Saturday, 6 October 2012

Abortion limit stories dismissed as hype by UK's main pro-life group SPUC

The UK's largest and oldest pro-life group, the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) has dismissed recent newspaper stories about ministerial support for reducing abortion time-limits as "journalistic hype".

SPUC was responding to recent stories in The Times and The Telegraph newspapers in which ministers were asked whether they support reducing time-limits for abortion.

Anthony Ozimic, SPUC communications manager, told the media earlier today:
"These stories are in reality media-generated hype. There is no 'news' in these stories. The voting records of Jeremy Hunt, Maria Miller and Theresa May on abortion time-limits, over four years ago, are public knowledge. The Telegraph supports reducing abortion time-limits while The Times is strongly against any abortion restrictions, and between them they are generating some heat but little light on the real politics of abortion. There is some scare-mongering by pro-abortion figures, and some groundless hope for success by Nadine Dorries MP, whose amendments in 2008 were clearly defeated.

There is a large pro-abortion majority in Parliament which will ensure that any time-limiting amendments are rejected while using the opportunity to push for pro-abortion amendments. The real political debate about abortion in the UK should focus - as it does elsewhere in the world - on the right to life of all unborn children and on the way governments bankroll abortion access at home and abroad."

See SPUC's release of last Thursday (4 October 2012) Fresh perspective, not time-limit debate, needed on abortion, says pro-life group 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
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy
at

Friday, 5 October 2012

Must-read pro-life news-stories, Fri 5 Oct

Top story:

Fresh perspective, not time-limit debate, needed on abortion
A fresh perspective, not a debate about time-limits, is needed on abortion, says SPUC. SPUC was responding to comments to The Telegraph newspaper by Maria Miller, the new women's minister, in support of a reduction in the 24-week upper time-limit on social abortions.  Anthony Ozimic, SPUC's communications manager, commented: "Mrs Miller should instead be pushing for the government to stop its multi-million pound funding arrangements with the abortion industry, and to block broadcast advertising for abortion businesses." [SPUC, 4 October]

Other stories:

Abortion
Euthanasia
Population
Sexual ethics
General
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
at

Advance notice of SPUC website down-time on Mon 8 Oct

On Monday (8 Oct) the SPUC website www.spuc.org.uk will be offline or not visible from 10am until at least 12 noon (UK time) as it moves to a new server. Please accept my apologies for any inconvenience this may cause. Information about pro-life issues and SPUC can be found during that period on this blog or at:
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
at

Thursday, 4 October 2012

Fresh perspective, not time-limit debate, needed on abortion

Maria Miller
SPUC has responded to comments to The Telegraph newspaper by Maria Miller, the new women's minister, in support of a reduction in the 24-week upper time-limit on social abortions. Anthony Ozimic, SPUC's communications manager, told the media earlier today:
"Every few years the tired, old refrain to reduce the upper time-limit for social abortions is heard. These calls have either gotten nowhere or, as in 1990, been counter-productive. There is no realistic prospect of any such amendments being passed by the current Parliament, any more than in 2008 when Nadine Dorries's amendments were defeated by large margins.

Opening up the Abortion Act on the floor of Parliament will provide an opportunity for the large pro-abortion majority in Parliament to push for radical amendments to make abortion law even worse. The pro-abortion lobby will argue that early abortions are better than late abortions, and therefore that women need easier access to abortion. Such amendments have the support of David Cameron and many other frontbenchers from all the main parties.

We need a fresh perspective on what can be done to save unborn children. Mrs Miller should instead be pushing for the government to stop its multi-million pound funding arrangements with the abortion industry, and to block broadcast advertising for abortion businesses. The government should also stop funding the promotion of abortion in developing countries and promoting access to abortion for children in school."
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
at

Tuesday, 2 October 2012

How Abortion Rights lost the argument about illegal abortion figures

Abortion Rights stunt
Abortion Rights is the UK pro-abortion group formed by the merger of the National Abortion Campaign (NAC) and the Abortion Law Reform Association (ALRA), and is supported by the trades union movement. Yesterday Abortion Rights tweeted:
"There are 600-800 illegal abortions every day in Morocco. Support legalisation here: http://bit.ly/REHm9g"
Anthony Ozimic, SPUC's communications manager, tweeted back and here is the record of the conversation:
Anthony: "More fake figures from [the] abortion lobby, famous for such fakery. UK: pop. 60m, 600 legal abortions daily. Islamic Morocco: pop. 32m"

Abortion Rights: "Fakery? Don't make me laugh. Anti-choice groups have zero credibility when it comes to facts or medical accuracy."

