Please support the 100 Masses for life campaign

Pat Sammon, an SPUC activist, is promoting a "100 Masses for life" campaign. She writes:

"Dear friend in Christ,

Please would you consider having one Holy Mass offered during Lent (Feb 22nd-April 7th) for the following intention:-
FOR AN END TO THE ‘CULTURE OF DEATH’ AND THE CONVERSION OF HEARTS.
By any priest of your choice. Please request that the intention is publicly announced, not just as a ‘private intention’
In order to assess the success of this campaign, please confirm Mass and venue if possible:
Pat 07747698553. patriciamarysammon@btinternet.com "

I encourage my readers to please support this campaign. Congratulations to Pat on this excellent initiative.

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
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Episcopal failures to oppose the sexual revolution have global consequences

Michael Voris, the American Catholic apologist, has this week been visiting the Philippines. In a video recorded there, Michael said:

"Obama's attempt to ram birth control down the Church's throat [is] exactly what is happening here in the Philippines ... [I]n America, the Catholic hierarchy folded like a house of cards 40 years ago in the face of the sexual revolution ... Catholics in America need to keep Catholics in other countries in mind when casting their vote for US president. It isn't just the Church in America that Obama is attacking, but the Church all over the world."

An analogy can be made with the situation in the UK vis-a-vis the Cameron government's promotion of homosexual marriage at home and so-called gay rights abroad. British government policy can have a significant effect internationally. Policy changes in Britain have the capacity to influence policy change in the English-speaking world and in Europe. I pray that Archbishop Nichols and his fellow English and Welsh bishops will not "fold like a house of cards" in the face of the Cameron government's sexual revolution, abandoning Catholics in other countries to the homosexual agenda. It is encouraging to see Bishop Mark Davies of Shrewsbury taking a strong stand.

*SPUC's national council, which is SPUC's policy-making body, elected by its grassroots volunteers, last year passed the following resolution to defend marriage:

"That the Council of SPUC, noting the various proposals currently being made by the present Government and others in regard to the status and standing of marriage and its consequent effect upon family life; and further noting the higher proportionate incidence of abortion in unmarried women compared to married women, resolves to do its utmost to fight for the retention of the traditional understanding of marriage in the history, culture and law of the United Kingdom, namely the exclusive union of one man with one woman for life; and accordingly instructs its officers and executive committee to conduct a major campaign to this end, to co-operate with other persons and societies in so doing and specifically to target the Government's consultation period starting in March, 2012, in regard to (so-called) same sex marriage."

**Why is homosexuality (and sexual ethics generally) 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
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Must-read pro-life news-stories, Thu 16 Feb

Nikki Kenward, anti-euthanasia campaigner

Top stories:

UK IVF regulator making millions from fees
Britain's IVF regulator has made millions of pounds from fees levied on IVF centres. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) charges £75 per patient. [Independent, 16 February] Anthony Ozimic of SPUC commented: "This is yet more evidence indicating that IVF is mainly an industry run for the benefit of vested interests, rather than a medical answer for couples anxious to conceive."

Draft bill by UK gay lobby would abolish terms 'husband' and 'wife'
A bill drafted by Stonewall, the gay lobby group, to legalise gay marriage would abolish the terms 'husband' and 'wife' in English law. The bill would also allow civil partnerships to be re-named as marriages. The bill was drafted ahead of a government consultation on legalising gay marriage. [Peter Saunders, 15 February]

Other stories:

Abortion

• The scandal of maternal mortality [SPUC youth blog, 15 February]
• Abortion and slavery - part II [SPUC youth blog, 14 February]

Euthanasia

• Interview with UK anti-euthanasia campaigner Nikki Kenward (pictured) [Journal, 15 February]
• Rise in suicide and infanticide among poor in Pakistan [Reuters, 15 February]
• British former model hanged himself after failures to treat chronic pain [Mail, 15 February]

Sexual ethics

• Listen to SPUC's Christine Hudson speak out against secret birth control implants for schoolgirls [John Smeaton, 16 February]

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
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Listen to SPUC's Christine Hudson speak out against secret birth control implants for schoolgirls

Christine Hudson, a parent and SPUC activist, was interviewed last week on the BBC's PM programme about secret birth control implants for schoolgirls. You can listen to Christine's excellent contribution on SPUC's YouTube channel or by clicking on the video box below. We apologise for the imperfect quality of the audio.



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
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Must-read pro-life news-stories, Wed 15 February

40 Days For Life banquet

Top stories:

Groundbreaking weekend for pro-lifers in London
The US founders of the 40 Days For Life initiative are visiting the UK. David Bereit and Shawn Carney have so far visited pro-lifers in London, Birmingham and Manchester. Almost 200 people attended the inaugural 40 Days For Life banquet in Westminster cathedral hall. [SPUC youth blog, 13 February]

UK doctors' union proposes radical changes to organ donation system 
The British Medical Association (BMA) has proposed radical changes to organ donation system.  The changes include presumed consent for organ removal as well as keeping patients alive solely to enable organ removal. [Telegraph, 13 February] In a separate move, two US bioethicists have argued for the abolition of the dead-donor organ removal rule. Anthony Ozimic of SPUC commented: “The authors of this obnoxious paper have forgotten the lessons of the 20th century of the consequences of making the right to life dependent upon the possession of abilities. The authors should read the famous 1941 sermon of Blessed Clemens Cardinal von Galen against the Nazi euthanasia programme, who said: ‘Once admit the right to kill unproductive persons . . . then none of us can be sure of his life.’”    [LifeSiteNews.com, 8 February]

Other stories:

Abortion

• Undercover at a pro-abortion meeting: Part 2 [SPUC youth blog, 10 February]
• Sarah's Palin's testimony offers hope to mothers of children with Down's Syndrome [SPUC youth blog, 9 February]

Embryology

• Campaigners question ethics of Britain's first 'male mother' [Telegraph, 13 February]

Euthanasia

• Paralysed US teacher starves herself to death [Mail, 15 February]
• Adult stem cells heal scarred hearts [LifeNews.com, 14 February]
• Anglican bishop of Carlisle speaks out against assisted suicide proposal [In Cumbria, 11 February]

