Cherie Blair is a danger for women and unborn children in the developing world

The Telegraph reports that Cherie Blair:

"has been asked by Ed Miliband, the Labour leader, to examine how the United Kingdom can help women in poor countries get involved in business and public life ... Westminster insiders suggested that the appointment could be a first step towards becoming a peer ... Three years ago, [she] set up the Cherie Blair Foundation for Women ... "Mrs Blair said that ... '[T]here are so many barriers faced by women and girls in the developing world that they are often unable to participate in economic or political life and struggle to get access to health care...'."

Mrs Blair's new role, and the possibility of a peerage, poses a fresh danger for women and unborn children in the developing world.

Mrs Blair is notorious for claiming that her career success would not have been possible if not for contraception. Also, in December 2009 she claimed that:

"Controlling our fertility has been one of the key reasons why women have been able to progress".

On her website, in the section "About this site", Mrs Blair writes:

"This website is dedicated to the issues that concern me, to helping improve the position of women throughout the world by sharing information and by safeguarding and promoting human rights. At the heart of the website is the Women of the World section."

On a page in the Women of the World section, Mrs Blair says:

"The [United Nations] Convention [on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) ... is the only human rights treaty which affirms the reproductive rights of women".

"Reproductive rights" is a term commonly used to include abortion on demand.

The page ends by linking to the CEDAW committee, which is responsible for monitoring the implementation of the CEDAW convention. The CEDAW committee uses the CEDAW convention to bully countries into allowing abortion, even though the convention doesn't mention abortion. The CEDAW committee issued a report calling upon the UK government to decriminalise abortion in Northern Ireland.

In July 2003, Mrs Blair endorsed the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), the world’s leading promoter and provider of abortion, by hosting a private reception at 10 Downing Street (the prime minister’s residence) for IPPF’s “Lust for Life” fundraising campaign. At the annual Labour party conference in September 2005, Mrs Blair celebrated the 75th anniversary of the Family Planning Association (fpa), the UK branch of IPPF, helping to cut a special birthday cake (and pictured here jokingly offering a condom to the camera-man.) Both IPPF and FPA endorsed the failed campaign to remove the Holy See from the United Nations.

Cherie Blair has tried disingenuously to distance herself from abortion. Pro-lifers, especially Catholics, should be under no illusions about her and her husband Tony and their continuing campaign to undermine the right to life, and the dignity of the family upon which the protection of the right to life depends. As a report in The Daily Mail last week said so well, Tony Blair is a "morally dispossessed" collaborator with those who have little respect for the sanctity of human life - and the same can be said of Cherie Blair. I will be watching her closely in her new role.

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

Book now to hear leading expert on the dangers of school-based sex education

Dr Miriam Grossman, a leading American child psychiatrist who opposes prevailing ideas about sex education, will be speaking in London in early May. The first of her talks will be alongside Professor David Paton, the UK's leading expert on the statistics of teenage pregnancy. Do try to attend one of her talks to arm yourself with the arguments you need to defend our children from the dangers of school-based sex education. Full details and an online booking form are available on the Anglican Mainstream blog.

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

Here's the message I gave to the Austrian pro-life movement

Last month I visited Austria at the invitation of Human Life International in Austria. I was extremely impressed with the resourcefulness and strength of the Austrian pro-lifers. During my visit I was interviewed by Gloria TV, an exciting Catholic media apostolate which is speaks out forthrightly in defence of the sanctity of human life. Below are two videos of that interview and the key messages from each.

From the video "The pro-life movement is strong and growing":

• Since I joined the pro-life movement in the 1970s there has been greater acceptance of abortion in the Church, among ordinary churchgoers, and even amongst the bishops.
• The pro-life movement is growing, with well-organised and well-informed people.
• Cardinal Burke said we can be full of hope, because the pro-life movement exists.
• The pro-life movement in Britain and Northern Ireland has stopped the extension of the Abortion Act to Northern Ireland.
• We have resisted repeated attempts to legalise euthanasia, although sadly there is the growing practice of euthanasia by neglect.
• We have had considerable success in the European institutions e.g. regarding conscientious objection in medicine, as a result of well-informed, well-organised lobbying.
• We have developed a pro-life community in Britain which has a lot of experience and a lot of committment to lobbying.
• I have hope – absolutely – that abortion will one day be illegal, because there are tens of thousands of men and women in Britain who are just and are committed to truth.
• I truly believe that we will completely destroy legal abortion.
• Poland is a good example of how a pro-abortion culture can be turned around.
• In the meantime, thousands upon thousands of unborn children are being saved by pro-life work.

From the video "The church and abortion"

• I say quite openly: the Catholic Bishops of England and Wales cooperate with the British government in providing access to abortion to children in schools. When they do this the bishops are acting not as pastors but as junior politicians.
• IPPF is trying to exercise influence throughout the world, including on the Vatican. I think there is a great battle between good and evil at the Vatican. At the moment evil has the upper hand throughout the world, including within our Church.
• Let’s say the government passed a law to allow the killing of one priest every year. Do you not think that, when you went to church, you would hear frequent calls to protest vigorously about this? Do you think it would be excused on the grounds that the government has good policies on overseas aid or other issues? There is no difference in God’s eyes between a Catholic priest and an unborn child.
• The Church is forgetting that the unborn children is Her neighbour, so it’s like the parable of the neighbour who walks by on the other side of the street. Yet it is the worst catastrophe in terms of mass killing in the history of the world. So how can it not be the greatest issue that the Church has to face?
• We must be strong, we must pray, we must continue the heroic work. We must complain to priests and bishops when they are silent. We need to be peaceful resistance leaders.