Anthony: "Stop avoiding the q[uestion]. Back up [the] Morocco figures or withdraw. Admit abortion lobby history of faking illegal abortion stats."

Abortion Rights: "What? Don't be ridiculous. Figure comes from [the] petition link."

Anthony: "[The p]etition doesn't cite any studies, just asserts [the] figure. Back it up."

Abortion Rights: "Don't order me to back it up. If you've got a problem with the figures you're welcome to investigate. Till then, get lost."

Anthony: "In other words: you've lost the argument. No wonder you're reduced to silly stunts with coathangers and weird make-up." (Anthony was referring to a Guardian report last week, pictured).

Abortion Rights: "Ha! I won't take lessons in PR from the group that thinks 'gay marriage will increase abortion rate' is a good campaign idea."

Anthony: "We stand by our campaigns. Do you stand by the figures you tweeted for illegal abortions in Morocco?"
No further reply was received from Abortion Rights. Shortly afterwards they (we assume the tweeter was Darinka Aleksic, Abortion Rights' campaigns coordinator, pictured centre) told another pro-lifer on Twitter:
"[I]t was SPUC telling me to 'back it up', that got to me! Wouldn't normally be so irritated."
Well done Anthony for exposing the latest in a long line of cases where the pro-abortion lobby have simply invented illegal abortion figures - see the following blog-posts for more information:
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
at

Monday, 1 October 2012

Over-40s denied free IVF can now sue NHS

An elderly IVF mother
Top story:

Over-40s denied free IVF can now sue NHS
Women aged over 40 can now sue Britain's National Health Service (NHS) if they are denied IVF treatment, under a new law against age discrimination. Norman Lamb, a newly-appointed health minister, said: "It gives legal force that people have to be treated as individuals, and not written off because of an arbitrary age limit." Mr Lamb also said that such women "would have to show that the upper age limit was not objectively justified" in their case. [Mail, 1 October] Anthony Ozimic of SPUC commented: "It is neither good medicine nor in the best interests of families for natural biological limits to childbearing to be violated by the unnatural process of IVF."

Other stories:

Abortion
Euthanasia
Population
Sexual ethics
General
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
at

Sunday, 30 September 2012

SPUC's Anthony McCarthy debunks the gay lobby's 'bigot' label

Anthony McCarthy, SPUC's education and publications manager, was interviewed earlier this month by Rod Liddle, The Sunday Times columnist, along with Peter Tatchell, the veteran homosexual campaigner and Ed Fordham, the vice-chair of LGBT Liberal Democrats. Do watch the video of the interview, either below at the end of this blog-post or on The Sunday Times website. Here is a transcript of Anthony's excellent comments:
"I think objecting to what Nick Clegg said doesn't equate to bigotry! ... I think his statements about gay marriage, the fact that the Lib Dems coalition government never put in any proposal for gay marriage in their coalition agreement or even in their manifestos, and this is one of the most important changes being proposed ever, makes me rather suspicious of Mr Clegg."

"The proposals for gay marriage completely redefine marriage; they turn it into a genderless institution ... [T]here's no reference to children whatsoever, and also there's no rationale, then, for not privatising marriage, or even having incestuous marriages or having threesomes as we're seeing now in Brazil. All of that foundation which we build around children is actually shattered at the level of law, with this new conception of marriage."

"We're not going to be bullied by people who fling names at us rather than listening to our arguments. Calling people 'bigots' is not an argument, it's not particularly clever and it's rather bullying." Liddle: "... [I]t marks you down as people not to be taken seriously." Anthony McCarthy: "Yes. The other thing, it lumps - and I know that Peter Tatchell does this very often - he tries to draw parallels with racially-mixed marriages and with the opposition to that in some American states some time back ... I do think that (opposition to racially-mixed marriages) is bigotry, without a doubt; but of course those (were) heterosexual marriages. They did nothing to change the nature of marriage, so we are dealing with a completely different kind of argument there. Yet this constant lumping-together, to depict the opponents of (same-sex marriage) as bigots, is a form of thought-control. I hope people can see through 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
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy
at

Friday, 28 September 2012

Watch these excellent talks on maternal health

Earlier this month an International Symposium on Maternal Health was held in Dublin, organised by the Committee for Excellence in Maternal Healthcare, which is chaired by pro-life veteran Professor Eamonn O'Dwyer. The symposium featured many valuable presentations, all of which have been posted on YouTube - see below for a selection. Thanks to Fiorella Nash, an SPUC speaker on maternal health, for highlighting these for me:

