There's no evidence for pro-abort claim about Polish abortions in Britain

The Polish Federation for Women and Family Planning has been promoting the figure of 10,000 Polish women coming to the UK each year for abortion. Paul Tully, SPUC's general secretary, and Daniel Blackman, who researches international affairs for SPUC, have debunked this claim. They have concluded that:

"There is no solid evidence to support this. It appears that the figure is self-serving speculation."

I publish their analysis in full below.

All abortions in the UK must be registered
The number of registered, legal abortions performed in England and Wales is published each year by the Department of Health of the British government. Abortions performed in Scotland are published separately by the Health Department of the Scottish government. (Scottish abortions account for about 7% of the UK total.) Here, for simplicity, we consider only the England and Wales figures.

The Department of Health is the main provider of abortions in the UK. These abortions are funded through the state-funded National Health Service (NHS) and are performed either in NHS-owned hospitals or with NHS funding in privately-run clinics. About six percent of abortions are performed in privately-run clinics and are paid for privately. These include a proportion which are performed on overseas women not entitled to NHS funding.

Britain has a reciprocal agreement with Poland for the provision of free medical care under EU regulations. The minimum documentation a patient needs is a European Health Insurance Card (EHIC).

No official estimate of Polish ‘visitor’ abortions
The Department of Health’s Statistical Bulletin: Abortion Statistics, England and Wales: 2009 says that for 2009, there were 20 women resident in Poland who had abortions here, which accounted for 0.3% of all abortions on non-resident women. (Table 12a Legal abortions: non residents by country of residence, 2009) This only records those women who said that they were resident in Poland when applying for an abortion. There may be other women who came here for abortions but gave the address of a friend already living in the UK. We are not aware of any study or survey by the Department of Health or any other body to establish an official estimate of this number accurately.

It would be difficult to make an accurate estimate, especially as there is a sizable number of Polish women resident in the UK. One would expect that there are probably a certain number of UK-resident Polish women who have abortions. This means that it would not necessarily be remarkable if, say, a Polish-speaking woman sought an abortion.

Abortions on non-residents are in decline
In 2009, there were 6,643 abortions to residents of other countries compared with 6,862 in 2008. Principally, these non-residents were from Northern Ireland (17%) and the Irish Republic (67%). The number of abortions to non-residents remained between 9,000 and 10,000 in the period 1995 to 2003. The 2009 total is the lowest in any year since 1969.

It would seem unlikely in this context that a growing number of women from Poland are coming to Britain for abortions, especially not on the scale of thousands.

Polish migration
In 2008, there were 64,000 Polish immigrants coming into the UK. Assuming that about half are women, and that the large majority are of child-bearing age, gives a figure of, say 30,000. If 10,000 women were to have an abortion, that would mean one third of the Polish women coming to the UK are coming here to have an abortion. This would seem hugely implausible. There is no evidence for this. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?ID=2369&Pos=&ColRank=1&Rank=224

Lack of plausibility
Would women travel to a foreign country, find accommodation (which is very expensive in the UK), find employment (which can be difficult at present), register with the necessary agencies for NHS treatment, etc., given:
(a) the time all this would take (some weeks or months)
(b) the cost it would incur (travel, accommodation – rent, deposit, insurance – employment expenses, etc.)
c) the administration involved (e.g. getting references for accommodation and work)
d) the social isolation often entailed (language difficulty; lack of friends
- when they could book an abortion at a private clinic, probably for much less cost, and certainly far less time and hassle?

In summary
The claim lacks substance and credibility.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

New international pro-life newsletter from SPUC

Today we at SPUC have sent out a newsletter to our European and other international contacts. The newsletter contains action alerts on European and international affairs:

Conscientious objection to anti-life practices threatened at Council of Europe
A report on conscientious objection in medicine will be debated in early October in the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE). The report’s focus is conscientious objection to abortion, contraception, IVF and euthanasia. Please contact your country’s representatives in PACE. More information is available in:

• English
• French
• Italian
• Portuguese
• Spanish

Human embryos in danger via European Parliament animal rights directive
A draft directive on animal experimentation will be debated during the European Parliament’s plenary session on 7 September 2010. The directive could result in scientists experimenting on human embryos instead of animals. Please contact the members of the European Parliament (MEPs) representing your area. More information is available in:

• English 
• French 
• Italian 
• Portuguese 
• Spanish

Maternal mortality: moves at UN to promote abortion as human right
A right to abortion, under the guise of reproductive health, will be proposed at a United Nations (UN) summit in New York between 20 and 22 September 2010. Please contact strongly pro-life politicians in your country. More information is available in:

• English 
• French 
• Italian 
• Portuguese 
• Spanish

If you would like to receive our international newsletter by email, please visit http://www.spuc.org.uk/em-signup and sign-up to the European affairs list. Existing subscribers to SPUC's email services can add themselves to the European affairs list by first clicking on the "Unsubscribe or change your preferences at" link at the bottom of any recent SPUC email message.

If you would like to receive our international newsletter by post, please supply SPUC with your personal details and postal address either by:

• email to political@spuc.org.uk
• telephone on +44 (020) 7091 7091
• post to SPUC HQ

We want to provide this crucial service to as many pro-life contacts as possible. You can help us by forwarding the information in this blog-post to other pro-life groups and contacts in your country. If you know of any pro-life contacts who would like to receive this newsletter, please ask them also supply SPUC with their contact-details by email, telephone or post as above.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Professor Walley speaks of dark changes in obstetrics

Fiorella Nash, as many visitors will know, has an excellent blog entitled Monstrous Regiment of Women. A recent post of hers on maternal mortality, for example, included useful practical information for all mothers-to-be.



Last week she posted the above YouTube clip featuring Dr Robert Walley, the president of MaterCare.

