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.
Pictured (right) is SPUC’s latest leaflet, explaining why TV adverts for abortion should be stopped.
If you are visiting this post from Britain, you might consider ordering this leaflet and distributing it as widely as possible over the summer months. It's designed to be easily read, and includes a special section addressing mothers-to-be (“Baby on board?”). In this way, it provides a powerful counter to the Marie Stopes TV advertising campaign.
The leaflet avoids naming the Marie Stopes abortion organisation (we don’t want to advertise them!), but many people will share our revulsion at the idea of TV ads for abortionists, and this leaflet tells them what they can do.
We need to distribute the flyer as widely as possible, so that we can ensure that expectant mothers get the help they need. Can you set an ambitious target – to cover your street or a number of streets in your neighbourhood? Can you enlist one or two others to help – or five or six – or a dozen?
The leaflets are designed for distribution to the general public, and they are of course free of charge.
You can distribute them:
• door-to-door
• at churches (with permission of the local clergy)
• at summer fetes, street stalls, car-boot sales, etc
• on the high street – near shopping centres, sports events, railway stations, etc.
(Please be aware that you should ask permission if distributing the leaflets on private property – such as a railway station, many shopping precincts and car-parks.)
TV abortion ads give offence to many people, not least those who have been affected by an abortion experience. They will also result in greater pressure for reluctant women to submit to abortions.
Catholic News Agency reports today that Archbishop Carlos Jose Nanez (pictured) of Cordoba has begun canonical proceedings against an Argentinean priest for refusing to retract the statements he publicly made supporting same-sex “marriage.”
This is an interesting and thought-provoking development those engaged in the struggle against the culture of death*. For example, in England and Wales, Archbishop Nichols and the Catholic bishops of England and Wales go along with the previous government's ideas and legislative plans on sex and relationships education - which involve giving access to schoolchildren under the age of consent to abortions, without their parents' knowledge or consent. The previous government's plans and ideas also included teaching that homosexuality is normal and harmless.
The example set by Archbishop Carlos Jose Nanez of Cordoba might be particularly important for parents who are seeking to exercise their fundamental rights and responsibilities to be the primary educators of their children.
*Pope John Paul II taught that it was an illusion to think that we could build a true culture of human life if we did 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.
A Spanish Catholic archbishop has today said that Spain's new abortion law cannot be followed. "This law is no law" says Archbishop Francisco Gil Hellín, the archbishop of Burgos (pictured). SPUC knows him well from his period in Rome as secretary of the Pontifical Council for the Family.
LifeSiteNews.com tells us, in a report that should be read in full:
In a statement published on the bishops' Catholic Information Service, Gil Hellín laments the recent promulgation of the law, an "evil law which is directly opposed to right reason and the most elemental justice. Such is the law that establishes that the Spanish have the right to kill the unborn, as long as they do it before 14 weeks."
"Let us diagnose it with total clarity: this law is no law, although it is presented as such by some political and legislative bodies. And it isn't because no one has the right to eliminate an innocent. For that reason, it doesn't obligate. Even more, it demands a head-on opposition without reservation. Right reason cannot admit as a right the killing of an innocent person."
The new abortion law, which is being contested before Spain's Constitutional Tribunal, abolishes penalties for all abortions during the first 14 weeks of pregnancy. It also allows minors to obtain abortions without parental permission, although they must first inform their parents of their intention to do so.
The archbishop rejects arguments that claim the law is somehow valid because it was passed by the legislature and approved according to the required legal processes.
"It is a fallacy to affirm that this law has been approved by the majority of the Parliament and that this represents the majority of the citizens, or to say that if the Constitutional Tribunal decrees its conformity [with the Constitution] it would be disobedience to oppose it, and would deserve a punishment. The fallacy consists in attributing to politicians, judges, or citizens a right that they don't have, and no one has the right to legislate that an innocent can be killed."
"What society would continue if it declared that is the right of citizens to kill innocent persons by majority [vote]? In the best scenario it would be converted into a tyranny, against which upright persons would have to react, according to this advice by Gandhi: 'As soon as one understands that obeying unjust laws is contrary to his dignity as a man, no tyranny can dominate him.'"
In a significant interview with Zenit, Monsignor Ignacio Carrasco de Paula, the head of the Pontifical Academy for Life dismissed scientific arguments in favour of abortion. Monsignor Carrasco, previously chancellor of the Academy, has succeeded Archbishop Salvatore Fisichella as its president. (Picture, right, shows Professor Jerome Lejeune, the founding president, and Madame Lejeune, with Pope John Paul II who set up the Academy.)
Asked by Zenit "How can the embryo be defended from the scientific point of view?" Monsignor Carrasco replied:
"The problem is not scientific. The embryo is very well defended from that point of view. The problem is essentially of a socio-political and ideological nature and here scientific arguments don't count. It is a realm in which what counts is power and if the one who has power has no desire to dialogue or, at least to reflect somewhat, then he doesn't have much to do with other guidelines."
This is fighting talk and it's good to hear. Monsignor Carrasco goes on to challenge politicians and political lobbyists to be tougher in their defence of the unborn:
" ... in the end what remains is the political weapon and the political weapon that we citizens have today is weak. Those who know politics can do much more and that is their very grave responsibility. Speaking in soccer language, lets say it's that they have the ball."
Monsignor Carrasco ridicules the concept of the right to abortion, saying:
"I don't know when we will arrive at the right to steal but behind these laws what exists is a relativistic logic".
And the new president of the Pontifical Academy for Life boldly suggests that defenders of the unborn should change the language of the debate. In a poignant passage in the Zenit interview he says:
"One of the problems we have with regard to the embryo is that it isn't seen. Instead of embryo we should speak of a child who is in the initial phase of development. Because we cannot see him, he is in a situation of tremendous danger, at tremendous risk."