Dr Jean Kagia, a top obstetrician from Kenya, spoke on "Improving maternal healthcare in Kenya: challenges and strategies for low resource nations". She spoke about the lack of resources, the struggle to encourage doctors to stay in Kenya, and the wastage of resources funding wars and corruption:


Dr Frédéric Amant, a leading specialist in gynaecological oncology, spoke on "Cancer treatment during pregnancy". He looked at recent studies which show an equally good prognosis for both pregnant and non-pregnant women being treated for cancer, the various treatments available to pregnant women and the safety of the unborn baby:


Dr. Byron Calhoun, an American professor and specialist in maternal-foetal medicine, spoke on "Perinatal hospice: comprehensive care model for families with fatal prenatal diagnosis". He looked at studies which show the negative psychological effect of abortion in these cases and the need for parents to have time with their babies even when they have a terminal diagnosis:


Dr Priscilla Coleman, a world-leading expert on the mental health aspect of abortion, spoke on "The Relative Safety of Abortion vs. Childbirth: A Focus on Psychological Morbidity and Mortality". Her presentation is very valuable, not least because the subject continues to be so contentious:


Dr John Monaghan, a leading Irish obstetrician and gynaecologist, spoke on "A Safe Place: Achieving Excellence in Irish Maternal Healthcare". He looks at the history of Ireland’s excellent maternal health system and makes various interesting comparisons between the situation in Ireland and the UK. Maternal mortality has increased in Ireland as in other western countries because of issues such as older maternal age and IVF-related complications such as multiple pregnancies. Also, unlike the Republic of Ireland, the UK has a massive recruitment shortage in obstetrics and gynaecology, raising the question as to whether abortion is putting junior doctors off:


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
at

Wednesday, 26 September 2012

Must-read pro-life news-stories, Wed 26 Sep

Top stories:

Northern Ireland pro-abortion group accused of bullying minister over guidance
SPUC has accused the Family Planning Association (FPA) of using the courts to bully Edwin Poots, Northern Ireland's Minister for Health, into cutting short his revision of abortion guidance for doctors in the Province. Reacting to the High Court decision to grant leave to the FPA to apply for a judicial review of the department's actions in re-drafting the guidance (BBC, 24 September), Liam Gibson, SPUC's Northern Ireland development officer, commented: "It is clear that the FPA is trying to bounce the Minister into issuing abortion guidance because they believe that the longer it takes to produce the guidance the harder it will be to use it to undermine the current law. [SPUC, 24 September]

Other stories:

Abortion
Embryology
Euthanasia
Population
Euthanasia
Sexual ethics
General
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
at

Monday, 24 September 2012

Northern Ireland pro-abortion group accused of bullying minister over guidance

SPUC has accused the Family Planning Association (FPA) of using the courts to bully Edwin Poots, Northern Ireland's Minister for Health, into cutting short his revision of abortion guidance for doctors in the Province.

Reacting to the High Court decision to grant leave to the FPA to apply for a judicial review of the department's actions in re-drafting the guidance, Liam Gibson, SPUC's Northern Ireland development officer, told the media today:
"It is clear that the FPA is trying to bounce the Minister into issuing abortion guidance because they believe that the longer it takes to produce the guidance the harder it will be to use it to undermine the current law.

"The Minister has told pro-life members of the Assembly that he is committed to ensuring that Northern Ireland's laws prohibiting abortions are properly applied. The FPA is worried by this and that is why they are trying to force the Minister to issue the guidance without any further revision.

"When misleading guidance was issued by the minister's predecessor, it was successfully challenged on two occasions by SPUC and had to be withdrawn. Serious flaws were identified in the areas of counselling for women considering abortion and the right of medical personnel not to take part in abortions. Since then the department has been revising the guidance and reviewing the way data on the small number of lawful abortions in the Province is collected.

"As a result of SPUC's legal challenge of the previous guidance, the judge ruled that the whole document needed to be revised. Since then there has been growing pressure for accurate data on the abortions performed within the Province. In February the Minister asked health officials to bring forward proposals to allow for more detailed records to be kept. The FPA opposed this decision because it knows that more detailed information could potentially expose many of those abortions as unlawful."

A two-day hearing of the application has been scheduled for 21 and 22 January 2013.

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
at

Friday, 21 September 2012

Julia Gillard, Australian PM, helps defeat same-sex marriage legislation

I am very encouraged to receive the following report from Fr John Fleming, SPUC's bioethical consultant and a corresponding member of the Pontifical Academy for Life, a priest working in Adelaide, South Australia. He tells me:
A concerted and determined push give legal recognition to same sex marriages on an equal basis to natural heterosexual marriage has failed in the Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia.