Dr Walley is professor or obstetrics and gynaecology at Memorial University in St. John's, Newfoundland.

He presents a beautiful account of pregnancy and childbirth from the perspective of a doctor specializing in obstetrics and gynaecology. When he began training in 1968 he was told that an obstetrician has one objective: "to ensure to the best of his ability that all pregnancies should result in a live healthy baby and a live healthy mother".

He and his colleagues were well-trained in life-saving skills which, with increasing success, were enabling women with medical complications, such as diabetes, epilepsy and heart and kidney diseases, to become mothers - albeit with a lot of extra medical help. Dr Walley cites the (then current) 16th edition of Williams Obstetrics (the leading text in obstetrics for more than 100 years):

"Happily we live and work in an era in which the foetus is established as our second patient with many rights and privileges comparable to those previously achieved only after birth."

Dr Walley goes on to speak about the dark changes that have occurred since then, in particular the passage of abortion legislation which has "turned the practice of obstetrics upside-down" - resulting in millions of abortions and "destruction and despair" rather than positive help for mothers.

You should watch this simple, compelling, educational video.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Join Good Counsel Network's day of prayer and fasting this Saturday

This Saturday, 14th August, is the monthly day of prayer and fasting for life held by Good Counsel Network. I have blogged previously about The Good Counsel Network and their fantastic work supporting mothers and children facing an abortion.

These days of prayer are an emphatic response from this Catholic pro-life group to John Paul II's statement that a great prayer for life is urgently needed (Evangelium Vitae 100). I ask all readers who pray to consider participating in this day in whatever manner is suitable for you.

As they always do, Good Counsel Network advises that one can fast from all food except bread and water for the day or fast from any particular food or luxury, e.g. chocolate, alcohol, cigarettes, TV. The Good Counsel Network recommends that you fast from whatever you can given your state of health, but to make sure it is something that involves a sacrifice to yourself. You can view their poster for the day in pdf format here.

And He said to them; This kind (of demon) can go out by nothing, but by prayer and fasting. (Mark 9:29)

You might also enjoy reading Good Counsel Network's blog which is regularly updated.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Pro-life TV programme wins Emmy Award

Recently I blogged on a beautiful episode  of 'Facing Life Head-On', a pro-life TV show hosted by Brad Mattes of Life Issues Institute. The show focused on Missy Davert, a woman who is 2 feet and 11 inches tall, and her incredible battle to give birth to her unborn children.

Last week the show was awarded a regional Emmy Award in the category of Interview and Discussion. Upon accepting the award Brad Mattes, host and executive producer of the show said: "I believe this is a first for the pro-life movement—receiving an accolade at this level by the media industry, much less the Academy".

The award is a testimony to both an expertly produced show and the heroic actions of Missy Davert in defence of her children. LifeSiteNews.com reports that:

Doctors advised Davert and her husband that she should abort one or both of the infants due to the many difficulties that her pregnancy would entail – an option that the tiny, but feisty woman was unwilling to consider.

With the help of Dr. Daniel Wechter, a maternal-fetal medicine specialist based in Saginaw, Michigan, she was able to carry the twins for 32 weeks before giving birth to Austin and Michaela. They are now 10 years old.

“Missy’s story is an inspiration to any woman who may be facing a high-risk pregnancy” reads a description of the episode on Facing Life Head-On’s website. “With the help and support of Dr. Wechter, Missy was able to defy the odds and give birth to two beautiful children.”

In the acceptance speech at the black-tie award ceremony, Brad Mattes thanked God for allowing him to interview guests that have been such an inspiration to his viewers.

"We thank God for this award. The glory goes to Him.  It’s His ministry."

The award-winning episode can be bought or viewed here.  

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Catholic archbishops should stop whitewashing anti-life policies

Euthanasia by neglect is a frightening reality of our world today, a society John Paul II rightly described as a culture of death. I know from personal experience the reality of how euthanasia by neglect is promoted. SPUC also knows about euthanasia by neglect because families often turn to us when they are most desperate. Indeed the secular media even know about it.

It is interesting to see that Archbishop Longley of Birmingham made dying with dignity the focus the Catholic Church’s Day for Life this year. Interesting, not least because his fellow archbishop, Peter Smith of Southwark (pictured) was interviewed in The Catholic Herald citing the Mental Capacity Act 2005 as his greatest achievement. I objected strongly to this, because the Mental Capacity Act extended the possible scope of euthanasia by neglect in English statute law.

The Herald interview was misleading with regard to a particular amendment to the Mental Capacity Act which Archbishop Smith claimed had been authored by Professor John Finnis of Oxford university. Archbishop Smith claimed that the amendment had provided a key safeguard against euthanasia by neglect. Thanks to correspondence I received from Professor Finnis, following my post on the Catholic Herald article, it was established that the amendment had not been authored by Professor Finnis and it was made even more clear that the amendment did not provide any real safeguard against euthanasia by neglect.

It is sometimes suggested that lobbying of government by the church leaders in England and Wales, like Archbishop Smith is important, and indeed effective, in the promotion of a culture of life, because it assures the best that can be gotten from bad legislation.

The truth is the interview in The Catholic Herald simply served to perpetuate the myth that all is well in the hands of the Catholic bishops of England and Wales. The same myth was promoted by Archbishop Vincent Nichols during the previous governments’ attempt to force schools to teach anti-life and anti-family sex and relationships education. I thank Christ the Law-giver that the Gospel of Life is based on objective truth and not on the self-serving myths of prelates intent on co-operating with the government of the day.