Monsignor Carrasco announces in the interview that the Academy starts work this September studying post-abortion syndrome.
"The mission is not to demonstrate that this syndrome exists but to see what it is exactly and what it is like."
Again, this is forthright language. I pray that the work of the Academy on post-abortion syndrome will help women and men worldwide and provide an invaluable new resource to bodies like Abortion Recovery Care and Helpline (ARCH) launched earlier this year in Britain.
The withdrawal of flawed guidance on abortion by Northern Ireland's health department is welcome.
In a letter to Mr Jim Wells, chairman of the Northern Ireland Assembly's health committee, the department has announced that it has withdrawn its interim guidance on abortion. The department also announced that it was launching a public consultation on the guidance.
Liam Gibson of SPUC Northern Ireland told the media today:
"We are very pleased that the health minister has withdrawn the interim guidance. This was the aim of the SPUC's application for a judicial review, due to be heard in September. The health minister has done the sensible thing by withdrawing the guidance. Otherwise he would have been ordered by the courts for a second time to withdraw it.
"When we challenged the original guidance in the High Court last year, the judge rejected a request from the department that it should be allowed to withdraw only the sections on counselling and conscientious objection. Health officials simply ignored this ruling. They quickly re-published the guidance with those sections left out. Otherwise the document was unchanged.
"Both the information given to women and the rights of medical personnel are central to clinical practice. We believe that any guidance which says nothing about these issues is fundamentally flawed, and should never have been published. The department finally seems to have accepted that.
"Until now, the health department has acted in a high-handed and belligerent manner regarding the guidance. The department appeared determined to pursue its own agenda, rather than apply the law. We will be working closely with pro-life members of the Northern Ireland Assembly and its health committee to ensure that the department's consultation does not result in the rights of women, unborn children or the medical profession being undermined."
Eoghan Harris (pictured) is a member of the Irish Senate, a journalist and a columnist. He sets the tone for media rejoicing over Ireland's Civil Partnership bill, approved last week by both houses of the Irish parliament. (Patrick Buckley, of European Life Network, provides a useful summary of what happened in the Irish Senate).
When enacted the Civil Partnership and Certain Rights and Obligations of Cohabitation Bill 2009 will establish the status of civil partners, enable same sex couples to register their civil partnership, confer on them a range of rights and duties consequent on registration including maintenance, shared home, succession and pensions rights.
"Civil partnership is a crucial stepping stone to gay marriage ... some of the speeches by opponents of the bill began to grate badly in three respects. First, I found it hard to stomach some of the spoof about private conscience. Fine, if it meant the speakers' own personal conscience. Not so fine if they were simply renting their conscience from the Christian churches. Why? Because while Jesus Christ was casual about sexual peccadilloes, his disciples, beginning with Paul, had an historically deranged view of human sexuality which led to atrocities ranging from the burning of witches to child abuse by Catholic clerics."
My first reaction, on reading Senator Harris's reflections on Jesus Christ's and St Paul's teaching on human sexuality, was to laugh: but then I realised he wasn't joking.
Donning a straight face, therefore, I ask Senator Harris two questions:
To what particular passage in the Gospel are you referring when you say Jesus was "casual about sexual peccadilloes"?
Have your profound reflections on St Paul on the matter of human sexuality included a critical reading of Pope John Paul II's 129 Wednesday audiences known as Theology of the Body - given between the years 1979 and 1984? If not, what Pauline scholarship did your reading include?
Senator Eoghan Harris continues:
"Second, I could not accept the argument that civil servants could refuse to register a civil partnership on grounds of conscience. Surely private conscience should concern major moral issues of life and death and not the peculiar convictions of civil servants on sexual matters? And how could a pluralist Republic allow civil servants to pick and choose between its laws?"
To which one might respond: Perhaps the "peculiar convictions" of the civil servants in question include a determination to abide by the tenets of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which obliges States to protect the family founded on marriage between a man and a woman. As the distinguished bioethicist and lawyer William L. Saunders has pointed out:
"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."
It is, therefore, only natural that good Irish citizens will want to oppose by conscientious objection Ireland's Civil Partnership Bill once it becomes law, if on no other basis than the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
And, in addition to being inspired by the UDHR, there might be Irish citizens who agree with Pope Benedict that legislation which is "a crucial stepping stone to gay marriage" will tend towards "man's destruction". Such citizens may well regard it like a moral issue of "life and death" rather than "private conscience". Pope Benedict said in his 2008 end of year address to the Roman Curia:
"Since faith in the Creator is an essential part of the Christian Creed, the Church cannot and should not limit itself to transmitting to its faithful only the message of salvation. She has a responsibility for Creation, and it should validate this responsibility in public.
"In so doing, it should defend not just the earth, water and air as gifts of Creation that belong to everyone. She should also protect man from destroying himself.
"It is necessary to have something like an ecology of man, understood in the right sense. It is not outdated metaphysics when the Church speaks of the nature of the human being as man and woman, and asks that this natural order be respected.
"This has to do with faith in the Creator and listening to the language of creation, which, if disregarded, would be man's self-destruction and therefore a destruction of God's work itself.
"That which has come to be expressed and understood with the term 'gender' effectively results in man's self-emancipation from Creation (nature) and from the Creator. Man wants to do everything by himself and to decide always and exclusively about anything that concerns him personally. But this is to live against truth, to live against the Spirit Creator.
"The tropical rain forests deserve our protection, yes, but man does not deserve it less as a Creature of the Spirit himself, in whom is inscribed a message that does not mean a contradiction of human freedom but its condition.
"The great theologians of Scholasticism described matrimony - which is the lifelong bond between a man and a woman - as a sacrament of Creation, that the Creator himself instituted, and that Christ, without changing the message of Creation, welcomed in the story of his alliance with men.
"Part of the announcement that the Church should bring to men is a testimonial for the Spirit Creator present in all of nature, but specially in the nature of man, who was created in the image of God."
(I thank Teresa Benedetta of the Papa Ratzi forum for the translation and the Hermeneutic of Continuity for drawing attention to this translation at the time.)
Senator Harris goes on to say:
"Finally, if a civil servant really had a crisis of conscience about civil partnership surely Dr Johnson's adage applied? 'Every man has a right to utter what he thinks truth, and every other man has a right to knock him down for it. Martyrdom is the test.'"
From what I know of Ireland and the Irish, and whatever Senator Harris means by martyrdom, there will be Irish citizens willing to meet his chilling challenge. Indeed, I pray to God, for the future of the family and for the culture of life*, that there will be.
* Pope John Paul II taught that it was an illusion to think that we could build a true culture of human life if we did 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. However, with the bishops of England and Wales lending its support to legislation that obliges Catholic schools to provide information on contraception and abortion, is it not completely unrealistic to expect that Catholic sexual morality will be taught in these schools?
This year, in place of the SPUC annual national conference, SPUC Evangelicals is organising a weekend conference, 17-19 September, at the Hayes Conference Centre, Swanwick, Derbyshire. It promises to be a most exciting and interesting weekend > Programme.
Although there will be a full evangelical input into the conference, the conference is open to people of any denomination, religion or none. As with all SPUC conferences, it is the pro-life philosophy which knits us together, and that philosophy will be the basis of all the talks and sessions.
SPUC is subsidising the conference, and it is therefore possible to offer places at a special discounted rate. The normal adult rate is £120, but if you book before 20 August a rate of £100 is available. This special discounted rate includes all meals, accommodation and conference fees.
Ann Farmer, a pro-life feminist and author, sent me the following comment on Antonia Senior's honest pro-abortion article in The Times on which I commented last week:
"Antonia Senior is commendably frank in admitting that abortion takes a human life, but in claiming that abortion ('women's control of their fertility') is the lesser evil, she is implying that having a child is the greater evil. No doubt she would argue that the greater evil in her view would be a woman having a child she did not want - but where does this approach leave the unwanted child? It is surely the case that there are many infertile couples who would welcome the chance to give a home to an unwanted child. But even if this were not so, surely being unwanted should not be a reason for being killed? If that is indeed the case, then nobody is safe. If this is a feminist stance, it should be remembered that the early feminists campaigned not just for women but for children and other vulnerable individuals - they did not use their oppressed status to demand the right to oppress those even more vulnerable. In view of the fact that many abortions are carried out because pregnant women lack the support of the child's father, or are even pressured or coerced into abortion, Senior's stance would put women on the side of the oppressor. Before legalisation, at least such women had the protection of the law against being pushed into abortion - now the State sanctions abuse of both women and unborn babies."
Last month I wrote about how The Tablet, which presents itself as a Catholic weekly, works to undermine Catholic teaching on the sanctity of human life.
Stuart McCullough who, with his wife Clare, heads one of the world's most effective pro-life groups, has explained briefly and, in my view, unanswerably, why The Tablet should not be sold in Catholic churches.
The National Catholic Register reported this week on "finding a delightful and life-giving use for post-colonial Euro attempts at culling the non-white numbers so despised by white population planners whose motto is 'Just Enough of Me. Way Too Much of You!'"
Prince Charles, if he sees the above video, may echo his great-great-great grandmother's, Queen Victoria's, alleged remark: "We are not amused". It's reported today that the Prince may be conspicuous by his absence during Pope Benedict's forthcoming visit to Britain because of differences with the Catholic Church on population control; and last month I reported that the Prince of Wales delivered a poorly-informed address at Oxford University on the consequences of population growth.
The National Catholic Register posting on condoms should not be disregarded as frivolous. It's making a very serious point on the eve of World Population Day: Let's not forget that another of Pope Benedict's opponents is International Planned Parenthood Federation for which so-called "family planning" is big business - and whose own press statement acknowledged the health risks to women even in the case of consistent condom use, a point made in an excellent letter in The Times from Liz Todd:
"Sir, Amid the criticism of the Pope’s stance on condoms (report, Mar 18) by Aids activists, NGOs and others claiming to promote, inter alia, sexual health, freedom and compassion for Aids/HIV sufferers, the clinical issue has been missed. If one’s partner has Aids or is HIV-positive, abstinence will eliminate the risk of contagion or death completely; condom use, however, will mitigate these risks by 90 per cent at best. Even the WHO report and statistics on condom use in Aids and HIV cases acknowledge this fact. Abstinence is a 2,000-year-old doctrine and virtue of the Catholic Church. The Aids and HIV epidemic is a 20th and 21st-century epidemic, and, from the Catholic Church’s perspective, having observed the human condition over centuries, yet another social and anthropological context in which it will continue to expound the virtue of sexual abstinence."
And as Cardinal Murphy O'Connor pointed out on the same day in The Times:
"It is certainly true that the widespread distribution of condoms can run the risk of greater promiscuity and that the best way to combat the Aids epidemic is by healthcare, education and fidelity in married life."
I was recently made aware of a wonderful, heart-warming story from Australia.
Don Ritchie, a man who lives opposite Autralia's most notorious suicide spot, a rocky cliff at the entrance of Sydney Harbour called 'The Gap' (pictured), has for years been quietly encouraging potential jumpers not to take their own lives.
Ritchie's philosophy could easily serve as an explanation for the work of SPUC and the pro-life movement:
You can't just sit there and watch them. You gotta try and save them. It's pretty simple.
Official tallies estimate that Don has saved 160 people in total, but he does not personally keep count. His local council, Woolahra, recently named Ritchie and his wife Moya Citizens of the Year.