Proponents of change have introduced three separate Bills, two in the Senate and one in the House of Representatives.

Prior to the last federal election the Australian Labor Party (ALP) and the Liberal/National Party coalition parties gave an undertaking to the Australian Christian Lobby not to introduce legislation to legalise same-sex marriage.

However, that commitment was subsequently partially overturned by the National Conference of the ALP. The compromise was that ALP parliamentary representatives were free to introduce such legislation as private members and that parliamentary members of the ALP could vote according to their “conscience” (ie personal opinion).

The Australian Parliament was then confronted with three such Bills, two introduced by members of the ALP, and the third by the Greens.

The Liberal/National coalition kept their pre-election promise in full and voted against the legislation. The Prime Minister, Ms Julia Gillard (pictured above), also kept her word as did quite a number of other ALP members.

The decidedly and predominantly pro-"marriage equality" media urged on the movement for change, and shifts in public opinion on this issue was almost certainly driven by the overwhelmingly favourable publicity for "gay marriage".

When only one side of an argument is repeatedly and favourably presented, and opponents as regularly depicted as troglodytes and bigots, public opinion is bound to be influenced.

In the event, two of the same-sex marriage bills have been debated and overwhelmingly rejected in the Australian Parliaments.

In the House of Representatives (the lower house) the private member's bill put up by Labor's Stephen Jones, was defeated 98 votes to 42.

In the Senate, the private member's bill sponsored by Labor backbenchers Trish Crossin, Carol Brown and Gavin Marshall was defeated 41 votes to 26.

The other bill to legalise same-sex marriage is being sponsored by Greens' senator Sarah Hanson-Young. That bill will now be left on the table until Senator Hanson-Young decides that there is now enough support in parliament for it to pass.

But before opponents of legalised same-sex marriage begin to celebrate, the fact is that the gay lobby is determined to win in the end. The ground has been well and truly prepared by the political class, aided and abetted by the usual suspects from the elites. The Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Report, Same Sex: Same Entitlements (2008) provided the political opportunity for widespread reform to equalise the standing of homosexuals and their relationships with heterosexual de facto relationships.

The Rudd government (ALP) passed the following acts:

1. Same-Sex Relationships (Equal Treatment in Commonwealth Laws) Acts 2008 on superannuation and general law reform;
2. Family Law Amendment (De Facto Financial Matters and Other Measures) Act 2008;
3. The Evidence Amendment Act 2008.

The combined effect of these Acts significantly changed the legal status of same-sex couples, recognising them on an equal footing to de facto couples in areas as diverse as taxation law, social security law, immigration and superannuation.

Since then systems to allow same-sex couples to register their relationships have been put in place in South Australia, Tasmania, Victoria, the Australian Capital Territory and New South Wales.

Where adoption is concerned same-sex relationships are being increasingly recognised in this field.

The pressure to legalise same-sex marriages in Australia will continue unabated for the foreseeable future, despite the significant political setback of the last seven days where the Australian Parliament overwhelmingly rejected two such attempts. At this point it is far too early to proclaim that the homosexual lobby juggernaut has been finally stalled and overcome.
Last November, SPUC's national council launched a campaign against the Westminster government's proposals for same-sex marriage. Marriage as an institution protects children, both born and unborn. Statistics show that unborn children are much safer within marriage than outside marriage. For more information see SPUC's position paper and background paper on same-sex marriage.  Please do everything you can to support SPUC's Britain-wide lobby of Members of Parliament on marriage.

Although, as Fr Fleming makes clear, the war to defend marriage is far from over, Australia's experience shows that it can be done. Marriage can be defended in political forums.  And we must work as never before to defeat the British government's and the Scottish government's proposals.  45 years ago, SPUC was established, the first pro-life group to be set up in the world, to oppose the legalization of the direct killing of unborn children.  45 years on, we are fighting to defend the social institution which most protects unborn children: marriage - the permanent, exclusive union of one man and one woman. Future generations depend on what you and I decide to do today to defend marriage.

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
at

Wednesday, 19 September 2012

UN High Commissioner seeks to criminalize opposition to abortion provision - worldwide action needed now

Navanethem Pillay (pictured right), the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, who was recently re-appointed for two years, has made a shocking start to her new two-year period of office.

Under the guise of publishing "technical guidance" promoting maternal health, Ms Pillay has issued a report seeking to make effective opposition to abortion provision unlawful on the part of parents; and to criminalize health professionals, administrators and non-governmental organizations (NGOs, like SPUC) who seek to oppose abortion provision - including abortion provision to children under the age of consent.

Pat Buckley, SPUC's lobbyist at the Human Rights Council at Geneva, is now working flat out to warn country delegates about the serious dangers posed by Navanethem Pillay's report, entitled in full "Technical guidance on the application of a human rights-based approach to the implementation of policies and programmes to reduce preventable maternal morbidity and mortality".

Please contact your MP and your MEP (in Britain and Northern Ireland) or your political/parliamentary representatives in whichever country you live - especially political representatives who are pro-life -  and warn your church leaders, about Ms Pillay's shocking report. Please act now.

Pat Buckley sent me the following comments/analysis this morning:
"This technical guidance report purports to be about reducing maternal mortality and morbidity. However the main thrust of the document instead of focusing on issues central to the reduction of maternal mortality, contains a thinly disguised pro-abortion agenda.

"The guidance report includes, amongst other things, attacks on:
  • parental rights
  • freedom of conscience
  • and freedom of speech.
It contains 87 references to 'sexual and reproductive health', 27 of which also refer to 'sexual and reproductive health rights'. These are terms which are misused by powerful governments and politicians, like Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton, and UN bodies, to promote abortion on demand throughout the world.

"There are two references to comprehensive sexuality education and various references to goods and services in the context of sexual and reproductive health.

"The report identifies 'rights holders'and 'duty bearers' and stipulates the obligations of the duty bearers. Such obligations include the removal of all barriers to sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services including abortion, abortifacients and contraceptives, which are defined as 'fundamental rights'.

"The technical guidance report in paragraph 22 stipulates that States should act against so called interference by third parties including NGO’s if they object to the agenda set out in the document.

"It also stipulates that States should enforce laws and policies and that 'States may be held responsible for private acts if they fail to act with due diligence to prevent, investigate and punish violations of rights'.

"The technical guidance doesn’t simply call on States to take action, it makes States liable if they do not act against anyone or anything seen as a barrier to the implementation of the sexual and reproductive health agenda set out in the document which as we saw includes abortion, explicit sex education for minors and paragraph 30 attacks laws that ban abortion, laws that uphold conscientious objection and laws that would allow for parental notification before providing contraception or abortion to children, as well as other issues.

"In other words" Pat Buckley, SPUC's Human Rights Council lobbyist, warns, "Ms Pillay is seeking to make effective opposition to abortion provision unlawful on the part of parents; and to criminalize health professionals, administrators and NGOs (like SPUC) who seek to oppose abortion provision - including abortion provision to children under the age of consent."
Pat Buckley continues:
"According to Ms Pillay's report, laws and policies that impede access to sexual and reproductive health services must be changed, including laws criminalizing certain services only needed by women; laws and policies allowing conscientious objection of a provider to hinder women’s access to a full range of services; and laws imposing third-party authorization for access to services by women and girls.

"The technical guidance calls for Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE) in schools and for a budget to be available for dealing with teenage pregnancies through the education system in addition to budgets in the health system. The report footnotes the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, (UNESCO) International technical guidance on sexuality education"
Comprehensive Sexuality Education (CSE)

CSE is a highly controversial, rights-based approach to sex education that encompasses much more than simply teaching children and youth about sexual intercourse and human reproduction.

CSE programmes can be disguised under a variety of different names such as sexual and reproductive health counseling, information or services; HIV education; life skills programs; sex- education; sexual education; sexuality education; Social Personal and Health Education (SPHE) etc.

Common Components of CSE Programmes
  • They claim access to CSE is a human right
  • They encourage acceptance and exploration of diverse sexual orientation and gender identities,
  • They promote the use of condoms,
  • They promote abortion as acceptable, safe and without consequences,
  • They encourage youth to advocate for sexual rights
  • They teach youth without parental knowledge or consent under the guise of confidentiality or privacy rights
  • They promote sexual pleasure as a right and necessary for sexual health,
  • They promote masturbation as healthy and normal
  • They teach children and youth they are sexual from birth
  • They encourage anal and oral sex and peer to peer sexuality education
In 2009 UNESCO in partnership with UNICEF, UNFPA, WHO and UNAIDS published controversial International Guidelines on Sexuality Education which suggest among other things, teaching five-year-old children that they can touch their body parts for sexual pleasure.

After a number of UN Member States complained, UNESCO released a new publication called the International Technical Guidance on Sexuality Education, which was not quite as controversial as their original guidelines although many of the objectionable publications were still footnoted.

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
at

Tuesday, 18 September 2012

Mitochondrial transfer produces clones and GM babies

SPUC has criticised the launch of a consultation on mitochondrial transfer as a sham, arguing that these techniques mean the production of genetically manipulated babies, who will in some cases be clones of earlier IVF embryos.

Anthony McCarthy, SPUC's education and publications manager, said: "Over the past 20 years, proponents of human embryo experimentation have repeatedly claimed that such research offered the promise - and perhaps the only hope - of finding treatments for serious diseases. The public has been repeatedly misled.

"There are profound moral objections to the exploitation of human embryos - each one a member of the human family, used as a laboratory animal and then unceremoniously discarded. Yet the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) has sanctioned the exploitation of millions of the tiniest humans, to no discernible benefit.

"The original assurances that IVF would not lead to cloning or genetic engineering of embryos are now being set aside, as the HFEA launches another consultation apparently designed to convince the public that such manipulations are benign.

“Mitochondrial transfer research is the thin end of the wedge. It is the biotech industry's excuse to create a genetically manipulated baby - in some cases a clone of an original IVF embryo who is killed to create it. Once germ-line engineering is accepted for mitochondrial disease it will then be pushed for other purposes. This is clearly the "game plan" that the biotech industry and the HFEA are working to, and the consultation exercise is going to make no difference to their objectives."


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
at

Monday, 17 September 2012

SPUC challenges Department of Health in wake of mysterious abortion case

The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children has challenged the department of health following the verdict in the mysterious case of Sarah Catt. Mrs Catt was convicted of aborting her unborn baby at nearly full term, and sentenced to eight years in prison.

According to reports, the sentencing judge, Mr Justice Cooke, said that Sarah Catt "had robbed the baby of the life it was about to have and said the seriousness of the crime lay between manslaughter and murder."

Commenting on the case, Paul Tully, SPUC's general secretary, said: "Abortion at any stage of pregnancy remains a serious crime, as the courts have recognised in this case. Mrs Catt's mental state before the delivery of her child is unfathomable, and her state now is a cause for deep concern.

"The penalty imposed should send a salutory message to the department of health and the Sexual Health Team in particular, which works to promote abortion. Abortion remains illegal at any stage of pregnancy unless the requirements of the Abortion Act 1967 are fulfilled. The grounds of the Act apply in few, if any, of the 500-600 abortions performed by doctors every day in Britain.

"The department of health has worked incessantly since the 1967 Act was passed to maximise the provision of abortion. Earlier this year Professor Sally Davies, the Chief Medical Officer, issued a circular re-stating the need to observce the statutory requirements. But officials in the department along with the RCOG and others, continue to show total disregard for unborn children and the law, and instead promote a 'crime between manslaughter and murder', to quote Mr Justice Cooke," concluded Mr Tully.


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
at

Saturday, 8 September 2012

Government and health minister disingenuous on assisted suicide statements

SPUC Pro-Life has described as disingenuous both the Government and health minister Anna Soubry MP following Mrs Soubry's comments supporting a change in the law to allow assisted suicide. (See our release earlier today).

The Department of Health is reported to have said that Mrs Soubry's comments, and similar comments by Norman Lamb MP, another health minister, were personal views not government policy, and that the issue of assisted suicide was not one for the Department of Health. The Department of Justice is reported to have said that the government has no plans to change the law and that assisted suicide law reform was a matter for Parliament.

Paul Tully, SPUC Pro-Life's general secretary, told the media this evening:
"The Government's statements are disingenuous and not credible. Governments often claim that they have no plan to change law - but very soon those same governments make or otherwise back such a plan. It is often left unclear whether responses by ministers in the Houses of Parliament are the government's position or their own opinion.

Also, when (for example) the Chancellor of the Exchequer makes comments about Britain's economy in newspaper interviews, no one believes that his comments are his personal opinions only, with no influence on government policy. Assisted suicide is a health issue and Department of Health ministers will have influence alongside Justice ministers and others on the government's approach to new legislation, such as that proposed by Lord Falconer.

Anna Soubry has also been disingenuous. Before the general election, she failed to respond to constituents wanting to know where she stood on assisted suicide and other pro-life issues. Now that she has been elected to Parliament and appointed as a health minister, she feels free to tell a national newspaper instead. The duplicity thus shown by Mrs Soubry to her constituents does not inspire trust in the government's disclaimers. We fear strongly that she will work behind the scenes to weaken legal protections for disabled people.

Suicide-prevention is the humane response to suicidal people - and it's the usual response across the NHS, the justice system, education and so on. But when a person with a disability or degenerative condition is suicidal, MPs, lawyers and media-pundits start talking about the 'right to die'."
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
at

Health minister's assisted suicide comments condemned by SPUC Pro-Life

Comments by Anna Soubry MP, the new health minister, supporting assisted suicide have been condemned by SPUC Pro-Life the group which was officially represented before the courts in the Debbie Purdy and Diane Pretty cases.

In an interview in The Times newspaper, Mrs Soubry called it "ridiculous" that disabled and chronically-ill people are not given help to kill themselves in Britain.

Paul Tully, SPUC Pro-Life's general secretary, told the media earlier today:
"The good will among the public towards people with disabities has never been higher than at these Paralympic Games. Suddenly they are faced with the sickening prospect that if they struggle with suicidal feelings, they will be given help to die instead of care and support. Anna Soubry has wasted no time after her appointment in making known her priority. Such a move would allegedly save huge amounts of public funds in the costs of caring for disabled, elderly and supposedly unproductive people. Disabled people must speak up now before the minister starts trying to legislate against their equal right to exist."
Mrs Soubry's remarks do not make any specific reference to 'terminally-ill' people, but referred to those who go abroad to commit suicide, who have included disabled people of different ages, some with long-life expectancy.

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
at

Danish study suggests much higher maternal death rates after abortion compared with delivery

Top story:

Major new study from Denmark reveals significantly higher maternal death rates following abortion compared with normal delivery
A new study of half-a-million Danish women suggests significantly higher maternal death rates following abortion compared with delivery. The study follows studies from Finland and Scotland which suggest that abortion is a risk-factor for premature births in subsequent pregnancies. [Peter Saunders, 6 September] John Smeaton, SPUC's chief executive, commented: "The truth is that abortion is bad for women and these studies are providing compelling evidence of that truth."

Other stories:

Abortion
Embryology
Euthanasia
Population
  • UK Home Secretary refuses to set formal 70m population cap [Mail, 7 September]
  • 75% of new mothers would stay at home to bring up their child if they could afford to, suggests survey [Mail, 7 September]
  • Civil rights activist asks Apple to speak out against China's one-child policy [Macworld, 6 September]
Sexual ethics
General
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
at

Support the vital 'Ocean to Ocean' pro-life pilgrimage

Against the background of a rapidly-deepening global attack on life, leaders of pro-life movements of 16 European and Asian countries met on Saturday 28 January at the Shrine of Our Lady of Częstochowa in Poland. The protection of the Civilisation of Life and Love throughout the world was entrusted into the loving hands of the Most Blessed Virgin Mary. The Act of Entrustment which inaugurated From Ocean to Ocean makes both the situation and its aim quite clear. During a ceremony Archbishop. S. Nowak blessed a specially-created replica of the Częstochowa Icon with the intention of protecting life. The icon was then entrusted to the Russian Orthodox pro-life movement, a small band of whom have now have successfully brought it on  a pilgrimage of 25,000 difficult kilometres across the Russian Far East, Siberia, Kazakstan and European Russia for the veneration of Christians.

This epic pilgrimage will continue in England and Scotland between 5 to 16 November 2012. Please:
For further information, please contact:
Dr.Thomas Ward dr.thomas.ward@btinternet.com
Member of the international executive
From Ocean to Ocean
Corresponding Member of the Pontifical Academy for Life
Founder and Vice-President of the National Association of Catholic Families (NACF)
From Ocean to Ocean is under the auspices of:
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
at

Wednesday, 5 September 2012

Premature births more likely in post-abortive women, suggest studies

Women who have had three or more abortions run higher risk of giving birth to a premature and low-weight baby, suggests Finnish study
Findings in a study of 31,000 Finnish women suggest that women who have had three or more abortions run a higher risk of giving birth to a premature and low-weight baby. [Press Association, 30 August] In a related story, a Scottish study has suggested that there is a risk of premature birth after only one abortion. [Telegraph, 5 September] Anthony McCarthy, SPUC's Publications and Education Manager said: "The study by Dr Reija Klemetti and her colleagues should lead researchers to investigate further the consequences of repeat abortions on mothers and children. The abortion industry not only lacks all concern for the unborn child it targets but frequently expresses outrage at research indicating that abortion can have serious physical and psychological consequences for the woman. We best support women by giving them all the facts: any honest researcher who seeks to look into the effects of abortion on the woman and subsequent children she conceives should be supported."

Other stories:

Abortion
Embryology
Population
  • Half of UK women delay starting family because they don't want to give up freedom, suggests survey [Mail, 5 September]
Sexual ethics
General
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
at

Monday, 3 September 2012

Anthony McCarthy rebuts the vices of bad science

Anthony McCarthy, SPUC's education and publications manager, has written the following response to the latest attack on SPUC's campaign against same-sex marriage:
"Following a dishonest article in Pink News, a website called (without irony) Vice published a hit piece about SPUC’s real marriage campaign. Although the writer was given various materials by SPUC (lobby briefing, position paper, background paper) containing academic sources for our claims, he declined to peruse these – or if he did, no hint emerges from his post.

SPUC has already pointed out in our literature that in the UK babies conceived outside of marriage are about 4-5 times more likely to be aborted than those conceived inside marriage. (Unmarried status and abortion are also closely linked in the US  as we mentioned in a blogpost on this issue earlier this year.)

Moves which undermine marriage by redefining it out of existence will inevitably impact harmfully on society. Aurel Kolnai, the philosopher, pointed this out in relation to proposals for ‘trial marriage’:
“as though the genuine attempt to give oneself in marriage were possible for a trial period! As though real marriage could ever develop at all in a society adapted to officially approved weekend relationships finalised as forms of life.”
The evidence for the importance of traditional family structure for children’s well-being is overwhelming. For example:
In the case of abortion: have we, in fact, seen an overall increase in abortion rates in those countries (very few countries) where same-sex marriage has been legalised for more than five years? Perhaps not, but would we really expect such an increase, after such a relatively short period? Just as with easy divorce laws, these things take time: would any serious social scientist expect an effect so soon? Yet as with easy divorce laws, it is not unreasonable to expect an adverse effect of same-sex marriage on attitudes to marriage, sex and children – even if these attitudes are likely to be already somewhat damaged in the countries in question. We are after all, talking about a radical redefiniton of marriage. Now it is no longer connected to - or consummated by - the life-giving kind of act (if not always fertile in practice) of a kind of union built around and oriented to the conception, welcome and nurture of new human beings.

Of course, many societal pressures, pulling in different directions, will affect the abortion rate in any given country. What we can say, however, is that where traditional marriage has been weakened and where the sexual revolution has been fostered by those who wish to displace the central role of traditional marriage in society, children suffer, and unborn children suffer most. Hardly surprising when adults’ ‘sexual rights’ trump considerations of the common good and the genuine rights and dignity of all. SPUC will continue to reiterate this message in season and out – confident in the science and the basic human experience behind our message.

Following Vice's scientifically naïve piece, Dr Ben Goldacre, someone who claims to detect ‘bad science’ on a regular basis, weighed in on Twitter. He wrote:
A hipster from Vice talks to an idiot about science. http://m.vice.com/en_ca/read/gays-getting-married-will-make-everyone-get-abortions …
Of course, Dr Goldacre identifies no error in what we said. This is the same Dr Goldacre whose smear tactics against Professor Priscilla Coleman and her research on abortion and mental health – research boldly defended by the pro-choice researcher David Fergusson - have been exposed. Dr Goldacre never, of course, utters a word against the ‘bad science’ claims of the abortion industry regarding mental health (refuted by papers such as "Reactions to abortion and subsequent mental health", David M. Fergusson et al., British Journal of Psychiatry, 2009), or the claims about gay parenting made by the pro-abortion American Psychological Association (see "Same-sex parenting and children’s outcomes: A closer examination of the American psychological association’s brief on lesbian and gay parenting". Dr Goldacre also lends support to the British Humanist Association, whose 'commitment' to truth and science in regard to abortion has also been exposed.

It is perhaps fitting that Dr Goldacre should, in the end, be unable to contain his contempt for young human life, as this obscene retweet reveals:
o..m...f...g... RT @robertofoddai: they even have a cute upset fetus as a logo... http://bit.ly/RRlwpq
Dr Goldacre may wish to know that the logo he sneers at simply reflects real-life images of unborn children, including those now available in high-resolution ultrasound Seeing a photograph of one such baby drew the sad comment from one post-abortive woman, remembering her own baby aborted at 12 weeks, that the baby was not only human, but recognizably so.

SPUC is here to defend such babies and their mothers, in relation to threats which arise in different areas of social life, including threats to marriage, the institution that has always offered them protection. Our aim in all we do is to honour, not dishonour, truth, science and the dignity of all human beings."
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
at
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)