I have a number of questions for Archbishops Smith and Nichols:

• Will you now urgently and directly inform Catholics and non-Catholics of the dire consequences of the Mental Capacity Act?
• Will you provide quality pastoral assistance for individuals and families facing the threat of euthanasia, instead of just leaving it up to relatively small organisations like SPUC?
• Will you now apologise for opposing SPUC’s campaign against the Act?
• When will you stop whitewashing bad policies and providing cover for anti-life governments?

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Congratulations to Cardinal Keith O'Brien, protector of the unborn, on his silver jubilee

Cardinal Keith O'Brien, no stranger to controversy, is in the news again today.

On behalf of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, I offer my heartfelt congratulations to Cardinal Keith O'Brien, the archbishop of St. Andrews and Edinburgh, who celebrated last Thursday the silver jubilee of his ordination as a bishop. Unborn babies in Britain and Northern Ireland are undoubtedly safer because of him.  If you want to write to congratulate him, you will find his contact details here.

I will never forget the fearless manner in which Cardinal Keith O'Brien told the truth about the British government's Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill.

In his Easter Sunday sermon in March 2008, he laid the responsibility for the Human Fertilisation and Embryology bill squarely on the shoulders of Gordon Brown. He said:

"Our Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, has given the government's support to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill.

"It is difficult to imagine a single piece of legislation which, more comprehensively, attacks the sanctity and dignity of human life than this particular bill.

With full might of government endorsement, Gordon Brown is promoting a bill that will allow the creation of animal-human hybrid embryos ...

... He is promoting a bill which denies that a child has a biological father, allows tampering with birth certificates, removing biological parents, and inserting someone altogether different ...*

... And this bill will indeed be used to further extend the abortion laws. This bill represents a monstrous attack on human rights, human dignity and human life".

There's little doubt that the Cardinal's courage, for which he was widely attacked, was one of the factors which prompted Gordon Brown to step back from the brink, not just once but twice, of allowing pro-abortion amendments to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill which would have led to the most damaging extension of the Abortion Act for over 40 years. Another vital factor was the stand taken by Northern Ireland politicians.

*I can't but comment here that, by way of contrast, Archbishop Nichols, the archbishop of Westminster, has defended the appointment of Greg Pope as deputy director of the Catholic Education Service who, as an MP voted against amendments which sought to retain the requirement for doctors to consider the child’s need for a father (20 May 2008) or male role model (20 May 2008) before a woman is given fertility treatment. He also voted against a bill which would have required practitioners providing contraception or abortion services to a child under the age of 16 to inform his or her parent or guardian (14 Mar 2007) and he supported a substantial number of appalling anti-life and anti-family measures and positions as an MP. As a result of his appointment, and Archbishop Nichols's defence of it, unborn children, our children in schools and the rights of parents are less safe than they might be.


Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Birmingham Oratory spokesman confirms Birmingham Three are entirely guiltless

Ruth Dudley Edwards (pictured), the author, historian, biographer and journalist, writes this month in Standpoint about the Birmingham Three. The Birmingham Three are Birmingham Oratorians known for their championship of the unborn. They publicly opposed the anti-life, anti-family sex and relationships education policies of the last Government and of the Catholic bishops' conference of England and Wales.

Dr Dudley Edwards writes:

"I'll be writing in the next issue venomously about the scandalous way in which these men have been treated, and of the apparent inability of the Catholic Church to learn the downside of secrecy and authoritarianism. But for now I'm just putting it on the record that, in a lengthy interview with me, the ubiquitous Jack Valero of Opus Dei, spokesman for the Newman canonisation cause and the Birmingham Oratory, has confirmed unequivocally that the Three are entirely guiltless of any wrong-doing whatsoever, including, specifically, sexual misdemeanours or homophobia."

Read what she says in full here. As I said in June: "Everything covered up will be uncovered at the Birmingham Oratory". It could not be more important for a proper understanding of this scandal that, according to the spokesman for the Birmingham Oratory, these men are "are entirely guiltless of any wrong-doing whatsoever". I will return to this matter shortly.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Lord Joffe's legislative proposals alarm sick and disabled people

Last week The Guardian published an article by Lord Joel Joffe advocating a complete legalisation of assisted suicide in the UK. Regular readers of this blog will be well acquainted with Alison Davis and her incredible life-story. Alison continues to be one of the most eloquent and effective defenders of life within the pro-life movement. Alison wrote a reply to The Guardian, which has not been published. I publish her response, in full, below.

Dear Sir,

Lord Joffe's "New Proposal for Assisted Suicide" (28th July 2010) poses as many questions as it answers about the wisdom of changing the law to allow suffering people the "right to choose" their own death.

He summarily dismisses opponents of assisted suicide as "a small minority [who] should not be allowed ... to impose their beliefs and views on the majority" who he claims favour it. The truth is that a great number of sick and disabled people (including some who, like me, demonstrated against Joffe's own "Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill" bill in May 2006) have this very fear - that once assisted suicide was legalised, the majority view that disabled, sick and suffering people are "better off dead" would prevail over individual concerns. I am certainly personally very afraid of what he proposes.

I have several severe disabling conditions, and, when not confined to bed, use a wheelchair full time. My spine is collapsing causing extreme pain, which cannot be well controlled, even with morphine. It is getting worse, and will inevitably continue to do so. Twenty-five years ago, when doctors thought my life expectancy was extremely short, I decided I had had enough, and developed a settled wish to die. I seriously attempted suicide several times, and was prevented only by good friends, and good doctors who worked on the principle that my life was worth saving (just as they would for any able bodied patient who had attempted suicide). If legally binding Advance Directives had been in place then, as they are now, I would have made one. Neither the ill-named "court of protection" nor the "tribunal" which Joffe envisages, would have saved me, and I would not now be writing this letter. I would have missed the best years of my life, despite continuing extreme physical pain, and no one would ever have known that the future held good things for me, and that the doctors were wrong in thinking I didn't have long to live.