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

Eileen Clarke is a great sign of hope for the disabled

I wish to pay tribute to Eileen Clarke (pictured) from Melton Mobwbray, one of SPUC's most indefatigable fundraisers. Do read this moving account sent to me by Frances Levett, another great SPUC stalwart from Melton:

"Eileen is a disabled widow who lives in council sheltered housing. She has multiple disabilities, including diabetes and arthritis, and her mobility problems mean that she needs a pavement vehicle to help her get about. Despite this, she is an outstanding fund-raiser for SPUC. She is the first to arrive at our annual street collection, before 8.30 am, and she spends the entire day sitting with a collecting box. She always has the highest amount in her box and over the years she has raised £732.96 in this way. She also helps at every market stall and car boot sale we run, especially at the Melton Show, a very large event. She usually stays for the whole day, and has frequently unpacked huge amounts of bric-a-brac, enough to daunt the stoutest heart! In addition, she has helped to man our float in the carnival parade, but her real strength lies in fund-raising. She has an infectious cheerfulness that seems to lead people to want to give. I have watched her at the street collection. She will shout, 'Hello darling! Got any spare change?' and the person starts to smile and feel in his pocket straight away."

What I think is particularly wonderful about Eileen is that she is a disabled person helping to protect other disabled persons, from the threats of abortion, euthanasia, assisted suicide and destructive embryo research. It's because of incredible supporters such as Eileen that SPUC has survived and grown over the past 43 years. As Jill Stanek, the leading American pro-life blogger, pointed out this week, the pro-abortion movement simply doesn't have the same level of personal committment of the pro-life movement. So thank you, Eileen, for being such a great sign of hope for the unborn, the sick, the elderly and the disabled.

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

Pope Benedict has ordered bishops to support parents' role as "first educators of their children"

Yesterday Pope Benedict addressed a group of Filipino bishops in Rome. The Vatican Information Service (VIS) reported [my emphases in bold]:

"'The deep personal piety of your people needs to be nourished and supported by a profound understanding of and appreciation for the teachings of the Church in matters of faith and morals. Indeed, these elements are required in order for the human heart to give its full and proper response to God', he said.

The Holy Father likewise called on the bishops not to fail to include 'outreach to families' in their catechesis, 'with particular care for parents in their role as the first educators of their children in the faith.'"

As I noted in my blog of 7 February, the Vaughan Parents' Action Group (VPAG) has exposed the failure of Vincent Nichols, archbishop of Westminster, to provide this papally-ordered care:

"The VPAG notes that, in his 85 word statement, the Archbishop does not even mention the word “parents” ... The Church teaches that parents are “the primary and principal educators” (Gravissimum Educationis, 3) of their children, not the Diocese, and not the Bishop. It is their role to support parents in that task..."

SPUC is not going to leave parents without the support they need in their primary and principal role of protecting children against anti-life/anti-family school-based sex education (which is backed by Archbishop Nichols and the Catholic Educations Service (CES)). We have just published a new campaign bulletin on sex and relationships education (SRE) to inform, support and engage parents in the fight against the culture of death which threatens all children, born and unborn. Do read it today, order copies and spread the word.

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

Eugenics is an enduring part of fallen human nature, says leading international bioethicist

Today I am with clergy in London who are being addressed by Fr John Fleming, SPUC's bioethical consultant, as part of the latest series of clergy information days organised by SPUC up and down the country. Fr Fleming's presentation is entitled: "Eugenics - an enduring part of  fallen human nature". His full presentation can be read here on the SPUC website, but below is an executive summary:

From very early on in human society, those human beings judged to be “unworthy of life” have been at great risk of being marginalized and even killed by mainstream society.

Eugenics is expressed in two forms:

1. Positive eugenics which encourages “good” parents to have more children
2. Negative eugenics which discourages or coerces the “unfit” from reproducing their own “kind”.

Plato encouraged both forms of eugenics in order to build a state which was better capable of defending itself against the enemy, better able to contribute intellectually and better able to participate sensibly in the affairs of the state.

Christianity was opposed to practices such as the jettisoning of ‘weak’ children by their parents.  These babies were collected by Christians and cared for by them.  The Christian faith was the key factor in the development of western culture which saw an end to the lawful practices of abortion, infanticide, and euthanasia.

Since the Enlightenment and especially from the time of Charles Darwin in the nineteenth century there has been an increased interest in the practices of eugenics.  Social Darwinism influenced many intellectuals in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.

The Nazi eugenics programme began quickly because the German medical profession had already been radicalised by notions of “racial hygiene” and the desirability of ridding society of “useless eaters”.  The racist aspect of Nazi eugenics was inspired by other factors.

It was also the case that intellectuals in the ‘civilised’ and ‘democratic’ countries were also attracted to eugenics.  These intellectuals included people like Bertrand Russell, Julian Huxley, and a whole host of others. Indeed it is fair to say that eugenicism has been driven in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries by intellectuals and their allies in the mass media.

Eugenic abortion is predicated on the idea that there are some human lives which are not worthy to be lived. It is now widely accepted that there are people whose lives are so blighted by old age, sickness, or disability that they would be better off dead. This is the principle that lies behind the current drive for legalised euthanasia.

Even some of those who would describe themselves as ‘pro-life’, nevertheless support eugenic abortion and the right of the medical profession to discontinue food and fluids to those patients reckoned to be living useless and burdensome lives.

While eugenicism bites deep into the psychology of many human beings, it has often been prevented from expressing itself by social standards. Those standards are now being increasingly undermined such that the eugenic impulse to rid the world of social and economically burdensome people has gained an almost unstoppable momentum.

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

Please respond today to minister's speech to pro-abortion conference

Anne Milton MP (pictured), the minister for public health, has been speaking today at a conference organised by Brook, one of Britain's leading abortion referral organisations. Brook specialises in advising young people - including those under 16 - about abortion, sex, STIs etc. This morning Mrs Milton addressed Brook's conference on the subject of sex and relationships education (SRE), or, as she wants to re-name it, "RSE" (relationships and sex education). Brook gave a live summary of Mrs Milton's speech via Twitter - please see Brook's tweets below.

We need to challenge Mrs Milton's ideas, particularly her attemcpt to stop health officials and fellow politicians from advising children to say "no" to sex. Please email Mrs Milton at anne.milton.mp@parliament.uk (and copy your message to your own MP) with one or more of the following questions (and any of your own):

• Do you say that children must NOT be told that it is best to reserve sex for a permanent, committed relationship?
• Do you not agree that abstinence plus monogamy is the safest behaviour for avoiding HIV and other STIs?
• Do you not agree that avoiding premarital teenage sex will help avoid the social exclusion of single unsupported young mothers?
• Does she want to see more exploitation of vulnerable young women?

You can send a separate copy of your email to Mrs Milton to your own MP via http://www.spuc.org.uk/mps

Brook's tweets @BrookCharity of Anne Milton's speech to the Brook conference, 3 March 2011:

• Ann[e] Milton begins by thanking each volunteer by name - smart woman! Her perspective is as a nurse, a mother and politician
• "We must make sure yp [young people] are informed, have the info they need to make safer choices" Ann[e] Milton MP
• Bolstering self esteem as important as education, services etc. Government's role is to provide the right framework.
• Must take action across all government departments, locally and nationally. Will include a range of public health strategies
• Consultation on sexual health strategy, including abortion, open til mid March - Ann[e] Milton encourages all to take part.
• No young person should feel pressured into behaviours they are not ready for. Good quality SRE is vital. Ann[e] Milton MP
• Ann[e] Milton's mission is to make it RSE because the Relationship part gets lost. Current SRE not good enough.
• Julie Bentley @fpacharity asks AM [Anne Milton] commit to statutory SRE. Answer is no "regulation & compulsion is a way of ministers covering their arses" [sic]
• Ann[e] Milton wants to see better SRE without it becoming statutory. Difficult to know how to do that without the framework.
• Q: How do we drive the Sex Positive msg without strong commitment from Gov? A: leadership is important & we must talk more
• Ann[e] Milton says the 'Just say no' msg will not happen on her watch & we should contact her if we hear politicians say it.

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

Jane Russell rejected the celebrity world's support for abortion

Jane Russell, the Hollywood film star of the 1940s and 50s, has died aged 89. Best-known for her beauty, her opposition to abortion is also widely noted in today's obituaries. As a 19-year old, she resorted to an illegal abortion, which almost killed her and which left her infertile. She's pictured (right) with Marilyn Monroe (whom it is claimed was also left infertile by abortion). Rather than conclude from the experience that abortion should be legalised, she rejected abortion, saying:

"People should never, ever have an abortion. Don't talk to me about it being a woman's right to choose what she does with her own body. The choice is between life and death."

She started an organisation called WAIF (World Adoption International Fund) to help people adopt unwanted children from overseas, and adopted three children herself.

Her family has asked that, instead of flowers, mourners send donations to her local pro-life crisis pregnancy centre.

Jane Russell is not the only celebrity to have stuck out her neck by making comments in support of unborn children or the dignity of motherhood, for example:

• Charlton Heston, a contemporary of Jane Russell, gave the introduction to Eclipse of Reason (1986), the second of the late Dr Bernard Nathanson's documentaries on the reality of abortion
• Jennifer O'Neill, a Hollywood actress from the 1970s onwards, now speaks out about her abortion experience on behalf of the Silent No More campaign, supported in the UK by SPUC.
• Justin Bieber, the 17 year-old pop star, last month said that he doesn't "believe in abortion" because "It's like killing a baby". He has been attacked for being "too young" to have opinions on abortion!
• Natalie Portman, who won best actress in this week's Oscars, has been attacked for describing her motherhood as "the most important role of my life". She also described pregnancy as "a miracle" giving meaning and importance amidst superficiality.

So let's pray that more people in the entertainment industry will be encouraged to speak out in support of life and family and not discouraged by attacks from the culture of death.

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

Pope Benedict is calling everyone to hear the voice of conscience on abortion

On Saturday Pope Benedict addressed the annual meeting of the Pontifical Academy for Life in Rome. Fr John Fleming, a corresponding member of the academy and SPUC's bioethical consultant, participated in the meeting. Fr Fleming is currently in the UK addressing meetings of clergy on pro-life issues.

Pope Benedict told the academy:

"Through moral conscience God speaks to each of us, inviting us to defend human life at all times..."

In recent years SPUC has increasingly focused upon the importance of conscientious objection to abortion and the duty of pro-lifers to defend the right to conscientious objection. SPUC helped secure a major victory on conscientious objection in a debate at the Council of Europe in October.

The Holy Father also said that the question of post-abortion syndrome reveals:

"the irrepressible voice of moral conscience"

later adding that:

"[I]t is important ... to ensure that the necessary help is not lacking for women who, having unfortunately already chosen the path of abortion, are now experiencing all its moral and existential consequences. There are initiatives, at a diocesan level or by individual volunteer organisations, which offer psychological and spiritual support for a full recovery. The solidarity of the Christian community must not abandon this kind of shared responsibility".

SPUC has always placed high importance on outreach to post-abortive women, through the foundation of its sister organisation ARCH (Abortion Recovery Care and Helpline), formerly BVA (British Victims of Abortion).

The Pope went on address the role of doctors:

"Doctors must not fail in their serious duty to ensure that women's consciences are not tricked into believing that abortion will resolve family, economic and social difficulties, or the health problems of their child ... [D]octors are called to show particular fortitude in continuing to affirm that abortion resolves nothing; rather it kills the child, destroys the woman and blinds the conscience of the child's father, often devastating family life."

SPUC has launched an outreach to doctors through its "Abortion - your right to know" leaflet campaign, through which doctors are given the full facts about abortion to share with their pregnant patients. You can listen to a debate about this featuring Paul Tully of SPUC on BBC Radio 4's PM programme yesterday (the abortion debate starts 43 mins into the programme).

SPUC is answering Pope Benedict's call to be fully and pro-actively pro-life, serving all those affected by abortion in society and society as a whole. Please help SPUC continue to answer Pope Benedict's call by joining, donating and/or leaving a legacy to SPUC

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 RCOG's abortion draft guidelines are grossly inept

SPUC has been responding to the draft guidelines on abortion by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG), which I blogged on 14 February.

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

"The RCOG draft guidelines play down the physical and psychological side-effects of abortion, discounting the real and serious damage that abortion can cause. Ireland, where abortion is banned, scores the world's best record in maternal health year after year. Chile, where abortion is also banned, has the lowest maternal mortality rate in Latin America.

"The guidelines are very badly drafted, as they have totally confused Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland and totally misunderstood the legal positions in both jurisdictions. This is grossly inept, as such misinformation could be extremely dangerous if followed.

Other black marks in the draft guidelines include:

• the false claim that the right of conscientious objection to abortion only applies to doctors (line 1044) or only to doctors and nurses (line 1084) - when it applies to any person called upon to participate in an abortion
• the contemplation of enforced abortions on some 16-17 year-olds (1260 - 1262)
• failing to require that women be informed of alternatives to abortion and how to obtain such help (1438)
• the failure to suggest that doctors should be wary of situations where women seek abortions on unlawful grounds (e.g. for social sex selection), or where women seek abortion under duress (1494).

"The RCOG has long since been an extension of the pro-abortion lobby. Its draft guidelines reflect that institutional bias and should therefore be binned."

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

Please support the 40 Days for Life London campaign

40 Days for Life is an international pro-life campaign which began in the US and which has now spread to the UK. You can read more about 40 Days for Life in my blog of 3 September. The next 40 Days for Life campaign in London begins on 9 March. Margaret Cuthill of SPUC's sister organisation ARCH (Abortion Recovery Care and Helpline) spoke at the campaign's pre-launch meeting on Wednesday evening in London (pictured). You can read more about the London campaign in a PowerPoint presentation and on its blog.

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

International committee gives award to Chile for successful protection of mothers and unborn children

An international committee of over 30 non-governmental organisations (NGOs) has given Chile an award for the country's success in protecting both mothers and unborn children.

The International Protect Life Committee announced its award in a meeting with Chile's ambassador to the United Nations in New York yesterday (pictured). The award recognised that Chile has the lowest maternal mortality rate in Latin America, at the same time that its laws and policies promote the health of unborn children. Abortion is banned in Chile.

Daniel Ziedler, the committee's coordinator, said that Ambassador Octavio Errazuriz was extremely pleased at the award. The ambassador repeated Chile's committment to the protection of both mothers and unborn children.

SPUC, which has official NGO status at the UN, is represented on the committee. SPUC was represented at the meeting by Peter C. Smith.

Do read the letter from the committee to President Pinera of Chile notifying him of the award, and the press release from the committee announcing the award.

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-abortion lobby flourishes when bishops are weak, Nathanson said

The late Dr Bernard Nathanson, the abortion pioneer turned pro-life champion:

"We [who promoted abortion in the 1960s and '70s] would never have gotten away with what we did if you [the clergy] had been united, purposeful, and strong." (Talk given to priests, 1990)

Enough said (for now at least)!

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

Order SPUC's new sex ed campaign bulletin today

We need:

• you to take action to stop primary schools showing sexually explicit materials to children as young as seven years old
• your involvement so that sex education is not made a compulsory school subject
• your support to reverse government policies which promote contraceptives and abortion advice to secondary school pupils
• to act now because anti-life sex education in our schools is priming young children for premature sexual activity, which leads to teenage pregnancies and abortions.

This sex education damages the health and welfare of our children and teenagers. And the lives of unborn children are put at risk. That's why this campaign is so important.

Last year SPUC fought against the proposal to make sex and relationships education (SRE) mandatory in all state schools in England from the age of 5 upwards. The proposal was defeated, but supporters of explicit anti-life sex education are still around, and promoting lurid material in schools. We need the help of SPUC's supporters and sympathetic parents and teachers, to resist the anti-life and anti-family agenda. Please read our new campaign bulletin for further details and action points. Please order copies of the bulletin to give to:

• concerned people – especially parents of school-age children and school governors
• friends and colleagues
• priests and pastors and others at your church, etc.

To order copies of both the bulletin, and the detailed campaign briefings explaining how to act on the key issues, either:

• order by e-mail from orders@spuc.org.uk
• order by phone from SPUC HQ on (020) 7091 7091
• print off the bulletin, then cut out and return the coupon.

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

Austen Ivereigh backs gay and straight civil partnerships, in defiance of Catholic Church teaching

UPDATE: I note that on 7 March Dr Ivereigh will be giving this year's University Catholic Lecture, hosted at Newman House by the Catholic Chaplaincy to the London Universities in the Archdiocese of Westminster. Readers of this blog may like to attend to ask Dr Ivereigh some pertinent questions.

Dr Austen Ivereigh, the high-profile Catholic media guru, has written a blog-post published last night on The Guardian website entitled "In marriage we trust" and subtitled [my emphasis in bold]:

"Civil partnership is a fine thing, and should be extended. But the government's desire to create 'gay marriage' is quite wrong".

Lest Dr Ivereigh seek to distance himself from the first sentence of that subtitle, in the body of the blog-post he writes [my emphases in bold]:

"There are many kinds of loving, committed relationships. And it's good that the state supports them. It would have been much better if the legal privileges of the Civil Partnership Act of 2004 were not restricted to same-sex couples, but were available – as in France and Italy – to maiden aunts, marriage-phobic men and women, the disabled and their lifelong carers. It is right that people who commit themselves – lovingly, sometimes even sexually – to each other, and express that in stability and commitment, to have inheritance and hospital-visiting rights, tax breaks and the like. But civil partnerships are not marriage."

In these words Dr Ivereigh has clearly endorsed the legal recognition of sexually-active homosexual and extra-marital heterosexual unions. Such an endorsement dissents clearly from definitive Catholic Church teaching. In 2003, the late Pope John Paul II approved a document by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, entitled "Considerations regarding proposals to give legal recognition to unions between homosexual persons", signed by the current Holy Father and published on the feast-day of the Ugandan martyrs, who died rather than submit to sodomy. Here are some relevant extracts from that document, marked "CDF" and with my emphases in bold, followed by my comments:

CDF: "In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty." (no.5)

As civil partnerships in English law are legally exclusive to same-sex couples and in practice are used only by homosexual couples, they therefore fall squarely under the document's condemnation of homosexual unions. By the use of the word "or", the CDF made clear that the Catholic Church condemns civil partnerships between homosexuals per se and not only "[i]n those situations where homosexual unions...have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage." (And in any case, civil partnerships in English law have already been given many of the "rights belonging to marriage" in English law, so they are doubly condemned.) Dr Ivereigh has not only failed in his "duty" to manifest "clear and emphatic opposition" to homosexual civil partnerships, he has endorsed and praised them.

CDF: "The homosexual inclination is...'objectively disordered' and homosexual practices are 'sins gravely contrary to chastity'." (no.4)

There is no mention in Dr Ivereigh's blog-post to homosexuality as a disorder nor to the wrongness of homosexual acts. This omission is squarely contrary to the next paragraph of the CDF's document which says:

"Moral conscience requires that, in every occasion, Christians give witness to the whole moral truth, [for example] stating clearly the immoral nature of [homosexual] unions..." (no.5)

Dr Ivereigh wrote:

"It is right that people who commit themselves – lovingly, sometimes even sexually – to each other, and express that in stability and commitment, to have inheritance and hospital-visiting rights, tax breaks and the like."

Yet the CDF explicitly rejects that claim:

"Nor is the argument valid according to which legal recognition of homosexual unions is necessary to avoid situations in which cohabiting homosexual persons, simply because they live together, might be deprived of real recognition of their rights as persons and citizens." (no.9)

The final paragraph of the CDF's document says:

"Legal recognition of homosexual unions or placing them on the same level as marriage would mean...the approval of deviant behaviour..." (no.11)

Again, by the use of the word "or", the CDF made clear that the Catholic Church condemns civil partnerships between homosexuals per se and not only where such unions are "plac[ed] on the same level as marriage." One of the bases of this condemnation is "the approval of deviant behaviour", about which Dr Ivereigh's blog-post is silent.

Elsewhere, Dr Ivereigh has defamed as "pharisees" those faithful pro-life/pro-family Catholics who have had the temerity to point out how some of his opinions on sexual ethics deviate from Catholic teaching. This, of course, is an old trick from The Tablet, of which Dr Ivereigh was the deputy editor and to which he remains unswervingly loyal. I wonder whether the next time Dr Ivereigh prays to Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta, he will tell her that she, too, is a pharisee? The Good Counsel Network has just published a letter by a Jesuit priest, written on her behalf and signed by her, which upholds the Catholic Church's perennial condemnation of all condom use, including for prophylaxis. Dr Ivereigh has voiced frequently his dissent from that condemnation, even saying that school-children should be taught the benefits of condom use and claiming that urging HIV+ fornicators to use condoms is now Catholic pastoral practice.

Dr Ivereigh's high-profile roles in the Catholic world gives his thinking the false impression of a model of Catholic orthodoxy. This in turn threatens to mislead the faithful, including Catholic eduationalists. That is why it is high time for faithful pro-life/pro-family Catholics in Catholic organisations in which Dr Ivereigh has roles to act to remove him from those roles.


And why is the Catholic Church's teaching on sexual ethics (and Dr Ivereigh's dissent from that teaching) important specifically for the pro-life movement? The late Pope John Paul II, the great pro-life champion, taught in no. 97 of his 1995 encyclical 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

Professor calls for strategy u-turn as stats show little change in teen pregnancies

A leading expert on teenage pregnancy trends has called for a u-turn in the 10-year national teenage pregnancy strategy.

Professor David Paton, chair of industrial economics at Nottingham University Business School, was commenting on official estimates of under-18 pregnancies in 2009, which claim to predict a six percent fall.

Speaking to SPUC earlier today, Professor Paton said:

"11 years after the launch of the Labour Government’s teenage pregnancy strategy, it is clear that, despite the millions of pounds that has been spent, there is no chance at all that we will come even close to meeting the target of a 50% fall in the under-18 conception rate. The research evidence is increasingly clear: those areas that have promoted access to contraception have not seen larger decreases in teenage pregnancy than other areas. More disturbingly, there is now evidence that the promotion of easier access to emergency birth control is associated with increases in STIs amongst teenagers. Now is the time to consider a move away from an over-reliance on strategies aimed largely at managing the risks of underage sexual activity."

As I told the media earlier today, the tired old formula of abortion, condoms, pills and school-based sex ed has failed a whole generation of our children. The coalition government must make a break with Labour's failed teenage pregnancy strategy. Parents are the key to solving the problem of high rates of teenage pregnancy. The rights and responsibilities of parents as the first and foremost educators of their children in sexual matters must be upheld again. Children will then have the formation necessary to resist being sexualised.

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

Please pray for the repose of the soul of Dr Bernard Nathanson

Dr Bernard Nathanson, the most famous of those abortionists who became pro-life, has passed away, aged 84. Please pray for the repose of his soul, and give thanks to God for his decades of pro-life witness. His writings, speeches, documentaries and other work following his pro-life conversion give testament to a great mind and a faithful Catholic.

Dr Nathanson came several times to the UK at the invitation of SPUC. He spoke at our national conferences at Swansea in September 1984 and at Glasgow in 1986, at which he presented "Eclipse of Reason", the second of his documentaries into the reality of abortion. In Novemeber 1984 he presented "The Silent Scream", the first of his documentaries, to a meeting of parliamentarians at the House of Commons. He is photographed here in Parliament with his wife, Adele. Over the following decades SPUC sold or distributed many copies of his documentaries and books.

"The Silent Scream" includes an ultrasound scan of an abortion of a 12-week unborn child. The documentary was endorsed (see affadavit, right) and defended by Professor Ian Donald, who is universally acknowledged as the father of ultrasound. It was through the use of ultrasound in abortions, which Dr Nathanson had pioneered, that the full humanity of all unborn children was revealed to Dr Nathanson's conscience.

During a decade of transition from being pro-abortion to being pro-life Dr Nathanson recalled that he:

"had performed many thousands of abortions on innocent children [and experienced] existential torment...unremitting black despair...[considered suicide and abused] alcohol, tranquilizers ... I despised myself ... I had become as Hannah Arendt described [Adolf] Eichmann [an architect of the Holocaust]: a collection of functions rather than an accountable human being."

Anthony Ozimic, SPUC's communications manager, wrote in 2005 a dissertation on the subject of abortion centre staff. Commenting on Dr Nathanson's recollections, he wrote:

"It is truly telling that both the pioneer of mass abortion (Bernard Nathanson) and the woman who case made mass abortion possible in the US (Norma McCorvey) - who herself went on to work in a clinic – suffered negative effects on their moral character because of their abortion work. They had a choice to follow those negative effects further into a downward spiral or transform into moral regeneration, and they chose the latter."

So I thank our Lady of Guadalupe, protectress of the unborn, for the pro-life conversion and pro-life witness of the late Dr Bernard Nathanson. Requiescat in pace

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

SPUC's UN work is vital to protect family and life

Archbishop Silvano Tomasi, the Holy See's permanent representative at the United Nations' offices in Geneva, gave an address last Thursday in Rome about the anti-human ideology being promoted at the UN. Zenit reports:

"'Geneva is a place where culture is generated daily', said Archbishop Tomasi, recalling that 30,000 employees of international entities reside there, holding more than 9,000 conferences every year ... According to Archbishop Tomasi, words from Judeo-Christian tradition are disappearing: words such as truth, morality, conscience, reason, father, mother, child, commandment, sin, hierarchy, nature, marriage, etc. ... [S]oft laws are transformed into juridical norms. Then there is a new convention and it becomes law and it is applied even in a small village."

This is why SPUC's work at the UN is vital. Patrick Buckley and Peter Smith both represent SPUC, and the wider international pro-life movement, at the UN and the other international institutions with offices in Geneva, New York and elsewhere. Pat and Peter work closely with Archbishop Tomasi and many other important delegates to resist anti-human agendas. Pat and Peter spend long periods of time away from their families in order to defend every family on earth. Such work is also costly, particularly the cost of travel. You can help Pat and Peter by donating, joining and/or leaving a legacy to SPUC.

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 pro-euthanasia Mental Capacity Act undermines professional judgement and patient care

Michael Wendell Thomas, a veteran SPUC activist from Wales, provides an insightful perspective in a letter to The Telegraph about the Mental Capacity Act. The Telegraph neglected to publish it, but the author has kindly given me permission to publish it here:

"Dear Sir,

Tim Montgomerie (ST 6th Feb) says that Andrew Lansley’s reform of the NHS is based on the principle of 'no decision about me without me'. I think there are significant drawbacks to making this a predominant principle of medicine. Doctors are trained and experienced professionals, who should always operate to high ethical standards. (It‘s unfortunate that most of them no longer swear an equivalent of the Hippocratic Oath.) The passing of the Mental Capacity Act has introduced the primacy of the wishes of the patient as the highest consideration for treatment, irrespective of the ethical principles of those who have to carry them out. The 'best interests of the patient' which used to be the predominant principle of all medicine and based on the interpretation of the professional doctor, are now simply and simplistically defined as the wishes of patient, carried out if necessary through the instructions of a third party on his behalf. Such an arrangement can override the ethics of those on whom we rely to be ethical professionals; we don’t want them to be forced to carry out euthanasia because the patient is suicidal, for example, or made his decision on refusal of treatment when medicine was less able to cope with his condition. Medical professionals are not simply private operatives to do as they are told.

From professionals we expect a high degree of training, experience and judgement; is it sensible to encourage patients to override that judgement? I was asked by a doctor what I wanted, from a choice of two options; I naturally chose home treatment as the more convenient one for me. The result was that four days later I was taken to hospital as an emergency. The next time I was asked to choose I said 'you’re the doctor; you tell me what I should do.' I wish I’d done that in the first case. It took me four days on a drip and two weeks in bed to recover from that mischoice of mine.

Michael Wendell Thomas"

Tragically, the British government, parliament, courts and medical establishment have all undermined protection for the sick, elderly and disabled through:

• the 1992 Bland judgment
• professional guidance from the British Medical Association (BMA) and the General Medical Council (GMC)
• the Mental Capacity Act 2005
• the Liverpool Care Pathway
• the Director of Public Prosecutions' guidelines on assisted suicide

These changes, combined with the influence of pro-euthanasia advocates in academia and the media, has contributed to a mentality which acquiesces in neglecting certain categories of people to death.

In the light of this serious threat to our lives, visitors to this blog should consider joining Patients First Network (PFN). PFN helps you to let doctors, nurses and other healthcare workers know how you expect to be treated in hospital if you are mentally incapacitated. PFN fights against euthanasia.

If you join the Network, we give you a card and a medallion which alert medical staff, along with your family and carers, that you wish to receive appropriate medical treatment and care. Nothing should be done deliberately to end your life, nor should your health care team withdraw treatment with the deliberate intention of causing your death. You can also read and use PFN's Statement of Medical Care Principles.

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

Ireland United for Life calls for absolute protection for unborn children in election appeal

Ireland United for Life is an alliance of over thirty cross-community groups, together with Dana Rosemary Scallon and Kathy Sinnott, both former members of the European Parliament (MEPs). Today the alliance held a press conference in Dublin at which they said:

"[W]e can and will only vote for parties and individual candidates who publicly pledge commitment to defend human life at all stages and we urge all concerned voters to do likewise."

To that end, they have called upon all political parties, party leaders and election candidates to sign the following pledge:

"to defend human life at all stages, from conception until natural death and that if elected - :

• They will not dismantle Ireland’s Constitution and will maintain the people’s sovereign and democratic right, in final appeal, to decide all questions of national policy according to the requirements of the common good.
• They will respect and uphold the Constitutional right of the Irish people to decide on Ireland’s unique pro-life status.
• They will not legislate for abortion and will absolutely oppose any attempt by unelected judges from the European Court of Human Rights, (ECHR) to usurp the Constitutional right of the Irish people to decide on abortion."

Ireland United for Life

"urges all voters to vote only for candidates and parties who support this pledge"

Liam Gibson, representing SPUC Northern Ireland development officer, and Patrick Buckley, representing European Life Network, participated in the press conference and endorsed the message from Ireland United for Life. Pictured are (left to right):

• Pat Buckley
• Bernadette Smyth (director, Precious Life, Northern Ireland)
• Kathy Sinnott
• Dana Rosemary Scallon
• Liam Gibson.

Among the speakers at the press conference were:

• Niamh Ui Bhriain, director, Life Institute
• Ide Nic Mhathuna of Youth Defence
• Maire Ui Dhroighneain of Eire Ar Son Na Beatha.

The moderator was Dr Eimear Thornton.

Grave concern was expressed at the Labour Party threat to introduce abortion if it forms part of a future government.

I totally endorse the message of Ireland United for Life. I also urge readers to scrutinise closely any election-time messages on pro-life issues - especially any emanating from the Catholic bishops of Ireland - for any deviations from the upholding of the absolute protection for all unborn children, inside or outside the womb, guaranteed by the Irish Constitution.

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

French pro-lifers are striving wonderfully to defend the most vulnerable human beings

Genethique, the online information website of the Jerome Lejeune Foundation, has reported on a range of distinct yet related initiatives to defend embryonic children, especially disabled ones, from lethal discrimination via a revision of France's bioethics laws, currently being debated in the National Assembly:

• 35 deputies of the assembly launched an appeal, saying that the first duty of a bioethics law is to:

"protect the fundamental rights of people, above all the most vulnerable ... [H]uman procreation is not an industrial process that should aim for 'zero defect’ ... 96% of mothers whose test comes out as positive are led to abort today. This is eugenics ... The embryo cannot be a laboratory material serving economic and financial interests ... [Human procreation cannot be regarded as an] industrial process whose effectiveness is in the hands of a ‘qualified engineer’"

• A group of organisations representing the disabled published an appeal against:

"the eugenic abuse of which people suffering from Down’s syndrome are victims ... The exclusion that victimises the people with Down’s syndrome is clearly expressed in the immense difficulties they have in gaining access to school and the labour market. But, long before then, it is manifested firstly in the refusal to welcome them, which starts before their birth".

• The same group of organisations have placed full-page advertisements in Le Figaro, a leading French mainstream newspaper, and elsewhere, denouncing the arguments for prenatal screening as:

"arguments that kill ... [T]his massive screening amounts today to selecting the members of a group on the basis of their genome in order to eliminate them."

I congratulate the French deputies and organisations involved in this vigorous and clear-speaking pro-life campaign. Conducting such solid defences of the right to life is our duty towards most vulnerable human beings among us.

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

SPUC defended successfully medics' rights to conscientious objection in high court

Monday's high court judgment, in which SPUC played a significant part, was not only important for the defence of women and unborn children but also for the defence of doctors and nurses who object in conscience to participation in abortion. I reproduce below a key extract from the judgment on conscientious objection (with some terms explained in square brackets).

BPAS wants to be allowed to give abortion drugs to women to take away and use elsewhere - so they don't have to take them in a clinic. But the law says that abortion "treatment" must be given at a hospital or clinic, so BPAS argued that administering abortion drugs was not part of the abortion treatment - only prescribing the drugs was 'treatment'. That is a radical argument, and SPUC pointed out to the court that if BPAS was right, and the law should be read in that way, then doctors, nurses and midwives who are sometimes asked to administer abortion drugs, especially in later abortions, would lose the right to opt out - because their conscientious objection (protected in the Abortion Act) is a right not to engage in "treatment" authorised in the Act. If administering drugs (whether oral drugs, pessaries, drips, etc) is not 'treatment' then medical staff have no right to object.

In the judgment, Mr Justice Supperstone, rejected the argument put forward by Ms Lieven the barrister for BPAS (the "Claimant") in these terms:

"Ms Lieven does not accept that the Claimant's interpretation of section 1 [treatment] of the Act is inconsistent with section 4 [conscientious objection] of the Act. Ms Gemma White, for the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, intervening, submits that it is, as there will continue to be many situations in which medical professionals, in particular nurses and midwives, are asked to administer abortifacient drugs; if this claim is successful they will not be entitled to the protection of section 4 ... [BPAS' argument] is no answer, in my view, to Ms White's submission that Parliament clearly did not intend that an action which directly causes the termination of pregnancy should be outside the scope of section 4."

SPUC also provided the court with a crucial quotation from Hansard, as cited by the judge:

"It is to be noted that even in 1967 when terminations were normally by a surgical method, during a debate in Parliament on a clause which became section 4 of the Act, Mr Braine MP, the mover of the Amendment said "It is designed to take account of the fact that the termination of a pregnancy is not always and certainly may not in the future, be a surgical operation" (Hansard, 13 July 1967 at 1314). He added, "I am told that probably in the next decade, a safe chemical method of inducing therapeutic abortion may be developed and may be accepted by the medical profession." (at 1315)"

SPUC's research and legal advocacy work is absolutely vital in holding the line against attacks by the anti-life lobby. That is why we need you to donate, join, and/or leave a legacy to cover the considerable costs of that work. By supporting our work you are supporting the unborn, the disabled, the sick and the elderly and medical staff.

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

Abortion recovery group welcomes high court ruling against bedroom abortion

SPUC's sister organisation ARCH (Abortion Recovery Care and Helpline) has welcomed yesterday's high court ruling against bedroom abortions. Margaret Cuthill, ARCH's national co-ordinator, told the media this morning:

"As a support group working in the area of abortion recovery and post-abortion trauma education for 20 years, we are encouraged by the high court judgment not to alter the provision of the Abortion Act 1967 to allow early medical abortion to occur in women’s homes.

Abortion is not good medicine for women, and does damage the emotional and psychological lives of those in crisis that make this decision. Every woman is impacted by the pregnancy loss, but this procedure adds another mentally-traumatic dimension to the abortion process.

Women in crisis pregnancy are vulnerable and will react from fear and panic, wanting to be un-pregnant. To be offered a bedroom abortion is an emotional get-out clause many in ignorance will choose. It is really an abuse too far and will add to the trauma of guilt and grief they may experience at some future stage in life.

The British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) say it is concerned for the woman whose symptoms may begin on the journey back from the clinic. There is no substance to this concern or reliable studies to back up this statement. I am appalled that BPAS is not concerned for the woman who is in her home, in pain, bleeding and struggling with the choice she has made. Where is the concern then for not only women’s physical safety but their psychological health and well-being?"

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 doctor exposes bias of RCOG's latest abortion consultation

“The faster they come, the less they are publicised and the shorter the deadlines – meaning that it is less and less possible to make an intelligent response within the specified time frame. Is this some kind of plot to wave through controversial policy quietly whilst appearing take notice of stakeholders’ opinions? That is certainly the impression created.”

This is how Dr. Peter Saunders (pictured) of the Christian Medical Fellowship has described the latest consultation of the RCOG (Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists) which is revising its controversial document ‘The Care of Women Requesting Induced Abortion’, first published in 2000, revised in 2004, and now undergoing its current revision.

The consultation is open to every person and organisation with an interest in this topic. The closing date for submissions is 18 February. Details here. There is more information about the consultation document(s) on the RCOG website.

Dr. Saunders notes the ubiquitous presence of BPAS and Marie Stopes International, in collaboration with their pro-abortion colleagues within the RCOG and its faculty of sexual and reproductive health.

Dr. Saunders also notes the further inadequacy of the review panel by its failure to include any psychiatrist in its composition. Perhaps the recent change of position by The Royal College of Psychiatrists over the issue of abortion and mental illness, which it now recognises, has something to do with it?

Among the draft document’s recommendations, or rather ideological tenets, are the following:

"Women should be informed that induced abortion is not associated with an increase in breast cancer; Women should be informed that there are no proven associations between induced abortion and subsequent ectopic pregnancy, placenta praevia or infertility; Women should be informed that induced abortion is associated with a small increase in risk of subsequent preterm birth, which increases with the number of abortions; Women should be informed that most women who have abortions do not experience adverse psychological sequelae."

These claims are an egregious attempt to dismiss or ignore the significant body of evidence that contradicts each of the points made by the RCOG. Dr. Saunders provides one pertinent example offered by the American Association of Pro Life Obstetricians and Gynecologists on the link between abortion and pre-term birth.

The last word on the RCOG goes to Dr. Saunders:

“Asking this group to comment objectively and honestly about the physical and psychological consequences of abortion for women is like asking Philip Morris or BAT to review the health consequences of smoking or Macdonald’s to outline the adverse effects of fast food consumption. There are simply too many financial and ideological vested interests at stake that threaten a fair assessment.”

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