Anti-life Tony Blair's enduring political ambition is dangerous

Today’s Guardian (Tony Blair for President of Europe? Interview suggests he wants the job) explains why pro-lifers must keep pressing Tony Blair, the UK’s former Prime Minister and one of the world’s leading architects of the culture of death, on his refusal to repudiate the anti-life laws and policies he has steadfastly pursued throughout his political career.

He should not be allowed to shield himself from political scrutiny simply by being received into the Catholic Church and/or by virtue of his invitation to speak in Westminster Cathedral.

Since leaving office he has compounded his anti-life political record by reinforcing his pro-abortion links and I have recently challenged Cherie Blair, his wife, on her long track record in supporting anti-life and anti-family causes.

Tony Blair’s political ambition is dangerous and reception into the Catholic Church is proving no guarantee of a Pauline conversion. In fact thus far, the contrary seems to be case.

Open letter on abortion to Cherie Blair

I've sent the open letter below to Cherie Blair, about whose scandalous invitation to speak at a conference in the Angelicum (a leading Catholic university in Rome) I have blogged in recent weeks. I will let you know her reply.

8th January 2009

Open letter

Dear Mrs Blair,

I am writing to you further to your participation in the Angelicum university's conference on women and human rights.

Our supporters remain deeply concerned about the support you give to some of the world's leading pro-abortion organisations, including those to which I refer below.

Will you now state publicly your opposition to the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), the Family Planning Association (FPA) UK, Human Rights Watch (HRW) and the UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW committee), considering that these organisations are among the world's most prominent promoters of legal access to abortion?

Will you state publicly that no country should interpret the reference to "reproductive rights" in the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW convention) to include abortion?

I look forward to hearing from you.

Yours sincerely,

John Smeaton, SPUC national director

Autistic babies should not be killed. Period.

Under the headline “Autism test ‘could hit maths skills’” the BBC reports today that pre-natal testing for autism and the abortion of babies thought to be affected may not be far off.
In an interesting article, Professor Simon Baron-Cohen (pictured), the director of the Autism Research Centre at Cambridge University, says that mathematical excellence and autism may be linked. He writes:

“ … assuming such a test is developed, we would be wise to think ahead as to how such a test would be used. If it was used to 'prevent' autism, with doctors advising mothers to consider termination of the pregnancy if their baby tested 'positive', what else would be lost in reducing the number of children born with autism? Would we also reduce the number of future great mathematicians, for example? … Caution is needed before scientists embrace prenatal testing so that we do not inadvertently repeat the history of eugenics or inadvertently 'cure' not just autism but the associated talents that are not in need of treatment.”

It’s not clear what Professor Simon Baron-Cohen means in his final sentence above. Is he sounding a warning against the eugenic killing of the disabled? Or is he concerned principally, or solely, as the BBC’s introductory paragraphs put it, that “caution is needed to ensure associated talents, like numerical abilities, are not lost if the test or a "cure" become available”? Or is Professor Baron-Cohen unaware that we already have repeated the history of eugenics – both in Britain and elsewhere in the world – in our determined pursuit of the extermination of the disabled (as Alison Davis who has spina bifida and who is the leader of No Less Human, makes abundantly clear in her paper “A disabled person’s perspective on eugenic abortion”)?

The killing of disabled babies is infinitely more significant than any loss of human skills and talents. Whilst the Professor’s article is interesting and thought-provoking, the BBC’s headline provides a chilling reminder of modern Britain – in which countless human beings are killed as though they’re rubbish, simply because they’re disabled, and people in the media worry about the possible loss of maths skills. Autistic babies should not be killed. Period.

Reasonable-minded citizens should be genuinely frightened of Mary Warnock

In Belfast last night, Dame Mary Warnock said that doctors who refuse to help terminally ill patients to kill themselves are “genuinely wicked”.

Last September, I noted Dame Mary Warnock’s view that people with disabling conditions have a duty to die prematurely.

And in November, she told the Irish that there is an “absolute moral obligation” to conduct embryonic stem cell research, and that a scientist who chose not to conduct it would be "failing in their moral duty".

I am genuinely frightened when I hear Dame Mary Warnock say these things. Her distorted reasoning has heralded changes in British law which have led to the killing of countless vulnerable human beings in Britain and overseas.

Go back nearly thirty years to July 1982: Her Majesty’s Government invited Mary Warnock to chair a Committee of Inquiry into the ‘social, ethical and legal implications of recent, and potential developments in the field of human assisted reproduction’. The report of that committee is called the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Human Fertilisation and Embryology, Cmnd. 9314, London, 1984.

Follow carefully in the next paragraph the argument which her Committee used to justify lethal experiments on human embryos, up to the 14th day after conception, paving the way for the Government’s legislation in 1990 (which has been copied in many parts of the world):

"While, as we have seen, the timing of the different stages of development is critical, once the process has begun there is no particular part of the developmental process that is more important than another; all are part of a continuous process, and unless each stage takes place normally, at the correct time, and in the correct sequence, further development will cease. Thus biologically there is no one single identifiable stage in the development of the embryo beyond which the in vitro embryo should not be kept alive. However we agreed that this was an area in which some precise decision must be taken, in order to allay public anxiety.” (My emphasis)

In other words (my comments in red):

“ … once the process has begun … ”: Since this paragraph is all about allowing experiments up to the 14th day after conception, this phrase clearly refers to the moment of conception.

“ … there is no particular part of the developmental process that is more important than another … ”: the Warnock Committee admits there’s no special significance whatsoever (biological or philosophical) about the 14th day after conception, or any other day after conception. The significant thing is that a human life has begun.

“ … Thus biologically there is no one single identifiable stage in the development of the embryo beyond which the in vitro embryo should not be kept alive … ”: Put plainly, whatever the age of the embryo or unborn child he or she should not really be killed.

“ … However we agreed that this was an area in which some precise decision must be taken, in order to allay public anxiety … ” The Committee has decided to make a completely arbitrary decision in order to fool Parliament and the public into thinking that we have reached a profound conclusion based on weighty scientific evidence, and so we've plumped for 14 days. As Clarke and Linsey noted " … this is a clear case of extrinsic criteria being used to solve a problem which requires the determination of firm and unequivocal intrinsic criteria ... "(Clarke, P.A.B. and A. Linzey Research on Embryos: Politics, Theology and Law. Lester Crook, London, 1988, p. 26.)

On the basis of Dame Mary Warnock’s report, Parliament went on in 1990 to legalise destructive research on human embryos for the following purposes: promoting advances in the treatment of infertility; increasing knowledge about the causes of miscarriage; increasing knowledge about the causes of congenital disease; developing more effective techniques of contraception; developing methods for detecting the presence of gene or chromosome abnormalities in embryos before implantation; or for such other purposes as may be specified in regulations; and last year Parliament approved the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, amending the 1990 law, which approved the licensing of more procedures that will harm or kill embryos created in the laboratory and which extends the ways in which embryos can be artificially created and manipulated - including hybrid (animal-human) embryos.

So when Dame Mary Warnock says that doctors who won't kill their patients are "genuinely wicked", reasonable-minded citizens would be wise to genuinely frightened.

The Guardian newspaper's anti-life ideology made crystal clear

It is now crystal clear that there was an anti-life ideological agenda behind the Guardian's censorship of comments critical of Peter Singer (pictured), which I reported on here and here. The censored commentator "ContraSign" complained to the Guardian and ContraSign has copied to me the correspondence (ContraSign in black, Guardian in red):

Dear [ContraSign],

Thanks for getting in touch. Your comment was removed for misrepresenating our author's views, and also for making an ad hominem attack: "Peter Singer, who supports infanticide and euthanasia, is no person to lecture anyone about saving human lives". Both of these fall foul of our community standards, which can be found here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/talkpolicy

Regards,

James
Moderator

Dear James,

Many thanks for your reply. Firstly, may I ask, in what way did my comment mispresent the author's views? Peter Singer's support for infanticide, euthanasia and eugenics is widely and authoritatively documented, and in my estimation they would, if fully implemented, lead to the deaths of many more human beings than those possibly attributable to Mr Mbeki.

Secondly, may I ask why you consider my comment to be an ad hominem attack? I did not attack Peter Singer as a person, I questioned his locus standi in a debate about saving human lives, because his views on infanticide, euthanasia and eugenics make his attack on Mbeki hypocritical. My comments re Singer are similar to those of Nazi-hunter Simon Wiesenthal re Singer to the organisers of a Swedish book-fair in 1997: "A professor of morals ... who justifies the right to kill handicapped newborns ... is in my opinion unacceptable for representation at your level." http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/feder102898.asp

Thirdly, why did you deem my comments as mispresentations and ad hominem, but not those of "stevehill" on the Pope (or for that matter those of "nightships": "Mbeki most likely has AIDS himself and as usual the control freak, malignant narcissists, chronic scapegoater, uncorrectable grab bagger in denial, has sacrificed millions others with coercion, reckless abandon and impunity to promote his own out/hypocrite self image of good. Unfortunately the SOB is not alone. At this time and stage of world history there are one too many SOB like him. The top of the list starts with George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld, mata hari Condi Rice, Tony Blair, Brown, Saddam. The Kenyan Presidents the current and Arap Moi, Robert Mughabee, Castro, A. Sharone, the Pakistani strong man Musarraf, to name a few.")

May I suggest that you have made an editorial misjudgement, reflecting the Guardian's support for its author Peter Singer and his views? As "Rapido" posted:

"Justification is that the comment criticised eugenics, infanticide and euthanasia and linked in Peter Singer's documented support of all three. Not allowed here. They only allow the Pope and Thabo to be called killers."

I look forward to hearing from you,

[ContraSign]

Hi [ContraSign],

Thanks for your reply. While Peter Singer may indeed provide a philosophical justification for regarding the killing of newborns as less problematic than the killing of other human beings, this does not amount to advocating infanticide. As your comment conflated the two, it carried potential legal problems and, in such cases, we have to err on the side of caution.

Best wishes,

Todd
(Community Moderator)

Dear Todd,

Many thanks for your reply. Sorry, Todd, I didn't conflate the two: it is abundantly clear from Peter Singer's own words (see http://www.utilitarian.net/singer/by/1993----.htm and many other places online and in print) that he advocates legal permission for infanticide (as well as euthanasia, and eugenics generally), because he believes that killing certain newborns (and certain other human beings) is morally permissable, and at least as good as, and sometimes better, than not killing them. Your assertion that:

While Peter Singer may indeed provide a philosophical justification for regarding the killing of newborns as less problematic than the killing of other human beings, this does not amount to advocating infanticide

is your rebuttable opinion, not fact. I don't see how publishing my comment could have caused legal problems for the Guardian - my interpretation of Singer's position is fair comment, and one which has been made online and in print all over the world for years. I await a reply to my second (re "ad hominem") and third (re the Pope and other figures) points.

Kind regards,

[ContraSign]

Hi [ContraSign],

The reason for your comments removal was the potential legal issue that arose. There is, indeed, a difference between advocating legal permission for infanticide (as you state below) and advocating infanticide (as your comment stated). The comment may have been an interpretation of Singer's position, but it was stated as fact, and out of context, which is where the legal problem arose.

Best wishes,

Todd
(Community Moderator)

Dear Todd,

Many thanks for your further reply. I really can't see how there could have been a potential legal issue. Countless times over recent decades, online and in print, all over the world, people have stated as fact Peter Singer's position in exactly the way that I did, and no legal issues have arisen. (In any case, Singer is clear in his work "Should the baby live?" (OUP, 1985) that new-borns in certain circumstances should be killed.) May I suggest that your assertion that

There is, indeed, a difference between advocating legal permission for infanticide (as you state below) and advocating infanticide (as your comment stated)

and the deletion of my comments reflects the Guardian's own rebuttable opinion that pro-choice does not equal pro-abortion/infanticide? To advocate legal permission for infanticide is to advocate for and support infanticide. There is no effective or real difference between the two: it is a distinction without a difference. Your deletion of my comments denied Guardian readers the opportunity to challenge me on these points. My comments were not out of context: the context was an article in which Peter Singer expressed opinions about personal responsibility for lives which may be, or may have been, saved or lost as the consequence of an individual's ideas. My comments addressed the same subject and the credibility of Peter Singer's opinions on it. I still await a reply to my second (re "ad hominem") and third (re the Pope and other figures) points.

Kind regards,

[ContraSign]

Vatican heaps more praise on Bishop O'Donoghue's defence of Humanae Vitae

I have often mentioned the prophetic significance of Catholic church teaching on the separation of the unitive and the procreative in the conjugal act - as expressed in Humanae Vitae. I believe that the rejection of this teaching both inside and outside the church has led directly to the catastrophic devaluation of the sanctity of human life both inside and outside the womb - as well as to the provision of secret abortions, without parental knowledge or consent, to schoolchildren under the age of 16, (including in Catholic schools not least as a result of the ambiguous policy of the Catholic Education Service in England and Wales).

It's therefore extremely good to hear of the Vatican heaping yet more praise on Bishop O'Donoghue, the bishop of Lancaster, (pictured top) and his powerful promotion of the Church's teaching in Humanae Vitae in Fit for Mission: Church?

Last month it was the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith who gave the bishop's teaching document strong backing.

Now, Cardinal Antonelli (pictured right), the president of the Pontifical Council for the Family, has added his warm commendation. Very pointedly, Cardinal Antonelli points to the exact page in Bishop O'Donoghue's Fit for Mission: Church in which he sets out some of the disastrous social consequences - for families, for young people and for respect of the sanctity of human life - of rejecting, arguably, the Catholic Church's most important encyclical letter of the 20th century.

The Cardinal writes:

"The section on Marriage and Family Life is also well done and a good response to the perils of the philosophy of gender which is so widespread nowadays. Your underlining the importance of Self-Gift is also very pertinent as well as giving explicit example and statistics (p.69) regarding the consequences of the culture of death that surrounds us, is also useful in bringing home the point. The encouragement to deepen the notion of the Theology of the Body is also a sound idea to be encouraged."

So let's see what Bishop O'Donoghue says about the consequences of separating the unitive and procreative nature of sexual love on page 69 of Fit for Mission: Church?

"10.6.2 The Current Situation

"The following statistics provide a snap shot of the health of marriage in our country:

• There were 17.1 million families in the UK in 2006.
• Most families are headed by married couples (71%), although the proportion of cohabiting couple - families increased from 9% in 1996, to 14% in 2006.
• The average number of children per family in the UK has dropped - from 2.0 in 1971 to 1.8 in 2006.
• There were 148,141 divorces in 2006.
• Marriages in England andWales fell by 4% to 236,980 in 2006, the lowest marriage rate since records began in 1895. Religious marriage ceremonies only accounted for 44% of marriages in 2006.

"I believe a reliable indicator of the health of marriages is how it impacts on the well-being of children.

• More than a quarter of British under-16s regularly feel depressed. (UNICEF)
• Around 13 per cent of girls and 10 per cent of boys between 13 and 15 years old suffer from mental health problems. (UNICEF)
• More than 1,300 mentally ill children are currently being treated on adult psychiatric wards. (UNICEF).
• The NHS reports that between 2006-2007, 4,241 children under 14 attempted to commit suicide.
• 193,700 unborn children were killed through abortion in 2006; a rise of 3.9%.
• 2,000 potentially handicapped children were killed by their parents through abortion in 2006.
• A total of 40,244 abortions were carried out on girls aged between 15 and 19 years in 2006.
• 3,990 abortions were carried out on girls aged under 16 - the age of consent – in 2006.
• Teenage pregnancy rates for girls under 18 in England and Wales in 2003 was 42.3 conceptions per 1,000 girls.

"These statistics reveal the shocking depth and extent of the suffering and impoverishment of so many families and children due to the separation of the unitive and procreative nature of sexual love, and the wide-spread practice of pre-marital sexual behaviour. I am convinced that there must be profoundly damaging consequences for the family in a country where contraception and abortion are so wide-spread. No wonder so many children are suffering depression and mental illness in a country that is such a hostile environment for human life. Nowonder divorce is so prevalent when family life is so often characterised by a lack of generosity or self-giving love.

"10.6.3 Proclaim the Theology of the Body

"We, the Catholic Church, must be more confident and proactive in presenting our rich and fulfilling understanding of marriage, sexual love and the family. The strength of the Church’s doctrine of the inseparability of sexual love and procreation is that it respects the unity between the spiritual and biological dimensions of humanity. Personal meaning is informed by the biological meaning of the human body, which Pope John Paul II calls ‘the language of the body’.

"The Catholic theology of the body understands the meaning of married, sexual love as follows (cf.WilliamMay, Catholic Bioethics and the Gift of Human Life, p. 68-69):

"The Unitive Meaning: Husband and wife become personally ‘one flesh’ in and through sexual intercourse, renewing the covenant they made during the sacrament of marriage. The marital act expresses their sexual complementarity: the husband’s body, which expresses his person as male, has a ‘nuptial significance’, for he is so structured to give himself to his wife by entering into her body, and so give himself to her. The wife’s body which expresses her person as female, also has a nuptial significance, for she is so structured to receive his body into herself, and in receiving him, to give herself to him.

"The Procreative Meaning: In becoming ‘one flesh’ – through the sacrament of marriage – husband and wife also become one complete organism capable of generating human life. Precisely because they are married, they have capacitated themselves – according to revelation – to be co-creators with God in a way that responds to the dignity of persons – self-giving love that is faithful and permanent.

"As a people, culture and Church, we must get over misplaced shyness about sexual matters which inhibits us from spreading the Church’s positive and personal vision of sexual love. We cannot leave this area of human life to the purveyors of pre-marital sex and so called safe sex to the detriment of families and young people. As I wrote in Fit for Mission? Schools, continence outside marriage and fidelity in life-long marriage are the only true and secure ways of protecting our families and young people from physical and psychological harm, such as STDs, HIV/AIDS, cervical cancer, psychological lack of self esteem and an inability to express love.

"I recommend that clergy and parents study and teach the theology of the body. I recommend the following:
• John Paul II, The Theology of the Body, Boston: Pauline Books, 1997.
• Theology of the Body for Teens programme. www.tobforteens.com
• Christopher West, Theology of the Body for Beginners, Ascension Press, 2004. Theology of the Body
Explained, Pauline Books, 2003; Good News about Sex andMarriage, Questions and Answers, Charis Books, 2000."

I pray that Victoria Lambert will forgive herself for her abortion

Victoria Lambert (pictured right with Rowena, her daughter, aged four), a journalist, writes a must-read, powerful article in today's Daily Mail about the abortion of her disabled baby.

It begins:

"When I see boys at my daughter's school, all gangly limbs and scruffy hair, I wonder what my own son would have looked like. He would be nine now. He would have blond hair and blue eyes - his father and I shared that colouring.

"He might have my prominent chin, definitely a grin all his own. But my son would also be unable to speak, walk or possibly even think for himself.

"He would have extra digits and a heart defect. For the first child I conceived had Patau's syndrome - also known as trisomy 13, which affects one in 10,000 births ... Over the years, I've allowed my imagination to run unchecked; I've seen him playing conkers, glued to a PlayStation, eating pizza. Yet all this can only ever be conjecture, for I had a termination in my 13th week of pregnancy, two weeks before the turn of the millennium.

"It was an experience that has scarred me in ways I could never have anticipated. Put simply: my decision and its consequences have tortured me for the past nine years ... "

With harrowing honesty, Victoria Lambert takes the reader step-by-step from the joy of her pregnancy, looking forward to her baby being the start of a large family, to being wheeled to the operating theatre for an abortion and waking up crying. Her story speaks volumes about the tragic reality behind one woman's experience of ante-natal testing and abortion - the fear, the bitter regret following an abortion, and the difficulty in self-forgiveness (which is so important for women and men who have experienced an abortion, and is the principal focus of the outreach of British Victims of Abortion, a group run by the SPUC educational research trust). She writes:

" ... In the past nine years, not a week has gone by when I haven't thought of him. Despite the support that others - including those closest to me - expressed for my decision at the time, I don't think I can ever truly forgive myself for what I did ... "

Sadly, Victoria Lambert continues "I'm not against abortion per se, and never have been" and she appears to accept, albeit, perhaps, reluctantly, the eugenics which may motivate others to abort a disabled child.

But I think Victoria's deepest feelings about abortion have already emerged in the article when she writes:

" ... The decision was not mine alone, anyway: my husband was convinced of the correctness of this course of action, and his point of view was as valid as mine. He was worried for my health, too - would carrying such a sickly child put me at risk? We knew so little.

"We struggled on until Monday and drove to the hospital for the operation. Here, I met the one person who allowed me to question what was happening - an anaesthetist who threw everyone out of the room and sat down on the bed to ask whether this was what I really wanted.

"I wish she had been there 24 hours earlier; by this time, it was too little, too late. I'd lost all willpower, all ability to do anything but cry. I said: 'Yes, I'll do this.' And with that, I gave permission - and I cannot put this any other way, try as I may - to murder my unborn baby ... "

I hope and pray that Victoria Lambert's story will help other women who may be under pressure to abort their child - whether that child has a disability or not. And I pray, above all, that she will find peace and learn to forgive herself.

Peaceful prayer and witness at Marie Stopes abortion facility

I am delighted to see that the Helpers of God's Precious Infants have a Vigil at the Marie Stopes abortion facility, Brewer Street, Maidstone, Kent ME14 1RV, on Wednesday 21 January. Catholics may be particularly interested in this important initiative. You can find the details here.

You can find more about the work of this group of pro-life people, dedicated to defending and upholding the dignity of human life, here. Their mission is to save the lives of unborn children through the spiritual conversion of their mothers.

This is a time when Christians, including Christian leaders, are being seduced by politicians who are firmly committed to promoting abortion worldwide. It's therefore all the more important to support pro-life action (and prayer) which witnesses fully to the evil of abortion. As Pope John Paul II put it: "Disregard for the right to life, precisely beause it leads to the killing of the person whom society exists to serve, is what most directly conflicts with the possibility of achieving the common good" (Evangelium Vitae, 72).

He also pointed out the nature of the problem pro-lifers are facing within the Church when he wrote: "We need to begin with the renewal of a culture of life within Christian communities themselves. Too often it happens that believers, even those who take an active part in the life of the Church, end up by separating their Christian faith from its ethical requirements concerning life, and thus fall into moral subjectivism and certain objectionable ways of acting." (Evangelium Vitae, 95)

Higher risk of mental health problems and substance abuse after abortion

Southern Cross Bioethics Institute has sent me the following commentary on important, recently published, research looking at whether abortion carries the potential adversely to affect the psychological well being of women (Priscilla K Coleman, Katherine T Coyle, Martha Shuping & Vincent Rue, Induced abortion and anxiety, mood and substance abuse disorders: Isolating the effects of abortion in the national comorbidity survey, Journal of Psychiatric Research, in press, 2008).

"The data source that was used in this study was the “National Comorbidity Survey” (NCS). It is recognized as the first nationally representative survey of mental health in the USA. The sample of individuals interviewed in this survey was very wide. It provides the most comprehensive epidemiological data on the prevalence of psychological disorders in the US. The respondent’s ages range was 15-54 and they represent the non-institutionalised civilian population in the 48 coterminous United States. A response rate of 82.6% was achieved with a total of 8098 respondents participating in the survey. However, for the purposes of this study a subsample was used, which only included women for whom there were data available on all variables of interest. So the sample size was based on 399 women who had had one or more abortions compared with 2650 women who did not report an abortion. This is a relatively large sample size for a survey study of this kind.

"The paper begins with a brief discussion citing the expanding body of research conducted in previous years. Many of the studies indicate that there is indeed a link between abortion and mental health problems. However, most studies were limited in terms of their analysis of potentially confounding variables, which introduces a degree of uncertainty about whether there is a direct causative link between abortion and subsequent mental health problems. Coleman et al therefore set out to rectify this by using a large sample size, and also by including useful data regarding situational predictors of several different mental disorders, such as rape history, history of miscarriage or still birth, as well as childhood and adult abuse, amongst others.

Summary of Main Results

"In the first part of the study the authors looked at whether there were general differences between women who had previously had an abortion and women who had not had an abortion. There were differences observed in the following categories: marital status; race; number of residents in respondents household; educational attainment; feelings of being worthy/equal to others; history of miscarriage/still birth; rape; sexual abuse as a child; having been physically attacked as an adult; having experienced a life threatening accident.

"For example, of those women who had a history of abortion, 19.9% were separated or divorced, compared to 11.2% in the group who had no abortion history. Furthermore, amongst those with a history of abortion, a greater proportion were black - 17.9% compared with the non-abortion group of which only 11.8% were black.
In the analysis of the impact of abortion, all of the differences were taken into account to determine the specific effect of abortion alone.

"No differences were observed between the two groups in relation to: the degree to which the respondent relies on familial help; the frequency with which relatives make demands on the respondent; number of children; having been physically abused as a child; other terrible experience; difficulty paying bills; health problems.

"The next part of the study compared in detail the incidence of particular disorders between the abortion and non-abortion groups. The results indicate that the abortion group had a higher frequency of disorders including anxiety disorders, substance abuse disorders and mood disorders. For example, in the abortion group, 18% suffered from panic attacks compared with 12.3% in the non-abortion group. There was also a large difference in relation to alcohol abuse, 36.8% versus 16.3%. In relation to major depression, the difference between the two groups was 40.7% versus 26.6%.

Summary of discussion

"The results reveal that women who have had an abortion are at a higher risk of a variety of mental health problems and substance abuse, compared with women without a history of abortion. There were also interesting personal history variables that differed between the two groups. For example, women with an abortion history were more likely to be older, more educated, black, separated, divorced or widowed, live in smaller households, to have been working, have had a personal history of sexual abuse, and have reported unusually stressful events in adulthood.

"The most notable result in this study is that abortion independently contributed significant negative effects in relation to mental health problems above and beyond other traumatizing and stressful life experiences. The authors calculate that abortion is responsible for more than 10% of the population incidence of alcohol dependence, alcohol abuse, drug dependence, panic disorder, agoraphobia and bipolar disorder.

"Indicative of the difficulty and complexity of deciphering the precise nature of the link between abortion and various disorders, the authors conclude that further research is required to elucidate the factors mediating this link. They suggest that it is likely that there are other variables that have to be taken into consideration, such as personal beliefs, which include moral or religious beliefs about abortion. A point the authors make is that while women may initially be ambivalent about their decision to abort, it is reasonable to assume that their beliefs may contribute to, or play some mediating role in, future episodes of anxiety or depression.

"The precise relationship between abortion and mental health disorders is potentially very complex; however, the results of this study and the significant body of previous research does indicate that having an abortion is likely to lead to an increased risk of developing mental health and other behavioural disorders."

Tony Blair’s Christmas greetings ring hollow

“To everyone celebrating Christmas, I send my very best wishes” Tony Blair said on the Tony Blair Faith Foundation website last week.

His greeting reminds me of King Herod (pictured right) saying to the wise men: “Go and diligently inquire after the child, and when you have found him, bring me word again, that I also may come and adore him”.

Indeed, the anti-life laws and policies Tony Blair supported and promoted as prime minister and which he refuses to repudiate since his reception into the Catholic Church, continue to cost far more lives than the number of babies killed in King Herod’s massacre of the innocents, even according to the highest estimates.

The scandal of Tony Blair’s position was highlighted in Newsweek just before Christmas. The printed edition of Newsweek’s report was published on the same day as Tony Blair issued his hollow greetings “to everyone celebrating Christmas”.

Tony Blair’s message says: “On this most joyful of Christian festivals, we celebrate new light coming into the world. We rejoice in the chance of a new relationship between God and humankind and the hope which that inspires. We commemorate the birth of the Christ child, and the willingness of God to humble himself for our sake in the shape of a helpless baby. [JS: Tony, don't forget that every one of the countless thousands of unborn children who were killed because of your support, and your government's support, for abortion was a helpless baby.]

"Christmas subverts so much of the world's wisdom. God the all powerful becomes vulnerable; the king of glory whose first shelter in this world was a stable; the infinite reduced to the smallest human form. [JS: Just like newly-conceived embryos, don't you think, Tony?] Usual expectations are confounded by the Christmas story [JS: in which a teenage mother whose child was conceived out of wedlock continued the pregnancy to birth under difficult circumstances], which challenges us to look beyond the world's order and priorities. [JS: Yes, like your government's expectation and priority that teenage mothers should have abortions.]

“So, in the midst of all the celebration, let us not lose sight of the radical challenge which Christmas poses us. [JS: I'll pose you a challenge, Tony, but not too radical: just tell us whether or not you stand by your anti-life, anti-family record in parliament and government] And above all let us remember the divine care for the world which Christ's birth represents. Let us do whatever we can to show our care for the word and for all our fellow humans [JS: What are you going to do, Tony, to show that you care for unborn children?], so that the world becomes a better place in which everyone may find and fulfil their God-given potential. [JS: Amen. A pity you and your government denied that opportunity to so many people.]

“Happy Christmas. Tony Blair”

I continue to pray the Our Father daily for Barack Obama and for Tony and Cherie Blair: that they will have a change of heart - and that they will use their influence in the world to save lives and become powerful ambassadors in the world for the unborn and for the value and inviolability of human life. If you would like to join me in this prayer commitment/campaign which I launched last month, write to me at johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk and pass on this message to others.

Massacre of the innocents – British-style

The Christmas season is a special time for celebrating the sanctity of human life – seen in the conception and birth of Jesus. It’s also a time to commemorate unthinkable attacks on the sanctity of human life – seen in Herod’s massacre of the innocents.

My son’s missal for December 28, the Feast of the Innocents, reads: “To picture the desolation in more vivid colours, Jeremias recalls Rachel whose lamentations are heard in Rama, bewailing her children because they are not. Like a compassionate mother, the Church robes her priests today in vestments of mourning, and suppresses the Gloria and Alleluia.”

As a Catholic living in England, I see the priest’s mourning vestments as symbolizing the Church’s mourning for its own responsibility in the massacre of the innocents in Britain.

I think of the ambiguous position of the Catholic authorities in relation to the provision of abortifacient birth control and abortion to children in Catholic schools, without the knowledge or consent of the children’s parents.

I think of the invitation to Tony Blair to speak in Westminster Cathedral, who refuses to repudiate, since his reception into the Catholic Church, the anti-life laws and policies he supported and promoted as prime minister and as a Member of Parliament.

I think of the failure to ban abortion referrals at the Catholic hospital of St John and St Elizabeth in London.

As Luke Gormally, honorary fellow of the Linacre Centre for Healthcare Ethics, rightly commented on Fr Finigan's blog: "How can the Church in this country effectively defend the sanctity of life when its Chief Shepherd is prepared to approve a code which effectively accommodates referrals for abortion?"

But the situation is even worse than that. How can any pro-life group effectively defend the sanctity of human life when the pro-life ethic is undermined by leading representatives in England and Wales of the largest pro-life group in the world, the Catholic Church?

I make no apology for being so blunt. Pope John Paul II instructed Catholics to be so when he wrote: “ … We need to begin with the renewal of a culture of life within Christian communities themselves. Too often it happens that believers, even those who take an active part in the life of the Church, end up by separating their Christian faith from its ethical requirements concerning life, and thus fall into moral subjectivism and certain objectionable ways of acting. With great openness and courage, we need to question how widespread is the culture of life today among individual Christians, families, groups and communities in our Dioceses. With equal clarity and determination we must identify the steps we are called to take in order to serve life in all its truth … ” (Evangelium Vitae, 95).

The massacre of the innocents in Britain will not be effectively opposed whilst the ambiguous policies of the Catholic authorities in England and Wales in relation to the government’s anti-life legislation and policies are maintained.

Censorship rules OK at the Guardian (on eugenics)

A couple of weeks ago I reported on the Guardian's censorship of comments critical of the eugenicist philosopher, Peter Singer. He had written an article in the Guardian on the subject of AIDS in South Africa. He argued that Thabo Mbeki, the former South African president, was responsible for the deaths of thousands of South Africans because of his policy on the cause of AIDS and on the use of anti-retroviral drugs.

I was informed that, in the online version of Singer's article, one commentator named "ContraSign" left the following comment [at 10:25am]: "Whatever the rights and wrongs of Mbeki and AIDS, Peter Singer, who supports infanticide and euthanasia, is no person to lecture anyone about saving human lives. The death toll from Singer's eugen(i)cist ideas would dwarf any death toll attributable to Mbeki."

A few minutes later, ContraSign's comment was replaced with the message:"This comment has been removed by a moderator. Replies may also be deleted." I suggested that my visitors may like to write to the Guardian to express their opinion. Pauline Gateley, amongst others, did so - and she sends me this report:

"Dear John,

I have persisted with the Guardian and had what you may find an interesting exchange with the moderators concerning the Mbeki article and their moderation policy. Because they have an irritating way of not using the reply facility on email but starting the exchange afresh each time I have had to copy and paste the exchange together myself and have therefore set it out in the natural chronological order so that you can read from the top down. The Guardian’s are in red, mine in black:

To: 'community.suggestions@guardian.co.uk'
Sent: Thu 18/12/2008 17:05

I sent the message below to userhelp and now realise it should have been to you:

Dear Sir/Madam, I note that the comments submitted by ContraSign have been deleted by the moderators and that my challenge to this (as PaulineG) has also now been deleted. In the interests of free debate I am at a loss to understand how this can be justified. Nothing that Contrasign or I said is untruthful. Peter Singer’s position is well known and he himself would not deny the truth of his support for infanticide and euthanasia. Perhaps ContraSign’s observation was in the nature of an ‘ad hominem’ but these are not normally deleted, as anyone following CiF debates on Catholic news will be well aware. I therefore ask you, in the interests of fair play and free and balanced debate, to explain how these deletions fit with your general moderation policy and I look forward to your response.

Yours faithfully,

Pauline Gately

From: Todd.Nash@guardian.co.uk; on behalf of; comment.is.free@guardian.co.uk
Sent: Fri 19/12/2008 11:10

Hi Pauline,

It is our policy to delete comments that refer and reply to a post that has broken our community standards and been removed, hence why yours was removed.

It is also policy not to discuss users comments with anybody other than that user themselves. We would give the same response if anybody enquired about a comment of yours.

Best wishes,

Todd
(Community Moderator)

To: 'comment.is.free@guardian.co.uk'
Sent: Fri 19/12/2008 13:26

Hello Todd,

Thank you for your reply. I see where you are coming from and respect your policy as stated. I have now submitted a complaint re stevehill’s comment. Having followed a number of these threads I am well aware that the Pope seems to be freely and regularly defamed without apparent challenge and references to Galileo are all but mandatory in any thread touching on Catholicism and accepted even where wildly off topic. Yet Peter Singer’s well documented and acknowledged views are off limits. I understand your confidentiality rule but what I am seeking here is consistency. In particular, are ‘ad hominems’ acceptable or are they not?

Regards,

Pauline

From: Todd.Nash@guardian.co.uk; on behalf of; comment.is.free@guardian.co.uk
Sent: Fri 19/12/2008 14:25

Thanks for the reply Pauline,

Ad hominem attacks are not acceptable. If you spot any, please use the 'report abuse' function to bring the comment to our immediate attention.

Regards,

Todd
(Community Moderator)

To: 'comment.is.free@guardian.co.uk'
Sent: Fri 19/12/2008 16:09

Thank you, Todd, will be helpful going forward. But I note that stevehill’s comment remains. So, for the avoidance of doubt, is it acceptable to defame the Pope?

Regards,

Pauline

From: James.Walsh@guardian.co.uk; on behalf of; comment.is.free@guardian.co.uk
Sent: Fri 19/12/2008 20:04

Hello there Pauline,

As per our community standards we may remove anything that is legally problematic. Again, if there's a comment you believe warrants removal, then please do report it and the moderators will make a decision.

Best wishes,

James
Mod

To: 'comment.is.free@guardian.co.uk'
Sent: Fri 19/12/2008 21:30

Hello James,

Thank you. As I mentioned to Todd, I have reported stevehill’s comment on the Singer/Mbeki piece (17th December, 8.32 am) but note that it remains. I am struggling with this. This is what stevehill says:

“Malicious or not, the former South African president's Aids policy is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths” (quote from article) He stands shoulder to shoulder with the Pope then, who contends that even married couples may not use condoms if one of them is HIV positive."

So, we have a gratuitous defamation of the Pope (off topic) in which it is claimed that he is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths. Simplistic and defamatory comments of this sort fail to address the fact that if the Church’s teachings were followed consistently, in its entirety and in all circumstances the risk of contracting Aids, including within a marriage in which one partner is infected, would be minimised and the death toll from Aids would be much lower, not higher, than it is. In fact the World Health Organisation acknowledges that abstinence and marital fidelity is a strategy capable of completely eliminating the risk of infection from HIV. I accept, of course, that you will not comment to me on another person’s contribution. But I do ask that you explain to me how a comment of this sort can be deemed acceptable. If your only concern is whether it is legally problematic then perhaps you anticipate being on safe ground because the Pope’s lawyers would be kept remarkable busy if they followed up every such defamation. But does that make such defamation acceptable? Is your policy to permit defamation, even of such a serious nature, if it is unlikely to be subject to legal challenge? I am sorry to be so persistent and I thank you and Todd for your patience, but I do feel I have not yet received a full response on this.

Best regards,

Pauline

[Dear John] I have received no reply to this last.

Best regards and good wishes for Christmas,

Pauline

Humanae Vitae and truth about marriage intimately linked to the pro-life message

As a pro-lifer, I am grateful for Bishop Campbell's translation of Pope Benedict's 2008 Christmas Address to the Roman Curia. (Bishop Campbell, pictured, is coadjutor bishop of Lancaster.)

It's clearer than ever from this papal address, given two days before Christmas, that Catholic teaching on the full truth about human sexuality - "the nature of the human being as man and woman" - is intimately linked with Catholic teaching on the sanctity of human life.

In an illuminating passage, Pope Benedict urges the world to re-read Humanae Vitae. He reminds mankind, showing no fear of the hostility of politically-correct opponents of church teaching: "The great Scholastic theologians have characterised matrimony, the life-long bond between man and woman, as a sacrament of creation, instituted by the Creator himself and which Christ – without modifying the message of creation – has incorporated into the history of his covenant with mankind ... Beginning from this perspective, it would be beneficial to read again the Encyclical Humanae Vitae: the intention of Pope Paul VI was to defend love against sexuality as a consumer entity, the future as opposed to the exclusive pretext of the present, and the nature of man against its manipulation ... "

I have referred in previous posts to how "the nature of man" has been manipulated, in fulfilment of Pope Paul VI's prophecy, both inside and outside the Catholic Church, as a result of ignoring, and ignorance of, the message of Humanae Vitae: the promotion of abortifacient birth control and abortion, without parental knowledge or consent, including in Catholic schools, in England and Wales; coercive abortion in China, funded by the overwhelming majority of the world's governments (including the Republic of Ireland); the countless lives destroyed through IVF practices - also so widely accepted amongst Catholics.

Pope Benedict echoes Pope John Paul when he says the devaluation of the "language of creation" leads to "the self-destruction of man". In paragraph 97 of Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul teaches that it is an illusion to think that we can build a true culture of human life if we do not offer adolescents and young adults an authentic education in sexuality, and in love, and the whole of life according to their true meaning and in their close interconnection.

All of this is very timely for us in England - the Pope's address and Bishop Campbell's speedy translation of it - especially when the link between the sanctity of life and the church's teaching in Humanae Vitae has been so unfortunately challenged in an interview in The Catholic Herald this past week.

Higher abortion rate for black Americans may have eugenic implications

Southern Cross Bioethics Institute, bioethical advisers to SPUC, have sent me the following analysis of a disturbing new paper published by the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons:

Commentary for SPUC on Does Induced Abortion Account for Racial Disparity in Preterm Births, and Violate the Nuremberg Code?, Rooney et al., December, 2008

“The great irony is that abortion has done what the [Ku Klux] Klan only dreamed of.” (Dr Alveda King, niece of Rev. Martin Luther King, human rights campaigner.)

Black American women and their children are 4.3 times more likely than non-black American women to be subject to a procedure that was never tested on animals. Added to this inequality is the resulting high rate of preterm and extremely preterm births, and associated disability, in black infants – triple the risk of early preterm birth, and quadruple the risk of extremely preterm birth. This is according to a paper published this year in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, by Rooney, Calhoun and Roche. [1]

This procedure is abortion. It seems that no animal testing or small human studies have ever been undertaken for the most common method of abortion, vacuum aspiration. This violates the Nuremberg Code that has required, since the 1940s, that “the danger of each experiment must be previously investigated by animal experimentation.”

Animal experimentation possibly has higher ethical standards than the average abortion clinic. For example, in Australia the National Health and Medical Research Council’s Code regarding animal research mercifully entails that “investigators must assume that foetuses have the same requirements for anaesthesia and analgesia as adult animals of the species, unless there is specific evidence to the contrary”. [2]

The tragedy here is not simply that the principle of the Nuremberg Code has been broken. Rather it is that abortion is now known to have substantial risks to women’s health, and to the health of their future children. Not to mention the deadly nature of the procedure for their unborn child.

As Rooney and colleagues note, there is a large body of research evidence to show that abortion is a risk factor for early preterm birth and extremely preterm birth. Extremely preterm birth infants have a 129 times higher risk of cerebral palsy, as well as higher risks for other disabilities and health problems.

But rather than proceeding by the accepted scientific method of initial animal studies, these risks have been established by subjecting millions of women all over the world to abortion. In effect, this means that millions of women have participated in an experiment using the most common method of abortion, vacuum aspiration, and have not been made aware of the risks involved in such experimentation.

In 2004, 38.2% of all surgical abortions in the US were performed on black women. But black women make up only 12.5% of the US female population. So black women have an abortion rate 4.3 times that of non-blacks.

Is this an important cause of the observed higher rates of preterm birth among black American babies? Rooney and colleagues think so, and point to the dramatic drop in abortion in Poland (a 98% drop between 1989 and 1993) which was followed by a substantial drop in the rate of preterm and extremely preterm birth rates.

In summary, this paper makes the following disturbing points:

• abortion has not been subject to the usual rigorous process of experimentation before being applied on a large scale to women and children;
  
• in particular, no animal studies are known to have been undertaken using vacuum aspiration abortion procedures;
  
• black women have an abortion rate 4.3 times higher than non-black women in the US;
  
• abortion is now known to increase the risk of preterm and extremely preterm birth in infants born later in the woman’s life; so that not only are more black children killed in the womb, but more experience disability from birth.
  

At the very least, this data calls for abortion consent forms to carry clear information regarding the risk of preterm and extremely preterm birth, and exactly what that means for a woman’s future children. As Rooney and colleagues point out, “even if an adverse risk from a medical treatment is merely a potential or plausible risk, the patient must be warned of it.” Notably, the May 2007 online consent form provided by Planned Parenthood of Australia makes no mention of the established link between abortion and preterm birth.

The other key issue emphasised by Rooney and colleagues is the high abortion rates of Black American women compared to others. This serious issue must be investigated for its possible eugenic implications.

[1] Rooney B, Calhoun BC and Roche LE (2008), Does Induced Abortion Account for Racial Disparity in Preterm Births, and Violate the Nuremberg Code?, Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons Vol. 13, No. 4, Winter, pp. 102-104

[2] National Health and Medical Research Council (2004), Australian Code of Practice for the Care and Use of Animals for Scientific Purposes, 7th Edition, Australian Government, Canberra, p. 31.

more items from our news summary

The European Court of Human Rights has refused to hear an appeal concerning the semi-conscious woman in Italy whose father wants her to die from dehydration. Judges said they would not hear the matter because the Italian pro-life organisations bringing the case were not linked to Ms Eluana Englaro. Monsignor Ignacio Barreiro of Human Life International, Rome, claimed the court, in Strasbourg, France, was biased towards allowing euthanasia. He said: "[The judges] do not hold in high esteem the life of the handicapped. They take a utilitarian position - that people like Eluana Englaro are 'useless mouths'. [That] their life has no social value." The Italian government should issue a decree to save her. [LifeSiteNews, 23 December]

The UK family doctors' body says prescription-free birth control pills will not cut teenage pregnancy because girls forget to take them. Dr Sarah Jarvis, women's health spokeswoman for the Royal College of General Practitioners, recommends implants and coils instead. [BBC, 24 December] Hormonal birth control, including pills, implants and coils, can cause early abortion.

The Russian Orthodox church has expressed its support for the Grand Duke of Luxembourg's refusal to approve the legalisation of euthanasia. Locum tenens Metropolitan Kirill of Moscow wrote that legal euthanasia destroyed traditional morals. It: " ... encroaches on the sacred gift of life, [a] reverent attitude to which was nurtured in Europe's Christian culture for years." It also perverted doctors' professional duty. The Luxembourg parliament has changed the grand duke's status so the bill can be passed. [Interfax, 22 December]

The British government is running a consultation in England on a scheme for monitoring so-called living wills made under the 2005 Mental Capacity Act. The Care Quality Commission would inspect hospitals and care homes, speaking to patients and residents. [Nursing Times, 22 December]

Money intended to improve midwifery has not reached British hospitals, according to the Royal College of Midwives. Professor Cathy Warwick suggests 10s of millions of pounds destined for recruitment have yet to arrive, risking women's health. Central government said the money had left them while health trusts denied having it. [Telegraph, 22 December] The royal college's former president suggests women who give birth need 10 days resting in bed afterwards. Widespread advice is to move around to stop problems like deep-vein thrombosis. Ms Caroline Flint says on a DVD that bed rest allows for bonding with, and feeding of, babies. [Telegraph, 19 December]

A UK survey suggests only around a fifth of nurses agree with the legalisation of assisted suicide. [Nurses.co.uk on Response Source, 22 December]

Vitamin D deficiency in expectant mothers increases the likelihood of the need for Caesarean section, according to a study published in the Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism. Boston University School of Medicine and Boston Medical Centre, Massachusetts, studied more than 250 women and speculate that a lack of the nutrient could diminish muscle strength. The Health Research Forum, said a lack of vitamin D also made pre-eclampsia more likely. [Mail, 24 December]

Subscribe by email here.

items from SPUC's news summaries

There will reportedly be no prosecution of a doctor who admitted going with a woman from Scotland to Switzerland where she killed herself with barbiturates. Dr Michael Irwin, 77 (right), was investigated by police for two years after he went to Dignitas, Zurich, with Ms May Murphy, 75, who had multiple system atrophy. Surrey Police say they lack evidence to pursue the case. Dr Irwin, a former UN medical director, says he has provided plenty of evidence and would do it again. [Independent, 22 December] Dr Irwin resigned as chairman of VES (now Dignity in Dying) after conspiring to assist in a suicide on the Isle of Man in 2003.

Birth control and pregnancy tests are being offered to 11-year-olds in schools in England without parental knowledge. Morning-after pills are being given to children in Wiltshire, which has a high rate of sexually transmitted infection. The Life organisation said it was irresponsible. Evidence suggested such moves did not cut pregnancy or abortion. [Western Daily Press, 22 December] The main British opposition party says in a report that children aged 11 and above should be taught about refusing consent to sex. The Conservatives' Ending Violence Against Women also says sex education should not be value-free [Sunday Telegraph, 21 December] John Smeaton of SPUC said: "We shall study the Conservatives' report. Current sex education policies have comprehensively failed and must be entirely rejected by policy-makers."

A member of the Pontifical Academy for Life has described how some prenatal testing is licit and even desirable. Dr Carlo Bellieni, director of the department of intensive neonatal therapy at Le Scotte University Polyclinic, Siena, Italy, told Zenit that prenatal testing can be genetic or non-genetic. The former is not presently performed with a view to curing the child. However, certain non-genetic testing can be used to benefit the unborn and mothers. Routine testing could encourage parents to want perfect children. Even if there was no intention to abort, some tests such as amniocentesis carried risks. Father Tadeusz Pacholczyk of the National Catholic Bioethics Center, Pennsylvania, has pointed out that prenatal testing for Krabbe's leukodystrophy means that parents can seek matched bone marrow to treat the child in good time. Spina bifida could also be treated in utero. [Zenit on EWTN, 22 December]

A jury in America has called for legal clarity on organ donation. They issued a statement just after acquitting a California surgeon of harming a patient to obtain his kidney and liver. They found that Dr Hootan Roozrokh did not harm Mr Ruben Navarro, 25, when using a technique involving removing him from life support before extracting organs. Mr Navarro survived for eight hours after being taken off a ventilator. [New York Times, 18 December]

Doctors in South Korea are appealing against a court order to stop giving food and drink to a 75-year-old woman in a coma who is not dying. Kim Ok-kyung's family asked that all support should be withdrawn at Severance Hospital, Seoul, saying her existence was painful and meaningless. [LifeSiteNews, 19 December]

A report on state-funded abortions in Australia reportedly found that babies born alive after attempts to abort them were being left to die. Senator Guy Barnett of Tasmania may propose that the Medicare system stops funding second and third trimester abortions, of which there have been more than 10,500 since 1994 [ABC, 22 December]

Scientists have used chemicals to make nerve cells from a young patient's skin tissue, which could help develop treatments for spinal muscular atrophy. The University of Wisconsin-Madison will be able to study the new cells which exhibit the characteristics of the currently incurable disease, says Nature magazine. [Daily Mail, 22 December] The team says the technique could also help with understanding Huntington's and other diseases. BBC, 22 December]

A state's supreme court has ruled that pharmacists and pharmacy owners can bring a legal challenge against a regulation requiring them to supply morning-after pills. Governor Rod Blagojevich of Illinois ordered in 2005 that pharmacists should dispense the drugs or resign. Americans United for Life said the ruling was "a huge victory for the freedom of conscience of all healthcare providers." [LifeSiteNews, 19 December]

A woman's obesity does not significantly reduce the IVF success rate, according to a study of 1,700 women in Aberdeen, Scotland, by the city's university; it seems age is a more important factor. The researchers, whose work is published in Human Reproduction suggest obese women should still lose weight to avoid an increased risk of miscarriage. [BBC, 21 December]

An opinion poll suggests public support in developed countries for IVF and pre-implantation genetic diagnosis. The 22,500 respondents to a survey by the BBVA Foundation in Europe, the US, Japan and Israel were less keen on sex selection and on using technology to enable over-45s to have children. Most approved of the use of donated sperm if a man is infertile, but not to try to have an intelligent child. [Medical News Today, 21 December] The BBVA Foundation is a "social responsibility" body associated with the Spanish Banco Bilbao Vizcaya Argentaria. The full report is available here.

You can see our archive of news on our website and you can subscribe to emails, including those containing news summaries, also on the site.

Courageous Bishop Patrick O'Donoghue stands up to the State to defend marriage

Please write to the Bishop to thank him for his great leadership.

With formidable courage and clarity Bishop Patrick O'Donoghue has defended marriage from the ravages of the parental state - an issue which, for many of us, is intimately connected to the defence of the sanctity of human life. I reproduce in full below the letter to priests and people in his diocese, which will thrill and inspire Catholics and people of good will throughout Britain and other parts of the world.

Please pray that the Bishop of Lancaster's stand marks a turning point in standing up to the parental state - rather than being governed by unjust laws and policies even within the intimate sanctuary of our schools and families.


From: Rt Rev Patrick O’Donoghue
Bishop’s Apartment
Cathedral House
Balmoral Road
Lancaster LA1 3BT
Tel 01524 596050

17 December 2008

My dear Priests and People,

Catholic Caring Services

Thursday 11 December 2008 will forever be etched in my memory, because it was on that day that the relationship between the Diocese of Lancaster and Catholic Caring Services suffered an irretrievable breakdown.

This relationship – which had been forged by countless thousands of laity and clergy over more than 100 years – ended when the Trustees voted 9-1 in favour of dropping ‘Catholic’ from their title, signifying their capitulation to Government legislation on ‘same sex’ adoption with no attempt at resistance.

The Trustees rejected out of hand my repeated pleas in writing and at Meetings of the Board and with the CEO that we should seek an exemption under Human Rights & Religious Freedom Legislation, or failing this, attempt a legal challenge.

Where does this leave us as the Diocese of Lancaster?

As Bishop, I have now been forced to resign from the Board of Trustees of Catholic Caring Services because I consider such membership incompatible with my duty as a Catholic Bishop, with a responsibility to safeguard doctrine and morals, and to care for the well-being of the Catholic children and parents of this great Diocese of ours.

One of the fundamental responsibilities of a Catholic Bishop in the current climate is to protect and defend the sacrament of marriage. My insistence that Catholic Caring Services cannot have an ‘Open Policy’, that includes ‘same sex’ partnerships, rests on the fact that children develop and thrive best in the context of marriage.

The Church’s teaching on marriage rests on Jesus’ re-iteration of His Father’s revelation in Genesis, ‘Have you not read that the Creator from the beginning made them male and female and that He said to them: This is why a man leaves his father and mother and becomes attached to his wife, and the two become one flesh. (Matthew 19:4-5; cf. Genesis 2:24).

It is God’s intention that children are nurtured and raised by a loving father and mother, who become role models to boys and girls about what it means to be a husband and wife, a mother and a father. That this is seen as an unrealistic ideal by some in politics and the media shows how far our society has distorted morality.

If Catholic Caring Services truly hold that the needs of children are paramount it would do whatever possible to ensure that a child is placed with a father and a mother.

Whatever devalues marriage and the fundamental importance of a child having a mother and a father must be resisted by all Catholics and people of good will, because not only is the good of the child put at risk, but also the good of society.

This does not mean that I do not value the love, devotion and self-sacrifice of single parents, but it is also my duty to safeguard the ideal of marriage, particularly when it is under such sustained attack.

Consequences of the Trustees’ decision

I would want to make it clear that the new charity is no longer a Catholic charity and can no longer operate as an agency in the name of the Catholic Church of this Diocese (cf.Canon 300; cf. 216).

As a direct consequence of the Trustees’ decision, it is with great sadness that the Diocese will now begin the process of implementing the actions that I outlined in my letter of 5 October 2008:

a) The Charity Commission will be informed by the Diocese that the Trustees of Catholic Caring Services are no longer prepared to act in accordance with Catholic moral teaching and for that reason Catholic Caring Services is no longer regarded by the Church as being a Charity acting in the name of the Catholic Church.

b) The Trustees must now approach the Charity Commission to ask their approval of the name change from Catholic Caring Services to Caritas Care. They must also change the Objects of Catholic Caring Services, removing the reference to “the Roman Catholic Church both in this diocese of Lancaster and elsewhere in the United Kingdom”. It will be up to the Charity Commission to decide whether the Trustees of Catholic Caring Services are lawfully entitled to make such changes.

c) With deep sadness I must declare that all churches, parishes, schools and other Catholic organisations or societies are to have no formal associations with Catholic Caring Services and the new charity is no longer entitled to have access to Diocesan Collections - The Good Shepherd (Bishop’s Fund), or the Christmas Crib collections.

d) With regard to the properties in the ownership of the Diocesan Trustees, but currently occupied by Catholic Caring Services – including Tulketh Rd, Wellington Rd and Marian House, Beech Grove (all in Preston) – it will be now be necessary for the Diocesan Trustees to conduct a review of the terms of the leases to determine:

i) whether there is any potential breach of the terms of occupation
ii) whether the new charity’s responsibilities are within our Memorandum and
the Articles of Association.

e) The Diocese will, of course, now need to review the receipt and usage of past and future legacies and/or bequests made in favour of Catholic Caring Services and determine whether it is appropriate for any past legacies and/or bequests to be repaid to the diocese or future legacies/bequests to be retained by the Diocese.

It pains me beyond measure to make the above decisions, and certainly, I have done everything in my power to prevent this tragic rejection of the Church’s moral teaching.

Catholics must follow the teaching of the Church

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has stated that allowing children to be adopted by persons in homosexual unions is gravely immoral. (CDF, Considerations Regarding Proposals to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Homosexual Persons. 2003).

All Catholics have a clear obligation to abide by the moral teaching of the Church. If, in conscience, they decide that they cannot follow the Church’s teaching they should resign – as a matter of integrity – from any position of authority they hold in the Church or an agency of the Church.

In my judgement the Government is imposing a great injustice on the Catholics of this country by forcing Catholic social agencies to choose between co-operating or not cooperating with acts that are gravely immoral. It is a violation of our consciences and our religious freedom.

Though I accept that the Trustees of Catholic Caring Services have been faced with a difficult decision, I cannot accept their unwillingness to challenge this unjust law. It is this unwillingness that has left me with no choice but to make this painful decision.

Though Catholic Caring Services are involved in a whole range of valuable work with the disabled, the disadvantaged and the marginalised, how can I allow the Catholic Church to be associated with a body that has chosen a path that co-operates with actions that are against the explicit moral teaching of the Church?

Renewing our commitment to social caring

Now the diocese is faced with a pressing challenge and opportunity, because Catholic Caring Service’s decision to break with the teaching of the Church does not mean that the Diocese of Lancaster is abandoning our work with the disabled, the disadvantaged, and the marginalised. Furthermore, I am determined that we will continue to support the marvellous commitment of parents who adopt children.

As we look confidently to the future there are three positive and practical steps to take which I would recommend for immediate action:

1. The formation of a new Diocesan Adoption/Fostering Support Service with the task of positively encouraging and canvassing married couples to adopt/foster. The offer of help, pre-and post adoption, will also be in this brief. The funding of this Service will come from the Christmas Crib, Good Shepherd and other Collections etc.

2. The Diocese will take steps to increase its engagement with individuals, groups and organisations (i.e. SVP) in establishing a systematic programme of active social care in all of our parishes and deaneries. I know, too, that much is being done in this field already.

3. The Diocese will set up a Social Care Commission to develop and facilitate increased support at parish-level for all involved in the care of the vulnerable, especially children wherever they may be. They are truly the caring face of the Church!

The immediate priority for the new Social Care Commission will be the establishment and oversight of the Diocese’s new Adoption/Fostering Support Service.

Please do all you can to strongly support the Crib Collection in your parish this Christmas and send the proceeds marked ‘Adoption Support Service’ directly to:
Mr Paul Ryan,
The Diocesan Finance Office,
The Pastoral Centre,
Balmoral Road
Lancaster,
LA1 3BT

The money that people donate to this collection will be used to help improve the lives of vulnerable children and a sign, too, of support for the Diocese and its Bishops in their decision.

I would like to thank those members of the clergy and laity who have supported and advised me during some of the most difficult months of my episcopacy, including social work professionals, moral theologians and lawyers. I would also like to thank all who have offered their prayers for the resolution of this crisis. Please continue praying for the success of the work ahead of us.

With every good wish and prayer this Christmas,

As ever in Christ,
+Patrick O’Donoghue
Bishop of Lancaster