Joffe speaks of only one "important safeguard" - that of "self administration" of the lethal drugs while simultaneously allowing for the authorisation of "other means of self-administration" if the patient is unable to take it him/herself. This uncharacteristic coyness in spelling out what he actually means, was also used by supporters of the bill to legalise assisted suicide in Washington State, USA, where "self-administration" was also touted as a "safeguard." Later it transpired in the smallprint of the Act that this term actually meant the "act of ingesting" the fatal dose. Thus any third party could put the lethal medication in an incapacitated patient's mouth or feeding tube and the act still be regarded as "self-administration" because the patient "ingested" it. Is it any wonder that sick and disabled people are alarmed, rather than encouraged, by Joffe's weasel words?

Finally Joffe rules that there should be a "minimum waiting period" before a patient wanting to die is allowed to "ingest" the fatal dose or change their minds. I wanted to die for ten years. I rest my case.

Yours faithfully,

Alison Davis

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Students needed to tell freshers the truth about abortion

SPUC wants to help students who want to promote the pro-life message at university. Freshers' fairs are major opportunities to connect with other students. SPUC has devised a leaflet (pictured) that we would like students to distribute at their freshers' fairs. That way we can:

• let new students know that we cherish life from its earliest beginnings, and
• support vulnerable women, letting them know that they are not alone.

The leaflet contains information about the following:

• development of the unborn child
• various abortion procedures
• side-effects of abortion
• alternatives to abortion
• helplines for women in crisis pregnancies.

If you’re interested in handing out the leaflet during freshers' week, or would like any advice or practical help in setting up a university pro-life group, then please email paulsmeaton@spuc.org.uk

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

As Kenyans vote to kill their children, bishops say they respect the outcome of the referendum

Tragically, it appears that Kenyans have voted for a constitution which their Catholic bishops warned last May would result in the "liberalisation" of abortion.

In a statement yesterday, the Catholic bishops of Kenya said:

"We respect the outcome of the referendum, where the larger numbers of Kenyans have voted to accept this proposed constitution. However, truth and right are not about numbers. We therefore, as the shepherds placed to give moral guidance to our people, still reiterate the need to address the flawed moral issues in this proposed constitution. That voice should never be silenced."

The Kenyan bishops have got it badly wrong here. Would they be saying ...

"We respect the outcome of the referendum"

... if the majority of Kenyans had just voted for a constitution which favoured the killing of Catholics, rather than the killing of unborn children? If not, what reasons would they give for not respecting the outcome of a referendum on a draft constitution which allows the killing of Catholics, but respecting the outcome of a referendum which allows the killing of unborn children?

After all, only last May the same Kenyan bishops rightly warned:

"A good constitution should safeguard very basic rights before conferring other rights. The Proposed Constitution of Kenya does not do that. A good constitution is judged by how it protects fundamental human rights. All the gains in the Proposed Constitution of Kenya are, as it were, cancelled by what it says about the most fundamental right, the right to life. A constitution that does not safeguard the sanctity of human life is not a good constitution."

Surely the Kenyan bishops should now be taking a leaf out of the book of Antonio Cardinal Cañizares Llovera, the head of the Vatican's Congregation for Divine Worship and Sacraments, who, according to LifeSite, said last week in Madrid about the new abortion law in Spain:

"Whoever denies the right to life is against democracy and leads society to disaster"

and that where a law "legitimizes" abortion or euthanasia, it

"ceases to be a true morally binding civil law"?

In a veritable call to arms the Cardinal said:

"Let us refuse to support any initiative that goes against life, not give our support to individuals, institutions, works or measures to be or intended to go against life, we can not associate ourselves with those who deny something so fundamental."

Returning to the unfortunate statement of the Kenyan bishops yesterday, they say:

"We shall be giving a more comprehensive statement in the next few days."

I hope their next statement reflects the enormity of what has occurred. Kenyans have voted to kill their own children and it's every bit as bad as voting to kill Catholics, bishops, or politicians. As Pope John Paul II said in Evangelium Vitae (73):

"Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. From the very beginnings of the Church, the apostolic preaching reminded Christians of their duty to obey legitimately constituted public authorities (cf. Rom 13:1-7; 1 Pet 2:13-14), but at the same time it firmly warned that "we must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). In the Old Testament, precisely in regard to threats against life, we find a significant example of resistance to the unjust command of those in authority. After Pharaoh ordered the killing of all newborn males, the Hebrew midwives refused. "They did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but let the male children live" (Ex 1:17). But the ultimate reason for their action should be noted: "the midwives feared God" (ibid.). It is precisely from obedience to God-to whom alone is due that fear which is acknowledgment of his absolute sovereignty-that the strength and the courage to resist unjust human laws are born. It is the strength and the courage of those prepared even to be imprisoned or put to the sword, in the certainty that this is what makes for "the endurance and faith of the saints" (Rev 13:10)."

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Advertising body approves offensive Marie Stopes abortion ad

The Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) has today ruled in favour of the television advertisement by Marie Stopes International (MSI), one of Britain's main abortion providers.

Paul Tully, SPUC general secretary, told the media today:

“Advertising abortion, whether directly or under the guise of so-called 'pregnancy advice’, is indecent and dishonest. Yet the ASA has approved showing TV ads from one of the biggest abortion-providers in the UK.

“The ASA says the ad is not offensive, thus ignoring the fundamental nature of the ad’s message which is: 'We can kill unborn babies'.  This message is just as offensive as saying 'We can kill immigrants', 'We can kill paedophiles' or targeting any other disparaged group. It is simply casuistic of the ASA to hold that the ad isn’t advertising abortion.

“As an industry-based group, it is free to reflect the views of the broadcasters and publishers who want lucrative advertising deals: it is a great shame that it has not acted more impartially in this matter. The ASA is not a statutory authority. It is not answerable democratically or judicially to anyone, nor does it have power to impose any penalties or hold anyone to account. The ASA’s approval of TV abortion ads highlights the need for Jeremy Hunt, the media secretary, to intervene, as he can, to stop these deeply offensive ads.”

SPUC has launched a nationwide leafleting campaign to put pressure on the Government to intervene.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Spanish football coach's son, who has Down's syndrome, shares Spain's glory

Vicente del Bosque, Spain's world cup winning coach, has a 21-year-old son, Álvaro, who has Down's syndrome. MercatorNet tells us that Vicente del Bosque is immensely proud of his son "even though Alvaro has been highly critical of some of his decisions"! “At first we cried a lot,” del Bosque says about the days after Álvaro’s birth, “but now when I look back I think, we were so foolish.”

Álvaro del Bosque went with the players to South Africa for the tournament, accompanying his father, the team's manager. Alvaro is pictured above, celebrating the team's victory, at the official reception. Also in the picture, left, is Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Zapatero.

Mr Bill Muehlenberg, writing on Mercator.net, refers to two couples in Australia who want compensation because doctors did not detect Down's syndrome and other developmental anomalies before their children were born. The parents, in Victoria state, say they would have had abortions, and they want money for the children's upkeep and for "psychiatric injury". Other states have outlawed such claims. [Herald Sun, 21 July]

Mr Muehlenberg contrasts this depressing litigation with the joy Álvaro has given to Spain's winning World Cup team.  The Spanish team's joy might also be contrasted with the grim view of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in Britain which recently described a new, more accurate, search and destroy technique for detecting Down's syndrome babies as the "Holy Grail" of Down's syndrome testing.

Mr Muehlenberg writes: "All true love is self-giving, not self-taking. To love another person is to give away part of yourself, to become vulnerable, to take risks, and to be willing to hurt. If you do not want to hurt, then do not love. A parent’s love may be among the world’s greatest love, because it may hurt the most and cost the most. But love happily embraces such hurts, sacrifices and burdens. Those born with physical or mental incapacities are obviously going to be somewhat more of a handful. But they are all still beautiful sons and daughters who deserve to be loved. They do not deserve the guilt trip put upon them by parents who complain about their very existence, their very right to life."

Mr Muehlenberg is a lecturer in ethics and philosophy at several Melbourne theological colleges and a PhD candidate at Deakin University, Melbourne.


Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Vatican leader and pro-life politicians send out a shining light in a dark world

Monsignor Ignacio Carrasco (pictured), the new president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, has hit the nail on the head again on abortion.  Two weeks ago I reported on his significant interview with Zenit in which he said there was no scientific case for abortion.

Monsignor Carrasco says today that the new Spanish law on abortion is "an expression of the incapacity to understand what a right is. The problem is serious, not only in Spain".

In the minimum number of words, he sums up the challenge we face in Britain where 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; and where just two days ago, the Coalition government announced plans to step up abortions on the poor in the developing world.

Monsignor Carrasco sums up the problem at the Human Rights Council in Geneva where the Holy See and SPUC have been challenging an extreme, "ideologically driven" pro-abortion report promoting a so-called "right to abortion".

And he sums up the problem in the US where the Obama administration are demonstrating their determination to promote the legalization of abortion worldwide.

Thank God, I say, for churchmen like Monsignor Carrasco who are standing up for unborn babies and their mothers.  And thank God for the politicians of all faiths in Northern Ireland and elsewhere in the world who are signing up to an Amnesty for Babies petition which calls on the international community to recognize its responsibilities under international agreements to:

"ensure to the maximum extent possible the survival and development of the child before as well as after birth"

and to

"adopt all measures necessary to protect adequately human life and dignity in the application of life sciences".

Such churchmen and such politicians send out a shining light in a dark world.


Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

"Locked-in" patients may be able to drive wheelchairs by breathing

Yesterday the Telegraph carried the remarkable story that people with so-called "locked-in syndrome" may be able to drive wheelchairs and surf the internet by breathing.

The Telegraph reports:

"Scientists at the Weizmann Institute of Science in Rehovot, Israel, have created a 'sniff detector' that is able to pick up pressure changes in the wearer's nasal cavity and convert it into electrical signals.

"The device can then be hooked up to special software and used to move a cursor on a computer screen or control a wheelchair.

"One patient, a 51-year-old woman who was left unable to move, speak or blink after a stroke, was able to communicate for the first time using the new technology.

"After 19 days learning to produce a sniff on demand with 20 minutes of practice a day, she was able to write her family a message for the first time. To this day, the 'sniff detector' remains her only means of expressing herself.

"Another man, who had been 'locked in' for 18 years following a car accident, wrote his own name within 20 minutes of using the device."

I wrote last November about how the case of Rom Houben (pictured), who was misdiagnosed for 23 years as being in a coma-like state, challenges the pro-euthanasia mentality which exists regarding severely incapacitated patients.  Rom also had 'locked-in syndrome' and was always consciously aware.

What Janet Thomas, of No Less Human, said about the case of Rom Houben, is entirely applicable to yesterday's story in the Telegraph:

"This case highlights the huge dangers in assessing profoundly disabled people as having lives not worth living. Surely, with all the medical resources at our disposal, a truly civilised society would be concentrating on saving and improving life, not terminating it ... Following the 1992 Bland judgment, and under the Mental Capacity Act and related professional guidance, such patients are in danger of being dehydrated to death."

Indeed so. Parliamentarians need urgently to turn their attention to the tragic consequences of the Mental Capacity Act.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Hilary White, Catholic pro-life journalist, reflects on significance of Catholic Church in pro-life battle

When I was in Rome, earlier this month, I met Hilary White, the well-known writer for LifeSiteNews.com

Hilary describes herself on her blog as "an Anglo-Canadian writer, researcher and art student recently re-assigned by God to Rome and desperately sand-bagging in sight of the coming flood".

The pro-life movement is, thankfully, made up of people of all faiths and none. Hilary, on the other hand, who's a prominent person in the pro-life movement, is unreservedly and forthrightly Catholic. Her answer to my first question reflects her distinctive position.

I asked Hilary: “What is the significance of the Catholic Church to the pro-life movement?” She replied:

"It is difficult to think how to answer that question. Not because it is hard to think of ways in which the Catholic Church has an impact on the movement, but in the way that it is difficult to, say, quantify the significance of water for the existence of life on planet earth.

"I’m being glib, but not inaccurate. While we like to say that the pro-life position can be apprehended and held by anyone with any religious affiliation or none, the reality is that in practice, there are certain factors that, shall we say, mitigate strongly against atheism or even simple modern secular irreligion allowing the pro-life position, at least in its fullness.

"There are things about being a Catholic that make it possible (though never easy) to stand against the whole tide of the world and refuse to sway. It is this absolutist stand that so infuriates the world. Why are the world’s media so doggedly pursuing the Catholic Church on the sex abuse scandals? Why only the Church when there are assuredly whole oceans of fish to fry in the Anglican, Lutheran and Baptist communities? Or for that matter, among teachers, scout leaders and librarians?

"It is because the Catholic religion proposes absolute and unchangeable teachings on life, the universe and everything, and claims for them the infallible authority of God. Catholics grasp the concept that truth is simply what it is, and no amount of 'consensus', 'social progress', or committee-think will change it. It is why Catholics laugh (though somewhat darkly) when media experts demand that the pope change the teachings on homosexuality or abortion or contraception to become accepted by the modern world. The World cannot grasp, no longer has the intellectual capability to grasp, that the Catholic Church presents the truths of religion in the same way as a mathematician presents a mathematical axiom.

"This is the secret of the martyrs. It is not, I guess, that martyrs have some great personal well of strength to endure torture. It is simply that the truth of the Faith is unalterable. It cannot be denied any more than gravity can be denied. We merely shrug in the face of these demands. The axioms of the mathematicians are less certain. It is not within our power to deny. Easier to ask us to fly.

"I have known for some time that there is a deficiency of education within the pro-life movement. There are a lot of sincere and often hard-working people who are, or believe themselves to be, pro-life but who hold the position without a concrete understanding of why. With feeling and sincerity, but with little knowledge.

"I hope your readers will forgive me for the criticism, but there is a strong streak of sentimentality in the movement that is little use in answering in a sensible way the questions and demands of the abortionist world. We cannot expect to win this war on feelings, on a vaguely held notion that babies are cute and that the world will automatically default back to sanity if we can only overturn Roe v. Wade.

"Feelings are easily swayed, as we have seen with the push for legalised euthanasia and assisted suicide in Britain. The media are the master manipulators and can have us cheering for a woman who kills her daughter out of “compassion”. Or at least weeping in sympathy and begging the courts for leniency. Feelings are swayed when they are not under the control and supervision of an informed intellect and will (a Catholic concept, BTW).

"What is missing in the pro-life world is solid education, intellectual training in logic and critical thinking skills as well as the facts. Many are hampered by their ignorance of the dots and lack of training in drawing lines between them. I have met too many nice pro-life people who cannot defend their position in the face of emotive arguments or slogans. 'But what about rape?' demands the abortionist world, and many nice friendly pro-lifers are stymied.

"Liking cute babies is not enough.

"Where the Catholic Church comes in for educational purposes is to provide these robust, intellectually rigorous answers to the abortion movement’s political slogans and their (occasionally) honest questions. Catholicism is not a religion of sentimentality.

"Why is IVF a bad thing? What is the pro-life position on embryonic genetic research? ... Why isn’t there such a thing as a right to commit suicide? Why is it wrong to use donor sperm? Why can we not 'adopt' frozen embryos? Why is rape not a legitimate 'exception' for abortion? What is the moral difference between removal or withholding of 'extreme' medical interventions and dehydrating a comatose patient to death?

"The Church derives its teachings (and yes, I can provide links to the documents answering all these questions) logically from basic principles. We start with an axiom: 'You can’t kill people to solve your problems …or theirs.' (Or as it is put more elegantly, 'thou shalt not kill'.) From this principle it is possible to find one’s logical way, step by step into the things the Church teaches about the sacredness of human life. Sometimes this process has been laborious and on some topics it has taken a long time. Centuries. But there is not one thing the Catholic Church teaches that is not intimately and inextricably connected to everything else she teaches.

"When I was younger, I was convinced, by my Catholic parochial school, that the Catholic religion was nonsense. All merely a set of contrived and arbitrary rules designed to oppress and restrict human freedom. An evil creed by (evil old white) men. Then one day, the thought popped into my mind, 'I might be wrong'. Although I considered the possibility to be very slim, I thought it only fair to investigate this enormous and immensely old and important institution on its own merits. What did the Catholic Church have to say for itself? After eleven years of reading, I was ready to concede that the one thing that could not be denied about Catholicism was that its teachings were not arbitrary. If you accepted their basic premises, the dogmas, doctrines and even disciplines of the Catholic religion where coherent, sane and in keeping with reason. There are no internal contradictions in Catholic teaching.

"After a few more years of reading, I concluded that no other religious or political system proposing answers to the big questions could say the same.

"This is why the Catholic Church must and does necessarily lead the pro-life movement. And it is why when John asked me the question, 'What is the significance of the Catholic Church to the pro-life movement?' I laughed. It was like being asked 'What is the significance of physics to quantum theory?' or 'What does gravity have to do with things falling down?' ...."

I then asked Hilary whether the pro-life movement was winning any of its battles around the world - referring, when I did so, to our recent successes in the UK (in Northern Ireland, on the last British government's failed legislative plans on sex and relationships education, and on the failed attempt to make huge extensions of the British abortion law).  Hilary replied:

"Yes, in fact, we are [winning battles], though it may not look like it. The war is pretty hot, and on the one hand, this means that the bad guys are fighting hard, but on the other, it means that they know they have something big to fight, namely us. If we weren't making life difficult for them, they wouldn't be working so furiously.

"What does not often get reported is that, although the news is nearly all bad at the legislative and judicial levels, on the ground, where it actually counts, the philosophy of abortionism (if I may coin a term) is beginning to burn out. It is not widely known that in Italy, for example, 70 per cent of doctors will refuse to commit an abortion, and the public opposition to euthanasia was enormous during the Eluana Englaro fight, though she died.

"The reason the EU and other places are putting in legislation attacking the consicence rights of health care workers, is that more and more health care workers are exercising them by refusing to have anything to do with abortion. Abortion in the US is getting harder to obtain at the state level, which is why, I imagine, the Obama administration is so keen to put abortion into a national system. In the UK, more doctors are refusing to do them, which is prompting the abortionists in the House of Commons and the medical regulatory agencies to push for more abortion training in medical schools, to weed out early those who might obstruct abortion as doctors.

"Another indication is the explosion of young people at the March(es) for Life. In the last ten years, since I started in this field, the overall numbers of people attending these annual events in Washington and Ottawa has grown enormously. In 1999 when I first attended in Ottawa, I think the number was about 2000 and about 175,000 in Washington. Last year in Ottawa we had around 12,000 (don’t knock it! Canada’s a small country with a government-controlled press) and in Washington it was well over 300,000. At the same time the numbers have gone up, the percentage of young people attending has grown even more. Long gone are the days when the pro-life movement could be characterised as little old ladies with rosaries, and angry old white guys. Feminism, which is the foundation of abortionism, is very widely discredited among young women, a large percentage of whom were raised by single mothers and who have been able to see first hand what it has wrought.

"What is really going to help us is demography. The 1960s 'Me generation', the ones who have created this moral free-for-all have failed to capture a following in the next generations. Young people know they have been lied to and betrayed.

"Most of the best pro-life work around the world is being organised and led by people in their 20s and 30s. People who have survived abortion themselves, who have seen the damage being done not just by abortion, but by divorce, contraception, and the hyper-sexualised culture, are using the activist skills their parents used to tear down the culture, in order to build it back up.

"In Europe the trend has caught on, and pro-life activities have stepped up. In the last two years, I believe we’ve had our first, and well attended Marches and demonstrations for life and family in places you’d never expect to see them. Places like Copenhagen and Brussels.

"Again, as with the Church, the tide is turning against the post-hippie dinosaurs, although, secure in their corner offices in Westminster and Brussels, they may not know it yet. When these young people are taking over those corner offices in Westminster and Brussels, I think we will see quite a different set of trends.

"What the end result will be remains to be seen. It’s why I’m glad I’m here doing this work. I get to watch it all from a front row seat."

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk

Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Telegraph's Damian Thompson questions "savage punishment" of Birmingham Oratorians

The Telegraph's Damian Thompson (pictured) has reproduced an open letter to Father Felix Selden, the Vatican's apostolic visitor to the Oratory, written by parishioners of the Birmingham Oratory, England. This letter is a response to the unexplained removal of Fr Dermot Fenlon, Fr Philip Cleevely and Brother Lewis Berry from the Birmingham Oratory. They have been sent to separate monasteries for an undisclosed amount of time. Mr Thompson notes a real need for transparency since this matter has continued for several months now.

The letter is an impassioned plea, requesting to know when the two priests and religious brother will return, if at all. The important role these Oratorians have as shepherds is clearly perceived throughout, and is now accentuated by their sudden and unexplained removal. Mr Thompson poses the question:

"But why were these three Oratorians given this savage punishment? Their supporters have been trying to find out, to no avail: all we have to go on are rumours about “disputes over the beatification of Newman”, which could mean anything. If these Birmingham Oratorians are innocent of wrongdoing, should they really be excluded from the greatest moment in the history of their Congregation?"

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Beware new abortion guidance in Northern Ireland, warns SPUC

Earlier this month Northern Ireland's health department withdrew its interim guidance on abortion, following SPUC's two successful court challenges last May and last December/November.

Today the department has launched a fresh public consultation to draft new abortion guidance. SPUC, therefore, has immediately issued the following warning!

"New guidance must not seek to undermine Northern Ireland’s abortion laws as previous guidelines threatened to do."

Liam Gibson, SPUC's development officer in Northern Ireland, pictured* to the left above, goes on to say:

"We welcome the consultation process to draw up new guidance. That consultation is necessary because the High Court found the original guidelines to be misleading on the issues of the counselling women should receive and the rights of medical personnel to avoid participation in abortion. 

“In light of the health department’s record on this matter, however, we will be looking at its proposals very closely. In the past health officials have largely ignored the submissions from the pro-life doctors and lawyers and the pro-life movement in general.  They appeared to be more interested in widening the scope for abortion in Northern Ireland. As a result they produced guidance which was fatally flawed. If we hadn’t have taken the department to court, it would have seriously undermined Northern Ireland’s legal protection for children before birth and compelled doctors and medical staff to perform or facilitate abortions. If new guidance fails to uphold Northern Ireland’s legal restrictions on abortion then there will be no choice but to go back to the courts.”