I found this passage from the article particularly poignant:
"I'm offering them an alternative, really," Don says. "I always act in a friendly manner. I smile."
A smile cannot, of course, save everyone; the motivations behind suicide are too varied. But simple kindness can be surprisingly effective. Mental health professionals tell the story of a note left behind by a man who jumped off San Francisco's Golden Gate Bridge. If one person smiles at me on the way to the bridge, the man wrote, I will not jump.
People like Don are a wake-up call to a world where we witness the promotion of euthanasia for people who are 'tired of life', and to the UK where assisted suicide is now effectively accepted by the legal system.
On the grounds that parental pride is pro-life, I take the liberty of sharing with visitors to my blog our family joy on a special occasion yesterday!
My wife, Josephine, and I were in Manchester for our daughter Teresa's graduation ceremony. She was awarded a joint honours degree in French and English. We are pictured outside the Whitworth Hall at the university of Manchester where the conferment of degrees took place.
Last night the House of Lords rejected an amendment to the government's Academies bill by Baroness Massey (pictured), a leading pro-abortion figure. The amendment sought to make sex education compulsory in academies. The amendment was defeated by 245 votes to 156.
Paul Tully, SPUC's general secretary, told the media today:
"Baroness Massey's amendment represented the incessant demand by the pro-abortion lobby to force schools to provide anti-life messages about sex and relations to vulnerable children. We agree with Lord Waddington, who said that 'academies should be free to choose not to provide sex education for children of primary school age when the school and parents think that it would not be appropriate.'
"We are relieved by the amendment's defeat but warn that similar amendments will be tabled to another bill, the forthcoming Children and Schools bill. We urge all those concerned about protecting our children to warn their MPs about the immoral agenda behind the push for compulsory sex education."
During the debate, Baroness Massey and her supporters promoted access for schoolchildren to "sexual health" services, which is a euphemism for abortion centres.
They also claimed that compulsory lessons would mean "less unsafe sex" and that "Sex education has been shown to delay early sexual activity".
Baroness Gould, another leading pro-abortion figure, claimed:
"As I and others have said, teaching good SRE is a means of discouraging early sex."
In fact they failed to cite evidence other than anecdotal instances to support this, whereas recent UK-based peer-reviewed randomised trials of carefully designed SRE lessons (conducted by supporters of SRE) have shown as many, or more, unplanned pregnancies and abortions among youngsters targetted with SRE.
Baroness Gould promoted the role in schools of "nurses, youth workers and Connexions personal advisers." This was another euphemistic reference to abortion promotion. Nurses, youth workers and Connexions personal advisers are increasingly being used to promote and/or facilitate secret abortions in schools to children as young as 11.
Last month I wrote about how UN officials are trying to promote a universal right to abortion. They are doing so while purporting to utilize a human rights approach to Millenium Development Goal 5 - improving maternal health. The Millenium Development Goals are eight international development goals that all 192 United Nations member states and at least 23 international organizations have agreed to achieve by the year 2015.
The pro-abortion lobby claims that legal abortions are needed to reduce the maternal mortality rate. Last month the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva debated a report produced by Navanethem Pillay, the High Commissioner on Human Rights. The report cites so called “unsafe abortion” as one of the major causes of maternal mortality. It was based on the World Health Organisation statistics, which have been shown to be wildly inaccurate.
SPUC's planned intervention shows that the report's claim that "65,000 to 70,000" maternal deaths were due to unsafe abortions is inaccurate because:
it is based on World Health Organisation statistics, which claim that over half a million maternal deaths occur worldwide each year when more reliable statistics indicate a fall in maternal deaths worldwide from 526,300 in 1980 to 342,900 in 2008.
The World Health Organisation concedes that “[w]here induced abortion is restricted and largely inaccessible, or legal but difficult to obtain, little information is available…[w]hat information is available is inevitably not completely reliable” and that “…incidence of unsafe abortion and the resulting mortality necessarily have some degree of uncertainty.
Legalised abortion leads to more abortions. In developing countries, where the maternal mortality rate is highest, abortions are even more dangerous because of poor general health care of women - particularly lack of antibiotics, drugs to prevent hemorrhage and lack of clean facilities.
Unfortunately, the UN is being dominated by groups and individuals ideologically promoting abortion, rather than focusing on genuine ways to save women's lives. The debate in Geneva last month was carefully stage-managed with both the Holy See and the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), the only pro-life NGO present at the Session, excluded from making an intervention.
Provision was made for the Holy See, and other delegations who did not get an opportunity to intervene, to publish their interventions on the UN website.
Patrick Buckley, SPUC's lobbyist at the UN, has said:
There is no doubt about it, a statement made in the plenary with everyone present is much more effective particularly when it is challenging some of the basic precepts that are being pushed by the other side. If there is no voice speaking out against it then the impression is that everyone agrees.
There is also less likelihood of people accessing the website afterwards although some do. The best way for the Holy See to get their views out there is to do what they are doing, having submitted the text then publishing it as far and wide as possible.
Despite the fact that they did not get to make the statement on the day they are doing their utmost, not just to put their views on the record, but to make them known as widely as possible.
With the same interest in mind I encourage you to read the Holy See's planned intervention. It was prepared by Archbishop Silvano Tomasi (pictured top right), the Papal Nuncio to the UN in Geneva. The intervention points out various measures to improve global maternal health:
giving HIV positive mothers access to antiretroviral medications
increasing the availability of emergency obstetric care, including the provision of universal pre and post-natal care
adequate transport to medical facilities
skilled birth attendants
a clean blood supply and a clean water supply
appropriate antibiotics
the introduction of a minimum age of 18 years for marriage
The Holy See is proposing real measures to reduce maternal mortality rates. At present this voice of reason is being sidelined in the UN in favour of a radically pro-abortion ideology with the aim of creating a universal right to abortion in the name of improving maternal health.
The reality is that abortion does nothing to improve maternal health.
It is important to spread the message that the Holy See attempted to make so forcefully.
A Liverpool couple have been ridiculed by their MP’s staff for trying to protect their ten-year-old son from a pornographic sex education programme widely used in UK primary schools, reports Liverpool media. The couple, Christopher and Pauline Power, have been supported in their efforts by SPUC's Safe at School campaign
Mr Power wrote to Alison McGovern (pictured), his member of parliament, about "Living and Growing", the Channel 4 DVD series for primary schools. One of the DVDs shows a naked cartoon couple having a pillow-fight and chasing each other before having sex in different positions. Mr Power heard nothing for four weeks and then received an accidental email from Mrs McGovern’s assistant which read:
“Alison, think we need to get a response out to this gentleman. Know it’s an awfully uncomfortable discussion to have, but think we need to get a position (stop giggling at the back) sooner than later. Jay”
Antonia Tully of Safe at School told the media this evening:
“Mr and Mrs Power are deeply distressed that a message to their MP has been turned into a vulgar joke. Safe at School has repeatedly highlighted the contempt for parents shown by those who advocate sexually explicit classroom sex education.
"Safe at School is writing to Michael Gove, the Secretary of State for Education, asking him to meet Mr and Mrs Power and to see at first hand this programme which is widely used throughout the UK."
“This Channel 4 programme is priming children for teenage sex. If Mr Gove is concerned about the damaging impact of the teenage sexual culture in Britain, it is important that he is aware of how explicit, crude and suggestive many sex lessons aimed at pre-teens are. 'Living and Growing' is a prime example.
“The programme not only teaches children how to have sex, it also promotes contraception. In the final lesson children are given an activity sheet entitled ‘Contraceptive Crisis’. This asks children of 10 and 11 years old to describe the way in which five different types of contraceptive work, and then asks them which one a confused couple should use.”
Yesterday a German high court ruled that embryos which have been frozen for future in vitro fertilisation (IVF) can be screened to see if they are likely to be born with disabilities. The Federal Supreme Court in Leipzig ruled in support of a Berlin gynaecologist who had carried out screening on embryos for three different couples and implanted only those without disabilities. The embryos with disabilities were left to die.
This follows the news last week of the development of a cheap blood test that could allow doctors to check unborn children for Down's syndrome.
Both of these developments, in my view, represent advancements in the genocide of unborn disabled human beings.
Like the article in The Telegraph that reported on the new blood test, the report on yesterday's development in Germany contains an offensive inaccuracy. The article describes human embryos without disabilities as healthy thereby implicitly suggesting that human embryos with disabilities are unhealthy.
Our society should not be applauding legal and scientific advancements in the targeting and killing of disabled human beings.
It is interesting to read today, again in The Telegraph, Edward Lyons, the former Labour MP, being praised (in his obituary) for his contribution to the advancement of the 1967 Abortion Act, specifically through advocating the abortion of unborn disabled children. The article reads:
Lyons made his greatest impact on the House of Commons in a deeply personal way, in his maiden speech. Breaking with convention by choosing a controversial topic, he intervened in the debate on David Steel's ultimately successful 1966 Bill to legalise abortion to disclose that his wife Barbara had herself had a termination early in their marriage.
Lyons told a hushed House of Commons that she took the step after contracting German measles, with doctors in Yorkshire telling her she must have the baby despite the risk of its being born deformed. "Our quest brought us to London," he said. "We were finally successful and we have no regrets."
I do not judge Mr Lyons or his wife for their decision. It is, however, worrying that The Telegraph, and other media outlets appear entirely comfortable with the promotion of the deliberate targeting and elimination of disabled individuals from our society.
The nomination of Elena Kagan by President Barack Obama to the Supreme Court is another example of the naked promotion of pro-abortion activists to influential positions. This nomination spells danger for the rule of law.
The radically pro-abortion credentials of Elena Kagan were exposed in reports last week, which revealed that she rewrote the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) position on partial birth abortion. She did so to the effect that the ACOG's language changed from saying that it could never foresee a circumstance when partial birth abortion would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of a mother, to language which says that in some circumstances partial birth abortion is the best option. As Yuval Levin reports:
Kagan saw ACOG’s original paper, which did not include the claim that partial-birth abortion “may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman,” but, on the contrary, said that ACOG “could identify no circumstances under which this procedure . . . would be the only option to save the life or preserve the health of the woman.” She wrote a memo to two White House colleagues noting that this language would be “a disaster” for the cause of partial-birth abortion, and she then set out to do something about it. In notes released by the White House it now looks as though Kagan herself—a senior Clinton White House staffer with no medical background—proposed the “may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman” language, and sent it to ACOG, which then included that language in its final statement.
By promoting Elena Kagan, President Obama is promoting a radically pro-abortion activist with a history of advancing the anti-life agenda. The danger is that Kagan may soon be granted the capacity to interpret law in accordance with her anti-life bias.
US citizens have every reason to fear that Kagan will attempt to use her position as Supreme Court justice to interpret the law in a way which will advance anti-life ends. Kagan has been reported as having described the constitutional interpretation of Thurgood Marshall, the former Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court as "a thing of glory".
Justice Marshall:
interpreted the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution (“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws”) to mean that states were mandated to pay for abortions.
In 1981 opposed a Supreme Court case that said a physician should “[n]otify, if possible, the parents or guardian of the woman upon whom the abortion is performed, if she is a minor.”
In 1990 opposed another bill upholding parental notification of abortion of minors. He also opposed the bill because it asked for a 48 hour waiting period before an abortion took place.
The values that Elena Kagan described as a "thing of glory" are the values that mark out Thurgood Marshall as radically pro-abortion.
US citizens need no reminding of the inherent dangers in anti-life judicial interpretations. It is, after all, thanks to the judical interpretation of Justice Harry Blackmun in Roe vs Wade that abortion is so widespread across the United States. Blackmun interpreted that the "right of personal liberty" in the US Constitution also included a "right of privacy" that was "broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy". The fact that a "right to privacy" is not explicitly found in the U.S. Constitution and that, even if a right to privacy did exist, there is nothing to suggest that such a right should include the right to abortion, did not stop Justice Blackmun from interpreting that it did.
The danger of an anti-life bias in judicial interpretations has been made all too clear to UK citizens by the recent blunting of the laws against assisted suicide by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP). This was acheived by a shift in focus in the new judicial guidelines on assisted-suicide from intention (the suspect's deliberate will to assist the suicide) to motivation (why the suspect assisted a suicide). This undermining of the law makes assisted suicide very different from other serious crimes against the person, where consent to becoming a victim is not accepted either as a defence in court or as a factor against prosecution. Thanks to the DPP's new guidelines on assisted suicide this radical departure from the rule of law will now become the norm in the UK.
The following conclusion by Pietro De Marco perfectly expresses the dangers when individual judges dictate the moral compass of society :
Carl Schmitt saw it well when he wrote that jurists, instead of theologians, legitimize the institutions of modernity, and have the power of the sovereign, that of execution. In global configurations as in social institutions, in anthropology and in bioethics as in the decision over those who govern, a new wave of jurists are acting today who are "revolutionaries," some consciously and some not, and one does not know which is worse. It escapes many analysts that among the perverse effects of late modernity, this is one of the most pernicious.
The Times have published a surprisingly honest article by Antonia Senior (pictured), in which she describes her views on abortion.
In her article 'Yes abortion is killing, but it's the lesser evil' Antonia Senior says that the birth of her child has brought what she describes as her "absolutist position" in favour of abortion "under siege". She beautifully describes how the birth of her daughter has helped her to realise that human life truly begins at conception:
[m]y daughter was formed at conception, and all the barely understood alchemy that turned the happy accident of that particular sperm meeting that particular egg into my darling, personality-packed toddler took place at that moment. She is so unmistakably herself, her own person — forged in my womb, not by my mothering.
Despite this, Antonia Senior remains pro-abortion. She concludes that although abortion means killing an individual human life, exercising control over women's 'fertility' (by this Senior means actually giving birth, rather than exercising control of conception) is more important.
Senior says:
The nearly 200,000 aborted babies in the UK each year are the lesser evil, [JS: as opposed to the loss of women's control over what Senior calls their 'fertility'] no matter how you define life, or death, for that matter. If you are willing to die for a cause, you must be prepared to kill for it, too.
Senior admits to being prepared to kill so that, in her words, she and other women possess
[the] ability to impose our will on our biology.
Although Antonia Senior admits that abortion involves one person's deciding to kill another person, she also describes abortion just in terms of women's bodies (omitting mention of the unborn). She also claims that abortion is a lesser evil than the loss of women's control of their fertility, and she even says that women should be prepared to kill for such control. Although she concedes that unborn babies are human, she considers their lives disposable.
I very much suspect that Antonia Senior will be inundated with responses to this article. Some of the questions I would like to ask her are:
are you prepared to kill humans outside the womb, as well as inside the womb in order to maintain your control?
Do you believe that all the abortions that take place in the UK are undertaken by women with the same readiness to kill as yourself?
What about women who may not understand the reality of abortion or share your resolve to kill and who are pressured by society and by others into having an abortion that they may later regret?
As a Catholic parent, living in the archdiocese of Westminster, I am troubled by the BBC's Hardtalk interview with Vincent Nichols (pictured), the archbishop of Westminster, broadcast last Friday. I am troubled for my family. Not for the first time, we've been abandoned by our pastor. Equally, I'm troubled for Pope Benedict who, in his forthcoming trip to Britain, is being shepherded into a politically correct "broad church".
I pray that the state of episcopal leadership in England and Wales is brought to the attention of the Pope and that the Holy Father determines to speak out boldly and unambiguously about abortion, contraception and on the authentic truth of human sexuality, just as he does elsewhere in the world.
In BBC News Channel HardTalk last Friday night, Stephen Sackur questioned the archbishop on papal teaching on condoms and homosexual acts[*].
Archbishop Nichols showed his mastery of the political art of evading direct questions - until it came to exchanges on whether, in the future, the Catholic Church might accept "flexibility" on matters like gay unions. At the same time he speaks about "fidelity to Christ" and "faithfulness". I publish below a verbatim transcript of one section of the interview with the archbishop.
It reminds me of the Catholic bishops' position on abortion. On the one hand they explain the Catholic church's opposition to abortion. On the other hand, Archbishop Nichols and the Catholic bishops of England and Wales go along with the previous government's ideas and legislative plans on sex and relationships education - which involve giving access to schoolchildren under the age of consent to abortions, without their parents' knowledge or consent. The previous government's plans and ideas also included teaching that homosexuality is normal and harmless.
As a consequence of this dichotomy the Catholic Church in England and Wales, in particular its teachings relating to the culture of life, is wounded and divided. I pray that Pope Benedict will heal these wounds and division with love and forthright teaching.
I will return to this dichotomy between faithfulness/fidelity to Christ, the bishops of England and Wales, and abortion etc for schoolchildren later this week and its implications for non-Catholics and the Catholic faithful later this week. Here is a verbatim transcript of one section of Archbishop Nichols's interview on Hardtalk below.
Hardtalk, , BBC News Channel, 11.30, Friday, 2nd July Stephen Sackur interviews Reverend Vincent Nichols, archbishop of Westminster
"Stephen Sackur (S): Let's look at some specific issues then... Not so long ago on a visit to Africa, Pope Benedict said that in his view the distribution of condoms can aggravate and does aggravate the problem of HIV Aids. Now there are no scientific polls on this but I would suggest to you that most people in a country like the United Kingdom would fundamentally disagree with that position.
Archbishop Vincent Nichols (N): Yes I would agree with you and I think that most people in this country would disagree with it.
S. Do you disagree with it?
N. No. I don't actually. I wouldn't express it like that.
S. You think that condoms aggravate the problem of the spread of HIV Aids?
N. No, I wouldn't express it quite like that. What I would say is that the spread and the use of condoms in Africa have plenty of champions and still Aids spreads. So I think there are deeper questions that we should be asking and when you ask those questions, for example from the perspective of women in Africa, then you've got to say "Actually we should be looking for an understanding of sexuality that is something that isn't just contained within a technical response. I think the distribution of condoms is a technical response from a western technological cuture being imposed on a society which doesn't work like that.
S. But when you tell me that I cannot help thinking back to the interview I recorded for this programme not so very long ago with the Catholic bishop of Rustenburg, Kevin Dowling, and for him condoms was anything but a technological debate. He says that in his particular diocese he has decided that condoms are a crucial part of the healthcare alternative offered to women because he says they save lives and more than anything else he is pro-life and being pro-life has led him to believe that he has to challenge his own Pope on this fundamental issue.
N. Well I respect his views. He's been there. I've never been to Africa. That's why I would be cautious in expressing the view precisely on this point in practical terms. The point I was trying to make was the point that we can engage in a debate about in this country which is what is the meaning of human sexuality. What actually is it about? Is it a recreational activity? Is it a casual relationship activity? It is something intrinsically involving procreation? How exactly do understand human sexuality? And these are the underlying questions which I think the Pope provokes which many people find uncomfortable but nevertheless are very valid.
S. But I just wonder whether you sometimes feel uncomfortable because on the one hand your Catholic faith and your belief in the Pope and this Pope in particular leads you to a position where you want to be loyal. Loyalty is a fundamentally important part of the Roman Catholic tradition. On the other hand maybe from time to time like Bishop Dowling you believe that this Pope or any particular Pope takes a stand that you can't share. How do you wrestle with that personally?
N. Well I think we start off here by wanting say, and this would be my most fundamental commitment, would be a search for truth, a search for what actually helps me to know who I am, what my destiny is, what my deeper origins are, what is going to make sense of this myriad of experiences that make up a daily life. And I think the church is misunderstood when the Church is represented as saying we possess the truth and from here on we'll give it to you. And Pope Benedict would never say that. He would say and I would try and echo that we are searchers for the truth. We want to be possessed by the truth - not possessive.
S. But your perception of the truth may be different from his. For example in 1986 the famous letter he wrote on homosexuality in which he described homosexual acts as intrinsically and objectively disordered. Do you in your view of truth and searching for truth disagree with that?
N. Well again you have to understand the language. That's a technical language that draws on scholastic philosophy for over a thousand years and what it ...
S. (interrupting) But Archbishop When you say that you're probably losing a large part of the audience. People want to know from a senior churchman like yourself.
N. Well let me tell you what it means. It means there here is an understanding that human sexuality is to do with procreation and sex between two people of the same sex will never produce a child.
S. And is therefore unnatural.
N. ... Therefore it is not along the line of the order, the pathway, of sexuality as understood in this tradition.
S. You see you will know as well as I do there are social trend surveys in the United Kingdom and many other western developed nations which suggest that on issues like the view of homosexuality the general population is getting more and more "liberal"
N. Certainly.
S. And yet you and the Pope are sticking to a deeply traditional, small "conservative" line. Therefore the disconnect between the general population and the Roman Catholic church appears to be getting wider. Does that not worry you?
N. Well no, what would worry me more frankly is to try and refashion a message simply to suit a time. I think there is if you like a critical distance to be held between how the church struggles to understand a revealed truth and how a society is moving. If they're too close there's no light. If they're too far apart there's no light.
S. There's no church. If they're too far apart frankly there's no church
N. There might be no church. That's true.
S. There'll be nobody in the pews.
N. That's true
S. And let me first just quote [to] you, sorry to interupt but it is important, the Pope in his letter to Irish Catholics in which he expressed great remorse for what happened in Ireland going back to the child sex abuse scandals. He said and I'm quoting his words now: "Fast-paced social change has occurred often affecting peoples' traditional adherence to Catholic teaching and values." The Pope himself surely recognises there is a problem here and is the Chruch not going to have to respond to it?
N. Well let me quote the Pope back to you in 1986, I think it was, as a theologian he said he could foresee the day when the church in some parts of the world had shrunk so much that it would become a small flock.
S. He used the word "remnant"
N. Yes he probably did. That's a very biblical expression. So he's not ... afraid of that. He would put fidelity over success so the criteria we're here for is not success.
S. You say he's not afraid of becoming "a remnant" he would put orthodoxy, loyalty, purity
N. No, no a search for truth
S. OK so maybe purity of theology before ...
N. (interrupting) That is the experience of every Christian. That's the experience of everybody who loses their security loses their status in a society loes their life in martyrdom. It's the whole pathway of fidelity to Christ. It's just the way it is.
S. The Church of England for example in this country is taking a rather different view. They believe there has to be some flexibility. The church has to be a reflection of society's values to a certain extent and therefore we see women priests, women vicars, and there's obviously in some parts of the Anglican Communion, women bishops.
N. Certainly.
S. Some of their vicars are also prepared to sanction gay unions. That church is showing flexibility. Is the Catholic church not going to have to do the same eventually?
N. I don't know. Who knows what's down the road?
S. Well I'm just asking you. You're rather an important player in the Catholic church. What do you believe it should be?
N. No no. There's no doubt in my mind that our first call is to faithfulness and not to sucess. And if faithfulness involves that kind of shrinking then so be it. But it's not as if the church has policies and then focus groups then tries to re-shape so that it captures the mood of the day or the wind and therefore gets momentum behind it. That's not simply the way the Catholic Church understands itself.
[*] Pope John Paul II taught that it was an illusion to think that we could build a true culture of human life if we did 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. However, with the bishops of England and Wales lending its support to legislation that obliges Catholic schools to provide information on contraception and abortion, is it not completely unrealistic to expect that Catholic sexual morality will be taught in these schools?
Alison Davis, of No Less Human, has sent me an unpublished letter she wrote recently to the Daily Telegraph. Alison was commenting on the Telegraph story about a blood test which will allow doctors to check unborn children for Down's syndrome. I wrote about this myself on the day the story appeared, and I referred to it again the following day in connection with Tony Blair's support for killing disabled babies up to birth.
Alison writes:
Dear Sirs,
I read with some dismay your story ("Blood test for Down's syndrome" 30 June 2010) which expressed the "hope" that a new non-invasive pre-natal test for Down's syndrome will soon be widely available. This "hope" seems to be based on the fact that the test may reduce the numbers of miscarriages of so-called "healthy" babies who currently die as a result of invasive tests to detect Down's syndrome." In doing so, it perpetuates the common myth that while killing a "healthy" baby is a tragedy, killing a disabled baby is to be lauded.
A spokesman for the Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology dubs it the "holy grail" of Down's syndrome testing, while the lead researcher "hopes all women in the world will eventually be offered the test." She further claims it is "safe, cheap, fast, reliable and accurate" and that it "will be of immediate benefit to pregnant women ..." She fails to mention two facts: it is no benefit to a pregnant woman to be enabled to abort her disabled baby, however apparently "safe" and "cheap" the detection process may be. Indeed post abortion distress is particularly common among such women; and it most certainly is not a "benefit" to the baby who has Down's syndrome, or any other disability, to be killed by abortion.
I am severely disabled myself, and use a wheelchair full time. I have spina bifida, another disability subject to the popular notion that killing disabled people is more beneficial (to our mothers? or to society?) than letting us live - and that it is, conveniently for a cash-strapped society, also very cheap.
Is any greater offence possible to a human being than to be told that killing her/him is a "holy grail" and to laud the cost benefits of doing so? I seriously doubt it.
Christopher and Pauline Power are campaigning against what Christopher calls “cartoon porn” in Higher Bebbington Junior School in Wirral, Merseyside, with the help of Antonia Tully (pictured), who runs SPUC's Safe at School campaign. "We want to encourage other parents to take a stand like Mr and Mrs Powers", Antonia says.
The cartoon porn occurs in Living and Growing, a DVD teaching aid designed by Channel 4, which Higher Bebbington Junior School now admits “ ... does trivialise the important messages...” .
One section, entitled ‘How Babies Are Made’ (listed as being suitable for seven year olds and upwards) shows a naked cartoon couple having a pillow-fight and chasing each other before having sex in different positions. It includes a narrator talking about physical changes during sex, which is described as “very exciting for both as they feel happy being together.” The voiceover promotes sex as "exciting" and "fun" and with a child’s voice saying ‘they look so happy together.’
Christopher and Pauline Power whose son attends the Higher Bebington Junior School in Wirral were invited to a preview of the DVD and expressed their concern to the school about the graphic nature of the footage arguing that it removed the innocence of children. They said that the DVD presents sexual intercourse as "fun", with no reference to the dangerous consequences of encouraging children to mimic the video or even to start experimenting with sex.
The couple also took issue with a letter sent home from the school about the DVD which contained no mention of the footage of sexual intercourse and which stated that it was about issues concerning puberty.
Following their intervention, the school, which has been showing the DVD for the last four years, reviewed the material and concluded that “...it does trivialise the important messages...” . The school decided to edit that section for future showings. The Powers are continuing to campaign against the DVD.
This story highlights the Government’s continued efforts to enforce Sex and Relationships Education (SRE) in schools through a variety of methods regardless of the beliefs and wishes of children’s parents. The Powers rightly point out that this contravenes their role as parents and the duty of schools to safeguard children. Christopher Power says:
“As parents we believe that our son should be educated at the appropriate time and with good quality material not with this questionable material that has parents up and down the country crying out against it. Britain has the highest teenage pregnancies in Europe and thousands of these DVDs have been sold to our schools.
“Parents have a duty to safeguard the well-being of their children and they have a right to be properly consulted. We are calling for schools to have greater transparency as, often, parents are not told the contents of these DVDs in detail as you would with any other DVD at home.
“We as a society have the responsibility of helping our children learn, but also to have a childhood. We as parents feel that the dangers within sex education should be stated and taught, and I know that from what my wife and I have seen so far there is no mention of the dangers — this should be a basic duty.]
“The school should listen to them; but unfortunately parents rarely are listened to. Let’s not allow our Government or Channel 4 to dictate to us as parents what is an appropriate time. Let’s not take away the responsibility of the parents and, in doing so, place sensitive issues in the school which they are not getting right.”
Christopher and Pauline Powers have contacted the SPUC for support and advice. Antonia Tully of the Society's Safe at School Campaign said, “Any parents concerned about the Living and Growing DVD or any other video being shown at their children’s school should request to review the material. Parents have the option to withdraw their child from lessons in which such DVDs are shown.”
Mr and Mrs Powers have stated that they will march to 10 Downing Street if necessary to protect children from such graphic materials being promoted in schools. You can email support to the Powers at hamlet00@live.co.uk and you can contact SPUC's Safe at School campaign at 020 7091 7091
