Doctor in abortion of nine-year old Brazilian girl strongly opposes Catholic teaching: BBC World Service interview

Anthony Ozimic, SPUC's political secretary, heard Dr Rivaldo Mendes de Albuquerque (pictured) being interviewed on the BBC World Service yesterday. He is the doctor in the tragic case of the nine-year old girl whose twins were aborted, which I have been writing about in recent days. Anthony has transcribed the interview and I publish it below.

Do pass this on. Dr Rivaldo is strongly pro-abortion and opposes church teaching on a range of issues - which throws significant light on the furore surrounding this case.

BBC World Service “Outlook” programme, Wednesday 18 March 2009

Presenter George Arney briefly describes the background to the story, then:

Dr Rivaldo Mendes de Albuquerque: We’ve been providing services to the women and child victims of sexual violence for 13 years now. This girl had been sexually abused by her step-father since the age of six. Normally teenagers have their first period during the ages of 11 and 13 but some ovulate and menstruate earlier, especially when subject to early sexual stimulation, which was the case with this girl.

George Arney: When she came into your hospital, did she actually realise that she was pregnant, because she was so young at the time, she can’t have known very much about it?

Dr Rivaldo Mendes de Albuquerque: This girl is nine years old, and she comes from an extremely poor vilage in a rural part of our state. At all moments she behaved like a child. She had no idea about pregnancy and that she was carrying twins. She just acted like a child, she played with her toys.

George Arney: She came in, I think, complaining of stomach pains, I think. What kind of reaction did she have when she was told she was pregnant, and pregnant with twins, what’s more?

Dr Rivaldo Mendes de Albuquerque: It was the reaction of a child who doesn’t know what it means. She was perplexed and surprised with the situation, and she wanted relief from the pain that was bothering her. She didn’t associate it with becoming a mother. She never expressed that possibility. She just wanted relief from the discomfort, and never made the connection between the pain and giving birth to two children. She never expressed that opinion. She was pregnant with twins but the number of babies didn’t make any difference to her. What was bothering her was the stomach ache, that was all.

George Arney: Did she give her consent to the abortion? She must have presumably realised that she was pregnant before the procedure was carried out?

Dr Rivaldo Mendes de Albuquerque: Yes, she wanted to be free from the discomfort she was feeling. At all times her mother was with her, and she was being informed, and agreed with the procedures. Her womb was so large because she was carrying twins, and she’s such a small girl herself. If the doctors had allowed this pregnancy to develop, we would risk losing the child and the foetuses. In cases of rape of such a young girl, this kind of decision would require the parent’s consent. As well as the risk of death, the decision is with the doctors. In this case, it was made by the mother and the medical team.

George Arney: So what went through your mind, Dr Rivaldo? You could see that this girl was very young, she was in danger, but did you have to wrestle with your conscience before going ahead with the abortion, as you yourself are a Catholic, and you know full well that abortion is not permitted by the Catholic Church?

Dr Rivaldo Mendes de Albuquerque: I’m an active Catholic, but in this case I found myself before a nine-year-old girl who risked dying for being sexually abused. From the legal point of view the Brazilian law allows us to stop pregnancy resulting from rape or where there’s a risk of death. From the moral point of view, what we did was acceptable, something I would do to anyone close to me, even a relative. And from the religious point of view, our intention was to promote good. Despite the strict codes of the Catholic Church, we didn’t feel intimidated by these codes, so we acted to save the life of the child, which was most important. The religious laws were written by the clerics, and do not translate God’s words exactly. That gave us peace of mind, and we recognised that the Catholic Church has made, and continues to make, mistakes, and especially with regards to women’s rights in Brazil and the rest of the world. The Church is meddling inappropriately into these rights, which are internationally recognised human rights.

George Arney: That’s quite a strong criticism of the Catholic Church. Did you realise that when you decided to go ahead with the procedure that you might be excommunicated?

Dr Rivaldo Mendes de Albuquerque: I didn’t, never. But in fact, it isn’t the first time we’ve been excommunicated. When we started providing services to women victims of sexual violence, and offering them abortions 13 years ago, we were excommunicated then. But being excommunicated has never made me feel distant from God, and from my moral, legal and ethical principles. It’s a hard situation, but I didn’t feel threatened by God. I felt threatened by men.

George Arney: So how has this confrontation you’ve been having with the Church over these past 13 years impacted upon your own faith? It must be very difficult being at loggerheads with the Church and with the Vatican?

Dr Rivaldo Mendes de Albuquerque: Well, as a Catholic, I believe in God and see the mistakes by men in the name of God. Some positions of the Catholic Church, on birth control, against abortion, against homosexuality, in defence of celibacy, and other examples, only reinforce that the Church seems to be out of tune with people’s thinking, and people’s will, not God’s will, for God never mentioned any of that. Men wrote about that, and said it came from God.

George Arney: This whole business has caused quite a stir internationally as well as in Brazil, and even President Lula has condemned the Church for excommunicating you. What kind of reaction from the public have you had?

Dr Rivaldo Mendes de Albuquerque: We received thousands of messages of support from Brazil and abroad, and opinions polls conducted in the last weeks shows that the Brazilian society sided with this child and with the medical team. That showed that the question of abortion is a matter of public health in Brazil, and must be considered case-by-case. Restrictive laws do not improve public health, particularly women’s health.

George Arney: In this particular case, the outcry stems, doesn’t it, from the fact that the girl who was pregnant was so young and that she was raped by her step-father allegedly?

Dr Rivaldo Mendes de Albuquerque: In this particular case, it was the bishop’s attitude, by promptly excommunicating the mother and the medical team. We would expect him to show compassion towards the child, and try to understand the reasons underpinning the doctor’s decisions to carry out the abortion. I believe this is the reason why the public sided with the child and rejected the bishop’s reaction.

George Arney: What’s happened to the girl now, Dr Rivaldo, and what sort of impact do you think this is likely to have on her future life and on the life of her family?

Dr Rivaldo Mendes de Albuquerque: The child is now being assisted by social workers, doctors and psychologists. I have the impression that the psychological harm caused the sexual abuse will never be reversed. I’m very concerned that this child may return to the life of poverty in which she lived with her mother and her sister, and she may again become the victim of renewed violence.

George Arney: Dr Rivaldo Mendes de Albuquerque, firm in his faith, despite being excommunicated by the Catholic Church.

ENDS

Pro-abortion "Catholic" US Health Secretary's dilemma

The Kansas State Senate has passed a bill that would require that women seeking abortions be allowed to see an ultrasound image of their baby at least 30 minutes before the abortion.

Won't it be interesting to see how Kathleen Sebelius (pictured), the Kansas State Governor and President Obama's Secretary of State for health and human services, responds to this bill? She is a professed Catholic who supports abortion - or, as the pro-abortion lobby likes to put it, she supports "the woman's right to choose".

According to ChristianNewsWire: "Sebelius vetoed a similar bill last year. However, this time the bill passed both houses with a veto-proof majority. For her to oppose the legislation is to invite a rare veto override and challenge to her political power. "

Will pro-abortion "Catholic", Kathleen Sebelius, support a bill requiring health professionals to provide women with all the information possible before having an abortion? Watch this space.

Declaration of the archdiocese of Olinda and Recife on Brazilian abortion case

I blogged earlier this week on the real issues in the tragic case of the nine-year old girl in Brazil whose twins were aborted and last week when the news broke .

Today, in Rorate Caeli, those most closely involved with the pastoral care of the little girl at the centre of this case have made a statement.

I think it's important to read it in order to obtain a more balanced picture of how the Catholic Church acted in this matter.

Nine-year old's abortion: the real issue

In all the furore about the heartbreaking case of the nine-year girl whose twins were aborted, on which I blogged last week, let's remember the real issue.

The fundamental issue for humanity is that two babies have been killed: the right to life of the twins in the womb of this poor Brazilian girl has been denied by all those participating in the abortion, and all those approving of the abortion (neither of which category, of course, includes the nine-year-old mother). Once the right to life can, in certain circumstances, be swept aside, no unborn child is safe - any unborn baby can be killed. The truth of the case against abortion becomes obscured by pragmatic considerations. The pro-abortion lobby understands this as well as anybody - and better than most.

Also, as I said before, the little girl at the centre of this tragic situation has suffered not only the violence of rape but also the violence of abortion, which carries with it the risk of long-term harm including a seriously increased risk of suicide. Objectively speaking this homicide, which is never an act of compassion, is lacking in compassion to the child-mother as well as to her twins.

Human Rights Council ignores slaughter of the unborn

The Human Rights Council (HRC) marked the 20th anniversary of the Convention on the Rights of the Child last week by ignoring the slaughter of the unborn which is occurring throughout the world in contravention of international law.

"The HRC panels comprehensively considered all the major issues on the topic of children’s rights except the 'elephant in the room' the abortion question which was studiously ignored by all," Pat Buckley told me from Geneva, where he was lobbying at the Human Rights Council on behalf of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children.

The bitter irony of the event was best summed up by the contribution of Maud de Boer-Buquichio, Deputy Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, who highlighted the Council of Europe's efforts to promote and protect children’s rights. (A resolution calling for unlimited access to abortion throughout Europe [see my blogs of 18th March and 6th April] was rushed through the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe on 16th April last year.)

She said: “The starting point for our work is in recognizing that children are not mini-persons with mini-human rights –- in fact they need more protection, not less,” she said, and that “adults want children to grow up and respect the world they are born in. It is high time that our adult world also respect children's rights."

Given that the Convention on the Rights of the Child recognises that a child needs appropriate legal protection before, as well as after birth, and given that tens of millions of unborn children are denied such legal protection by being dismembered, killed by being sucked through a tube with sharp-edged openings near the tip of the tube, or killed by being prevented from implanting in the lining of the womb by making it unreceptive to the newly-conceived embryo ... on what grounds are these children's rights being totally ignored by the Human Rights Council?

This would be an interesting question for politicians to pursue with their various governments around the world.

Be courageous in the face of repression says Cardinal Pell

Cardinal Pell, the archbishop of Sydney, has the measure of our political masters on their persecution of those who uphold the right to life.

In a speech to the Oxford University Newman Society he referred to the right of health care workers not to participate in abortion and the prospect of President Barack Obama signing into law the Freedom of Choice Act, which would sweep away restrictions on abortion and deny medical practitioners and hospitals the right to conscientiously object to participating in abortions.

He said that that secular liberalism had strayed from its origins of classical liberalism and now “has strong totalitarian tendencies” and spoke about repression of political opposition.

Most importantly, he called upon Christians to “recover their self-confidence and courage” and confront the “secular and religious intolerance of our day” - and clearly his message resonates for non-Christian pro-life citizens too.

It seems to me to be a clarion call for the kind of powerful, peaceful pro-life resistance which SPUC has said must now be developed by pro-life movements in the face of legislation and/or government policies which require doctors to kill their patients in circumstances and which promote secret abortions for our children in schools, including in Catholic schools.

New abortion threat to EU countries: Alert

The European Women's Lobby (EWL) campaigns for free access to abortion for all women living in the European Union. It has called upon the EU's Fundamental Rights Agency to conduct research across the legal systems of the 27 countries of the European Union on 'discrimination in the area of health', 'access to abortion', 'access to/choices in and quality of sexual and reproductive health rights'.

The objective of the Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) is to provide EU member states and institutions assistance and expertise on fundamental rights.

It is, of course, beyond the scope of FRA's powers to be commissioning research into areas which remain squarely within EU Member States' national sovereign prerogative.

However that fact won't inhibit the FRA from responding positively to the European Women's Lobby's request. Morten Kjaerum (pictured), the first director of the EU Agency for Fundamental Human Rights, was a member of the EU Network of Independent Experts which published a Legal Opinion challenging the right of medical professionals to conscientiously object to certain practices such as abortion and seeking, without any foundation, to promote the "right" to abortion. You can find more about the pro-abortion orientation of EU Agency for Fundamental Human Rights by looking at my post last November on Zero Tolerance for Pro-Life Dissent.

Please alert your Member of the European Parliament, wherever you may live in the EU, to the danger posed by this latest initiative of the pro-abortion EWL - which is fighting against the interests, health and welfare of women in Europe by promoting abortion.

Obama administration proposes pro-abortion agenda at UN meeting

President Obama's new administration has joined forces with extreme pro-abortion campaigners to push a far-reaching anti-life agenda at the United Nations this week, reports Pat Buckley, who has been lobbying in New York on behalf of SPUC.

The Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) is meeting at UN headquarters in New York (pictured) to agree on how the world should guide men and women in their respective roles at home and at work. The draft conclusion document , which has a focus on HIV/AIDs, is currently under negotiations until the end of this week. The new US administration is working to introduce pro-abortion language into the document.

The US, under its new pro-abortion president, is calling for the promotion of sexual and reproductive health and rights, which is likely to be interpreted to include abortion on demand. In addition, the US is also calling for a review of all national laws to ensure they comply with international human rights instruments, a process that could be misused by extreme pro-abortion campaigners to force countries to remove restrictions on abortion.

Pat Buckley commented: "The world needs to know just how extreme are the pro-abortion campaigners lobbying at the UN this week. They are demanding a universal right to kill innocent children in the womb. We call upon nation-states, religious leaders and concerned commentators to condemn the radicalised agenda of the US delegation and its extremist mentors."

Obama funding for embryo research undermines rights and medicine

President Obama announced today that the US federal government will fund embryonic stem cell research, which involves the abuse and destruction of innocent human beings. busing and destroying human embryos does not help patients, nor does it advance science.

Anthony Ozimic, SPUC political secretary, commented:

"President Obama's decision comes at a time when researchers have started to conclude that embryonic stem cell research is scientifically flawed and that alternative forms of stem cell research which don't involve embryos are far more successful. Yet he is ready to provide funds for scientists who will create and destroy human embryos with no regard to their human status, their rights and their dignity as fellow members of the human family. By so doing, he reveals himself as a willing tool of a powerful lobby of vested interests among research companies and eugenicist academics. He promised a new approach to policy but embryonic stem cell research is yesterday's bad idea, not tomorrow's future."

IPPF patronizes Polish women with its anti-life lies

The International Planned Parenthood Federation - IPPF - the world's largest abortion-promoting agency, is targeting and patronizing Polish women with lies about how contraceptives drugs and devices work.

Armed with millions of US dollars promised by Barack Obama to fund the killing of unborn children overseas, they are now concentrating their anti-life propaganda on Poland.

In a statement issued worldwide this weekend backing a Women's Day march in Poland, they blatantly and falsely claim to represent all Polish women in calling for easy access to contraceptives, including abortifacient contraceptive drugs and devices, attacking the Catholic Church, and opposing doctors' right to conscientious objection to abortion.

The IPPF statement links the term "contraception" to another part of their website headlined "Contraceptive Myths and Realities". A search under "A myth/misrepresentation" finds "abortion" near the top of list. It reads:

"Some clients incorrectly believe that injectables prevent pregnancies by causing an abortion."

"Research shows that neither progestin-only nor monthly injectables will disrupt an existing pregnancy. Both types of injectables prevent pregnancy primarily by preventing ovulation. Injectables also thicken the cervical mucus which inhibits sperm penetration. These changes make fertilization extremely unlikely to occur. Injectables also make the endometrium unfavorable for implantation if fertilization does occur."

It is a tactic used by the pro-abortion lobby throughout the world - to argue that a mother is not pregnant until the embryo implants in her womb. Therefore, according to this fallacious argument, drugs which prevent implantation do not cause a miscarriage.

Polish readers of my blog might be interested in the UK experience of how this lie was used to defeat the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children's (SPUC's) legal action against the abortion-inducing morning-after pill. (It's important to note that other contraceptive drugs and devices also cause early abortions.) The judgement against SPUC's action was powerfully challenged in the academic press and elsewhere, as you can see here. In summary, the overwhelming scientific and legal evidence makes clear:

that conception is to be equated with fertilisation;

that a woman is pregnant from fertilisation/conception onwards;

and that miscarriage, being synonymous with abortion, refers to loss of the preimplantation embryo, potentially caused by the morning after pill.

Fortunately, Polish women, pro-life groups, and church leaders are too well-informed and intelligent to allow this kind of patronizing, misleading propaganda to go unanswered.I have no doubt that Poland, as before, will rise to meet the challenge of IPPF. However, let the world take note from IPPF's statement on Poland this weekend : Obama's millions will not only be used to promote abortion, they will be used, and are intended to be used, to attack the largest, organized, pro-life force in the world - the Catholic Church.

The compassion and courage of Brazilian archbishop in nine-year old's abortion case

You may have read reports that Archbishop José Cardoso Sobrinho of Olinda and Recife (pictured) excommunicated the mother and doctors of a nine year old girl who had an abortion when it was found she was expecting twins. According to reports the little girl had been raped by her stepfather.

Meanwhile, the Brazilian President, President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, has said "As a Christian and a Catholic I deeply regret that a bishop of the Catholic Church has such a conservative attitude."

The archbishop, of course, carried out no excommunications. What he did was to announce publicly that all those involved in the abortion have incurred in excommunication latae sententiae (automatically) "except for the little girl, who is not morally responsible for this tragic act.”

According to CNA, he said:

“All those who approved, promoted and performed the abortion, incurred automatic excommunication, according to code 1398 of the Canon Law.

“The Church usually does not announce or publicly that that is the case, but it was important for me to do it on this occasion.

“My hope is that those affected by the excommunication they brought upon themselves may change their hearts and may not wait until the proximity of death to repent.”

In other words, the archbishop's announcement is motivated by his compassion for all those involved. As a good pastor of the Church to which those involved in the abortion belong, he wants them to realise the gravity of the action they have committed and to be reconciled to God.

Thank God for Archbishop José Cardoso Sobrinho of Recife. It took enormous courage for the archbishop to make this announcement, knowing the fury that would be aroused by the media who appear to have misreported what he said worldwide. When church leaders act with such courage, countless vulnerable innocent unborn children and their young teenage mothers elsewhere in Brazil and elsewhere in the world are protected. The work of pro-life movements is also strengthened. It's also good news that the Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, one of the Vatican's most senior officials, has backed the archbishop.

Of course it's hard to imagine a more tragic and difficult situation demanding medical attention and skill of the highest order to safeguard the lives of the three children involved - a nine year old girl and her two unborn children. Now that the abortion has taken place, I hope that those, like President Lula of Brazil, who have attacked the archbishop, will continue to take an interest in the welfare of a little girl who has suffered not only the violence of rape but also the violence of abortion, which carries the risk of long-term harm including a seriously increased risk of suicide.

Blairs attack papal teaching on culture of life

This week Tony and Cherie Blair have launched a high profile attack on two fundamental aspects of papal teaching on building a culture of life.

In an interview in the Church of England newspaper, Tony Blair, received into the Catholic Church in December 2007, underlines his continued belief in "gay rights".

And Cherie Blair, a fellow Catholic, filmed in the final part of the Channel 4 series "Christianity", said: "I'm a feminist… how could I have done all the things I have done if I hadn't used contraception?" - an attack on Humanae Vitae, Pope Paul VI's encyclical on the regulation of birth, recently praised in the highest terms by Pope Benedict as "guiding us along the path to the future".

According to the Christian Institute: "During Mr Blair’s premiership a raft of gay rights legislation was brought in" ensuring the promotion of homosexuality in schools and elsewhere, legalizing joint adoption by homosexual couples, giving legal recognition to homosexual relationships with the Civil Partnership Act 2004 which "extended all the legal rights and privileges of marriage to homosexual couples".

In Evangelium Vitae paragraph 97, Pope John Paul II taught 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.

And Pope Benedict made a similar point in his address to members of the Roman Curia last Christmas when he said:

"Since faith in the Creator is an essential part of the Christian creed, the Church cannot and must not limit herself to passing on to the faithful the message of salvation alone. She has a responsibility towards creation, and must also publicly assert this responsibility. In so doing, she must not only defend earth, water and air as gifts of creation belonging to all. She must also protect man from self-destruction. What is needed is something like a human ecology, correctly understood.

"If the Church speaks of the nature of the human being as man and woman, and demands that this order of creation be respected, this is not some antiquated metaphysics. What is involved here is faith in the Creator and a readiness to listen to the “language” of creation. To disregard this would be the self-destruction of man himself, and hence the destruction of God’s own work."

During this speech, Pope Benedict refers to Pope Paul VI's encyclical Humanae Vitae as a guide to the future. He says:

"An integral part of the Church proclamation must be a witness to the Creator Spirit present in nature as a whole, and, in a special way, in the human person, created in God’s image.

"From this perspective, we should go back to the Encyclical Humanae Vitae: the intention of Pope Paul VI was to defend love against sex as a consumer good, the future against the exclusive claims of the present, and human nature against its manipulation."

And Pope Benedict’s address on 10th May last year, also underlined the unchanging teaching of the Church on birth control. He writes:

“What was true yesterday is true also today. The truth expressed in Humanae Vitae does not change; on the contrary, precisely in the light of the new scientific discoveries, its teaching becomes more timely and elicits reflection on the intrinsic value it possesses.”

I have blogged before on how the prophetic teaching in Humanae Vitae has been fulfilled in the culture of death - in British laws and British government policies at home and overseas. The objective data is convincing to people of all faiths and none.

Tony Blair, who has refused to repudiate the anti-life laws and policies he steadfastly pursued throughout his political career, was received into the Catholic Church in December 2007. Cherie Blair, also a Catholic, endorses the work of CEDAW committee (as well as other radical pro-abortion groups) - and specifically its work on "reproductive rights". The CEDAW committee is notorious among pro-lifers for using the CEDAW convention to bully countries into allowing abortion, even though the convention doesn't mention abortion.

I hope and pray, for the sake of the millions of babies and other vulnerable human beings who have been killed, and mothers and families injured, as a result of these laws and policies, and for the sake of countless young people whose health and happiness are being destroyed, as a result of these laws and policies, that there will be a spirited response on the part of leading Catholic and pastors to the Blairs' attack on papal teaching on these fundamental issues. Catholics in public life cannot be allowed continually to undermine the faith to which they belong, especially on matters relating to the sanctity of human life.

Barack Obama and US court battle over live baby thrown away after botched abortion

"The only thing more sickening than this story is the knowledge that President Obama fought to protect this sort of thing in Illinois" is the comment from the Republican National Conservative Caucus on their newly-launched website.

The story in question concerns a teenage mother, Sycloria Williams, who was reportedly 23 weeks pregnant when she made up her mind to have an abortion.

According to Associated Press, it is alleged that Sycloria gave birth to a live baby after a botched abortion procedure and that Belkiz Gonzalez, the abortion clinic owner, "threw the infant away".

"The teenage mother, Sycloria Williams, has filed a lawsuit alleging that Gonzalez knocked the infant off the chair where she had given birth, and then scooped the baby, placenta and afterbirth into a red plastic biohazard bag, and threw it out" the Associated Press reports.

Whatever the outcome of this court battle may be, just how sobering is it that the "free world" is now led by Barack Obama, a man who voted four times against legislation in the Illinois State Senate that would have provided care and protection for babies who are born alive after an abortion?

In no sense could the survival of a child after an abortion be considered a threat to his or her mother yet President Obama believed helping such a baby to live would undermine the legal right to abortion. Explaining his opposition to the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act he said:

"...whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a – child, a 9-month-old – child that was delivered to term. …

"I mean, it – it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute..."

Try reading and re-reading the above two paragraphs and reflect for a while that the man whose mind put those words together is now the world's most powerful political leader.

SPUC's 2009 national conference

SPUC's national conference will be held this year from 4 to 6 September at the Hayes Conference Centre, Swanwick, Alfreton, Derbyshire.

We are delighted to announce that Mr Bobby Schindler (brother of Mrs Terri Schiavo, right) will be speaking about his sister at the conference. Since his sister’s death, Bobby has campaigned to increase awareness to the fact that 'quality of life' has absolutely nothing to do with the 'value of life,' and that loving care, nutrition, and hydration are indeed the most basic of human needs that must be provided for all of us until the very moment of our natural death. Bobby believes that the lessons to be learned from the medical, judicial, and regulatory and criminal law-enforcement problems related to Terri Schiavo's death in America ‘by judicial fiat’ should not and must not go unheeded.

Another American, Arnold Culbreath, a director of the US Life Issues Institute, will be speaking on the dangers of the Obama presidency and what pro-life groups in the United States are doing in response to the threat it poses to unborn children and their mothers. The Reverend Arnold M Culbreath is urban outreach director of Life Issues Institute, based in Cincinnati, Ohio. Rev Culbreath, a Baptist, runs Protecting Black Life which takes the pro-life message to the black community. An architectural engineer and theology graduate, he produces educational literature for black people, speaks at gatherings, runs educational booths at events, and organises educational groups and events. Rev Culbreath also works with pastors and community leaders to create strategies to reduce and eventually stop abortion.

Contact me at johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk if you would like information about booking a place for SPUC's national conference.

The right-to-choose state and the Catholic Church

This story from the Catholic News Agency is so important I'm urging you to read it in full. It's good that Joseph Naumann (pictured), the archbishop of Kansas City, has spoken out so clearly, asking Kathleen Sebelius to refrain from receiving Communion until she makes a worthy confession and publicly repudiates her stand on abortion. (You will recall in this connection my previous posts about Tony Blair, the former British prime minister. Since being received into the Catholic Church, he has refused to repudiate the anti-life laws and policies he steadfastly pursued throughout his political career.)

Speaking as a Catholic, I feel that there is a very real danger for the church if it were to allow pro-abortion Catholics in public life to go unchallenged. Such inaction would imply that opposition to legalised abortion and other anti-life legislation is not terribly important, and that it's more important for the church to be, as it were, a respectable part of the "right to choose" state - expressing opposition to abortion, certainly, but not in such a way as to upset the apple cart. In this way the church's teaching, as expressed by Pope John Paul II in Evangelium Vitae (73) below, would become obscured:

"Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize ... there is a grave obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection ... In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to 'take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it."

Why Comic Relief should be boycotted

Comic Relief gives massive financial support to groups which promote the legalization of abortion in Africa and worldwide.

Oxfam, according to Comic Relief's latest list (2005/2006) of International Grant Approvals, received £1,000,000. It has a long history of support for abortion, as SPUC's charity bulletin shows, and openly promotes the legalization of abortion in a number of documents on its website.

The African Women's Development fund (AWDF), according to Comic Relief, received £1,560,000. The AWDF charter of feminist principles proclaims its commitment to "Freedom of choice and autonomy regarding bodily integrity issues, including reproductive rights, abortion, sexual identity and sexual orientation".

In December 2000 Comic Relief asserted that they did “not fund, and have never funded, abortion services or the promotion of abortions” (assurance given to the Catholic bishops of England and Wales). However, their own accounts show that they have funded abortion providers and that they continue to fund leading abortion promoters. For further details on the former, see SPUC's Charity Bulletin.

"Only a small percentage of Red Nose Day goes towards abortions", it may be argued, but this argument holds no water. Supposing, in the 1940s, only a small percentage of a charity's funds went towards the killing of Jews and ethnic minorities in concentration camps, would it be OK for people to give to that charity? There is only one answer to that question. And there is only one response to Red Nose Day. Abortion hurts women and kills unborn children and Red Nose Day funds organizations which promote it. Boycott it.

Abortion: there's no alternative according to British Government

In the British Government's dictionary "options" appears to mean "the complete lack of any other alternatives on offer" when it comes to abortion.

My thanks to Pauline Gateley for drawing my attention to a National Health Service webpage entitled: "Abortion: know your options" (complete with the perfectly-crafted image of the caring doctor pictured above). The sub-heading is "If you're pregnant and considering an abortion, here are some facts you need to know".

To "consider", according to my on-line dictionary, means "to think carefully about", whereas the Government's dictionary appears to define "considering" as "planning on" in the context of abortion. Judge for yourself:

The NHS webpage begins: "How do I get an abortion?". Then, with no reference whatsoever to counselling, never mind the possible alternatives to abortion, the government replies "Either your GP or a community contraceptive clinic can refer you for an abortion that’s free on the NHS ... Or if you’re a teenager, there are teenage drop-in clinics and Connexions centres that can put you in touch with the right services." It goes on to recommend the FPA, Brook Advisory Centres, the British Pregnancy Advisory Centres, and Marie Stopes - which have a record of making misleading, euphemistic or blatantly dishonest statements about what abortion involves or of denying the right of pro-life doctors to refuse to refer women to another doctor who will help them to get an abortion.

Under another headline "What are my options?" the government webpage continues: "It largely depends on how far into the pregnancy you are. A doctor can talk you through the different methods available" - Again, there's not the slightest reference to the option of keeping the baby. "Options" here means the different methods available for killing the baby.

The possibility that a mother-to-be might encounter a doctor who considers she has no grounds for abortion is, for the government, simply an obstacle to be overcome in favour of an abortion. The webpage reads: "A doctor may have moral objections to abortion, but if that’s the case they should refer you to another doctor who can help."

And just in case children are worried that their "option" for abortion might be hindered by a concerned parent, the Government says: " ... all information is kept confidential and nobody else will know about it, not even your partner or parents. You can also ask the hospital or clinic not to inform your GP. And if you’re under 16, your doctor doesn’t have to mention it to your parents".

At the very bottom of the webpage we read: "Can I get any counselling before or afterwards?" Note that the government's response takes it for granted that the only option being considered is abortion:

"Most abortion services offer counselling if you feel you need help with any worries or feelings you're having. It's normal to experience a range of emotions after an abortion, such as relief, sadness, happiness or feelings of loss. Each woman is unique. Ask your GP or family planning doctor, or ask the doctor at the hospital or clinic, to find out what support is available in your area."

As Pauline Gateley said to me - it's a disgrace. Why not write to your MP about it? Let me know what your MP says. The Government is pushing worried mothers-to-be, including young teenage girls, on to the abortion conveyor belt. Abortion is a tragedy in which a woman loses her child in a procedure which puts her health, both physical and mental, at risk. But any facts about abortion which might point in the direction of keeping the baby are being denied to women and young girls on an NHS abortion webpage insultingly headlined: " ... here are some facts you need to know".

For a paper on the effects of abortion, prepared by Southern Cross Bioethics Institute for the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, , write to me at johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk

Obama régime is deferential to China

Just at the time when the US State Department reports that China's human rights abuses are worsening, citing

"repression last year in Tibet and Xinjiang, restricting dissent and religious freedom"

Barack Obama's brave new world has shown where its priorities lie - and they are not with the victims of repression.

Hillary Clinton, Obama's secretary of state, says:

“We have to continue to press them, but our pressing on those issues can’t interfere with the global economic crisis, the global climate-change crisis and the security crises. We have to have a dialogue that leads to an understanding and co-operation on each of those.”

US Congressman Chris Smith (right) puts it well when he says that Hillary Clinton's comments are

“a shocking display of pandering”

and that the Obama administration

“has chosen to peddle U.S. debt to the largest dictatorship in the world over combating torture, forced abortion, forced labor, religious persecution, human sex trafficking, gendercide, and genocide” according to EWTN news.

“Secretary Clinton said concern for the protection of human rights of the Chinese people can’t ‘interfere’ with the economic crisis, climate change, and security – as if human rights were somehow disconnected and irrelevant to those issues,” Congressman Chris Smith said.

Congressman Smith reminds us that, when Colin Powell (a supporter of abortion) was Secretary of State, the US State Department verified the pro-life Population Research Institute’s allegations that the UNFPA was cooperating with coercive abortion programme in China.

“UNFPA's support of, and involvement in, China's population-planning activities allows the Chinese government to implement more effectively its program of coercive abortion,” Powell said in a July 21, 2002 letter to Congress.

As I write this, I read that the Democrat majority in the House of Representatives is blocking debate of Mr Smith's pro-life amendments to President Obama's economic package. Mr Smith's proposals would stop government money from going overseas to pay for abortion (including forced abortion) and forced sterilisation.

"More cash for contraception" not the answer says teenage mum

Kizzy Neal from Devon (pictured with her son Kaylib) became pregnant just before her fourteenth birthday. Her son Kaylib is now 22 months old. Kizzy and her parents feel strongly that the sex education at Paignton Community College, which she attended at the time, did not help her to resist becoming sexually active at such a young age.

So what does Kizzy think about the announcement* today headlined "More Cash for Contraception", which is the Government's response to the rising rate of teenage pregnancies - to 41.9 conceptions per 1,000 15 to 17 year-olds, from 40.9 the year before (also announced today)? (*An extra £20.5 million will help young people get better access to contraception and support for teenagers and raise the awareness of the risks of unprotected sex, according to Dawn Primarolo MP, Public Health Minister, and Beverley Hughes MP, Young People’s Minister.)

Kizzy said, " ... As soon as I got into Year 7 we had this big introduction to sex education and it just went on from there. They told us not to have sex, but were pushing condoms and contraception at us."

Kizzy's school also has a sexual health clinic, called Tic-Tac (Teenage information centre - Teenage advice centre). Both Kizzy and her parents blame the clinic for creating a culture of sexual activity in the school.

Kizzy said, "With the sex education and Tic-Tac you just got caught up in the whole thing of having sex. We got used to it. We thought it was just a joke really."

The government's announcement of a further £20.5 million pounds in support of their failed teenage pregnancy strategy follows their announcement two weeks ago to give bonuses to doctors to give contraceptive implants and jabs to teenage girls.

Sadly, the government will ignore Kizzy's eloquent testimony just as they ignore the soaring rate of sexually transmitted infections and the clear published evidence that "family planning" drugs and devices, and increased access to it, increases the likelihood that teenagers will indulge in sexual activity. (Professor David Paton's paper "The economics of family planning and underage conceptions" is not available free online, but if you would like a copy please contact me.) The Government cares no more about young people than it does about their unborn children.

Enough's enough. To join SPUC's leafleting and petition campaign against the government's sex education strategy - establishing school based health and sex clinics in all secondary schools - contact johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk

Discrimination in favour of physical beauty and economics are driving eugenics

Pope Benedict, speaking over the weekend to the assembly of the Pontifical Academy for Life, provides an interesting analysis of modern eugenics - an analysis which finds support in a paper in the latest edition of Quadrant magazine, the "leading general intellectual journal of ideas, literature, poetry and historical and political debate published in Australia", as the magazine describes itself.

Pope Benedict said:

" ... The disapproval of eugenics used with violence by a regime, as the fruit of the hatred of a race or group, is so rooted in consciences that it found a formal expression in the 'Universal Declaration of Human Rights.' Despite this, there are appearing in our days troubling manifestations of this hateful practice, which present themselves with different traits. Certainly ideological and racist eugenics, which in the past humiliated man and provoked untold suffering, are not again being proposed. But a new mentality is insinuating itself that tends to justify a different consideration of life and personal dignity based on individual desire and individual rights. There is thus a tendency to privilege the capacities for work, efficiency, perfection and physical beauty to the detriment of other dimensions of existence that are not held to be valuable ...

" ... It is necessary, on the contrary, to consolidate a culture of hospitality and love that concretely testifies to solidarity with those who suffer, razing the barriers that society often erects, discriminating against those who are disabled and affected by pathologies, or worse - selecting and rejecting in the name of an abstract ideal of health and physical perfection. If man is reduced to an object of experimental manipulation from the first stage of development, that would mean that biotechnologies would surrender to the will of the stronger. Confidence in science cannot forget the primacy of ethics when human life is at stake."

Pope Benedict's thesis - that notions of physical perfection and beauty are factors driving medical killings of disabled babies - finds support in a paper entitled "Prenatal Diagnosis - Benefit or Betrayal" in the current edition of The Quadrant, by Dr Deirdre Therese Little, MBBS, DRANZCOG, FACRRM, the President of the organisation Obstetricians Who Respect the Hippocratic Oath. Dr Little writes:

"White pearls and white clothing, a genteel face softly made up, a thoughtful expression and fashionably controlled hair were the images chosen in 2000 to promote prenatal testing for 'Down Syndrome and other Chromosomal Abnormalities' to pregnant mothers. Representations of respectability and good order, maturity and beauty with a hint of purity adorn he promotional pamphlet. The desirability and acceptability of combining prenatal screening programs with antenatal care would seem beyond doubt in a well-ordered society, since they are investigations purchased by the socially responsible and respectable gentlefolk. Advertisers know how to wrap merchandise. No untoward displays of colour here, certainly no tattoos, no nose piercings—nothing unseemly disturbs the suitability of what this pamphlet is proposing to mothers—and yet, the murkiest tattoo, the ugliest nose ring would be less distorting than what this portrait of motherhood is selling ... "

Dr Little's paper also provides clear evidence of another theme explored at the Pontifical Academy for Life Conference last weekend, highlighted by Archbishop Rino Fisichella, president of the Pontifical Academy - namely the economic forces which lie behind the killing of the disabled. Dr Little writes:

"A study published in the Medical Journal of Australia on March 5, 2007, reported on declining rates of Down syndrome births in the private and urban sector but not in the public or rural sectors, according to Queensland researchers. Immediate indignation followed. A senior lecturer in maternal-foetal medicine at the University of New South Wales likened the findings to a disparity in the quality of cancer care. The Medical Journal ofAustralia concluded that recent economic analyses have shown that population-based screening probably represents value for money. When the costs of screening are offset against the life-time costs of caring for a person with Down syndrome, screening is less costly than no screening at all regardless of which screening strategy is used."

Exactly the same kind of arguments have been used in Britain to justify killing the disabled before birth, as Alison Davis, the leader of No Less Human, the UK disability rights' group, has pointed out.

Abortion: the tragedy disguised as a woman's right

I reported last week on how the majority of GPs are reported to oppose early medical abortions.

The tragic story of Manon Jones in today's Daily Mail suggests, perhaps, why doctors take such a view.

Is the apparent increase in the proportion of doctors opposing abortion an indication that society is reawakening to the fact that abortion is a horror both for mothers and for their unborn babies? The irony is that RU486 used away from a hospital or clinic will focus the horror upon women in the usually safe haven that is home.

For example, the mother of Manon Jones [Manon completed her abortion in hospital] made the following statement: "She was scared and I tried to reassure her. It was a very emotional experience for us both to witness her pass her baby and my grandchild into the bedpan."

The story of Manon Jones is also a reminder of the well-researched and well-referenced report of the US House of Representatives which showed how the approval process for RU486 in the US and the standard of care for women who may use it is lower than that for other pharmaceuticals. The report also highlights significant uncertainty surrounding the actual extent of adverse events occurring with RU486. If anything, the likelihood is that adverse events are significantly under-reported.

The comments from Dr Trevor Stammers, the chairman of the Christian Medical Fellowship, in today’s Daily Mail story raises exactly the sames questions regarding the situation in Britain.

Southern Cross Bioethics Institute, advisers to the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, sent me the following comment on the questions behind Manon Jones's tragic story:

"One question that must be considered is this: why is a lower standard of care apparently being accepted in the case of RU486? Perhaps pregnant women seeking abortion are themselves prepared to accept higher risks in order to attempt to return life back to how it was before pregnancy.

"It is critical to recognise the desperation of women who are shocked by a pregnancy in adverse circumstances, and the attraction of the idea of a simple pill to make it all go away must not be underestimated. Such an idea is likely to be the vision that RU486 advocates have – that eventually the medical community will succeed in finding the right way to administer this magic pill, and then women will have control over their lives. This, of course, is wildly erroneous for a host of reasons.

"The zeal for RU486, despite its dangers, hints also at the dissatisfaction with surgical abortion which is often a traumatic experience. As some pro-life feminists like to say, 'been there, done that, hated it.' There are many aspects of surgical abortion that are horrible and many women will probably accept higher risk to avoid such an invasive, humiliating procedure. But it will be replaced by other traumatic experiences, perhaps even more so."

Pro-abortion advocates may argue that such experiences are a necessary part of the journey towards women’s liberation from the tyranny of fertility. Such a utilitarian perspective accepts the ‘collateral damage’ to women’s lives and health for the eventual progress of the whole.

So the real questions that bubble away under the surface are these:

• Why are government authorities willing to accept sub-standard care for women in the case of abortion?
• Why are an increasing number of doctors reported to be opposing abortion?

The answers to these questions have their roots in the reality that abortion is a moral and personal tragedy disguised as a woman’s right and privilege. The simple yet harsh reality of that tragedy is that the woman loses her own child in a procedure which puts her health, both physical and mental, at risk. For a paper, prepared by Southern Cross Bioethics Institute for the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, on the effects of abortion, write to me at johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk

I give the last word to Margaret Cuthill, a post-abortion counsellor of 20 years' experience, national co-ordinator of British Victims of Abortion, who has frequently spoken out about her own abortion experiences.

"The nature of the RU486 procedure allows the medics to step back from performing abortions. This opens the way to allow specialist nurses to process the women, although the medics must prescribe the drugs. RU486 is a brutal procedure, from the perspective that vulnerable women are ignorant of the risks and the emotional trauma they may experience. They don’t know the questions to ask and believe they are being given all the information they need.

"As a counsellor, I have had to counsel the RU486 women over the trauma of the procedure before we could begin looking at the impact of the loss of the child. One woman thought she was bleeding to death but had been told the blood loss would be similar to a heavy period; another bled for 8 weeks after the procedure. Another was told that, because the tissue left after the procedure was small, they would let her bleed until it came away by itself. The other area where medics are ignorant of the risks of RU486, are those in the emergency departments of local hospitals, as highlighted in the death of Manon Jones."

Euthanasia and assisted suicide represent a culture of abandonment

Last night Anthony Ozimic, SPUC's political secretary, attended a meeting held by ALERT, headed by Elspeth Chowdharay-Best, a redoubtable pro-life veteran who was one of the founders of SPUC. The meeting's guest speaker was Wesley J. Smith (pictured), one of the world's leading anti-euthanasia experts. Anthony draws attention to the following points in Wesley's talk:

• it is ironic that the euthanasia and assisted suicide are being promoted at a time in history when palliative care is highly advanced
• the anti-euthanasia activism of disability rights campaigners gives the lie to the accusation that the anti-euthanasia campaign is really a religious agenda
• euthanasia and assisted suicide represent "a culture of abandoment"
• it is noticeable that there are fewer suicide prevention hotlines
• cited pro-euthanasia broadcaster Jenni Murray who is reported to have said that she "does not want to look after her sick and aging mother"; Mr Smith labelled this an example of today's "abandonment society"
• most of the people whose suicide was assisted by Jack Kevorkian had no physical ailment
• there is "suicide tourism to Switzerland"
• doctors who agree to assist suicide generally don't care if patient can be treated.
• the film Million Dollar Baby sends a message that people like Daniel James were right to kill themselves, a message of abandonment.
• the concept of a right to choose the time, manner and place of one's death is ideological, not a real human or civil right
• the two premises of euthanasia and assisted suicide are (1) radical individualism and (2) killing is an acceptable answer to human suffering
• there is "doctor-shopping" and "Kevorkianism" in Oregon
• 70%-80% of assised suicides in Oregon are facilitated by the Hemlock Society.
• the supposed safeguards on the assisted suicide law in Oregon are violated with impunity, and the safeguards are in reality all smoke-and-mirrors
• there are 900 cases of euthanasia without request or consent in the Netherlands every year, plus 80-90 cases of infanticide (eight percent of all deaths of born children)

SPUC petitions against access to abortion through schools

British government advice reportedly tells parents not to say to their teenage children that having sex is wrong. Ms Beverley Hughes MP, children's minister (pictured right with some condoms), says parents should advocate birth control to their sons and daughters, and the government explained she included 13-year-olds (who are under the age of consent). Such advice will be in Talking to your Teenager About Sex and Relationships, a pamphlet available from pharmacists from Thursday-week (5 March). Dr Patricia Morgan, the British-based social researcher, says young people do heed their parents when they say they disapprove of underage sex.

The government's teenage pregnancy strategy is failing yet here we have ministers telling parents to give value-free sex education and even to go with their under-age daughters to the GP's surgery to get birth control. Even worse, schools are being used to promote access to abortion without parental involvement.

SPUC is launching a petition to the prime minister on such access to abortion through schools. The preamble to the petition points out that the government is:

• establishing school based health and sex clinics in all secondary schools


• giving school nurses and advisors (such as Connexions ‘personal advisors’) a clear remit to refer for abortions without informing parents


• insisting that information on how to get an abortion is included in sex education lessons – and making these lessons compulsory for all children.
  

The main message of the petition is: "We the undersigned call upon the Prime Minister to stop schools being used to promote or facilitate abortion."

SPUC has produced a flyer about the petition and you can request a copy of the petition to sign by emailing johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk.

Empty red envelope campaign: to President Obama at the White House

Readers might be interested in a campaign launched in the US: the Red Envelope Project. Brad Mattes, the chief executive of Life Issues Institute, wrote to me about it. In view of the worldwide implications of Barack Obama's pro-abortion policies (see my post: The party's over: Obama signs order to abort the world's poor), this is a campaign in which citizens of other countries may wish to become involved.

Dear Mr Smeaton,

If you’re not familiar with the Red Envelope Project, allow me to fill you in. It’s catching on like wildfire.

The idea is to send an empty red envelope to President Obama at the White House. On the back is this simple message: "This envelope represents one child who died in abortion. It is empty because that life was unable to offer anything to the world."

The red color represents the blood of over 50 million unborn babies who have been sacrificed on the altar of "choice". The goal is to have a tidal wave of red envelopes flood the mailroom of the White House.

The brainchild behind this project is Christ (rhymes with mist) Otto. The idea came to him during a time of prayer. He wants to send President Obama a message of moral outrage regarding his support of abortion-on-demand throughout pregnancy. Mr. Otto says the red envelope message would be "quiet but clear".

Life Issues Institute is proud to partner with Christ Otto to assist him in this noble and moving effort. Our goal is to streamline the process and make a terrific idea even more successful.We’re printing huge quantities of these red envelopes, complete with the President’s address on one side and the pro-life message on the other.

Purchasing them in large quantities affords everyone a better price; it eliminates the need to locate and shop for red envelopes; and they come preprinted and ready to be mailed. All participants need to do is seal the envelope, stick on a first-class stamp and mail. It’s easy!

This nonpolitical message makes it a great fit for churches. Imagine the number of red envelopes that can be inserted into Sunday bulletins in churches throughout the nation. It’s an excellent opportunity for the pastor to speak on the issue of abortion, remember the unborn and their mothers in prayer, and have the congregation participate in standing up for life. Those who don’t already know the President’s position on abortion soon will, and they can pray for his pro-life conversion.

The appeal of the Red Envelope Project is that it’s so easy and inexpensive to do!Ideas for getting others to participate are endless. In addition to churches, pro-life groups can include an envelope with newsletter and other mailings to its membership. Red envelopes can be given to neighbors, friends and coworkers.

Anyone and everyone who wants to send a message to President Obama that unborn babies should be protected from abortion should be given the opportunity to send in their envelope. Join a rapidly growing number of people who are sending an unmistakable message to President Obama.

It’s simple to order your preprinted red envelopes. Click on https://www.lifeissues.org/red/order.html and follow the easy directions. I’ve also posted various ideas on how you can get others to help send more envelopes to the White House at http://www.lifeissues.org/red/ideas.htm share this message with others in your email address book. Link our ordering page with your own website, Facebook page or other presence on the Internet. Include your friends around the world. We want everyone to participate.

Be a part of this new tidal wave of individuals who are standing up for America’s unborn babies!

Sincerely for the little ones,

Bradley Mattes, Life Issues Institute

Purdy verdict welcome but judges' comments disturbing

Today the Court of Appeal rejected Debbie Purdy's case against the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) on the subject of assisted suicide and prosecution. SPUC was an intervener before the court and readers may be interested in SPUC's comments (below) on today's judgment:

Paul Tully, SPUC general secretary (pictured), said: "While the dismissal of the appeal is to be welcomed, we are disturbed about the court's approach to disabled people. The dismissal of the appeal in the Purdy case is the result that all the parties must have expected. M/s Purdy was asking the DPP to issue a policy, which, as he points out, he does not have. The legal arguments against M/s Purdy's request were conclusive.

"Today's judgment, however, is disturbing in that the judges seem to have shown support for the idea that some (disabled) people are right to want to die (see §§6-7). The judgment acknowledges the wrongfulness of giving practical assistance to people who want to die (§22), but asserts that it may be "inexpedient to take action against relatives for assisting a disabled person's suicide" (§24). The presumption underlying this thinking is that the lives of people who are enduring long-term disabilities are of low value, and should not be protected in the same way as other people.

"We have great sympathy for Mrs Purdy because of her medical condition, but her legal case is misguided and dangerous. Suicide is a course of action which every right-thinking person naturally discourages. If we favour suicide for some individuals who are suffering, we send a message to all those who are sick or disabled that their lives are not worthwhile.

"This case is not about people with terminal illness. Both M/s Purdy and the late Daniel James, whose case is also discussed extensively in the judgment, are instances of people with long-term disabilities (M/s Purdy herself - disabled through disease, and the late Mr James - disabled by an injury). They are not terminally ill people. The implications of the judges' comments may affect disabled people widely.

SPUC, which is a member of the Care not Killing alliance for promoting palliative care and upholding the right to life of the disabled and terminally ill, shares the concerns expressed by disability activists like Jane Campbell, in Community Care (15 January 2009): "Jane Campbell, chair of the disability committee at the Equality and Human Rights Commission, believes the [Daniel James] case sends out a dangerous signal. She says that while it may seem like a personal matter the drip, drip effect of letting such cases go has big implications for society. 'While I completely understand the family have to live with the consequences of their actions, [the Crown Prosecution Service] has got to start prosecuting otherwise it sends out a message that it's OK to help people die,' she says."

[Paul Tully continued): "The recent case brought before the GMC against Dr Iain Kerr, the Glasgow doctor who gave lethal drugs to a suicidal patient, indicates that rules to protect vulnerable patients can be enforced with effective action.

"In the Purdy case the court is being targeted by the euthanasia lobby as a forum for advancing the arguments for assisted suicide, despite the fact that the judges say that they take no side in the debate on euthanasia and assisted suicide. M/s Purdy's predicament is clearly being used to advance the euthanasia agenda. The fact that the judgment is trimmed with florid expressions about M/s Purdy and her husband (see §§ 8, 81) indicates strong support for the practice of assisted suicide in such cases."

Papal rebuke to Nancy Pelosi is a message for all anti-life Catholics in public life

Mrs Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, (pictured) has been firmly rebuked by Pope Benedict when she visited him at the Vatican today, albeit in the measured, diplomatic language of the Holy See.

The papal rebuke sends a clear message to Catholics in public life who promote and support anti-life legislation. She has described herself as an ardent, practising Catholic and her views on life issues closely mirror those of Tony Blair, recently received into the Catholic Church, who has refused to repudiate the anti-life laws and policies he steadfastly pursued throughout his political career. Nancy Pelosi's appalling voting record on abortion (including coercive abortion), population control, human embryo research, human cloning and a host of other issues, can be found here.

The following terse statement appeared today on the Holy See website:

Following the General Audience the Holy Father briefly greeted Mrs Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, together with her entourage.

His Holiness took the opportunity to speak of the requirements of the natural moral law and the Church’s consistent teaching on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death which enjoin all Catholics, and especially legislators, jurists and those responsible for the common good of society, to work in cooperation with all men and women of good will in creating a just system of laws capable of protecting human life at all stages of its development.

Monsignor Barreiro told me today: "A Press Release of this importance it is always published at least with the approval of the Secretary of State. "

Worrying news about teachers' draft code

I am very worried about news from the Christian Institute concerning a new draft code of conduct and practice by the General Teaching Council. The Christian Institute explains:

"The GTC is the professional regulatory body for teaching. No person may teach in a state school unless they are on the GTC’s register of qualified teachers. Those who wish to register must sign the declaration, 'I understand that as a registered teacher I am required to comply with the code of conduct and practice for registered teachers.'"

Colin Hart, the Christian Institute's director, has commented:

“Christians would support most of the code, but many are alarmed by the new diversity rules. Under the code, Christian teachers will be required to ‘proactively combat discrimination’ and ‘value diversity’ based on religious belief and sexual orientation. The code rightly requires that teachers should respect their colleagues and those they teach. But respect for people as people is not the same as respecting or valuing every religious belief or sexual lifestyle. Forcing this on Christian teachers is to force them to go against their conscience.”

Arguably the greatest pro-life thinker and leader of the 20th and 21st century was Pope John Paul II, as people of all faiths and none have acknowledged.

In Evangelium Vitae paragraph 97, Pope John Paul II taught 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.* Yet the GTC's draft code, according to the Christian Institute, could interfere with that authentic education and formation, in the following hypothetical examples:

• "A university department of education asks all applicants for teacher training courses to affirm their willingness to promote gay rights"
• "A homosexual group writes to schools claiming that [the code] means all schools must use materials designed to promote acceptance of homosexuality."

You can express your concerns about the GTC's draft code, by responding to the GTC's consultation by 27 February - click here.

*The truth of Pope John Paul II's teaching can be understood in moves to recognize marriage between homosexual couples. The achievement of such an objective necessarily involves changing the understanding of sexual intercourse, so that the conception of children through sexual intercourse becomes all the more clearly an optional add-on. In such a social environment unborn children are certain to become all the more disposable.

SPUC’s general election campaign starts now

SPUC’s general election campaign starts now.

Please see pictured a copy of the Society’s general election flyer.

You’re right. The date of the next general election has not been announced. It might be as late as June 2010. But if we want to make the right to life a voting issue in your local constituency(ies) at the next general election, it’s essential to start work now.

As Cardinal O’Brien, the archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh, said in a message to SPUC last week: "I have supported many pro-life causes in recent years, including efforts to eradicate world poverty, opposition to euthanasia and speaking against the possible replacement of the Trident Nuclear System – but I see the most fundamental issue at this present time is that of the basic right to life itself, which must be of basic concern to us all in the next general election".

Cardinal O’Brien is right. With 4,000 babies killed by abortion every week, the right to life the most important issue facing society. There are other issues, of course, but this one is so fundamental, and the scale of the injustice is so huge, it's the top priority political issue for citizens concerned about the common good.

If we are going to convince a growing number of our fellow-citizens that the right to life is the most important issue facing Britain, we need to start work now. If we leave it too late, our last-minute efforts will simply be overwhelmed by media attention to other issues.

Please order flyers, organize a group of local volunteers, and give out the flyers as widely as possible in your local constituency(ies). It’s essential that we begin arousing public concern. You may wish to organize a team to give out leaflets door-to-door. You may wish to go out on the high street. You may have a good relationship with your local clergy. If your local clergy are supportive, ask if you can make an appeal for leafleters at church services.

Please email johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk to order flyers or for more information.

Don't be fooled: Obama and Clinton are funding forced abortions in China

In a horrifying report in today's Times, Chinese women are said to be angry about China's policy of forced abortion, compulsory sterilisation and infanticide

It's a tragic irony that, reportedly, Chinese women (and possibly The Times) are pinning their hopes on the Obama administration - and specifically on Hillary Clinton, Obama's Secretary of State who's visiting China this week - to stand up for human rights and speak up for women on this issue.

One of Barack Obama's first actions as President was to restore funding to UNFPA (and other organisations promoting abortion overseas), whose involvement in the forced abortion regime in China and elsewhere is all too well documented.

• In 1979, the very year that China introduced its brutal one-child policy, UNFPA signed a "Memorandum of Understanding" with the Chinese government.
• In 1983, the year commonly regarded as the worst year for coercion, UNFPA gave one of its first two Population Awards to the minister-in-charge of China’s State Family Planning Commission. (The other award that year was given to Indira Gandhi, the Indian prime minister, whose government enforced compulsory birth control including sterilisation.)
• In 1985, Rafael Salas, UNFPA’s then executive director, told Premier Zhao Ziyang that "China should feel proud of the achievements made in her family planning program." (reported by The People's Daily, the Communist Party's official newspaper).
• In 1991, UNFPA's then executive director Nafis Sadik said: "China has every reason to feel proud of and pleased with its remarkable achievements made in its family planning policy and control of its population growth.” (Xinhua, 11 April 1991) In 2002 China's State Family Planning Commission gave Nafis Sadik its own Population Award.
• In 1999, UNFPA aided and abetted "ethnic cleansing" by indicted war criminal Slobodan Milosevic by assisting his regime's plan "to limit or forbid the enormous increase of the birthrate in Kosovo".
• In 2001, Thoraya Obaid, the new UNFPA executive director, said that over the past 20 years, China had seen notable achievements made in population control by implementing the family planning policy.
• In 2001, research by the (pro-life) Population Research Institute (PRI) found that UNFPA was complicit in population control against Muslims in the Chinese province of Xinjiang.
• In 2003, UNFPA exploited the aftermath of the war in Iraq to launch a campaign to provide "reproductive health" to Iraqi refugees. ("Reproductive health" is a euphemism which the World Health Organisation (WHO) has defined as including abortion on demand.

In The Times report about Chinese women's growing anger we read:

" ' ... Six days before the due date, 10 strong strangers came to my house, forced me into a truck then took me to a family planning clinic, where the doctor gave me an injection,' she said.

"'The child began struggling in my womb and one of these scum even kicked me in the abdomen. Then the baby came out and they threw it into a rubbish bin. I could even see it was still moving ... '"

The Times report continues:

" ... Clinton annoyed the Chinese regime with a speech at a 1995 women's conference in Beijing in which she said: 'It is a violation of human rights when women are denied the right to plan their own families, and that includes being forced to have an abortion or sterilised against their will.'

"Now Clinton is predicted to tackle Beijing on a broader range of issues than the economics-focused approach taken by the Bush administration. She has signalled that she will take a firmer stand on human rights ... "

Whatever Hillary Clinton's human rights rhetoric, the only way Chinese women can judge her real intentions is to see whether or not she disassociates herself from Barack Obama's policy spelled out clearly last month in these words: " … I look forward to working with Congress to restore U.S. financial support for the U.N. Population Fund ... "

So I say to the women of China and to The Times - Don't be fooled: As things stand, Obama and Clinton are funding the forced abortion regime in your country.