*Pictured with Liam Gibson is Pat Buckley of European Life Network, Ireland.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

The Catholic bishops of England and Wales are acting the part of King Herod

Zenit reported earlier this month that Pope Benedict Benedict XVI is likely to bring up some important concerns that tend to be sidelined in British public life such as protection of the unborn, the family and other life issues.

“He will speak about these in a delicate way,” said one official, “and he will probably also do the same with the bishops.”

Let me be blunt. This is no time for delicacy. The Catholic bishops' conference of England and Wales through Archbishop Vincent Nichols and the Catholic Education Service (CES) is assiduously defending their appointment of Greg Pope as deputy director of the CES - who until this year's general election was the Labour Member of Parliament for Hyndburn. Greg Pope's anti-life, anti-family parliamentary voting record possibly makes him an appropriate candidate to be deputy director of International Planned Parenthood Federation. Instead, courtesy of the Catholic bishops of England and Wales, he has responsibility for schools which my children so recently attended and which my Catholic friends' children currently attend.

What I believe Pope Benedict needs to address when he visits England is the Catholic bishops' policy of co-operation with the government in helping to ensure that Catholic schoolchildren have access to abortion and contraception without parental knowledge or consent.  This policy is reflected perfectly in Mr Pope's appointment.  In carrying out this policy, the Catholic bishops of England and Wales are acting the part of King Herod who purported to respect the infant Jesus in whose image and likeness unborn children are made: "Go and search diligently for the child; and when you have found him, bring me word so that I may also go and pay him homage" (Matthew, Chapter 2).  History records what then happened.

Archbishop Nichols's recent replies to Catholics protesting about Greg Pope's appointment encloses a statement from the Catholic Education Service which expresses contempt for those raising the matter. The statement says: 

"Mr Pope’s appointment to the Catholic Education Service for England and Wales (CESEW) has occasioned some very misleading and diverting correspondence from a small number of people".  

No, Your Grace.  What is "misleading and diverting" is the following quotation from Greg Pope in the Catholic Education Service statement:

"I am a committed, practising Catholic. I very much share the Church’s opposition to abortion. I was one of only a handful of Labour MPs who defied their own Government to vote against the whole Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill at its Third Reading on the grounds that it was insufficiently pro-life."

It's "misleading and diverting" because it seeks to draw attention away from Mr Pope's fuller voting record on life and family issues part of which I reproduce below. It's also "misleading and diverting" when it suggests that Greg Pope's appointment is somehow OK because "Bishops, members of the CESEW Management Committee, senior diocesan education colleagues and others were represented on the selection panel".  After all this is the same Catholic Education Service which, on behalf of the Catholic bishops of England and Wales,  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.

Let's recall that Greg Pope, as a Member of Parliament: voted against a bill which would have required practitioners providing contraception or abortion services to a child under the age of 16 to inform his or her parent or guardian (14 Mar 2007); he signed a parliamentary motion praising a condom manufacturer for helping schools host “National Condom Week” (11 May 2004); and he voted against an amendment which would have required doctors to provide pregnant mothers with certain information and an offer of counselling before any abortion of an unborn child on grounds of disability (20 May 2008);

In addition, Greg Pope signed parliamentary motions praising the leading domestic and international pro-abortion organisations:

• All-Party Parliamentary Group on Population, Development and Reproductive Health (24 May 2005)
• All-Party Parliamentary Pro-Choice and Sexual Health Group (15 Jul 2004)
• Family Planning Association (15 Jul 2004) (9 Feb 2006) (21 Feb 2007) (9 Feb 2009)
• International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) (1 Jul 2004)
• Marie Stopes International (1 Jul 2004)
• United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) (16 Dec 2002) (1 Jul 2004) (9 Jun 2005).

He also signed parliamentary motions promoting:

• “reproductive health” (16 Dec 2002)
• “sexual and reproductive health” (24 May 2005) (9 Jun 2005) (20 Oct 2006)
• “sexual and reproductive health and rights” (1 Jul 2004)

(According to the British government and to the US administration, these terms include a right to abortion on demand.)

Moreover, Greg Pope signed parliamentary motions promoting:

• “Contraceptive Awareness Week” (9 Feb 2006) (21 Feb 2007) (9 Feb 2009)
• “contraceptive choice” (20 Oct 2006)
• “contraceptive needs” (8 Feb 2006)
• “family planning” (16 Dec 2002)
• “National Condom Week” (11 May 2004) (11 May 2004) (9 May 2007)
• a tax reduction on condoms (30 Nov 2005)

The Mental Capacity Bill (now Act) enshrined euthanasia by neglect into English statute law. Greg Pope:

• voted for the bill at second (11 Oct 2004) and third readings (14 Dec 2004)
• voted against amendments motivated by pro-life concerns (14 Dec 2004) (14 Dec 2004) 5 Apr 2005).

In addition, Greg Pope:

• voted against amendments which sought to retain the requirement for doctors to consider the child’s need for a father (20 May 2008) or male role model (20 May 2008) before a woman is given fertility treatment.
• voted against amendments restricting adoption to heterosexual couples (20 May 2002) and married couples (4 Nov 2002). He also signed a parliamentary motion in the same vein (24 Mar 2004).
• voted against measures (popularly known as “section 28”) preventing local councils from promoting homosexuality*, including the teaching in schools of “the acceptability of homosexuality as a pretended family relationship” (5 Jul 2000) (10 Mar 2003) (10 Mar 2003). He also signed a parliamentary motion in the same vein (24 Mar 2004).
• signed parliamentary motions promoting homosexual unions (7 Sep 2004) (13 Oct 2004) (20 Jul 2005).

And Greg Pope signed parliamentary motions promoting population control (16 Dec 2002) (1 Jul 2004).

* Pope John Paul II, the great pro-life champion, teaches in paragraph 97 of Evangelium Vitae 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.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy