A blog launched on the 41st anniversary of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), the first pro-life organisation in the world, established on 11 January 1967. SPUC has been a leader in the educational and political battle against abortion, human embryo experimentation and euthanasia since then. I write this blog in my role as SPUC's chief executive, commenting on pro-life news, reflecting on pro-life issues and promoting SPUC's work.
Marie Stopes International told the media today that Channel 4 will be broadcasting its advertisement for abortions from 24 May onwards.
Anthony Ozimic, SPUC communications manager, told the media this evening:
“Marie Stopes may claim to be a non-profit organisation, but they have a financial interest in drumming up demand for abortion. Marie Stopes has a cavalier attitude to obeying legal restrictions regarding abortion, and has been implicated in illegal abortions overseas. Neither Marie Stopes nor any similar organisation should be allowed to advertise the killing of unborn children.
“We are taking advice regarding the legality of the scheduled advertisement. Although Marie Stopes claims to be a charity helping women, its huge multi-national revenue means it can afford TV advertising, which is hugely expensive. This creates an unfair playing field, as pro-life groups simply cannot afford any such advertising.
“Allowing abortion to be advertised on TV will lead to more unborn babies being killed and to more women and girls suffering the after-effects of abortion. Abortion ads will trivialise abortion. It is an insult to the hundreds of women hurt by abortion every day. Such ads are offensive and will mislead viewers about the reality of abortion.
"The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has the power to insist that Ofcom controls advertising in this area. We call upon him to intervene immediately. [cf. Communications Act 2003 s.321]
"Abortion is in English law a criminal offence. Advertising of a criminal offence is not permitted.
"European law also prohibits the advertising of restricted (i.e. on prescription) medical procedures, such as abortion. [cf. the Audio-Visual Media Regulations 2010, preamble, 89]
"The Broadcasting Act 1990 requires that advertising is not offensive or harmful. Abortion is offensive to the countless women damaged by abortion; and lethally harmful to the hundreds of unborn children aborted every day."
Last year 29,000 people signed a SPUC-organised paper petition to the prime minister against a proposal to allow abortion agencies to advertise on television and radio. Hundreds of people also wrote submissions to the broadcasting authorities against the proposal.
Michael Hill, Amy Sheridan-Garrity and William Jenkinson successfully completed the Windermere marathon for SPUC on Sunday 16 May. Amy and William’s achievement deserve a special mention. Both have completed shorter distances before Sunday, but this was the first time either of them had completed the full 26.2 mile marathon distance. As well as raising much needed funds for SPUC’s work, the trio from the Society’s Yorkshire region, have used the event to raise awareness of the scale of Britain’s abortion problem.
SPUC urgently needs funds to warn the public, especially young people, about the tragic consequences of abortion for unborn children and their mothers. You can help by making a donation
I am confident that I would be sacked by my organization if I had written an article, and I had publicly refused to back down, which implied that I supported a direct abortion. That's what tends to happen in the secular world when you persist in a position which completely undermines the raison d'etre of your organization: in SPUC's case the value and inviolability of every human life.
By way of complete contrast, Archbishop Rino Fisichella, the president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, has stood by the original wording of his article in L'Osservatore Romano, last year, which implied that there are difficult situations in which doctors enjoy scope for the autonomous exercise of conscience in deciding whether to carry out a direct abortion. He has not been sacked. Indeed we hear that he has been invited by the Pontifical Council for the Laity to speak this week at their annual plenary meeting in Rome on “The responsibility of the lay faithful in politics.”
Such an invitation adds insult to lay Catholics who have fought for over four decades to oppose all direct abortion, to the injury to the pro-life movement which I described in my post earlier this month. It's also an insult to the five prominent members of the Pontifical Academy for Life who - following a meeting of the Academy - called on Pope Benedict to remove Archbishop Fisichella as President of the Pontifical Academy for Life.
The responsibility of the lay faithful in politics is to continue to call for the sacking of Archbishop Rino Fisichella.
Vernor Muñoz, the UN Human Rights Council's special rapporteur on the right to education, has requested - worldwide - submissions on the "human right to sexual education" which will be the focus of his annual report to the UN general assembly in 2010. Submissions must be received by this coming Friday, 21st May!
Mr Muñoz particularly wants to hear the opinion of students, teachers and parents.
Leading pro-life politicians around the world will be raising questions as to why there has been such an appalling dearth of information about this major UN initiative.
In the very short time available, if you have recently made a submission on compulsory sex education to a government body, perhaps you would adapt it as necessary and send it in to Mr Muñoz. (See contact details below.)
For many years in Britain, through school-based sex education and relationship programmes, the British government has been pursuing a policy of providing access to abortion and birth control drugs and devices for children under the age of sixteen without parental knowledge or consent. Earlier this year, the British government introduced legislation for compulsory sex and relationships education - from 5 years to 16 years - which was designed to extend such access to abortion for children to every secondary state school in the country. Thankfully the Government's efforts were defeated.
Mr Muñoz writes:
"It is strongly recommended that submissions are made in English or Spanish, due to our limited capacity for translation. However, contributions in any of the UN working language are welcome. Please send contributions to the report by e-mail here, or here.
"In order for the information received to be used for the report of the Special Rapporteur, submission of responses is encouraged as soon as possible and no later than 21 May 2010."
I have emphasised in the text below aspects of Vernor Muñoz's announcement which are particularly worrying for parents who are, according to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the primary educators of their children. Mr Muñoz writes:
"The topics to be developed in the report are:
I. Legal framework.
II. Incorporation of Sexual Education in the official curriculum of compulsory education: Inclusion in the official curriculum. Incorporation through plans and projects. Ages in which it is provided. Joint Education of boys and girls Proportional time in relation to the total curriculum. Teacher´s profile.
* III. Incorporation of Sexual Education in teacher´s training: Levels in which teachers are trained regarding Sexual Education Curriculums available.
* IV. Gender Mainstreaming in Sexual Education Outline of contents Gender and Violence Against Women perspective. Non discrimination approach Diversity approach Masculinity.
* V. Obstacles in the implementation of Sexual Education: Barriers from the Governments, such as budget, training, etc. Practices and actors affecting negatively this task. Specific barriers in public policy.
* VI. Best practices.
We welcome and appreciate your cooperation. Vernor Muñoz, Special Rapporteur on the Right to Education, Human Rights Council, United Nations, Phone: (506) 2203-5331, Fax: (506) 2203-5331, PO BOX: 1245-1007, Centro Colon, Costa Rica, e-mail."
"Article 16 [of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights] declares: 'The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.' Thus, article 16 recognizes the common sense fact, sometimes overlooked by governments and international organizations, that the family exists prior to the state, is the foundation of the state, and that the state is obligated to protect it.
"Article 16 goes further. It recognizes the right of a man and woman to marry and found a family. In other words, it recognizes that the family is founded ... upon marriage. We can all be thankful the Declaration recognized these fundamental truths."
Listen carefully to William Saunders's explanation of how the Universal Declaration of Human Rights upholds parents as the primary educators of their children. He said:
"Echoing the approach of article 16 [of the Declaration], article 26(3) recognizes that parents are the primary educators of their children. 'Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children' [the article states]. As article 16 recognized the priority to the state of the family founded upon marriage, article 26 recognizes the priority of the wishes of parents regarding the education of their own children over any designs of the state. Remember, per article 16, the State is obligated to protect the family. If the State presumes to usurp the rights of parents to choose the education of their own children, it damages the family, violates its own obligations, and undermines the foundation of a just society and State."
William Saunders underlined the historical significance of the Universal Declaration's insistence on parents as the primary educators of their children by citing Mary Ann Glendon, Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, former US ambassador to the Holy See, and President of the Pontifical Academy for Social Sciences. In her authoritative book on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, A World Made New, Mary Ann Glendon wrote:
"In the article on education [26]...[the drafting committee for the Declaration] made an important change, influenced directly by recollections of the National Socialist regime's efforts to turn Germany's renowned educational system into a mechanism for indoctrinating the young with the government's program.... [A]fter Beaufort of the Netherlands recalled the ways in which German schools had been used to undermine the role of parents, a third paragraph was added: 'Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.'"
William Saunders continued:
"In other words, one of the most important lessons drawn by the framers of the Declaration from the experience of the Second World War was that parental choice in education is a fundamental plank of international peace and security".
Pat Buckley and Peter Smith, SPUC's full-time lobbyists at the United Nations, in Geneva and in New York, are keeping me posted of developments and I will return to this topic soon.
Thankfully, some parents are rebelling against state-imposed sex and relationships education. If you know of any similar examples of parents standing up to defend their rights as the primary educators of their children, please send me details. Pat Buckley and Peter Smith would like to share such stories with UN delegates from many developing nations and Muslim nations who are determined to defend human life and family life in the international arena.
In the meantime, and in the very short time we have, the message needs to be sent to the United Nations that they must not seek to undermine parents as the primary educators of their children through an attack on fundamental human rights language embedded in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. A new totalitarianism is attacking parents, families, the innocence of young people and the lives of unborn children - just as surely as the Nazi regime attacked fundamental human rights in the first part of the last century.
Alison Davis (pictured), the leader of No Less Human, has drawn my attention to a symposium to be held in Rome in July entitled PGD: A Celebration of 20 years.
PGD stands for pre-implantation genetic diagnosis on which Alison has written a most useful question and answer paper for those wishing to know more.
Alison, who has spina bifida, tells me:
"The title of the symposium, organized by the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE), speaks volumes about ESHRE's attitude to killing what they regard as 'imperfect' human beings. There seems to be no consideration at all of the case against, or the effect upon a new and rapidly developing human embryo of having cells removed for PGD examination."
Alison explains:
"PGD is a way of examining in the laboratory human embryos produced by in vitro fertilisation (IVF) technology (i.e. in a test-tube).
"If a genetic disabling condition is detected, the embryo is thrown away. If not, the embryo is implanted in the woman, and allowed to grow and develop and eventually to be born. Pre-implantation diagnosis means that the embryo is examined before implantation in a woman's womb. PGD has also been used to identify an embryo that can serve as a tissue match for a sick child - and in some IVF programmes in other countries, PGD has been used to select the sex of an embryo for the purposes of family balancing ...
"The philosophy behind the day is I think summed up by the title of one of the sessions: "PND or PGD - which one to choose?" by Joe Leigh Simpson. (PND stands for pre-natal diagnosis). This presupposes that couples have only two options if they have chance of having a genetically/chromosomally disabled child (ie PND or PGD) and both those options are destructive if the child is found to be disabled.
"It is clear from ESHRE statements and policy documents that it strongly supports PGD and PND testing. The 'patient' always refers to the woman seeking embryo screening rather than to the embryo, and no consideration is given to the welfare of the embryos, other than those found to be 'unaffected' for whom they recommend freezing.
Alison concludes:
"There is nothing at all to celebrate in 20 years of human embryo testing which is designed primarily to eliminate disabled individuals. Although it's often claimed that IVF + PGD is "preferable" to PND + abortion, in fact both are pure eugenics, and there is nothing ethical or preferable about killing a human being at a younger age."
Andrew Lansley, the new health secretary, has given an interview to The Daily Mail, which reports:
"The Health Secretary also said he supported a reduction in the time limit for abortion from 24 weeks to 22, having voted unsuccessfully for a change in the law in the past.
"'I felt that there was increasing evidence that a small reduction in that time limit was consistent with the potential for life, and sustainable life, in a baby born very prematurely at that point,' he said.
"The Health Secretary stressed that any further move to change the law would have to be initiated by a backbench MP and would be subject to a free vote in the Commons.
The Pro-Life Alliance has commented on The Daily Mail report in a press release:
“It is reassuring to hear that the new Health Secretary has put abortion law reform at the forefront of the agenda so early on in the new administration. While we should not get carried away about the significance of a two week reduction, it is certainly a step towards our final aim of bringing abortion to an end in the United Kingdom. We expect abortion law reform to come up at some point in this parliament and are confident that a tightening of the current regulations will result.”
That is exactly the sort of irresponsible commentary on the new government that is dangerous for unborn children and unhelpful to the pro-life movement. The Pro-Life Alliance makes no mention whatsoever of Mr Lansley’s support for:
• making abortion more widely available. On 12 May 2008 he told the House of Commons:
“[I]f a woman needs an abortion in terms sanctioned by the Abortion Act 1967, it must surely be better for it to be an early, medical abortion than a later, surgical one. I therefore hope that the House will consider whether the requirement for two doctors to consent to an abortion being performed, and the restrictions on nurses providing medical abortions, need to be maintained”
and
“I would personally be lo[a]th to move from the principle of linking the time limit for abortion to the viability of the foetus.”
• his endorsement of the 2003 report by the Commons health select committee, which called for open access to abortion services through a national advice line and for non-hospital nurses to be allowed to perform early non-surgical abortions, such as with RU486/prostaglandin
• the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, a radical entrenching and expansion of destructive and abusive embryo research. Mr Lansley voted the Act at third reading.
It is simply absurd for the Pro-Life Alliance to claim that:
• Mr Lansley “has put abortion law reform at the forefront of the agenda”. All that’s happened is that Mr Lansley has answered a question about it, in an wide-ranging interview with the main newspaper group supporting an upper limit reduction. Similar hype was whipped up by the same newspaper group and by the Pro-Life Alliance after Michael Howard, the then Conservative leader, answered the same question in the same way prior to the 2005 election. In any case, Mr Lansley “stressed that any further move to change the law would have to be initiated by a backbench MP and would be subject to a free vote in the Commons.” Reducing the upper time-limit for social abortions simply isn’t on the new government’s agenda, let alone “at the forefront”. If there is a free vote by MPs, it will provide the pro-abortion lobby with an opportunity to increase the numbers of abortions, as happened under the Conservative administration under Margaret Thatcher.
• a reduction in the upper time limit “is certainly a step towards our final aim of bringing abortion to an end in the United Kingdom”. Even if such a reduction were passed, it will not ensure a reduction in the numbers of late-term abortions (let alone of abortions generally), as I’ve blogged before. Pro-lifers made the same mistake in 1990.*
• “[w]e…are confident that a tightening of the current regulations will result”. The Pro-Life Alliance said the same thing before the votes on abortion in 2008, when all the amendments to reduce the upper time limit for social abortions were defeated by comfortable margins (as SPUC predicted). Only a last-ditch concerted effort by SPUC and other pro-life groups resulted in a government decision, effectively, not to provide time for pro-abortion amendments to be debated.
The Pro-Life Alliance’s release also claims that:
“new Liberal Democrat health minister Paul Burstow … voted against any measures to introduce euthanasia or assisted suicide”.
Yet Mr Burstow’s voting record on euthanasia was mixed. He voted for the Mental Capacity Act at second and third readings. The Mental Capacity Act enshrined euthanasia by neglect into English statute law. Mr Burstow voted against an anti-euthanasia amendment on advance directives (so-called “living wills”), whilst voting for anti-euthanasia amendments at other points.
Pro-lifers should instead be focusing on ensuring that the new government does not take up the previous government's plans to impose anti-life sex education on schools – plans that would result in an increase in abortions.
*It was also under a Conservative government that the upper limit for abortions was raised for abortions generally. People mistakenly claim that the time limit was reduced from 28 weeks to 24 weeks by the Conservative government’s Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. However, because of amendments to the law made by the 1990 Act, the previous limit, which was based on the capability of the baby to be born alive – not a fixed number of weeks (28) – was abolished and a 24 week time limit was introduced but only for certain cases. In other cases (including where the abortion is carried out on the grounds of disability) abortions can be and are now carried out right up to the time of birth. Every child who had reached the stage of development of being “capable of being born alive” was protected by the pre-1990 law. Since 1990 that protection has been removed. So the effect of the 1990 Act was to increase the time limit for abortion in most instances and in many cases right up to birth. It was pro-lifers who pressed for the 1990 Act to contain provisions relating to abortion, in the hope of being able to insert some restrictions, particularly early time limits. Sadly this tactic backfired, resulting in a less, not more, restrictive abortion law.
David Cameron, the new prime minister, has announced a number of new cabinet and other ministerial appointments. SPUC's initial assessment is as follows:
More likely than not to obstruct the pro-life cause:
Andrew Mitchell, international development secretary
Ken Clarke, justice secretary (as health minister in the Thatcher government, he helped ensure the success of pro-abortion amendments and the defeat of anti-abortion amendments to the HFE Act 1990)
Danny Alexander, Scottish secretary
David Laws, chief secretary to the treasury (cf. House of Commons, 28 Jan 2010)
Cheryl Gillan, Welsh secretary
Sir George Young, leader of the Commons
More likely that not to be helpful or unobstructive to the pro-life cause:
Theresa May, home secretary
William Hague, foreign secretary
Eric Pickles, communities secretary
Baroness Warsi, Conservative party co-chairman
Dr Liam Fox, defence secretary
Michael Gove, education secretary
Caroline Spelman, environment secretary
Owen Paterson, Northern Ireland secretary
Philip Hammond, transport secretary
Iain Duncan Smith, work and pensions secretary
Damian Green, immigration minister
David Willetts, university, science and skills minister
Could go either way, depending on the issue:
Vince Cable, business secretary
Jeremy Hunt, culture secretary
Lord Strathclyde, leader of the Lords
Francis Maude, cabinet office minister
Nick Herbert, policing reform minister
Oliver Letwin, cabinet office minister
Greg Clark, communities minister
Grant Shapps, housing minister
David Cameron and Andrew Lansley, the new health secretary, have made clear their support for wider access to abortion, under their guise of support for reducing the upper time-limit for social abortions. Now is the time, not for some headlong rush at abortion law reform, but rather for strong representations to ministers and MPs not to take up the previous government's plans to impose anti-life sex education on schools.
After 13 years of anti-life laws and policies being enacted by the Labour government, we face a renewal of such laws and policies under the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition. David Cameron has made clear that faith schools should not be free to teach that abortion is wrong. Andrew Lansley, who is expected to be named health secretary, has made clear his support for easier access to abortion. Nick Clegg has confirmed his support for an anti-life approach to sex education.
However, as a Catholic parent, I consider that a greater threat than the coalition government is the policy of the Catholic bishops of England and Wales. The Catholic Church in this country has responsibility for over 2,000 schools and for over 5,000 parishes. It is estimated that there are between 900,000 and 1 million practising Catholics in the UK, more than the membership of the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties put together. The Catholic Church is a major body in this country which clearly has the size and potential influence to provide truly significant resistance to the culture of death emanating from parliament. Yet the Catholic bishops' conference of England and Wales supports laws and policies which extends the culture of death already at work in our hospitals and schools.
Archbishop Peter Smith, on behalf of the bishops' conference, issued a statement this morning, saying:
"In wishing the new government well, it is good for us all to recall that many of the deep seated problems of our society can only be addressed through a renewal of shared values. Change for the better cannot be left to politicians alone to bring about. It needs all of us."
Yet Archbishop Smith's way of addressing "problems", renewing "shared values" and "change for the better" has the appearance of endorsing pro-assisted suicide policy. Also, as I have mentioned before, Archbishop Smith, on behalf of the bishops' conference, publicly opposed SPUC's campaign on the pro-euthanasia Mental Capacity bill (now Act), welcomed the bill, accepted the Blair government's assurances on the bill, and co-operated with the government in ensuring its passage through parliament. The Act enshrines in statute law euthanasia by neglect.
The Catholic Education Service (CES), which represents the Catholic bishops of England and Wales, worked closely with the Labour government to promote the government's anti-life plans for compulsory sex and relationships education (SRE). It has appointed Greg Pope, a former Labour MP with a lengthy anti-life and anti-family records, as its new deputy director. Also, the CES welcomes into Catholic schools Connexions, whose job it is to make abortion and contraception available to children, without parental knowledge or consent. Connexions is a government agency which is committed to giving schoolchildren, under the age of 16, access to abortion and abortifacients without parental knowledge or permission. Connexions' advisers are trained to tell young people that they can obtain abortion and abortifacients without parental knowledge or consent.
Vincent Nichols, archbishop of Westminster, said last week:
"I...wish to signal unambiguously the Church’s readiness to work with whoever is forming the Government."
Yet we know that Archbishop Nichols' idea of working with government is to go along with prevailing ideas on sex and relationships education.
Our children and grandchildren will never be safe from the culture of death emanating from government and parliament until and unless Catholic episcopal policy in this country is reversed.
Simon Caldwell reports in the Telegraph today that Raquel Welch (pictured) has said:
"the widespread use of oral contraceptives had led to a breakdown in norms of sexual morality and fuelled the growth of rampant promiscuity among the young".
It would be interesting, I think, for students and scholars to compare and contrast Raquel Welch's concerns with the prophetic warning of Pope Paul VI in Humanae Vitae. He wrote:
"Responsible men can become more deeply convinced of the truth of the doctrine laid down by the Church on this issue if they reflect on the consequences of methods and plans for artificial birth control. Let them first consider how easily this course of action could open wide the way for marital infidelity and a general lowering of moral standards. Not much experience is needed to be fully aware of human weakness and to understand that human beings—and especially the young, who are so exposed to temptation—need incentives to keep the moral law, and it is an evil thing to make it easy for them to break that law. Another effect that gives cause for alarm is that a man who grows accustomed to the use of contraceptive methods may forget the reverence due to a woman, and, disregarding her physical and emotional equilibrium, reduce her to being a mere instrument for the satisfaction of his own desires, no longer considering her as his partner whom he should surround with care and affection." (HV17)
Only last week I suggested that the pro-life should start a counter-revolution on the oral contraceptive pill. I said that symposia need to be organized by the pro-life movement worldwide and suggested four topics to be addressed at such symposia. A fifth topic could be the concerns raised this week by Raquel Welch.
Simon Caldwell concludes his report with these interesting comments from the worldwide star who shot to fame in the 1960s:
She said that in spite of her own three failed marriages she still believed that marriage is the "cornerstone of civilisation, an essential institution that stabilises society, provides a sanctuary for children and saves us from anarchy".
Miss Welch, 69, said: "Seriously folks, if an ageing sex symbol like me starts waving the red flag of caution over how low moral standards have plummeted, you know it's gotta be pretty bad."
The Washington Times has published an insightful commentary on pro-abortion "feminism" by Joseph Meaney (pictured with Therese-Marie his daughter), one of the world's most experienced international pro-life activists.
Joseph tells me:
"It is truly incredible to read Mary Anne Warren's 'Gendercide: The Implications of Sex Selection.' She invents the term gendercide and then has no problem with sex selection abortion as long as they are not late-term abortions."
Joseph is director of International Co-ordination for Human Life International.
The UNFPA has drawn attention this week to the 50th anniversary of the approval of oral contraceptive pills in the US. The anniversary occurs tomorrow, Mother's Day in the US, as UNFPA is at pains to mention.
And today at an all-day symposium on the pill and its consequences “50 Years after the Pill — The Revolution Continues” is taking place in Washington. One of the speakers at this symposium is Nafis Sadik (pictured). (In 1991, as UNFPA's 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.)
I think counter symposia need to be organized by the pro-life movement worldwide, symposia for which I would suggest the working title "50 years after the Pill - the counter-revolution begins".
Such symposia should focus on the fact that virtually all contraceptive drugs and devices – with the exception of course of prophylactics like condoms – may work abortifaciently as their manufacturers freely acknowledge.
Also, two major sessions at this symposium should cover the fulfilment of Pope Paul VI's prophetic encyclical Humanae Vitae on artificial birth control and, in particular, the following extract from section 17:
"Finally, careful consideration should be given to the danger of this power passing into the hands of those public authorities who care little for the precepts of the moral law. Who will blame a government which in its attempt to resolve the problems affecting an entire country resorts to the same measures as are regarded as lawful by married people in the solution of a particular family difficulty? Who will prevent public authorities from favoring those contraceptive methods which they consider more effective? Should they regard this as necessary, they may even impose their use on everyone.”
The first of these sessions should be addressed by scholars who are expert in China's coercive abortion/birth control policy - the one-child policy - which provides such a brutally tragic fulfilment of Pope Paul VI's prophecy. The UNFPA's participation in China's forced abortion one-child policy is, of course, well-documented. China's policy is funded by regular donations from over 180 countries worldwide, including over 40 million US dollars from the UK in 2007.
The second of these sessions should be addressed by experts on how the Catholic church authorities in England and Wales are co-operating with the British government in imposing the use of birth control, including abortion, on Catholic (and non-Catholic) families. Catholic authorities, which include the Catholic bishops of England and Wales, are doing this by welcoming into Catholic schools Connexions whose job it is to make abortion and contraception available to children, without parental knowledge or consent. Connexions is a government agency which is committed to giving schoolchildren, under the age of 16, access to abortion and abortifacients without parental knowledge or permission. Connexions' advisers are trained to tell young people that they can obtain abortion and abortifacients without parental knowledge or consent. This session might also deal with how Archbishop Vincent Nichols painted in an entirely positive light the British government's sex and relationship education proposals - which were defeated in Parliament just before the general election. These proposals which would have enabled the promotion and facilitation of abortion, contraception and homosexuality* in schools in England, including Catholic schools.
Finally, expert speakers should be invited to explain how countless human lives have been destroyed as a result of the rejection of Humanae Vitae and its teaching on the wrongfulness of the separation of the unitive significance and procreative significance of the conjugal act, not least through birth control and IVF practices, including amongst Catholics (albeit on the question of the separation of the unitive significance and the procreative significance of the marital act SPUC itself has no policy. The Society is made up of people of all faiths and none and SPUC’s remit is solely concerned with defending the right to life from conception till natural death.)
The pro-life movement, including everyone in the movement of all faiths and none, needs to understand and to teach the truth that our crisis began with the rejection of Humanae Vitae. It will end with its acceptance and implementation. As a Catholic I am convinced that the acceptance and implementation of the prophetic teaching of Humanae Vitae will only be possible if there is a radical change in the nomination policy of Bishops throughout the world. The nominations of bishops who do not have a sustained and genuine track record of fidelity to the teachings of the Magisterium on the transmission of human life (Humanae Vitae) must stop. Such nominations must stop because the cost in babies' lives is simply too great. Humanae Vitae which has been re-stated in Pope Benedict's Caritas in Veritate must become central to our movement.
If any pro-life leaders are interested in the idea of organizing such symposia - do please contact me at johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
*(I emphasise that my comments above, both as a Catholic and as a pro-lifer, are motivated and inspired by John Paul II’s words in Evangelium Vitae, paragraph 97 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.)
Last night's historic general election results present both opportunities and dangers for the pro-life movement. There were a number of good results:
Harrow East: Tony McNulty, the anti-life Labour minister, was defeated by Bob Blackman (Conservative), who assured SPUC of his intentions to vote pro-life if elected. A team of local SPUC members distributed many thousands of leaflets in the constituency.
Stockton South: Dari Taylor, the anti-life Labour MP, was defeated by James Wharton (Conservative), who also told SPUC of his intention to vote pro-life if elected. The local SPUC branch also distributed leaflets in Stockton South.
Cardiff North: Jonathan Evans (Conservative), a pro-life MEP and former MP, was elected. SPUC has worked closely with Mr Evans in various issues, and SPUC members were active in the constituency during the election campaign.
Many anti-life MPs lost their seats. Notable among them were:
Gillian Merron (Labour), public health minister
Sandra Gidley (Liberal Democrat), very anti-SPUC and pro-morning-after pill.
Jacquie Smith (Labour, home secretary), originally elected via the pro-abortion EMILY's List.
Oxford West and Abingdon: Dr Evan Harris (Liberal Democrat), perhaps the most anti-life MP, was defeated by Nicola Blackwood (Conservative). In 2008, I gave Dr Harris (popularly known as "Dr Death"), a special lifetime Orwell Award for his outstanding use of “political language ... designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.” (George Orwell)
Those are some of the individual highlights for the pro-life movement from last night's results. It's difficult to give an overall assessment. Some pro-life MPs lost their seats (e.g. David Drew, Labour, Stroud) and some pro-life hopefuls (Phillippa Stroud, Conservative, Sutton and Cheam) were not elected.
The most immediate concern for SPUC in this new Parliament is to protect children from the pro-abortion ideology which lies behind plans to make sex and relationships education compulsory in England from the age of five. SPUC is therefore to launch a campaign against sex education proposals as the new Parliament meets.
In the last Parliament, plans to make sex and relationships education compulsory from 5 to 16 years had to be abandoned by the (Labour) government when it was forced to negotiate with opposition parties in the “wash up” period immediately prior to the general election. Parents and children were betrayed by MPs and by church leaders in England and Wales who backed the government’s plans.
The three major party leaders and their parties have all signalled their support for an anti-life/anti-family approach to sex and relationships education (though the Conservative party's behaviour regarding the Labour government's bill has been inconsistent). Whichever party or parties form the new government, the danger is basically the same.
The government’s compulsory sex and relationships education (SRE) policies sought to impose their ideology regarding so-called sexual and reproductive health. This ideology included the confidential provision of abortion and birth control drugs and devices to children under the age of 16 without parental knowledge or consent, as Ed Balls, who was Secretary of State for schools, repeatedly made clear.
This ideology is embedded in the draft guidance on sex and relationships education published earlier this year by the Department of Children, Schools and Families, which is unaffected by the general election (and a change of government).
Parents must fight back against the policies promoting abortion and attacking young children’s natural reserve and innocence in sexual matters. Parents have a right and a duty to protect their children. They have been betrayed by MPs, and by Catholic and Anglican church leaders who have not told the truth, and who backed the government’s plans to make abortion and birth control drugs and devices accessible, on a completely confidential basis, to schoolchildren throughout England.
Parents have a right and duty to know if their young teenage children are receiving so-called sexual health procedures such as abortion, long-term birth control implants, the morning-after pill, or STD/HIV tests and treatment.
SPUC is therefore launching a parents’ right to know campaign and will be organizing regional seminars for headteachers and for parents on the threat posed by the draft guidance on sex and relationships education published earlier this year by the Department of Children, Schools and Families.
Catholic on Line seems pretty certain about rumours of the formation of a new pontifical council - a pontifical council for the new evangelization.
I might have shared this enthusiasm were it not for another rumour that Pope Benedict may be about to invite Archbishop Rino Fisichella (pictured) to preside over this new council.
Readers may recall that last February five prominent members of the Pontifical Academy for Life - following a meeting of the Academy - called on Pope Benedict to remove Archbishop Fisichella as President of the Pontifical Academy for Life.
Their unprecedented step was prompted by Archbishop Fisichella's opening address to members of the Academy in which he stood by the original wording of his article in L'Osservatore Romano, last year, which implied that there are difficult situations in which doctors enjoy scope for the autonomous exercise of conscience in deciding whether to carry out a direct abortion. I explained the potentially disastrous implications of Archbishop Fisichella's article in a talk at the 4th Pro-Life World Congress in Saragossa last November. Fr Finigan in The Hermeneutic of Continuity also covered the matter fully last July.
How, I wonder, would Frances Kissling, of Catholics for a Free Choice, respond to Archbishop Fisichella's appointment to such an important post - she who memorably said of the archbishop's article in L'Osservatore Romano that it "has opened a crack, through which women, doctors and political decision-makers can slip in"?
Or how would the US President Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton, his pro-abortion, secretary of state - who are bankrolling abortion worldwide - respond to such a papal appointment?
How would such a scandalous appointment affect the world's perception of Catholic moral teaching on abortion? And, in Obama's push for a universal right to abortion, how would such an appointment affect the world's perception of conscientious objection to abortion on the part of health professionals?
According to Catholic on Line:
" ... The new department will be aimed at bringing the Gospel back to Western societies that have lost their Christian identity ... There is a desperate need for such a new evangelization. Many Catholic Christians do not know what the Church actually teaches and have embraced what some have called a 'cafeteria Catholicism'- choosing what parts of their faith they will follow ... "
Yes - and that's precisely the problem with appointing Archbishop Rino Fisichella to such a role. The position set out by Archbishop Fisichella, like the collaboration of the bishops of England and Wales with the British government on life issues, are cancers which are threatening to destroy countless human lives. A perception that Cafeteria Catholicism prevails in the church will end up serving up the right to abortion worldwide.
In the interests of the lives of unborn babies worldwide Archbishop Fisichella should be removed form the Pontifical Academy for Life without the consolation prize of a promotion especially one which might make him a Cardinal.
On the eve of the general election in the United Kingdom, many Catholic pro-lifers have been delighted to hear the announcement of a nine-month tour of England and Wales of a full-scale replica of the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe, known to Catholics as the patroness of the unborn.
The next stop in the tour is St John's cathedral in Portsmouth, this Saturday, 8th May, where the image of Our Lady of Guadalupe for England and Wales will be the focus of the annual rosary rally. The rally starts with Mass at 12.15 pm, followed by the rosary, a procession, hymns, prayers and Benediction. The day ends with tea at 3 pm.
A good account of how Catholics came to honour Our Lady of Guadalupe as the patroness of the unborn is provided by 2SecondsFaster.com
Edmund Adamus, Director of the Department of Pastoral Affairs in the Diocese of Westminster, is co-ordinating the nine-month novena tour which will conclude on 12th December 2010, the feast of Our Lady of Guadalupe. The image will be available on request beyond that date.
Edmund Adamus writes:
"The tour began between March 11-17 2010 with the full approval of Archbishop Nichols, the archbishop of Westminster, in Westminster cathedral hall for a day of devotions with hundreds of the faithful and it extended to three other London parishes, including the Shrine of Our Lady of Willesden, north London. Archbishop Nichols granted me, as the designated temporary custodian of the image, permission to ask each diocesan bishop to consider allowing the image to be welcomed in his diocese for devotional purposes for the cause of the Gospel of Life, the protection of the unborn, the sanctity of families and the home and the peace of the nation. This digitally reproduced image with official seals imprinted upon it is one of only 220 commissioned by Cardinal Rivera Carrera in 2004 and entrusted to the apostolate Life and Mercy Crusade in Mexico for distribution to every country which welcomes them."
More detailed publicity will be made known in the near future but anyone needing further details contact Edmund Adamus at edmundadamus@rcdow.org.uk or cathmacgillivray@rcdow.org.uk
It's difficult to know where to begin with the most recent reported statements from the Catholic Education Service (CES) on the appointment of Greg Pope, former Labour MP for Hyndburn, as its new deputy director. In a recent blogpost I gave a very full account of Mr Pope's lengthy and appalling anti-life and anti-family parliamentary record.
Oona Stannard says:
" ... At a time when as Catholics we particularly need to pull together, the undermining of Mr Pope saddens me ... "
She continues:
" ... His first line responsibility is the organisational management of CESEW but like all senior colleagues at CESEW he will be involved in policy work. In this and all aspects of his role he is required to uphold the Church’s teachings. This is a responsibility that he has willingly committed to undertake and I have every confidence that he will fulfil this expectation ... "
Can Oona Stannard explain, please, how the appointment of Greg Pope as deputy director of the Catholic Education Service, in the light of his lengthy and appalling anti-life and anti-family parliamentary record, helps Catholics to "pull together"?
Is Oona Stannard able to understand that Catholics and pro-life and pro-family campaigners feel that it is they who are being undermined and, I would say, oppressed by episcopal policy in England and Wales on sex and relationships education and, not least, through this latest appointment?
How does Oona Stannard reconcile Greg Pope's lengthy and appalling anti-life and anti-family parliamentary record with his responsibility in his new job "to uphold the Church's teachings"? When Oona Stannard says: "This is a responsibility that he has willingly committed to undertake and I have every confidence that he will fulfil this expectation ... ", on what basis does she have this confidence? Did he renounce those aspects of his parliamentary record to which I referred in my recent blogpost?
“ ... I really want [to] look forward now to how I can serve the Catholic Church through its Education Service rather than debate the minutiae of previous voting tactics in the House of Commons ... "
Can Mr Pope understand why Catholics, pro-lifers and pro-family campaigners who've studied his lengthy and appalling anti-life and anti-family parliamentary record may not be content to allow matters to rest there?
I'm in Glasgow today for the launch of a UK-wide new abortion recovery care service and free helpline at the Trades Hall in Glasgow: ARCH* (Abortion Recovery Care and Helpline), formerly known as British Victims of Abortion.
Today is the 42nd anniversary of the Abortion Act 1967 coming into effect (on 27th April 1968). It is, therefore, good to be present at the launch of such an important project - today of all days - reaching out to women, men and families who have been adversely affected by an abortion experience by offering counselling for Post Abortion Trauma (PAT).
ARCH has been set up in recognition of the fact that PAT is becoming a recognised problem in the UK, and is on the increase in Scotland where more than 60% of abortions are now RU486 abortions.
Margaret Cuthill (pictured), a PAT counsellor working with ARCH who is also post-abortive, said:
"We recognise that there is a great need for much in-depth work in the area of post-abortion recovery. ARCH will work to support and encourage the development of honest, caring support networks throughout the country to help women. We also want to encourage more research into PAT and raise greater awareness and understanding of this damaging condition.
"In the past surgical abortions were the norm and PAT often took a long time to surface for many women. Now the majority of abortions in Scotland are performed using RU486 where the woman is taking the pills herself and living with the procedure over a number of days. Post abortion counsellors like myself can see that in these cases PAT is immediate so we know that this service is vital."
Speaking at today's press conference, Margaret Cuthill said that women were "tortured and tormented" by abortion. Quoting Shakespeare's Richard II, Margaret conveyed the sorrow of abortion in these words:
“My grief lies all within, And these external manners of lament Are merely shadows to the unseen grief That swells with silence in the tortured soul”
And Cathy MacBean, ARCH's administrator said that she hoped the re-naming of the work which was established in 1987 as British Victims of Abortion would set more women and men on the road to recovery.
*ARCH (Abortion Recovery Care and Helpline) is an organization which offers help for women, men and families to restore their lives and relationships after an abortion experience. It's committed to exposing the truth of abortion’s tragedy in our community that women deserve better than abortion. This is a free, confidential service, and is open to everyone , irrespective of their background, culture, ethnic origin, disability, gender, age and beliefs. It is a project funded by the SPUC educational research trust.
The Foreign Office official’s memo smearing the Catholic Church for its defence of the sanctity of human life and the family is one of a number of similar recent smear campaigns. Yet few people know that such smear campaigns by those motivated by anti-life/anti-family ideology date back many decades. Enraged by Mit brennender sorge (1937), Pope Pius XI’s famous encyclical condemning Nazism, Joseph Goebbels, the Nazi propaganda minister, ordered a revenge campaign against the Catholic Church. The campaign involved exploiting the relatively few cases of child abuse within the Catholic Church in Germany at the time to create the impression that such abuse was endemic among Catholics.
One of the Church leaders who had taken swift action against child abuse was Blessed Clemens August Cardinal Graf von Galen (pictured), bishop of Munster. He later also took swift action to oppose the Nazi euthanasia programme. For this courageous opposition, Hitler vowed that “after the war I shall extract retribution to the last farthing.”
Shrugging off smear campaigns clearly motivated by anti-life/anti-family ideology as merely bad jokes is a signal failure to defend the Pope and the Catholic Church. Melanie Philips has today explained very well the gravity and significance of the Foreign Office memo.
The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Churchteaches (n. 81):
“The Church’s social doctrine has the task of proclamation, but also of denunciation [emphasis in the original] … This social doctrine also entails a duty to denounce, when sin is present: the sin of injustice and violence that in different ways moves through society and is embodied in it.”
Jack Valero's - of Catholic Voices - response to the Foreign Office document suggesting Pope Benedict might be asked to open an abortion clinic, is unimpressive. Thankfully the document has now been withdrawn by an embarrassed foreign office.
Jack Valero (pictured right) is reported on Catholic Voices' website to have said:
"I think it's a joke that has gone wrong - light relief that has gone out of control. And I think Catholics will just take it like this, you know, that they'll think about it today and then they will forget about it."
He said those that have been scarred by abortion would find the joke "a bit thin".
Sorry Jack, that's really not good enough, particularly in view of the unbalanced criticism of the Catholic Church during the prime ministerial debate last Thursday. May I respectfully remind you what Pope John Paul II said about abortion?
"Among all the crimes which can be committed against life, procured abortion has characteristics making it particularly serious and deplorable. The Second Vatican Council defines abortion, together with infanticide, as an "unspeakable crime" ...
" ... The moral gravity of procured abortion is apparent in all its truth if we recognize that we are dealing with murder and, in particular, when we consider the specific elements involved. The one eliminated is a human being at the very beginning of life. No one more absolutely innocent could be imagined. In no way could this human being ever be considered an aggressor, much less an unjust aggressor! He or she is weak, defenceless, even to the point of lacking that minimal form of defence consisting in the poignant power of a newborn baby's cries and tears ... " Evangelium Vitae, N. 58.
Pope John Paul II goes on to say (in relation to abortion and euthanasia):
" ... But any State which made such a request legitimate and authorized it to be carried out would be legalizing a case of suicide-murder, contrary to the fundamental principles of absolute respect for life and of the protection of every innocent life. In this way the State contributes to lessening respect for life and opens the door to ways of acting which are destructive of trust in relations between people. Laws which authorize and promote abortion and euthanasia are therefore radically opposed not only to the good of the individual but also to the common good ... " Evangelium Vitae, No 72.
Abortion, in other words, is not a matter of private morality of concern only to Catholics. On the contrary, Pope John Paul II teaches: "When a parliamentary or social majority that it is legal, at least under certain conditions, to kill unborn human life, is it not really making a 'tyrannical' decision with regard to the weakest and most defenceless of human beings? Everyone's conscience rightly rejects those crimes against humanity of which our century has had such sad experience. But would these crimes cease to be crimes if, instead of being committed by unscrupulous tyrants, they were legitimated by popular consensus? ... " Evangelium Vitae, N70
As Clement Atlee, the post-war Labour prime minister, said of Harold Laski when he sought to intervene in foreign affairs, I would say to Jack Valero: " ... a period of silence on your part would be welcome."
By way of contrast, I thought the Government's response was nearer the mark. David Milliband, the foreign secretary, was said to be "appalled" by the incident.
Our colleagues at LifeSiteNews.com report that the premier of the Canadian state of Ontario has put his administration's anti-family sex education curriculum on hold following protests from parents, pro-family groups and the state's Catholic bishops. Similar pressure resulted in the British government agreeing to drop similar plans from its Children, Schools and Families bill, albeit until after the general election. The call by Archbishop Terrence Prendergast of Ottawa for “a firestorm of response” to the curriculum couldn't be more in contrast with the shameful complicity of the Catholic Education Service (CES) of England and Wales with the British government's plans to corrupt our children, and Vincent Nichols' (archbishop of Westminster) support for those plans. When will Catholic parents in England and Wales be relieved of oppression by episcopal policy in this country?
More evidence of government-backed attempts to corrupt our children is reported in today's Daily Mail. Government-funded charity workers have been handing out condoms to children as young as eight playing in a park in Hull, east Yorkshire. Samanatha Fuller, the aunt of one eight year-old and mother of one 13 year-old offered the condoms, said:
"She's my daughter, she's not the Government's daughter, the council's daughter or the youth centre's daughter. They will not care about my daughter if anything happens, it's my responsibility."
Now and in the aftermath of the general election, parents up and down the country must show similar resistance to attempts to enshrine and extend such child abuse through legislation on sex education.