Population

• Population is "biggest challenge" says UK govt chief scientist [Ecologist, 15 February]
• Pope praises large familes [VIS, 15 February]
• Vladimir Putin vows to reverse Russian population decline [Telegraph, 13 February]

Sexual ethics

• Catholic bishop calls on Christian MPs to rebel over gay marriage [Telegraph, 13 February]
• Sexual revolution costing Britain billions of dollars annually: study [LifeSiteNews.com, 13 February]
• Watch SPUC's Anthony McCarthy speak on Channel 4 about gay marriage [John Smeaton, 8 February]

Population

• US university planned master race for post-war UK, suggests author [Mail, 13 February]

General

• Mexican Catholic bishops emphasise right to life ahead of presidential elections [OfficialWire, 15 February]
• Review of new book "The politics of Down's Syndrome" [Spiked, 13 February]

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
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Archbishop of Canterbury warns of "disaster" if assisted suicide mirrors abortion dynamic

Earlier this week Dr Rowan Williams, the archbishop of Canterbury and head of the worldwide Anglican Communion, addressed the Church of England's General Synod during a debate on assisted suicide. Among other things, Dr Williams said (full text, audio):

"[T]here have been a number of discussions in Parliament in recent years on this subject, and the emergence of this so-called Independent Commission and its report prompts the question “What has changed to make a re-opening of the question necessary?” Paradoxically, the answer seems to be that the only thing that has changed, and that is still changing, is advances in medical science and in palliative care. In other words, changes in exactly the direction which suggests that we do not need a change in the law such as envisaged.

...

"Law exists so that people may be protected, especially the vulnerable. Law exists to guarantee equality of protection to all.

...

"What we are faced with here in these proposals from the Commission is a legal outcome in which protection is diminished, not only for vulnerable individuals but also for medical professionals. A point has been made, and it needs to be made again, that it is front-line physicians who are going to find themselves more and more in a deeply uncomfortable – perhaps unsustainable – place in all this.

...

"The default position on abortion has shifted quite clearly over the past 40 years, and to see the default position shifting on the sanctity of life would be a disaster.

...

"To say that there are certain conditions in which life is legally declared to be not worth living is a major shift in the moral and spiritual atmosphere in which we live ... [T]o change the law on this subject is, I believe, to change something vital in our sense of the value of life itself."

Thankfully the General Synod voted overwhelmingly to "affirm the intrinsic value of every human life and express its support for the current law on assisted suicide".

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
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Watch SPUC's Anthony McCarthy speak on Channel 4 about gay marriage

Anthony McCarthy, SPUC's education and publications manager, this week appeared on Channel Four's 4thought.tv series to speak on the subject of gay marriage. You can watch Anthony's appearance here.

Anthony said that neither the church nor the state has the right to redefine marriage; and that to try to change the heterosexual nature of marriage is to undermine an institution which protects children and society. You can read more about SPUC's position on gay marriage in our position paper and background paper.

I appeared on 4thought.tv in November 2010 on abortion, and Anthony Ozimic, SPUC's communications manager, appeared in June last year on organ donation.

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
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Today's must-read pro-life news-stories, Wed 8 Feb

Photo showing size of implants

Top stories:

13-year-old girls fitted secretly with birth control implants
13-year-old girls at nine schools in Southampton, England, have been fitted with birth control implants without their parents' knowledge. Norman Wells, director of the Family Education Trust, said: "Schemes like these inevitably lead to boys putting pressure on girls to have sex. The last thing they should be doing is fuelling the flames of promiscuity and the sexual health crisis with schemes that treat parents, the law and basic moral principles with contempt." [Telegraph, 8 February] John Smeaton, SPUC director, commented: "These implants not only act as contraceptives, but can also act as abortifacients, killing newly-conceived embryos by stopping them from implanting in the womb."

Leader of Anglican Communion says legalising assisted suicide would spell "disaster"
Dr Rowan Williams, the leader of the Anglican Communion, has said that legalising assisted suicidewould spell "disaster". Addressing a General Synod debate, Dr Williams said: "[T]o change the law on this subject is, I believe, to change something vital in our sense of the value of life itself." The synod voted overwhelmingly to "affirm the intrinsic value of every human life and express its support for the current law on assisted suicide" [Archbishop of Canterbury, 6 February]

Morning-after pills dispensed by vending machine at US university
Students at a university in the American state of Pennsylvania can buy morning-after pills from a vending machine. The machine also provides condoms and pregnancy tests. [Mail, 7 February] According to the manufacturers, morning-after pills may cause early abortions by preventing embryos implanting in the womb.

Other stories:

General

• Sarah Palin’s touching account of living with a son with Down’s syndrome [Mail, 6 February]

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
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Catholic Voices amends abortion blogpost but has further work to do

Following my blogpost yesterday evening ("Does Catholic Voices now "accept that abortion should be legal"?"), I welcome the fact that Catholic Voices has now amended its blogpost. Here is the original version of the section I focused on (my emphases in bold):

"But in reality, Catholics on campus have nothing to fear. The motion contains no definition of "pro-choice"; if it means simply someone who accepts that abortion should be legal, most Catholics -- including the bishops of England and Wales, who advocate incremental restrictions, but not yet a total ban -- would fit that description.

And that is why it may turn out that the UCLU motion will come to be seen not as closing down discussion of abortion but a major spur to opening it up."

Today the same section now reads:

"But in reality, Catholics on campus have nothing to fear. The motion's definition of pro-choice ideology is so narrow and extreme, and its actions so brow-beating and authoritarian, that it will show informed pro-lifers who accept that abortion cannot be prohibited immediately -- including the bishops of England and Wales, who advocate incremental restrictions, but realise that a total ban is currently impossible to achieve -- to be the true advocates of moderate, rational and humane principle.

And that is why it may turn out that the UCLU motion will come to be seen not as closing down discussion of abortion but a major spur to opening it up."

