Anglican bishop visits SPUC branch

Rt Rev Dr Peter Forster, Anglican Bishop of Chester, spoke recently to the annual meeting of SPUC's Ellesmere Port and Neston branch, which was held at St Winefride’s Catholic church, Neston, Cheshire. Judy Howard, branch secretary, tells me that members were especially pleased that the bishop was prepared to visit them in the week before Easter. She adds: "It is so encouraging that someone of his stature should have become a patron of SPUC Evangelicals and a member of SPUC. He is not afraid to speak out against abortion and the damage it is doing to family life."

Judy is pictured above, second from the right, with the bishop. Next to her are Margaret Unsworth, branch chairman, and Robin Haig, SPUC's national chairman. Also pictured is Anne Fearon, chairman of SPUC Merseyside.

UN agreement could support health workers' conscientious objections

You may know that various United Nations documents defend unborn life. The 1959 Declaration of the Rights of the Child includes: "the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth". You can read more about how international conventions protect the unborn in What rights, if any, do the unborn have under international law? by Doctors John Fleming and Michael Hains on the Priests for Life website.

I mention such global agreements because another such document is being cited in the matter of the Australian state of Victoria's Abortion Law Reform Act. Our colleagues at New South Wales Right to Life describe how this law would force health workers to declare their opposition to abortion and to refer women who want abortions to people who will perform them. Lawyers point out that agreements which Australia has signed could invalidate this measure. Pursuing sources which NSW Right to Life use, we find that the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights states: "No one shall be subject to coercion which would impair his freedom to have or to adopt a religion or belief of his choice." In a comment on that covenant, the UN's human rights commissioner points out that that document's provisions mean that "no one can be compelled to reveal his thoughts or adherence to a religion or belief."

In other words, not only are healthcare workers entitled to their beliefs (including an objection to abortion), but forcing them to declare such beliefs is against international agreements. Meanwhile, abortion supporters want abortion made an international human right.

Pressure on pan-American meeting to endorse abortion

A pro-life colleague in Washington, DC, warns that a current meeting between the nations of central, north and south America could be used to promote abortion. Mrs Marie Smith (left) of the Parliamentary Network for Critical Issues says that the International Planned Parenthood Federation is trying to influence a declaration of the Fifth Summit of the Americas which is taking place in Trinidad and Tobago and ends on Sunday. The federation wants the conference, due to be attended by President Obama and Ms Hillary Clinton, to acknowledge what it calls reproductive health and rights as essential to prosperity.

Mrs Smith writes: "Pro-life advocates need to be alert to attempts to use the declaration to advance reproductive health with language which can include abortion. These terms include reproductive health care, reproductive health, reproductive health services, sexual and reproductive health, and sexual health. Pro-life countries will need to remove these terms from the document if possible and clarify in an Explanation of Position (EOP) that nothing in the document advances abortion."

Mrs Smith points out that there is a move to make reproductive health (which can include abortion) part of primary health care and HIV treatment. She says that caution is needed even when dealing with such innocuous expressions as comprehensive healthcare and services, health services, and healthcare services.

Mrs Smith adds: "While the Obama administration and Hillary Clinton State Department support IPPF in all its abortion endeavors, and will fund it with hard earned taxpayer dollars, the nations of Latin America and the Caribbean are a long way from rejecting their cherished defense of the most basic human right, the right to life of the unborn child."

The Parliamentary Network for Critical Issues is run by Life Issues Institute, Ohio.

The pro-life battle in the US

I'm pictured above at a meeting in the US last month with Dr. Wanda Franz, president of National Right to Life (centre) and Darla St Martin, the organisation's co-executive director. Our American colleagues have a tough battle ahead of them as they confront a deeply anti-life administration led by President Obama.

While in the US, I attended Mass at Sacred Heart church, Suffern, NY. Mgr Joseph Giandurco, parish priest, wrote in his newsletter about how parishioners had filled in postcards opposing the Freedom of Choice Act and about the furore over Notre Dame university's offering the president an honorary degree. Before Mass, laypeople led the congregation in prayers for the defence of the sanctity of human life from conception till natural death. This is something which we in Britain may care to do too, with the permission of the parish clergy.

Symposium on theology of the body, Maynooth, June

An Irish youth movement is presenting an international symposium on the goodness, truth and beauty of human sexuality, and the divine plan for human love. Pure in Heart will host Man and Woman He Created Them: Pope John Paul II's Theology of the Body from 11 to 14 June at Maynooth Campus, County Kildare. The event marks the 30th anniversary of Pope John Paul II's visit to Ireland and the of first papal audience on the theology of the body.

Bishop Philip Boyce of Raphoe will offer the opening Mass and conference speakers will include Fr Don Calloway MIC, Sister Mary Timothy Prokes FSE, Dr Mary Shivanandan and DDr Michael Waldstein.

The event is sponsored by the Theology of the Body Institute and 3ltv. You can find out more and arrange to attend by visiting www.jp2tob.com or emailing info@jp2tob.com

One child policy partially responsible for 32 million more young men than young women in China says British Medical Journal

The forced abortion regime in China, for which Barack Obama restored vital funding as one of his first actions as President, is responsible for untold human misery involving the brutal mistreatment of women and their families.

Another aspect of the misery was highlighted yesterday in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), "the medical publication of the year". According to analysis of data from a 2005 national survey China has 32 million more young men than young women.

According to a BMJ editorial:

"By showing that sex ratios for different age groups and places of residence vary with how the one child policy is implemented, the study confirms that the policy is partially responsible for the current imbalance in the sex ratio in China."

In an interview with the Associated Press, Therese Hesketh, one of the authors of the BMJ study, said that the imbalance is expected to steadily worsen among people of childbearing age over the next two decades and could trigger a slew of social problems, including a possible spike in crime by young men unable to find female partners.

And to our eternal shame, the UK remains the fourth highest country donor to the UNFPA (according to the UNFPA's latest annual [2007] report . The UNFPA’s well-documented involvement in China’s one-child policy has been described as “arguably the greatest bioethical atrocity on the globe”.

Archbishop condemns plan to advertise abortion on TV

When I was going into church for a Good Friday service earlier today, a delighted fellow-parishioner told me about a statement by the archbishop-elect of Westminster on proposals to advertise abortion and birth control on television. I've told the media that SPUC warmly welcomes Most Rev Vincent Nichols' initiative. I'm sure many Catholics and non-Catholics will respond to his call to oppose ads for abortion and condoms on TV.

Honduras votes to ban abortion-inducing morning-after pill

The legislature of Honduras has voted to ban the morning-after pill. Members of Honduras’s Congress argued that the morning-after pill is abortifacient and therefore violates Honduras’s constitutional ban on abortion. The measure passed bans the purchase, sale, use and distribution of the morning-after pill. Martha Lorena Alvarado de Casco (pictured), a Liberal party representative and an Honduran pro-life leader, sponsored the ban.

SPUC has fought very hard for many years to have the truth about the morning-after pill recognised. In the year 2000 SPUC mounted a legal challenge in the English high court against the supply of the morning-after pill without prescription. We explained that the morning-after pill manufacturers say that it can affect the lining of the womb so that embryos can't implant. (It's important to note that other contraceptive drugs and devices also cause early abortions.) This may be a death sentence for young human lives.

Mr Justice Munby, the judge in the case, ruled against SPUC, deciding that a mother is not pregnant until the embryo implants in her womb. Although an embryonic child is present before implantation, the judge said, the mother is not legally pregnant. Justice Munby’s decision has been strongly challenged in the academic press and elsewhere, specifically by Fleming, Pike & Neville and by John Keown. In summary, the overwhelming scientific and legal evidence makes clear that:

• conception is to be equated with fertilisation;
• a woman is pregnant from fertilisation/conception onwards;
• miscarriage, being synonymous with abortion, refers to loss of the preimplantation embryo, potentially caused by the morning after pill.

Importantly, Mrs de Casco pointed out that the morning-after pill "is a hormonal bomb that acts directly in the body causing thousands of physical changes in girls, who are the ones taking it the most, 12, 14 and 16 year-old girls". Levonelle 1500 delivers 50 times the daily dosage of the Norgeston daily mini-pill. It is shocking to discover that there is very limited medical evidence on the effects of the morning-after pill on girls under the age of 16, which the manufacturers have also admitted. Pro-abortion advocates so oftens claim that they are promoting women's rights and health, but what the young women exposed to the morning-after pill?

I spoke on the 'phone this week to Martha de Casco. She said that the measure banning the promotion and selling of the morning after pill now goes to the President of the Honduras who will either ratify or veto it. If it's vetoed, it will go back to the Congress who can overturn the veto with a three-fourths majority. It's therefore vital to write to the President of the National Congress to congratulate the Congress on their vote and calling on Congress-men and -women to stand firm. Please write to:

Roberto Micheletti Bain
Presidente Congreso Nacional de Honduras
Palacio Legislativo
Tegucigalpa, D.C.
Honduras
Email: rmicheletti@congreso.gob.hn

Pro-lifers must defend the Pope from the Blairs' campaign

On 5 March, I blogged about how Tony & Cherie Blair had launched high profile attacks on two fundamental aspects of papal teaching on building a culture of life. Just over a month later, the Blairs have made a similar attack on Pope Benedict on the same issues. Tony Blair, in an interview with Attitude, a homosexual magazine, has said that the Catholic Church must change its "entrenched attitudes" to homosexuality. And Cherie has told the Times of Malta that she was "rather saddened" by the Pope's comments in Africa that the promotion of condom use threatened to worsen the spread of HIV.

What this repeat joint attack suggests is that the Blairs are using their continuous high-profile media exposure to undermine the Catholic faith to which they subscribe. In his Attitude interview, Tony said: "For all religions, the challenge is how do you extract the essential values of the faith from a vast accumulation of doctrine and practice?" Considering the support that both Tony & Cherie have given to pro-abortion campaigns, will the Blairs now soon be campaigning openly for the Catholic Church to ditch its teaching against abortion?

A clue to the answer to that question can be found if we ask another question a la Cicero: Cui bono? Who benefits from the Blairs' campaign against Catholic teaching? The answer is clearly the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) and other abortion promoters, which are endorsed by Cherie Blair, and the pro-abortion groups with which Tony Blair and his Faith Foundation have established such close links, continuing the pro-abortion policies he pursued as an MP and as Prime Minister. The culture which has resulted from a rejection of traditional sexual ethics has in turn created a culture of death. As I've mentioned before, it is IPPF which has led the attacks on the Pope -whose comments on condoms and AIDS is bad for their "big business".

For the sake of unborn babies, women and young people, pro-lifers of all faiths and none must rally together to defend the Pope, from the Blairs' campaign. As the late Pope John Paul II taught in Evangelium Vitae (para. 97), 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.

Please sign declaration of support for Pope Benedict's pro-life/pro-family stance

Pope Benedict has been under heavy attack following his visit to Africa and his clear statements pointing out that condoms are not the solution for AIDs. International Planned Parenthood Federation have led the attacks in order, as I explained at the time, to protect the "big business" in which they are engaged.

I have written many times on this blog about the Catholic Church's teaching on the truth and meaning of human sexuality, and particularly about the intimate links there are between Pope Paul VI's encyclical Humanae Vitae, the sanctity of human life and the pro-life struggle. The Pope needs our support for his pro-life/pro-family stance, so I am encouraging you to sign the declaration at http://www.yes-for-benedict.eu/

We, the undersigned, declare our full solidarity with the Holy Father Pope Benedict XVI and his teachings.

We strongly object to the irresponsible attacks in the media on the person of the Holy Father in the context of his pilgrimage to Africa. His words of truth have become a pretext for further attempts to undermine the teachings of the Catholic Church, and especially the Encyclical “Humanae Vitae”.

We wish to express our great gratitude to the Holy Father for his uncompromising proclamation of the Truth, which the modern world needs so much.

The list of people who signed the statement will be delivered to the Vatican.

Dignitas director says suicide is marvellous, marvellous

Forget the reassurances given to you by euthanasia advocates: "only in the case of terminal illness", "only for people in unbearable pain", "just for the hard cases." Yes, well we've heard that before, haven't we?

Ludwig Minelli, the director of Dignitas, the Swiss suicide outfit, is at least upfront about the motives of the euthanasia movement. Dignitas has assisted almost 900 people in ending their lives, including more than 100 from the UK. Pro-euthanasia groups in this country try to distance themselves from disreputable individuals like Minelli whilst at the same time using the existence of these facilities to manipulate public opinion.

According to Minelli, assisted suicide is a "marvellous, marvellous possibility for a human being" which should be available for absolutely anybody, including those suffering from depression, and it is quite a little money-saver for the state.

"For 50 suicide attempts you have one suicide and the others are failing with heavy costs on the National Health Service", says Minelli. "If we would have another attitude to suicide, saying suicide is a very good possibility to escape. In many, many cases they are terribly hurt afterwards sometimes you have to put them in institutions for 50 years. Very costly."

His comments simply do not reflect reality. Many suicide attempts are what is known as parasuicides, cries for help that are not intended to end in death. Yes, suicidal people may need ongoing help and support, but the argument that they are financial liabilities who should be put out of the nation's misery is so heartless as to be worthy of Nazi Germany. We mustn't forget that the euthanasia movement is just another heartless facet of the culture of death. Fortunately, its advocates are becoming careless and are making their real motives increasingly obvious.

Courageous politician holds Hillary Clinton to account

On 27 March Hillary Clinton (pictured bottom-right), the radical pro-abortion US secretary of state, visited the Basilica of Our Lady of Guadalupe, Mexico, a major shrine for the international pro-life movement. The very next day in Texas, Mrs Clinton received from Planned Parenthood, America's biggest abortion provider, an award named after Margaret Sanger (pictured top-right), the founder of the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) of which Planned Parenthood of America forms part. In her acceptance speech, Mrs Clinton said: "I admire Margaret Sanger enormously" and "I want to assure you that reproductive rights and the umbrella issue of women's rights and empowerment will be a key to the foreign policy of [the Obama] Administration".

In response, on 31 March Chris Smith, the pro-life congressman for Trenton, New Jersey, gave a stunning speech in the House of Representatives, holding Mrs Clinton to account for her endorsement of Sanger. Among many notable parts of his speech, Mr Smith laid out the evidence of Sanger's "cruel and reckless disregard for poor, pregnant women". Sanger had argued forcefully and at length against any form of welfare for poor mothers, arguing instead for the poor to be prevented from breeding. Mr Smith said that Planned Parenthood was really "Child Abuse Incorporated", as "[a]bortion is violence against children".

In a world dominated by a more and more aggressive and extremist anti-life regime under President Obama, we need many more courageous public figures like Congressman Chris Smith. There is no incompatibility between clear condemnations of abortion and profound, practical compassion for mothers in difficult circumstances. Chris Smith's speech featured both, and accurately represented the pro-life movement's core values.

Obama and China best of friends when it comes to forced abortion

President Barack Obama met with Hu Jintao, the Chinese leader, yesterday at the G20 summit in London. I think the smiles say it all. Mr Obama recently lifted the funding bans on the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) and other anti-life agencies which are complicit in China's one-child, forced abortion policy. I'm sure that makes Mr Hu very happy.

The late Dr John S. Aird, former senior China specialist at the U.S. Bureau for the Census, was one of the world's experts on the one-child policy. Shortly before his death in October 2005, Dr Aird wrote to SPUC: "[T]he new Chinese leadership under Hu Jintao seems to have taken, if anything, a still harder line on population control than its predecessor."

The warm attitude shown to the Chinese regime by Mr Obama and by Hilary Clinton, the new US secretary of state, reminds me of the warm relationship between Henry Kissinger, former secretary of state and Mao Zedong, the Communist dictator, in the 1970s. Indeed, it was Kissinger's infamous National Security Study Memorandum (NSSM) 200 of 1974 that set the stage for the Chinese to adopt a strict population control policy in co-operation with UN agencies in 1979. The belief that population growth, at home and/or or abroad, is bad for a country's economic and security interests rapidly became official dogma in America, China, the UK and many other countries.

After countless millions of abortions, as well as the effect of abortifacient "contraceptive" drugs and devices, and other anti-family practices, many countries now have no answer to the dilemma of how to provide for the growing proportion of their populations which is past retirement age.

For example, in the year 2000, of the population of Ukraine, 26% were children and 20% were elderly, making a total of 46% of the Ukrainian population categorised as dependent. It is predicted that by 2050, the proportion of children in the Ukrainian population will have fallen to 13%, whereas the proportion of elderly will have risen to 57%, making a total of 69% categorised as dependant. This represents an inversion of the usual population pyramid, in which a large base of working (i.e. income- and revenue-generating) citizens support a smaller base of non-working citizens.

So all the talk about stimulus packages to end the financial crisis is pointless without a plan to end the population crisis. Some tough choices are being made to end the financial crisis: company directors are being sacked and entrenched bad habits are being ended. Some tough choices need to be made to end the population crisis: many political leaders need to be sacked and abortion and other anti-life/anti-family practices need to end.

Resistance to abortion in Spain

Last Sunday pro-life marches were held simultaneously in the Spanish capital Madrid and other Spanish cities. The catalyst for the marches was the Zapatero government's proposed extension of legal abortion. LifeSite reports that "[t]he organizers estimated that 500,000 people took part in rallies in more than 80 cities across Spain, with AFP reporting an estimated 100,000 in Madrid alone." SPUC sent a message of support.

The pro-life movement can often seem isolated. So the Spanish marches helps us to remember that we are not alone. There are countless thousands of active (and yet-to-become-active!) pro-lifers all over the world, of all ages, religions and backgrounds. New pro-life campaigns are launched regularly, such as Silent No More. Pro-life activitsts are learning every day how to use the latest technologies to spread the pro-life message.

Apart from the thousands of wonderful people in the pro-life movement, we have a resource which none of the forces deployed against us have, or will ever have: the truth. A powerful, peaceful, pro-life resistance (and, I believe, prayer) will, in time, roll back the culture of death, and the truth about human life will be seen clearly. So congratulations to the Spanish marchers!

Mr Ed Balls wants young people to distinguish right from wrong

Ed Balls (pictured, left), the secretary of state for children, schools and young people, has asked Ofsted, the school inspection office

"to carry out a survey of independent faith schools to examine how they are meeting the Independent Schools Standards relating to the spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils."

The press release from Mr Balls goes on to say that

"The spiritual, moral, social and cultural development of pupils at the school meets the standard if the school promotes principles which [inter alia] enable pupils to distinguish right from wrong."

Are you, like me, somewhat struck by the irony here? Mr Balls last month issued a document which means, inter alia, that:

• further education colleges will be flooded with birth control
• doctors will be paid to facilitate increased sexual activity and abortion
• parents will be continue to be marginalised from their children's moral development by the government and its ideological cronies.

Isn't it Mr Balls and his government colleagues who should be surveyed for their capacity to distinguish right from wrong? Such as the differences between:

• welcoming newly-conceived human life on the one hand, and on the other hand killing an innocent human being on the ?
• serving the well-being of young women on the one hand, and on the other hand permanently damaging their physical and/or psychological health?
• upholding young persons' dignity on the one hand, and on the other hand giving them the wherewithal to degrade themselves sexually?

The next generation's ability to distinguish right from wrong is being damaged massively by the policies of Mr Balls and his government.

Human embryos rather than animals must be used in testing says EU draft directive

Tomorrow (31 March) a committee of the European Parliament will vote on the issue of experiments using animals.

The Agriculture and Rural Development (AGRI) committee will consider a draft directive which has the potential to force European Union (EU) member-states to use human embryos and embryonic tissue (e.g. stem cells) instead of animals in testing. Although the draft directive does not at present explicitly mention human embryos, it could be used to force countries to demand that researchers use human embryos rather than animals.

SPUC is gravely concerned by the draft directive's potential to reduce the status of human embryos to below that of laboratory animals, and the abuse and destruction of innocent human life which would follow. It is essential for the protection of vulnerable human beings and the upholding of scientific ethics that the committee ensures that the draft directive is fully scrutinised according to the right to life and the dignity of the human person. Please express your concerns by emailing the following members and substitutes of the committee:

Neil Parish (UK), committee chairman, email neil.parish@europarl.europa.eu
James Nicholson (UK), member, email jnicholson@europarl.eu.int
Alyn Smith (UK), member, email alyn.smith@europarl.europa.eu
Jeffrey Titford (UK), member, email jtitford@ukip.org
Mairead McGuinness (Ireland), member, email mairead.mcguinness@europarl.europa.eu
Liam Aylward (Ireland), substitute, email liam.aylward@europarl.europa.eu
Jim Allister (UK), substitute, email jim.allister@europarl.europa.eu
Brian Simpson (UK), substitute, email briansimpson.labour@virgin.net
Struan Stevenson (UK), substitute, email struanmep@aol.com
Robert Sturdy (UK), substitute, email rwsturdy@btconnect.com

Please remember to copy any replies you receive to Anthony Ozimic, SPUC political secretary, at political@spuc.org.uk

IVF: bad ethics, bad healthcare

The Independent newspaper has reported that a new study suggests that babies born following IVF have a 30 percent higher of certain genetic defects than babies conceived naturally. The report lists heart abnormalities, cleft lips, bowel problems and digestive tract disorders among the problems. The Independent quotes a father of IVF triplets, who explains that couples going through IVF are too desperate for a child to care much about risks.

SPUC and colleagues in other pro-life groups have been warning about the health risks of IVF to both babies and mothers for a long time. We have also been warning about the pressures that IVF imposes upon a couple's relationship. The risks of IVF are far more extensive that those highlighed in the Independent's report.

The double standards and inconsistency are hard to stomach. Doctors anguish over the increased risk of a baby with a heart defect or intestinal obstruction, and discuss the figures intently with desperate would-be parents. But what thought do they give to the dominant risk: that most IVF embryos die in the laboratory or are frozen and will never get to be born? Does that matter to the doctors?

The important truth behind all this is that if a so-called medical treatment (IVF doesn't actually treat infertility problems, it merely gets around them) has serious side-effects, the risks may make it unethical to use; and that if a procedure is unethical, the ethical judgement of those who practise it may be impaired. Even those who don't see inherent moral problems with IVF ought to recognise this problem.

NaProTech (Natural Procreative Technology) is an ethical, healthy and far more successful alternative to IVF. Unlike IVF, in NaProTech no embryonic children are killed or exposed to harm in the laboratory, and couples' relationships are strengthened. Spread the good news!

David Paton on government's teenage pregnancy strategy

David Paton (pictured), chair of industrial economics at Nottingham University Business School, has written an article for the latest edition of the Nursing Times. I suggest reading it in full, though below are a few key quotations. Professor Paton's article, published before the proposal to allow advertising abortion and contraception on television hit the headlines, certainly helps reinforce the widespread feeling that advertising abortion on TV will do nothing to reduce the numbers.

Prof. Paton (among other things) says:

• "[T]he latest data shows that pregnancy and abortion rates for under-16s are higher now than when the [government's teenage pregnancy] strategy was published [in 1999]."
• "Many contraceptive methods offer no protection against sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Research published in Sex Education suggests that increased access to emergency contraception may be associated with higher teenage STI rates."
• "On the positive side, the academic evidence is clear that involving parents in decision-making is crucial."
• "[A]ll health professionals – and, indeed, taxpayers – should question the wisdom of PCTs spending scarce resources on measures such as school-based provision of emergency contraception that, at best, are ineffective and, at worst, may actually be contributing to poor sexual health among teenagers."

Broadcast advertising of abortion a "hammer blow" says bishop

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) is considering lifting its ban on abortion agencies advertising through the broadcast media.

It's good to see Bishop Patrick O'Donoghue's timely comments on this latest development. He calls it "another hammer blow to the sanctity of life in this country" which comes "from the heart of the abortion industry" and he calls on society to offer "practical and compassionate support to women facing crisis pregnancies".

The ASA's proposal threatens to further commercialise the killing of unborn children. It would completely disregard the adverse effect of abortion on women's health. Agencies with a financial interest in abortion will be in a position to buy expensive broadcast advertising, whereas groups which provide objective information about abortion and its impact on women's health will be unlikely to afford to advertise.

Abortion agencies mislead women, by telling them that their unborn babies are just products of conception, and that abortion is not killing but simply ending a pregnancy.

The ASA has said that its move has been made in repsonse to government requests. That's because the government's sexual health strategy is failing and the government is now desperate.

I note the proposed requirement that any group advertising counselling services for pregnant women must make clear if the group does not refer women for abortion. SPUC will be scrutinising the ASA's proposals closely for any similar signs of potential discrimination against pro-life groups. The ASA already demonstrated a bias against pro-life groups when it attempted to ban advertisements which stated correctly that morning-after pills may cause early abortions.

SPUC's also concerned about the proposal to allow advertisements on television for condoms before the 9pm watershed. Such a move would only serve to sexualise young people, and the resulting promiscuity would lead to more abortions, more teenage pregnancies and more sexually transmitted infections.

What sort of culture are we handing on the next generation, where condoms and killing babies are offered alongside cornflakes and washing powder? We should try to be a culture of life and responsibility, not a culture of death and promiscuity. The ASA's reported move is going in totally the wrong direction: a "hammer blow" as the good bishop of Lancaster says.

Battle joined over life-issues at the UN

A great battle was joined at the UN early this month. Pro-life and pro-family non-governmental organisations were concerned that the US Obama administration would be well prepared to promote an anti-life agenda at the Commission on the Status of Women. The US delegation was actually ill-prepared and achieved little. SPUC's Peter Smith was there and his report is on the SPUC website. Our picture shows Ms Jeanne Head, the experienced pro-life lobbyist representing the US's National Right to Life Committee (NRLC), with SPUC's Patrick Buckley at the meeting.