way of such a change, but not actively pursuing it. Equally, we have no plans at present to carry out any associated research in this area.'

Thanks Anthony! As I blogged on Monday, the government's position on assisted suicide must be watched, not least considering its appointment of Joan Bakewell to represent the elderly.

In conclusion, we must be vigilant against both the euthanasia lobby and the government's dangerous self-styled neutrality, whilst remaining grateful that ethically-minded parliamentarians were able to defend the truth.

To Barack Obama enthusiasts everywhere: a message from black pro-life advocates

According to Mercatornet, black pro-life advocates in the US are warning about the black genocide in the US caused by the disprortionate numbers of abortions in African-American neighbourhoods in America.

They say: Abortion is the leading cause of death in the black community; and with president-elect Obama being so aggressively pro-abortion, it makes the work of black pro-life advocates all the more necessary.

NCRegister.com (National Catholic Register Weekly newspaper) reports the views of Reverend Johnny Hunter (pictured), president of Life Education and Resource Network in Fayetteville, N.C. : “People don’t realize that abortion has killed more blacks than the Ku Klux Klan ever lynched. Planned Parenthood is the biggest of the abortion providers. Planned Parenthood endorsed Senator Obama, and he made promises to them. Any person of color who has made a promise to a group that targets groups of color isn’t worthy of being elected.”

Not obeying unjust laws and policies is an essential part of pro-life witness

I am very concerned that the government has appointed Dame Joan Bakewell to represent elderly people. In an interview with the Daily Telegraph on Monday, Dame Joan backed Lord Joffe's bill to allow assisted suicide and made several other pro-euthanasia statements, endorsing so-called living wills and confusing ordinary with extraordinary treatment. Dame Joan said: "I have a living will so that I'm not kept alive if I'm a vegetable because no doctor wants to pull the plug."

Dame Joan needs to dust off her human biology school textbook. Human beings can't become vegetables. Considering that many elderly people are or will become mentally incapacitated, what sort of representative for the elderly insults them by caling them vegetables?

Martin Beckford, who interviewed Dame Joan, made matters worse by partly misleading readers, claiming that: "There are now more pensioners than children in the country thanks to rising life expectancy linked to healthier lifestyles and better health care"

In fact, there are more pensioners than children in Britain partly, and perhaps mainly, because of four decades of contraception, sterilisation and abortion (as well an ever-rising average age of marriage, itself linked with anti-child culture).

In an equally disturbing development, Gordon Brown, the prime minister, has said he may push on with presumed consent for organ donation, despite a government-commissioned report which advised against it. Why am I not surprised that Dr Evan Harris MP, Britain's leading campaigner for euthanasia, is also Britain's leading campaigner for presumed consent? Last night Dr Harris claimed that there is "no evidence" of doctors falsely confirming death in order to remove organs before death. Perhaps Dr Harris is unaware of just such a case in Colorado, United States, earlier this year.

The ideology of Dame Joan, Mr Brown and Evan Harris treats human beings as mere machines, to be scrapped and requisitioned for parts once they cease to function according to the state's subjective desires. It is an universally accepted belief that the primary duty of governments is to defend the lives of its citizens. How can the sick, the elderly and the disabled trust a government which thinks some of them are better off dead?

The elderly should certainly have more confidence in the likes of the Italian nuns refusing to kill Eluana Englaro, choosing not to obey a court order to remove her tube-delivered food and fluids. The nuns have been caring for Eluana (pictured) for 14 years, following a car accident which left in a state of diminished consciousness. One has no duty to obey - indeed, a duty not to obey - any instruction ordering one intentionally to kill, or be complicit in killing, an innocent human being. Such a refusal is not arbitrary disobedience to the law, but obligatory non-obedience to an unjust and therefore invalid law.

SPUC joins international team to file brief in defence of Ireland's unborn

The pro-abortion lobby is determined to overturn Ireland's constitutional ban on abortion in a case before the European Court of Human Rights which will have worldwide implications, including in the US, according to American legal experts. The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children has joined other international pro-life organizations in filing on Friday a joint brief to defend Ireland's historic protection of the unborn.

Let me explain the background to this case.

Five years ago a confidential memorandum prepared by the Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR), a New York based group of pro-abortion lawyers, was uncovered by the pro-life lobby in the US. The memorandum outlined a detailed strategy to establish an internationally recognised human right to abortion. Key to this strategy was the distortion of existing human rights treaties in cases before international courts and in particular before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

In 2007 the CRR intervened in the case of Tysiac v Poland . This case involving a young woman who complained that her human rights were violated when she was refused an abortion. Despite its previous reluctance to become involved in the abortion laws of member states within the Council of Europe, the court ruled that the Polish law (which only permitted abortion on grounds of a serious risk to the mother's health, in cases of rape or foetal disability) breached the European Convention on Human Rights. Now the CRR is hoping that next year the Court will overturn Ireland's constitutional ban on abortion when it hears the case of three women, known only as A,B and C.

Although there are several important differences between the two cases, the decision in the Polish case has set a dangerous precedent and there can be no guarantee of what the Court will decide. In support of the three women, the Irish Family Planning Association (IFPA) claims that by forbidding abortion in Ireland, the constitution violates the rights to life and to privacy, it discriminates against women and subjects them to inhuman and degrading treatment by forcing them to seek abortions abroad.

Leaving aside the fact that any case may be considered inadmissible if it hasn't been heard by the domestic courts, the IFPA's claims are not only unfounded, they are an attempt to pervert everything the European Convention originally set out to protect.

No treaty or convention has ever recognised access to abortion as a human right. Article 2 of the European Convention protects the right to life and while it does not specifically prohibit abortion, it would be turning the convention on its head to argue that it provides a right to kill through abortion. In fact the European Convention only sets a minimal level for human rights. By specifically recognising the right to life of the unborn the Irish Constitution goes beyond the basic protection provided by Article 2. And according to Article 53 nothing within the Convention can be used to diminish the recognition of a human right in domestic law set at a higher standard than that stipulated in the Convention.

Nor can Article 3, which protects against torture and inhuman and degrading treatment be interpreted as providing a right to abortion. Even if this article was applicable to abortion law, having to travel abroad for an abortion would fail to meet the level of seriousness necessary to be considered as a breach of Article 3 rights.

The abortion lobby has for a long time argued that abortion must be legalised to ensure the equality of women. Article 14 of the Convention protects from discrimination but again this is not applicable to the issue of abortion. This article only complements the rights protected by the rest of the Convention and only prohibits unfair, unlawful or arbitrary discrimination. The European Convention has never sought to eliminate the natural differences between men and women including their physical and reproductive differences. Every abortion discriminates against an unborn human being, so again pro-abortionists are attempting to distort the right they pretend to uphold.

It is, however, the right to privacy, protected by Article 8, where the abortion lobby has been most successful in the past. Notoriously it was the right to privacy which the US Supreme Court used in Roe v Wade as a pretext to legalise abortion in 1973. Until recently the European Court argued that the survival of an unborn child was not simply a private matter for a pregnant woman. It acknowledged that each country had a right to decide the level of protection provided for children before birth. If the Court decides that Ireland's constitutional ban on abortion violates the European Convention then it will effectively say that a right for a woman to decide privately to end the life of her unborn child is of more fundamental importance than the child's right to life.

In his dissenting opinion in the Tysiac case Judge Francisco Javier Borrego Borrego said: "Today the Court has decided that a human being was born as a result of a violation of the European Convention on Human Rights. According to this reasoning, there is a Polish child, currently six years old, whose right to be born contradicts the Convention. I would never have thought that the Convention would go so far, and I find it frightening."

If the European Court declares Ireland's protection for unborn children violates the European Convention it will have implications for the whole world which will be very frightening indeed.