Catholic Voices, however, has not amended the blogpost's erroneous references to abortion law (my emphases in bold):

• "Of course women have the legal right, within the 1967 Act, to seek an abortion; but does the UCLU believe that women have the right to break the law by seeking an abortion after the 24-week legal upper limit?"
• "Fewer than 5 per cent of the population believes, as the UCLU motion suggests, that the legal upper time limit for abortion should be increased from 24 weeks."
• "Should someone who believes the limit should be lowered from the current 24 weeks be classed as pro-choice or pro-life?"

Firstly, it is not clear whether "seek an abortion" means simply that, or means (as the context implies) "seek and have an abortion". Whatever it means, however, there is no "legal right" to abortion in any law in the United Kingdom. Abortion is a criminal offence under the Offences Against The Person Act 1861. The Abortion Act 1967 does not create a "legal right" to abortion: rather, the Act provides automatic exoneration from prosecution for those involved in an abortion if they follow the Act's conditions. It is dangerously irresponsible for a Catholic organisation to concede that there is a "legal right" to abortion in domestic law, as such concessions are gold-dust for the international pro-abortion lobby. At the United Nations and other high-level international institutions, the pro-abortion lobby repeats examples of national laws which grant a "legal right" to abortion, in order to argue that there is a worldwide consensus that abortion is a woman's right. Pro-lifers, for the sake of the international battle for the unborn, cannot afford to be unclear about the criminal status of abortion in British national law.

Secondly, as I said in my blogpost yesterday, 24 weeks is not the upper time-limit for abortion in Britain; in fact, abortion is allowed up to birth under the Abortion Act 1967 as amended in 1990. Only two grounds (C and D) of the seven grounds for abortion (as used in the official abortion statistics) are limited to 24 weeks; the other five grounds have no time-limit i.e. up to birth. Under those five grounds, abortions are performed on both disabled children (under ground E) and non-disabled children (under grounds A, B, F and G). The fact that the majority of abortions are performed under the two time-limited grounds does not make those grounds normative, either in law or in fact. Also, abortions under the five grounds with no time-limit are not exceptions, either in law or in fact. In law, those five grounds have equal status with the two time-limited grounds; and in fact, abortions on both disabled and non-disabled children are performed on average every day. (See A Way of Life section 1.2.2 and other sections for more information about abortion law. Word-searches on my blog and the SPUC website will also provide more such information.)

So Catholic Voices has further work to do in correcting its blogpost - and proving that it is a reliable source of pro-life commentary.

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
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Does Catholic Voices now "accept that abortion should be legal"?

On Friday the Catholic Voices Monitor blog commented on a pro-abortion motion passed by the University College London Union (UCLU). Monitor wrote:

"The motion then went on to attempt to ban pro-life meetings -- 'to ensure that any future open events focusing on the issue of termination invite an anti-choice speaker and a pro-choice speaker as well as an independent chair, to ensure there is a balance to the argument' -- in resolving that: 'When clubs and societies invite pro-life speakers they should also invite a pro- choice speaker to balance the debate and vice-versa.'"

The Monitor blog-post concluded (my emphases in bold):

"But in reality, Catholics on campus have nothing to fear. The motion contains no definition of "pro-choice"; if it means simply someone who accepts that abortion should be legal, most Catholics -- including the bishops of England and Wales, who advocate incremental restrictions, but not yet a total ban -- would fit that description.

And that is why it may turn out that the UCLU motion will come to be seen not as closing down discussion of abortion but a major spur to opening it up."

Firstly, Monitor is wrong that "the motion contains no definition of "pro-choice". The motion reads:

"This Union believes:
1. That both men and women have the right to exercise complete control over their own bodies and this includes the right to decide whether to terminate a pregnancy or not.
2. Safe and free termination should be available for all who require it..."

and

"This Union resolves:
1. To officially take a pro-choice stance and support students' right to choose the best option for them when pregnant, whether this involves continuing or terminating the pregnancy."

Secondly, Catholic teaching cannot be 'reframed' as 'pro-choice' on abortion, any more that it can be 'reframed' as 'pro-choice' on racism. Yes, pro-lifers can assert rightly that they are 'pro-choice' in the sense they offer women ethical alternatives to abortion, or that they give unborn children the choice to live which abortion denies. However, what pro-lifers, Catholics, bishops etc. cannot do is "accept[ ] that abortion should be legal" and therefore adopt the label 'pro-choice' on that basis.

Thirdly, does Catholic Voices now "accept[ ] that abortion should be legal"? For this is what is strongly implied by the Monitor blogpost when it says that "most Catholics -- including the bishops of England and Wales" "accept[ ] that abortion should be legal". The function of this purported acceptance is placed by the Monitor blogpost in a positive context:

• "[T]he motion may...offer[ ] an opportunity for Catholic voices to be heard where normally they are shut out."
• "Catholics on campus have nothing to fear"
• "[I]t may turn out that the UCLU motion will come to be seen not as closing down discussion of abortion but a major spur to opening it up."

Fourthly, what is Catholic Voices's source(s) for its claim that "most Catholics -- including the bishops of England and Wales" "accept[ ] that abortion should be legal"?

Last year Dr Austen Ivereigh, one of Catholic Voices's founders and coordinators, co-authored a book entitled: "Catholic Voices: putting the case for the Church in an era of 24-hour news". Among a number of dubious things, the book says (p.159):

"The abortion question is really two: the wrongness/licitness of abortion itself; and what the law and the state should determine."

However, St Thomas Aquinas, the common Doctor of the Catholic Church, taught that:

"Now human law is framed for a number of human beings, the majority of whom are not perfect in virtue. Wherefore human laws do not forbid all vices, from which the virtuous abstain, but only the more grievous vices, from which it is possible for the majority to abstain; and chiefly those that are to the hurt of others, without the prohibition of which human society could not be maintained: thus human law prohibits murder, theft and such like."

Summa Theologica I-II, q.96, art.2

Abortion is indeed:

• one of "the more grievous vices";
• "possible for the majority to abstain" from;
• "chiefly...to the hurt of others";
• "without the prohibition of which human society could not be maintained"; and
• "murder".

Legal bans on abortion:

• exists for the sake of the common good (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church #1951);
• check audacity, safeguard innocence and prevent harm (cf. St Isidore, quoted by St Thomas, Summa Theologica I-II, q.95, art.1);
• bind men to the common principle of the natural moral law that the intentional killing of the innocent is always wrong (cf. Catechism of the Catholic Church #1957).

To accept as currently desirable - as distinct from recognising as deplorable - the legal availability of abortion is to accept an operating principle of fatal discrimination against the unborn; and would undermine the efforts of the pro-life movement internationally.

The Catholic Voices book also says (p.164):

"To re-criminalise abortion is an unrealistic political ambition".

Is this not, however, a self-fulfilling prophecy, the acceptance of which is a goal within a strategy often employed by the pro-abortion lobby to make the success of their ‘progressive’ agenda seem inevitable?

Along with Dr Ivereigh, another likely source for Catholic Voices' erroneous ideas about abortion is Clifford Longley, one of the "experts assisting" Catholic Voices'. Mr Longley is the editorial consultant of The Tablet, which is notorious for its dissent from Catholic teaching on pro-life and pro-family issues. Dr Ivereigh is a former deputy editor of The Tablet, to which he remains unswervingly loyal. Last November Mr Longley defended Dr Jon Cruddas, the pro-abortion Catholic MP, by rejecting the claim that Britain's law on abortion should mirror the moral law by banning abortion (see my letter published in The Tablet in response. Tabula delenda est.)

The Monitor blogpost also makes the error that the upper time-limit for abortion in Britain is 24 weeks, when in fact abortion is allowed up to birth under the Abortion Act 1967 as amended in 1990. Such an error is understandable when repeated by the biased and ignorant mainstream media, but is simply not tolerable when repeated by an organisation which was set up to dispel such myths and which includes speakers active in pro-life organisations.

Among the speakers for Catholic Voices are good pro-life people, from good pro-life families and with valuable pro-life experience and skills. They joined Catholic Voices because they want Catholic teaching, including pro-life teachings, to be heard in the media in a totally truthful and accurate way. Those young talents are being let down badly by Austen Ivereigh, Jack Valero and some of their fellow Catholic Voices, who continue to misrepresent those teachings.

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
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

On this day in pro-life history, 3 Feb

Caxton Hall

On this day (3 Feb) in pro-life history in 1967, the journalists C.H. Rolph (also known as C.H. Hewitt) wrote an attack on the newly-founded Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) in The New Statesman. SPUC had hosted a meeting attended by around 200 consultant obstetricians and gynaecologists in Caxton Hall, London. Rolph wrote:

"[T]he Society for the Protection of Unborn Children and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists are really too much. I don’t know how many of the 460 consultant gynaecologists in England and Wales are members of the RCOG, but last week at Caxton Hall a couple of hundred of them voted 192 to 5 against the [Abortion] Bill and one of them said they would all emigrate if it became law, apparently on the ground that it would turn them into compulsory state abortionists. I don't think even the ones at the meeting will go abroad..."

It should noted that the RCOG,  was then opposed to the Abortion Bill (later Act). In 1966, the RCOG Council commented:

“It has been repeatedly stated that as many as 100,000 criminal abortions are induced in this country each year, and a more recent estimate is 250,000. These, and an earlier figure of 50,000, are without any secure factual foundation of which we are aware.”

(“Legalised Abortion: Report by the Council of the Royal College of
Obstetricians and Gynaecologists”, British Medical Journal, 1966; 1: 850-854.)

The RCOG Council showed that, in 1962, only approximately 14,600 women in England and Wales had received hospital treatment for the consequences of criminal abortion.

Yet, as Rolph rightly predicted, not many obstetricians or gynaecologists emigrated or changed profession following the passing of the Abortion Act. Most simply conformed to the Abortion Act, and those who wouldn't conform were marginalised. In fact, today the RCOG is the de facto trade union for Britain's abortionists, and now violates the right of conscientious objection to abortion (contrary to Archbishop Vincent Nichols' claim last October). The RCOG's policy is that:

"abortion and contraception are an integral part of comprehensive sexual and reproductive health services."

and also that:

"Practitioners cannot claim exemption from giving advice or performing the preparatory steps to arrange an abortion where the request meets the legal requirements. Such steps include referral to another doctor, as appropriate."

This phenomenon of conformity disproves the argument made by some liberal voices within Catholic circles that the pro-life movement should not insist on legal bans on abortion being passed and upheld. The effect of the Abortion Act was not simply to increase massively the number of abortions (ten-fold within a few years of the Act being passed to over 200,000 today). The Abortion Act led to the wholesale corruption of obstetrics and gynaecology, with doctors putting conformity to an unjust law above human rights, medical ethics, proper healthcare and the welfare of women. This phenomenon has been rightly described as "the banality of evil" (for more information about it, read "The effect of abortion on moral character" by Anthony Ozimic, SPUC's communications manager).

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
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Eminent legal academic offers hard-hitting challenge to Falconer assisted suicide report

Dr Jacqueline Laing

Dr Jacqueline Laing, senior lecturer in law at London Metropolitan University, has written a hard-hitting challenge in The New Law Journal to the Falconer report on assisted suicide. Here are some of her most salient points:

• "With a steadily ageing population in Western countries and numerous political, financial and medical interests in the procedure, it is, perhaps, unsurprising that the subject should now be raised annually."
• "Discrimination against the vulnerable, and thus Art 14 incompatibility, bedevils this ethical terrain ... Once enshrined in law, the practice invariably involves a move towards the elimination of those who have not asked to be killed, those who are unwanted, those who are lonely and low-income (KNMG Dutch Physicians Guidelines, Position paper, 23 June 2011), and those whose deaths offer some advantage to third parties controlling the process."
• "In this environment failures of transparency, ie lies and deception, are both pragmatic and inevitable. Belgium is now well-known for its failures of transparency with only 52.8% of acts of euthanasia reported to the authorities in Flanders. (Reporting of euthanasia in medical practice in Flanders, Belgium (BMJ 2010; 341: c5174).)"
• "[In the Netherlands] voluntary euthanasia has given way to non-voluntary euthanasia, false reporting and under-reporting."
• "Falconer et al seriously underestimate human capacity for error and vice ... Falconer and his stacked commission with their foot-in-thedoor approach to this programme, invite, institutionalise and incentivise murder— nothing less."

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
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Must-read pro-life news-stories, Thu 2 Feb

Glasgow centre doing egg screening

Top stories:

Pre-IVF egg-screening test criticised by SPUC
SPUC has criticised a Scottish IVF centre for introducing a technique to screen eggs for genetic abnormalities. The Glasgow Centre for Reproductive Medicine claims that the screening will improve the outcomes of IVF treatment. SPUC Scotland said: "Even if egg-screening helps to increase the number of births following IVF, it will still be the case that the vast majority of embryos created in the laboratory will not be born. IVF demeans human dignity by reducing procreation to quality-controlled, factory-like production. Doctors should instead be pursuing the far more successful ethical alternatives to IVF." [Herald, 28 January]

New Spanish government abolishes anti-life school course
The newly-elected Spanish government has announced that it is abolishing a citizenship school course which promoted abortion and other anti-life and anti-family ideas. The previous Socialist government had imposed the Education for the Citizenry course on schools against the wishes of many parents. [CNA, 1 February] John Smeaton, SPUC director, commented: "I congratulate the many parents whose campaign to uphold their fundamental right to be their children's primary educator has been successful."

India most dangerous place in world for girl children, suggests new figures
A report by the United Nations suggests that India is the most dangerous place in the world for girl childen. Figures by the UN's Department of Economic and Social Affairs suggest that from 2000 to 2010 there were 56 deaths of boys aged one to five for every 100 female deaths. Campaigners cite sex-selective abortion, infanticide and deliberate neglect as part of the phenomenon. [Telegraph, 1 February]

Other stories:

• Occupy Wall Street protesters disrupt pro-life meeting, throw condoms at Catholic schoolgirls [Fox, 31 January]
• US breast cancer charity stops funding Planned Parenthood and embryonic stem cell research centres [LifeNews.com, 1 February]

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
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Must-read pro-life news-stories, Wed 1 Feb

Top stories:

Act now to get government to block advertising by commercial abortion centres
The two bodies which draft the advertising code of practice have made changes to allow “commercial post-conception advice services” - in reality, abortion clinics which earn income from performing abortions - to advertise on television and radio, in print and elsewhere. Anthony Ozimic, SPUC's communications manager, said that the advertising industry's "supposed 'watchdog' is acting as the abortion industry's poodle." [SPUC, 21 January] The change will come into effect on 30 April. The government should use its powers to stop such advertising SPUC's question-and-answer briefing will give you the information you need to help make this happen.

US study used to claim that abortion is 14 times safer than giving birth
A new US study is being used to claim that abortion is 14 times safer than giving birth. The researchers drew on data from the pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute. Anthony Ozimic of SPUC told the Huffington Post: "Whatever the merits or otherwise of this study and its authors’ conclusions, the fact remains that the Republic of Ireland, where abortion is banned, has one of the world’s best records on maternal health, better than the US or the UK where abortion is available easily. The key to saving pregnant women's lives, whether in the developed or developing world, are improvements in primary healthcare and specialist pregnancy care. Abortion neither treats conditions nor cures illness." [Huffington Post, 24 January]

'Three-parent' embryo technique "unethical and macabre" says SPUC
SPUC has described as "macabre and unethical" a so-called 'three-parent' embryo technique which is due to receive £5.8 million of funding. SPUC was responding to the announcement by the Wellcome Trust that embryo research into mitochondrial disease will start at its new centre at Newcastle University. At the same time the government has launched a public consultation on whether to pass legislation to allow the 'three-parent' embryo technique to be used for medical treatment. [SPUC, 19 January]

Claim of rise in illegal abortions globally is dubious, says SPUC
A claim published in The Lancet medical journal that so-called 'unsafe' - usually illegal - abortions worldwide have risen by 5% is "dubious", says SPUC. The claim was made in a report by researchers from the Guttmacher Institute and the World Health Organsation (WHO). John Smeaton, SPUC director, commented: "The WHO routinely makes unsubstantiated claims about so-called 'unsafe' or illegal abortion. WHO is one of the world’s major pro-abortion bodies. The Guttmacher Institute is the research arm of the worldwide pro-abortion lobby. The report is pro-abortion propaganda, and should be dismissed as such." [SPUC, 19 January]

Midwives defend right to conscientious objection in Scottish court
Two midwives from Southern General Hospital in Glasgow are challenging the Greater Glasgow and Clyde Health Board over their right not to be involved in abortions in the hospital’s labour ward. SPUC is supporting the midwives' stance and is underwriting their legal costs. The case follows a lengthy grievance procedure that has failed to resolve the matter. [SPUC, 17 January]

Other stories:

Abortion

• Baby-saving pro-life counsellors are under threat, so let's focus on defending them from all quarters [John Smeaton, 27 January]

Embryology

• Skin cells turned directly into brain cells, claim US scientists [BBC, 31 January]

Euthanasia

• Four patients die thirsty or starving every day in UK hospitals, suggest new stats [Mail, 22 January]

Sexual ethics

• British government is afraid of the homosexual lobby [John Smeaton, 31 January]
• South African condom failures result in massive recall [LifeSiteNews.com, 31 January]
• European parliament president backs gay agenda [Pink Paper, 26 January]

General

• Exciting news as Marian icon embarks on ocean-to-ocean pro-life pilgrimage [John Smeaton, 31 January]

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
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Exciting news as Marian icon embarks on ocean-to-ocean pro-life pilgrimage

From the icon-blessing ceremony

Ewa Kowalewska, our pro-life colleague at Human Life International (HLI) Poland, has kindly sent me the press release below, with the exciting news that an icon of Our Lady of Czestochowa will be embarking on a pro-life pilgrimage from “ocean to ocean" from Vladivostok to Fatima:

"PRESS RELEASE

Dramatic Call from Czestochowa
This icon will embark on a pro-life pilgrimage from “ocean to ocean" from Vladivostok to Fatima.

"We stand before you, Mother of Our Redeemer, fully aware that alone we are unable to win this global struggle. Stand at the forefront of the defense of pro-life movements and lead us. Protect life! Save the family! Strengthen us!”

On Saturday, January 28 in the Jasna Gora monastery leaders of the pro-life movements of 16 European and Asian countries: Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania, Latvia, Russia, Kazakhstan, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Austria, Switzerland, Spain, Italy, Portugal, UK, USA and Poland came together. They made an "Act of Trust and Consecration" to the Black Madonna icon of Jasna Gora placing into Our Lady’s hands the protection of life and the civilization of love. Fr. Peter West, Vice President for Missions of Human Life International (HLI), the largest international pro-life organization, read the text in English. Galina Maslennikova, Head of the Family Center at the Catholic Cathedral in Moscow, read the act of Trust and Consecration in Russian. Ewa Kowalewska, representing the Club of Friends of Human Life and HLI-Poland presented the text in Polish.

This solemn celebration in the icon chapel of Jasna Gora was led by Czestochowa Archbishop Stanislaw Nowak along with two other bishops and numerous Polish and foreign priests. Also present were Orthodox priests from Ukraine and Belarus and the pro-life leaders from these countries.
During the ceremony, Archbishop Nowak blessed a copy of the icon of Czestochowa. According to an ancient tradition of the Pauline Fathers, the copy was touched to the original which the Orthodox Church also recognizes as a significant gesture. Archbishop Nowak called it the “kiss of love.” During the evening televised and radio transmitted “Jasna Gora Appeal” Fr Isidore Matuszewski, prior of the monastery, turned to the Orthodox priests present and welcomed them in the Russian language. They will be entrusted with the copy of the icon as it travels through Russia and the East.

This icon was made using traditional egg tempera and mineral pigments and 23 carat gold on wood of the same size as the original.

The celebrations at Jasna Gora were preceded by a pro-life leaders' meeting consisting mainly of HLI representatives from different countries.They discussed the planning of this ocean to ocean pilgrimage. Fr. Zacharias Jablonski explained the tradition sending icons on pilgrimages and even on the frontlines of battles, with a request to God for help, where there is the greatest threat to life. He spoke about the Polish experience of pilgrim icons of Our Lady of Czestochowa and its fruits.

Dr. Igor Beloborodov of Russia shared the experience of organizing car rallies for life in Russia and Ukraine. He also pointed out the real possibility of an icon pilgrimage from the Far East of Russia, through Central/Eastern Europe and on to Fatima-from the Pacific to the Atlantic.

An organizing committee was formed with representatives of 16 countries including Orthodox movements. Each member of the international committee will create a national committee responsible for the national pilgrimage of the icon. The exact timing and route of the pilgrimage will be determined by the Orthodox movements from Moscow.

"The number of victims already exceeds two billion human beings. Each day an additional 50 thousand children die in their mother’s womb. Many people do not want to have any children at all. Means of destroying fertility and life are becoming more and more common.”

“Infertility of married couples is increasing. The human child is a becoming a product of modern technology, a donor cells and organs.
Children ‘are produced’ with designated attributes, subject to selection. Hundreds of thousands of frozen embryos are preserved between life and death in liquid nitrogen.”

“International man-made law denies legal protection for the life of the unborn child. More and more countries are legalizing euthanasia.
There is a growing attack on marriage and family." (from the act Trust and Consecration)

Defenders of human life take note of these dramatic facts and are convinced that with God's help, through the intercession of the Mother of God, the civilization of life shall prevail. They declare that; "every effort will be made to defend human life, especially the lives of the smallest and most vulnerable.” This new icon of Our Lady of Czestochowa will now begin to create its own history. On Sunday, January 29 it travels to Minsk, Belarus on her way to the East.

Ewa Kowalewska- Club of Friends of Human Life - Human Life International
- Poland."

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
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

British government is afraid of the homosexual lobby

Dr John Sentamu, the archbishop of York, (pictured) has told David Cameron, the prime minister, not to legalize gay marriage*. He said (in an interview in the Telegraph yesterday):

“Marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman ... I don’t think it is the role of the state to define what marriage is. It is set in tradition and history and you can’t just [change it] overnight, no matter how powerful you are ... We’ve seen dictators do it in different contexts and I don’t want to redefine very clear social structures that have been in existence for a long time and then overnight the state believes it could go in a particular way ... "

Dr Sentamu rightly alludes to the actions of "dictators" when referring to David Cameron's plans, for the following reasons:

Firstly, consider the enormity of what the government intends to bring about. David Cameron and his government intend to re-define marriage: a fundamental good of human beings, the first and vital cell and source of human society, which is upheld in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in the following terms: “Men and women of full age ... have the right to marry and to found a family. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses. The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State."

As Mario Conti, the Catholic archbishop of Glasgow, put it (in the context of the Scottish government's plans): 9 Oct. 2011:

"Those in Government need to be respectfully reminded that a mandate to govern does not include a mandate to reconstruct society on ideological grounds, nor to undermine the very institution which, from the beginning, has been universally acknowledged as of the natural order and the bedrock of society, namely marriage and the family. In terms of law, its support and defence have been on a par with the defence of life itself. We weaken it at our peril."

Secondly, David Cameron and his government are intending intend to redefine marriage without even the fig leaf of an electoral mandate.

Prior to the election neither of the parties now in the Coalition Government made any reference to changing the law in this area in their manifestos.

Moreover,the coalition agreement does not make any reference to changing the law in this area. (The Coalition: our programme for government, May 2010)

Yet Theresa May, the Home Secretary, on behalf of the Government, has told Archbishop Peter Smith, the Catholic archbishop of Southwark, "that the Government intended to introduce same-sex marriage and that the consultation was merely to help with the 'nuts and bolts' of the legislation".

Clearly, the government is refusing a consultation on the principle of gay marriage because they're afraid of the homosexual lobby** and because they're afraid that public opinion is being mobilised in defence of marriage and the family.

It's essential that British citizens, of all faiths and none, show no fear in opposing the government's plans. Let's keep the following key points in mind:

• The fundamental group unit of society is not the State; it is the family based upon the marriage of a man and a woman.
• Marriage is not the monopoly of Christians or of any particular faith group. As SPUC puts it in our position paper on same-sex marriage: "Marriage is a fundamental good of human beings and a natural institution. While different religions honour marriage and some raise it to a sacrament, they do not thereby deny that it is an institution natural to human beings – a basic human good. People of faith and those of no faith can and do agree on this."
• It's essential, in opposing the redefinition of marriage, to do so without prejudice to our opposition to civil partnerships in the UK which were in effect designed as, and are seen by many, as quasi-marriages, as leading homosexual activists have made clear (See SPUC's position paper on same-sex marriage and its accompanying background paper).
• To defend man-woman marriage is in no way to denigrate homosexual people, as is sometimes wrongly claimed. Rather, it is simply to defend a vital social institution which protects children born and unborn - and indeed, protects society as a whole. All of us, whatever our personal background, have an interest in supporting this vital, pre-political institution. It is part of the heritage of humanity.

*SPUC's national council, which is SPUC's policy-making body, elected by its grassroots volunteers, last month passed the following resolution to defend marriage:

"That the Council of SPUC, noting the various proposals currently being made by the present Government and others in regard to the status and standing of marriage and its consequent effect upon family life; and further noting the higher proportionate incidence of abortion in unmarried women compared to married women, resolves to do its utmost to fight for the retention of the traditional understanding of marriage in the history, culture and law of the United Kingdom, namely the exclusive union of one man with one woman for life; and accordingly instructs its officers and executive committee to conduct a major campaign to this end, to co-operate with other persons and societies in so doing and specifically to target the Government's consultation period starting in March, 2012, in regard to (so-called) same sex marriage."

**Why is homosexuality (and sexual ethics generally) 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
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Baby-saving pro-life counsellors are under threat, so let's focus on defending them from all quarters

Mothers in crisis need pro-life support

Last night on Newsnight Diane Abbott MP and Nadine Dorries MP (two political personalities about whose positions on abortion I have written about previously) were debating Ms Abbott's decision to leave a parliamentary group discussing abortion counselling.

There is a danger that the dust thrown up by the show-down between these ladies obscures the most important fact in this issue: pro-life counsellors, whose work saves lives, are under threat. The Department of Health, Mrs Dorries, Mrs Abbott and the advertising code-writers are all either considering or have already decided in favour of legal or quasi-legal restrictions on pro-life counsellors.

Last Saturday The Telegraph reported that one of the proposals being considered by the cross-party group set-up by the Department of Health is:

"for a system of 'voluntary registration'. This would would mean any organisation offering counselling to women with a crisis pregnancy would have to meet minimum standards, and only use appropriately-trained counsellors. A cross-party group of 10 MPs which has held secret talks over the proposals has become deeply divided about whether organisations running such services should be required to declare any ethical stance - such as holding pro-life beliefs."

How would such a “system” work in practice?

Firstly, it is likely to be the pro-abortion Department of Health, with advice from pro-abortion advisers, which would decide what constitutes "minimum standards" and who are "appropriately-trained counsellors".

Secondly, last night Mrs Dorries told Newsnight:

"I would like anybody with any kind of interest - whether financial or any other kind of interest -  in a woman's decision to abort, to declare that interest."

Kirsty Wark, the presenter, asked Mrs Dorries:

"And if you have independent counselling, do you want people who are independent counsellors to actually have to declare that they are actually against abortion or not?"

Mrs Dorries answered:

"Yes" ... "There should be no-one who is in a room with a woman in a crisis pregnancy who has any agenda whatsoever, be it religious or financial."

Some people think that such statements from Mrs Dorries are just clever tactics. If so, they are also dangerous tactics. With powerful and well-resourced opponents in the pro-abortion lobby, she is liable to be held to account for such statements.

And thirdly on 30 April, the following changes to the advertising code will come into effect:

The UK Code of Broadcast Advertising (rule 11.11.1): "Advertisements for services offering advice on unplanned pregnancy must make clear in the advertisement if the service does not refer women directly for a termination."
The UK Code of Non-broadcast Advertising, Sales Promotion and Direct Marketing Code (rule 12.24): "Marketing communications for services offering advice on unplanned pregnancy must make clear if the service does not refer women directly for a termination."

The requirements supported variously by the Department of Health, by Mrs Dorries and by the advertising code-writers come from the pro-abortion lobby, which wants to deter pregnant mothers undecided about abortion from contacting pro-life counsellors, and which wants pro-life counsellors effectively black-listed and black-balled.

So pro-lifers must not be distracted by the sparring of two headline-catching MPs - both of whom support legal abortion and its expansion. Rather, we must work to save lives by defending pro-life counsellors from the dictatorship of relativism.

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
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Act now to get government to block advertising by commercial abortion centres

The government should use its powers to stop TV advertising by commercial abortion centres. The question-and-answer briefing below will give you the information you need to help make this happen.

Q: What has happened?

A: This week the two bodies which draft the advertising code of practice made changes to allow “commercial post-conception advice services” - in reality, abortion clinics which earn income from performing abortions - to advertise on television and radio, in print and elsewhere. Pro-abortion organisations have welcomed the change; pro-life groups, some columnists and many ordinary people (some not pro-life) have objected to it. The change will come into effect on 30 April.

Q: Who exactly has made this decision?

A: Two committees, the Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice (BCAP) and the Committee of Advertising Practice (CAP). These are committees of the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA). They are not statutory authorities. BCAP draws up the Code of Advertising Practice on behalf of Ofcom.

Q: But aren’t abortion clinics already allowed to advertise? Didn’t Marie Stopes run TV ads a while ago?

A: In early 2010 BCAP decided that there was nothing under existing law or codes to prevent non-commercial abortion centres from advertising on TV and radio, as long as the advertisements didn’t actually offer abortion directly. An advertisement by Marie Stopes International, one of the largest abortion chains in the UK and internationally, was shown shortly afterwards on TV.

The advert cleverly avoided mention of abortion. It was all done by implication. It depicted a young woman worried about her period being late. The advert asked: "Who can help her?" and the answer given was Marie Stopes. Thousands of people complained that advertising abortion in this way was illegal, indecent, dishonest and untruthful, but BCAP approved the adverts anyway. SPUC argued (and still argues) that the decision was wrong, not least because Marie Stopes was (and is) run on a commercial basis, with ‘business development’ managers, millions of pounds put aside for ‘future projects’, lucrative contracts with governments, income from fee-paying clients, and perks for its staff typical of commerce (but rare for charities).

This past week (20 January 2012) BCAP have gone further and actually changed its code to allow commercial abortion centres to advertise on TV and radio. This change gives a clear, added confirmation to so-called charities providing abortion that making money from abortion won’t bar them from advertising on TV and radio. Also, this decision will be useful to Marie Stopes and similar abortion operators if at some point they decide to drop their official status as charities, or decide to split up their operations between registered charities and registered (commercial) companies.

Q: Will abortion centres have to say that they perform abortion or have a financial interest in abortion?

A: No. BCAP considered such a requirement but rejected the need for it.

Q: Will pro-life organisations be allowed to advertise on TV and radio?

A: In principle, yes.

Q: If pro-life organisations are allowed to advertise, what’s wrong with allowing abortion centres to advertise?

A: Commercial abortion providers can afford broadcast advertising; whereas groups which provide objective information about abortion and its impact on women's health will be unlikely to afford to advertise. Most pro-life advice services charge nothing. Abortionists can just add the costs of advertising into their charges. Thus there will be a disproportionate opportunity for abortion providers to advance their cause.

CAP have said that any organisation giving post-conception pregnancy advice must first provide “suitable credentials” before being allowed to advertise. There is a real danger that the credentials of pro-life organisations will not be regarded as “suitable” because they refuse to offer abortion or refer women for abortion, and because they reject “official” guidance, such as the guidance from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG), which was drawn up with the help of abortion providers.

CAP have also said that advertisements by pro-life pregnancy centres must make clear that they do not refer women for abortions. CAP have admitted that they have adopted this requirement based on advice from the pro-abortion Department of Health, the pro-abortion RCOG and a pro-abortion parliamentary committee report.

Q: It’s a free country, with free speech. What’s wrong with abortion centres being allowed to promote what they have to offer?

A: Abortion centres mislead women, by telling them that their unborn babies are just 'products of conception', and that abortion is not killing but simply ending a pregnancy. Allowing commercial abortion centres to advertise on television immediately treats abortion as if it was a service or a desirable product.

Also, this move will increase the number of organisations able to advertise abortion. Marie Stopes and similar organisations have a vested financial interest in abortion, which they can now sustain through broadcast advertising. These organisations offer virtually no practical help to women who keep their babies, yet nowhere does this have to be mentioned.

Q: What should we think about the ASA, BCAP and CAP in the light of this decision?

A: The advertising industry is displaying a bias to support the devious and sleazy agenda of abortion operators, who have ideological and commercial interests in promoting abortion. The ASA already demonstrated a bias against pro-life groups when it attempted to ban advertisements which stated correctly that morning-after pills may cause early abortions. 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.

Q: What should happen now?

A: Jeremy Hunt MP, the cabinet minister with responsibility for media, is reportedly “very unhappy” about the decision but apparently lacks the resolve to act. However, Ed Vaizey MP, his deputy, told Parliament on 2 June 2010 that Mr Hunt has the power to order Ofcom, the statutory regulator, to order TV and radio stations not to broadcast certain advertisements. In contrast, ASA, BCAP and CAP are not statutory bodies. They are not answerable democratically or judicially to anyone, nor do they have power to impose any penalties or hold anyone to account. MPs should remind Mr Hunt of his powers in relation to Ofcom, and urge him to use those powers to rein-in ASA, BCAP and CAP, which have acted irresponsibly.

Q: To whom should I write?

A: Please write to your Member of Parliament (MP), asking him/her to write to Mr Hunt on your behalf, reminding Mr Hunt of his powers in relation to Ofcom, and urging Mr Hunt to use those powers to block all advertisements by abortion centres.

You can write to your MP at the House of Commons, London SW1A 0AA. If you’re not sure of your MP’s name, please visit http://www.spuc.org.uk/mps (where you can also send an electronic message to your MP). Please copy or forward any replies you receive from MPs to SPUC’s political department, either at SPUC HQ or by email to political@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
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Read this for updated links to Brian Comerford and his pro-life radio drama "TERMINATION"

On Friday I blogged that a very brave Irish radio drama producer, Daniel Reardon, made an extraordinary production of TERMINATION - about the unborn child and abortion - by the writer Brian Comerford. Reportedly, Mr Reardon's employers, RTE Radio 1, Ireland, did not share his courage, and I'm told that a scheduled broadcast of Brian Comerford's work was "aborted".

Brian has emailed me and asked me to update readers with the following:

• he will be making TERMINATION free for downloads again on Saturday 28 January
• the full link to TERMINATION on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/Termination-ebook/dp/B006VXNVUQ/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1327263006&sr=1-1 
• his profile on Amazon  - he has TERMINATION exclusively with Amazon for the purpose of the free days.

Brian also wrote:

"As yesterday's news item was about the media being permitted to advertise abortion services, it outrages my sense of fair play that a radio drama that might be seen and heard by many as an inconvenient truth, is suppressed."

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
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Catholic politicians must uphold the right to life, Pope reiterates

On Thursday Pope Benedict addressed a group of US Catholic bishops in Rome (pictured). I recommend strongly reading the whole (brief) address, but in particular I wish to highlight this statement:

"...the issues which are determining the future of American society. ... In this regard, I would mention with appreciation your efforts to maintain contacts with Catholics involved in political life and to help them understand their personal responsibility to offer public witness to their faith, especially with regard to the great moral issues of our time: respect for God's gift of life, the protection of human dignity and the promotion of authentic human rights."

In other words, Catholic politicians must vote against and oppose abortion, abusive embryo research, euthanasia and the homosexual agenda, which variously threaten the gift of life, human dignity and authentic human rights. This is because such threats "threaten the future of humanity", as Pope Benedict said earlier this month. Dr Jon Cruddas, the Catholic MP who has voted for or otherwise supported abortion, euthanasia and so-called homosexual rights, should take note, as should Dr Cruddas's supporters at The Tablet and the Las Casas Institute.

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
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy