Wednesday, 15 August 2012

Letter by pro-family leaders worldwide protesting participation of the US embassy in Prague 'gay pride' parade

Prague
Below is a letter which I and many other pro-life/pro-family leaders worldwide have signed, protesting against the participation of the US embassy in Prague in that city's 'gay pride' parade. The letter was initiated by the World Congress of Families.
"We the undersigned pro-family and pro-life leaders vigorously protest the participation of the United States Embassy in the Czech Republic in a so-called gay-pride parade which will take place on August 18.

As representatives of the international pro-family movement, we note the following:
  • At the directive of the president of the United States, Washington is aggressively promoting the “gay’’ agenda internationally, including same-sex “marriage” and the stigmatization and marginalization of any who object to the same.
  • The Obama’s administration’s embrace of “same-sex marriage” has been overwhelmingly rejected by the American people. There have been 32 state referenda on marriage. In every one of them, voters endorsed the natural definition of marriage (a man and a woman). The North Carolina vote, on May 8, was 61% in favor of natural marriage.
  • The United Nations has never affirmed homosexual “marriage” or rights.
  • The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (adopted by the General Assembly on December 10, 1948) provides that “Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.”
  • Article 16, Section 3 of the Declaration further defines the family as “the natural and fundamental group unit of society” which is “entitled to protection by society and the State.”
  • It stands to reason, then, that anything which undermines the family – including changing the definition of marriage – is a breach of the State’s responsibility to protect this indispensable institution which precedes government and makes a stable and free society possible.
  • The Madrid Declaration of World Congress of Families VI (May 25-27, 2012) -- which was unanimously adopted by more than 3,200 delegates from 72 countries -- provides, in part: “We affirm the natural family to be the union of a man and a woman through marriage for the purposes of sharing love and joy, propagating children, providing their moral education, building a vital home economy, offering security in times of trouble, and binding the generations.”
  • Regarding “gay rights,” those caught up in this lifestyle have the same rights as other citizens. This does not include the “right” to force others to validate a lifestyle they find objectionable, for religious or other reasons. It also does not include the right of men to marry men and women to marry women.
  • The foregoing pseudo-rights do not advance human freedom and dignity but debase them.
  • We can not imagine a worse form of cultural imperialism than Washington trying to force approval of the “gay” agenda on societies with traditional values.
  • Finally, we commend Michael Semin, chairman of Akce Dost (Action ENOUGH), and other Czech pro-life and pro-family leaders for their stalwart defense of the natural family."
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, 14 August 2012

Excellent letter in defence of Ireland's unborn children

county Mayo
A SPUC supporter has very kindly sent me the excellent letter below which appeared recently in The Connaught Telegraph, in county Mayo, Ireland. An equally excellent accompaniment to the letter is Pat Buckley's blogpost yesterday "Abortion legislation demanded by a small group of Irish academics".

Letters, The Connaught Telegraph, August 2012

Without the right to life, all other rights are meaningless

Sir,

In a time when politicians get criticised for following the party line without question, I was very pleased that some members of Fine Gael stood up recently and said they were not going to accept abortion.

I'm referring to this month's meeting of the Fine Gael parliamentary party when a number of Fine Gael representatives challenged the Minister for Health and vowed to vote against abortion legislation.

I was especially glad to see Mayo Fine Gael TD John O'Mahony listed among those who spoke up on this issue.

Based on his defense of the unborn so far I would have no difficulty either voting for him or asking others to vote for him in a future election.

While it seems that Ireland remains an overwhelmingly pro-life country, according to consistent Millward Brown Lansdowne opinion polling, there does seem to be bias among the national media that favours legislating for abortion.

Over 79 per cent of people in Mayo want Fine Gael to keep their pre-election promise. That is considerably more than the 65 per cent that voted for Fine Gael in the last election.

In the same election the pro-abortion Labour party got less than five per cent of the vote. Clearly the people of Mayo support women who are pregnant and they want to see the law reflect this.

I was shocked to see that some member of the Labour party were critical of the Fine Gael TDs and senators. The fact that the Fine Gael party made a pro-life commitment to [T]he [P]ro[-L]ife [C]ampaign prior to the general election is laudable and the fact the Fine Gael deputies feel that they should honour their promise is something Fine Gael should be proud of.

The many arguments that are presented for abortion in Ireland, that it is available in Britain, that is necessary to save the life of pregnant mothers, etc., are all shallow and easily refuted. Women in Ireland receive all necessary medical treatment, even if it indirectly results in the death of the unborn child. This is not abortion because it is not a deliberate attack on the unborn child.

It continues to be a tragedy that Irish women travel for abortions and it's a scandal that women do so because they do not feel they have adequate supports in Ireland.

I hope our politicians will continue to see the need to offer women more and better support services when they are faced with a crisis pregnancy.

Without the right to life, all other rights are meaningless. I congratulate the Fine Gael deputies on their stance and hope that the rest of the Fine Gael party follows suit.

Yours sincerely,
Tom Ryan
Castlebar

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

SPUC welcomes appeal date for Glasgow midwives

SPUC has welcomed the news that an appeal will be heard next January in the case of two Glasgow midwives who refuse to supervise abortion procedures.

In February this year a judge in the Scottish Court of Session said that the midwives, Mary Doogan and Connie Wood, had to accept management instructions to oversee abortions performed by other midwives on the labour ward.

The midwives had argued that they had never been required to supervise abortion procedures in the past, and that the hospital was asking them to be morally, medically and legally responsible for abortions. They argued that this conflicted with their profound objection to abortions and with the right to opt-out that is protected in the 1967 Abortion Act.

SPUC has underwritten the midwives' legal costs. People wishing to make donations towards the midwives' legal costs should telephone SPUC on 020 7091 7091.

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, 12 August 2012

Keep up-to-date with the abortion debate in Ireland

Pat Buckley, SPUC's man in the Republic of Ireland, keeps the pro-life world up-to-date with the abortion debate in Ireland, via his blog. There has never been a more crucial time for Ireland, with the prospect of abortion legislation being introduced into the Irish parliament. Here are Pat's recent blogs about the situation in Ireland:
Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy
at

Saturday, 11 August 2012

Tens of thousands hear that every life is more precious than gold

Between 19 May and 21 July, Reverend Arthur Woood, a member of the SPUC Evangelicals committee, led a nationwide campaign to take the pro-life message to the heart of the Olympic games. SPUC supporters handed out a specially-designed leaflet and held specially-designed placards at the Olympic torch relay in 12 cities in England, Scotland and Wales. Arthur has kindly sent me the following report:

Plymouth, 19 May:
The ones who seemed to be most curious were teenagers, particularly girls. We had some great conversations and I am sure that many of these young people were positively impacted by the information we gave them. Some even wanted to have their photographs taken holding the placards. We did come across a few people who didn’t like what we were doing, but the vast majority who spoke to us were supportive, some even thanking us for standing up for unborn children.

Swansea, 25 May:
Some of us, unknowingly, ended up distributing leaflets outside a small hospital that regularly performs abortions.  It was at this location that one lady with a child began to shout, scream and swear at one of the ladies in the team and tore the bundle of leaflets from her hand and threw them in the road. This reminded us very clearly of the spiritual battle we are in. Remarkably a policeman helped to pick up the leaflets. We managed to give out in the region of 1,500 leaflets over the two hours or so. At our debriefing at the end, everyone who took part said how much they had enjoyed the day and how much they felt motivated by being involved.

Chester, 29 May:
We managed to distribute in the region of 3,500. The whole day went without hitch and without opposition. Two young people were so moved by what they read in the leaflets that they offered to help us to distribute them.

Stoke, 30 May:
What really stood out to me was the way people readily took the leaflets, with just a small percentage refusing them. Joshua the young Baptist minister decided to venture into the park and remarkably distributed about 1,000 leaflets on his own in the two hours or so that we he was there. In all we managed to give out about 4,000 leaflets and had some very positive conversations.

Aberdeen, 11 June:
We had many positive conversations. In all we managed to hand out in the region of 2500 leaflets which, in view of the restrictions, was excellent. A young lady swore at us, spat at us and shouted at us. She told us that she had had an abortion, and said that she was "pro-choice" and "pro-death". We met her again later and to our amazement were able to have a friendly chat with her. She was hurting badly from her abortion experience and we have felt compelled to pray for her ever since we met her.

Dundee, 12 June:
We would like to give our thanks to Marysia and the rest of the Dundee team for their stalwart efforts which resulted in the distribution of about 2,300 leaflets despite all the restrictions and the rain. It was very encouraging to have two young ladies in our team who were a great help to us.

Dundee

Manchester, 23 June:
Aileen had a brilliant conversation with a young couple who claimed to be pagans, but are strongly against abortion. Aileen recalls that: 'The young lady recounted how she had accompanied a friend to an abortion clinic, and whilst sitting in the waiting room, had become more and more sickened by the numerous women who were there seeking a second or third abortion. For this reason she told me, she was happy to accept the leaflet. On asking the whereabouts of the place, it turned out to be the Hazel Grove clinic, where there is a Saturday morning vigil and where there will be a 40 Days for Life campaign in September.'

Birmingham, 30 June:
Many in the team were young people, students etc. We had very few negative responses to what we were doing in fact many people thanked us. A high proportion of the people who were offered leaflets took one, some stopping to discuss the issue of abortion. A senior police officer went to nearly everyone carrying a placard asking them if they were OK and sharing with some of them that he admired them for what they were doing and agreed with the stance we were making.

Peterborough, 3 July:
The carnival atmosphere was electrifying and great to be a part of. In all in a matter of about just one and a half hours we distributed in the region of 2,300 leaflets. Here as with many other cities the benefits of having a local SPUC branch was obvious. A ready-made team of enthusiastic and passionate pro-lifers made it a joy to work with them.

Peterborough

Cambridge, 7 July:
Quite a few people thanked us for what we were doing. One of the ladies in our team had a conversation with an elderly lady who said that she had had an abortion many years previously. She said that she regretted what she had done and still carried around the burden of it every day. This gave our lady team member the opportunity to speak words of comfort and counsel into this woman’s life, which was much appreciated by her.

Southampton, 14 July:
As the crowds left the evening venue we found ourselves faced with thousands of people pouring out through the only exit, and we were able to give out leaflets at an incredible rate.

Southampton

Walthamstow, 21 July:
A man who came up to me with his wife, asked me what we were doing, read the leaflet and then asked me if I would pray for them that they would have a child. This I did at their request right there in the street. In all we distributed about 1800 leaflets which was quite good considering that we were limited to handing them out some hours before the torch arrived.

Final comments
What an amazing opportunity the 70 day journey of the Olympic Torch across the UK gave us to get the pro-life message out to hundreds of thousands of people in a very short time. In all, 140,000 Olympic leaflets were ordered by individuals and SPUC branches to distribute during the 70 days. Of those, approximately 30,000 were distributed directly into the hands of the public by the 12 torch-relay teams in the 12 cities we visited. This shows that, although the visual presence of a team at each city was what the public and media saw, behind the scenes pro-lifers were faithfully supporting the campaign by sacrificing their time to distribute leaflets in their own communities. We do believe that God will bring much fruit from this campaign. I think the one thing that encouraged us more than any other was to see so many supporters really fired up by simply going into the midst of crowds of people and being able to communicate the pro-life message in such a clear and challenging way.

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, 10 August 2012

Another interesting letter on the Liverpool Care Pathway

Further to my blog-post yesterday on letters about the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP) in the 3 August edition of The Catholic Herald, this weekend's edition (10 August) contains a letter (full text below) from a doctor who argues that:
"patients might well have had weeks or even many months more of life had they been properly supported rather than put on the LCP."
Letters, The Catholic Herald, 10 August 2012

From Dr R J Clearkin

SIR – Quentin de la Bédoyère (Science and Faith, July 27) mis-states the concerns that many physicians have with the Liverpool Care Pathway. It might be helpful to consider a few of these concerns.

The question has never been whether the LCP offers a “peaceful” death. After all, euthanised patients can die peacefully. The issue has always been whether patients are dying prematurely by being put on the LCP. While the LCP claims it is for those in the “last few hours or days of life”, it is essential to realise that there is no accurate way of determining this, so that for most patients it is at best a guess with large margins of error. This is particularly true for the two thirds of patients who do not die of cancer. Such patients might well have had weeks or even many months more of life had they been properly supported rather than put on the LCP. The article makes reassuring noises about audits but fails to explain that the audits are conducted by the very body which developed and still fervently promotes the LCP. Unsurprisingly, these audits fail to critically address such vital areas as patient selection and use of the LCP in non-cancer patients. As other interested parties cannot access the raw data they are unable to audit the LCP themselves. Sadly, conflicts of interest are repeatedly encountered with the LCP and obstruct the close and necessary examination of a “pathway” which is literally a matter of life and death for tens of thousands of patients.

Count de la Bédoyère incorrectly claims that the LCP relies on the “principle of double effect”. But it has long been recognised that agents like morphine, employed correctly, do not shorten life. The same cannot be said of deliberate dehydration, which is almost always a means of accelerating death. Furthermore, many, even most, patients are not made aware of either their diagnosis or their selection for the LCP.

As for “spiritual care”, this, for most patients, is conspicuous by its absence.

Yours faithfully,
R J CLEARKIN
Market Harborough, Leicestershire

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, 9 August 2012

Read these important arguments about the Liverpool Care Pathway

This past weekend's Catholic Herald contains two letters about the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP). You can read more about concerns about the LCP elsewhere on my blog (13 Dec. 2011; 2 Dec. 2011; 26 Mar. 2011; 3 Sep. 2009; 13 Aug. 2009). The first letter is from Professor Patrick Pullicino, who is professor of clinical neurosciences at the University of Kent. The second letter is from Dr Gillian Craig, a campaigner and author against euthanasia. I reproduce both letters in full at the end below.

Interestingly, Professor Pullicino argues:
"[T]he diagnosis of being “within the last hours or days of life”, which is necessary for a person to be put on the LCP, has no scientific basis. This diagnosis is, in fact, a prediction and as such is likely to be in serious error about 50 per cent of the time."
Dr Craig warns that:
"[T]here is a very real danger that some who appear to be dying but have a treatable disorder will be put on the LCP with fatal results."
Letters, The Catholic Herald, 3 August 2012

The Liverpool Care Pathway is becoming a deadly machine

From Professor Patrick Pullicino

SIR – One worrying statistic about the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP) that is not well known is that in both the First National Audit (2006/7) and the Second National Audit (2008/9) the mean time to death on the LCP was 33 hours. The fact that two large national audits two years apart came up with an identical mean time to death shows that effectively the LCP is a machine. Unless the LCP is quickly discontinued death occurs in less than two days, whether someone has terminal cancer or a potentially reversible condition such as pneumonia.

What is not mentioned in the Science and Faith column (July 27) is that the diagnosis of being “within the last hours or days of life”, which is necessary for a person to be put on the LCP, has no scientific basis. This diagnosis is, in fact, a prediction and as such is likely to be in serious error about 50 per cent of the time.

Although it is possible to discontinue the LCP if the patient improves, it becomes more difficult to detect changes in the underlying illness as a patient becomes more drowsy on the LCP.

Yours faithfully,
PATRICK PULLICINO
By email

From Dr Gillian Craig

SIR – It is right to warn people about the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP). Those who have produced warning cards have done the public a service. Your report (July 27) was helpful, as was that of Quentin de la Bédoyère (Science and Faith, July 27).

If all doctors were trained in the care of the elderly and had all the time in the world to discuss end-of-life care with patients and relatives there would be less cause for anxiety about the LCP. But given the current pressure on hospital beds and the number of frail, elderly people needing attention, there is a very real danger that some who appear to be dying but have a treatable disorder will be put on the LCP with fatal results.

Count de la Bédoyère mentioned some dangers of the LCP towards the end of his article. These are worth repeating lest they be overlooked:
  • Some medical staff may see death as a benefit for the patient or the NHS. It was suggested that death is sometimes hastened if the bed is needed for someone else.
  • Some healthcare staff will be too busy to follow the LCP protocol correctly.
  • Once on the LCP progress checks may be overlooked until the patient is dead.
  • Some doctors may not involve a multi-disciplinary team or seek advice before putting patients on to the LCP.
  • The importance of hydration was not mentioned in the Catholic Herald articles.
When palliative care first emerged as a speciality in 1987 the only patients who received hospice care were those with pain that was difficult to control or those with significant anxiety about the prospect of dying. All the rest were managed by their GPs in the community or by hospital staff if they were admitted to hospital. Surprisingly few old people needed the services of palliative carers in those days and most died peacefully without the need for sedation or morphine. Syringe drivers were never used on geriatric wards in those days. If medication was needed it was given orally or by injection.

Palliative care is in overdrive and patients are in danger. (For discussion see the American Journal of Hospice and Palliative Care 2008; Vol 25: No 2.) The NHS is fast becoming a death service rather than a health service for the elderly. Attempts are being made to vet potential admissions and send the elderly home before they block a precious hospital bed. Those who are admitted and appear to be dying may be put on the LCP and die within a matter of days. People can no longer be sure that the elderly will be treated well, so great vigilance is needed. Many people suffer long-term distress after watching a loved one die on the LCP. It is surely time to review and reduce the role of palliative care in the NHS.

All these problems have followed the closure of far too many hospitals that cared for the elderly. We now have too few hospital beds to cope with the ageing population. Hospital facilities must be increased and care in the community improved as a matter of urgency, so that more people can remain at home until they die in peace.

Yours faithfully,
GILLIAN CRAIG
Northampton

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, 8 August 2012

Respond to Welsh consultation on organ donation

The Welsh government has announced plans to introduce presumed consent for organ donation. They are calling it "deemed consent", in which people living in Wales for a period of six months or more will be opted-in automatically as organ donors. This will include prisoners, tourists, and students.

A consultation on the draft bill "Human Transplantation (Wales) Bill" opened on 18 June 2012, and closes on 10 September 2012. The consultation is open to everyone.

SPUC has produced a briefing and summary assisting pro-lifers to fill in the consultation.

I blogged about the dangers of presumed consent for organ donation in January 2008 when Gordon Brown, the former British prime minister, wanted the law on organ donation to allow presumed consent, and July 2008 when the Welsh Assembly rejected presumed consent for organ donation.

These measures could impact negatively on the seriously-ill and dying and their families, who may not be aware of medical controversies surrounding the determination of death which, if known to them, might make some reluctant to donate their organs. The evidence seems mixed about whether such a change would increase the number of organs available. Some countries with presumed consent systems do worse than the UK but some do better, suggesting that other factors may be more important.

There are many serious objections to the proposals that are not addressed at all (or only inadequately) in setting out these proposals; most importantly the question of whether so-called ‘brain-death’ or ‘brain stem death’ is actual death. As David W Evans MD, FRCP has noted:
“the basis upon which a mortally sick patient is declared “deceased” – for the purpose of acquiring his or her organs for transplantation without legal difficulties – is very different from the basis upon which death is ordinarily diagnosed and certified and that highly relevant fact is not fully and generally understood.”
The proposals ignore the facts concerning this area of scientific dispute, yet this is a question with enormous ethical implications. Most organ donors are unaware that their hearts may be beating when their organs are taken, and that they may be pink, warm, able to heal wounds, fight infections, respond to stimuli, etc.

They are also unaware of common practices of paralysing and (sometimes) anaesthetising supposedly brain-dead donors before their organs are taken.

Simply signing a donor card does not in any way indicate that the prospective consenting donor understands what will be involved, and those who are merely ‘presumed to consent’ are likely to know even less.

In other medical contexts, informed consent is the gold standard. So it really must be asked why in this particular setting informed consent is being set aside.

Presumed consent effectively abolishes organ donation understood as a free gift (providing all ethical considerations are fulfilled).

The key documents are:
How to respond:
  • online: http://goo.gl/kvovB
  • email: fill in the consultation response form (above) and email it to organdonation@wales.gsi.gov.uk Please mark the subject of your email: Consultation on the Draft Human Transplantation (Wales) Bill
  • post: print out the consultation response form (above), fill it in, and post it to: Organ Donation Legislation Team, Medical Directorate, 4th Floor, Welsh Government, Cathays Park, Cardiff, CF10 3NQ
  • telephone: call the following number and ask for a response form to be posted to you. Large print, Braille, and alternative language versions are available. 029 2037 0011
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

US abortionist talks of the “ugly black babies” he aborts

Pro-lifers speak to Dr Virmani
Top story:

US abortionist talks of the “ugly black babies” he aborts
An American abortion doctor has been caught on video saying that he aborts "ugly black babies". Operation Save America, a pro-life group, videoed Dr Ashutosh Ron Virmani justifying abortion as a way of reducing crime and not wasting taxes. He told pro-lifers to “adopt one of those ugly black babies.”  Day Gardner, president of the National Black Pro-Life Union, commented that Dr Virmani's "statement supports what we already know of the billion dollar abortion industry – black babies are targeted because they are seen as poor, worthless and maybe even 'ugly'." [LifeSiteNews.com, 6 August]

Other stories:

Abortion
Euthanasia
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, 3 August 2012

The Association of Lawyers for the Defence of the Unborn (ALDU)'s blog is a must-read for pro-lifers

The Association of Lawyers for the Defence of the Unborn (ALDU) published a quarterly Newsletter every year from 1979 until 2006. In its new blog, launched in June, it is including extracts from those Newsletters and additional comments on legal issues relating to abortion and related matters.

The ALDU blog is a must-read for pro-lifers, especially the extracts from the Newsletters, which contain argumentation on bioethical matters of crucial relevance today:
"We should not forget that the Abortion Act was drafted and supported by people who were fervently in favour of abortion being legalised and one would expect, therefore that abortionists would at least comply with the law that their supporters had produced. But they do not obey even their own law." http://aldulaw.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/it-has-now-been-confirmed-as-if-we-did.html

"'Every child a wanted child' is another abortion mantra, revealing the eugenic background to abortion. Woe betide any child who is not wanted, for you will be killed." http://aldulaw.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/abortion-act-1967-25th-year-reflection.html

"'You have to educate a woman about her contraceptive choices', says [Melinda] Gates. One of the choices that women (and men) have, the only one that makes sense, is to reject chemical and technological interference with their bodies and to embrace the truth about themselves." http://aldulaw.blogspot.co.uk/2012/07/humpty-dumpty-thinking.html
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

Lobby your MP to defend real marriage

Here is a campaign alert from Paul Tully, SPUC's general secretary:
Dear friend of the unborn, 

Many thanks to all SPUC supporters who made submissions to the government’s consultation on marriage, which closed in June. In a few months there will be a report, but whatever this says about the government proposals, we face the likelihood that the government will try to push through legislation to redefine marriage. It is critical that we act now to bring pressure to bear on our politicians to defend marriage. Continuing to promote the Coalition for Marriage (C4M) petition is of great importance, and we also need to begin lobbying individual MPs in earnest.

To help do this, please read two new documents:
Please consider whether you can undertake one or more of these actions:
  • visit your MP – either on your own or with a few like-minded friends - and ask him/her to support real marriage;
  • ask clergy from your church or your local deanery meeting to visit and speak to the MP about this;
  • urge groups like parents with school-age children, members of prayer groups, sodalities like the Knights of St Columba or members of "new movements" to visit the local MP and lobby him in support of real marriage.
In this way, we must work to ensure that local MPs understand the depth of local constituents’ concern about the extraordinary and momentous threat to children and to the family posed by the government’s proposals to redefine marriages. I must stress that it is most important to see MPs of all opinions on this matter. Many sympathetic MPs are resigned about this issue because they think that children won't be harmed, or nothing can be done to stop it, or because of the alleged assurances that churches won't be affected. We need friendly MPs to take a far more pro-active position. Equally we need to put our opponents on the back foot.

We have also produced a revised version of our "Real Marriage" leaflet – and we invite you to order copies to help raise awareness and concerns as widely as possible in your community. You can order a supply of the leaflets by contacting SPUC HQ:
Whatever action you can undertake is greatly appreciated, and I would also make a special request of those who pray to make a point of bringing these issues before God – for the protection of the unborn, of our families and of all peoples.

Yours sincerely in defence of life,
Paul Tully
General secretary
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, 2 August 2012

Details of Chinese rubbish collector who saved and raised 30 abandoned babies emerge

Lou Xiaoying
Details of Chinese rubbish collector who saved and raised 30 abandoned babies emerge
Details of the story of a Chinese rubbish collector who saved and raised 30 abandoned babies have emerged. Lou Xiaoying, now 88, and her late husband Li Zin kept four of the children and passed the others onto friends and family. One admirer of Lou's work commented: "She is shaming to governments, schools and people who stand by and do nothing. She has no money or power but she saved children" [Mail, 30 July]

Other stories:

Abortion
  • Gestational limits are the wrong approach, says leading Canadian pro-life group [Interim, 2 August]
  • Pre-natal Down's syndrome testing gets go-ahead in Switzerland [Mail, 30 July]
Euthanasia
  • English judge rules that life-support should be removed from brain-damaged child [Mail, 1 August]
Population
  • Forced abortion opponent Chen Guangcheng welcomed at US Congress [AP, 2 August]
Sexual ethics
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
Labels:

Wednesday, 1 August 2012

Powerful incentives protect one-child policy

Powerful incentives protect one-child policy
A British academic has written that powerful financial and personal incentives for local officials will ensure forced abortions continue in mainland China. Dr Jackie Sheehan, associate professor of Nottingham University's School of Contemporary Chinese Studies, said: "Coercion and violence are integral parts of the system ... Officials lose points for every out-of-quota birth in their area and earn cash bonuses for every abortion and sterilisation they enforce ... [D]esperate officials resort to forced abortions and sterilisations." [South China Morning Post, 25 July] Anthony Ozimic, SPUC's communications manager, commented: "Dr Sheehan's analysis gives the lie to the claim by Western governments and the worldwide abortion lobby that the one-child policy is not intrinsically abusive and is capable of reform."

Other stories:

Euthanasia
Embryology
  • Maltese bishops call for natural solutions to infertility as country proposes first-ever IVF law [LifeSiteNews.com, 31 July] 
Population
Sexual ethics
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
Labels:

Tuesday, 31 July 2012

Age UK's response on euthanasia

Last year SPUC re-launched its information on charities as an online index, with new entries and updated information added as and when new information is received. Today's charity is Age UK.

Age UK was formed when Age Concern England and Help the Aged merged in 2009. (Please see the entries in 2006 edition of SPUC's Charities Bulletin for life-related information about these charities).
In a letter from SPUC dated 23 July 2012, Tom Wright, Age UK's chief executive, said:
"Age UK has a governance framework, agreed by our Board of Trustees, to ensure both legitimacy and corporate ownership of our policy positions. The principles set out within this framework explicitly state that Age UK will not develop policy positions on certain matters, including matters which unnecessarily promote division amongst older people.

I can confirm that as a result of this Age UK does not have a policy position on euthanasia or assisted suicide, nor do we fund or support any campaigns in relation to these issues. In relation to your query on advanced directives, as you might expect, this is a subject on which we are asked for advice by older people and we have developed a factsheet...".
SPUC comment: As anti-euthanasia groups such as SPUC have pointed out over several decades, "one of the key problems with living wills [advanced directives] is their application in circumstances where it would obviously be contrary to best medical practice enacted in the best interests of the patient. It is no surprise that the pro-euthanasia people are very interested in living wills because they see an opportunity to use the denial of treatment - that would be encouraged as the content of a living will - as a form of soft euthanasia." (Dr Greg Pike, Southern Cross Bioethics Institute, 7 August 2008)

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

Must-read pro-life news-stories, Tue 31 July

Top story:

Donegal county council back call opposing abortion legislation
The Donegal Daily reports that a motion has been passed by Donegal County Council opposing any form of legislation on abortion. The council resolved that: “In keeping with the will of the Irish people, as emphatically expressed in the referendum of 1983, Donegal County Council opposes any form of legalisation of abortion in any circumstances”. 17 councillors backed the motion, 6 abstained and one voted against. [Pat Buckley, 31 July]

Other stories:

Abortion
Embryology
Euthanasia
Population
  • Iranian authorities encourage families to have more babies [BBC, 30 July]
Sexual ethics
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
Labels:

Saturday, 28 July 2012

The Catholic Church must stand up to IPPF abortion agenda in Ireland

Tony O'Brien (pictured), one of the leading campaigners for the legalization of abortion in Ireland, and formerly chief executive of the Irish Family Planning Association, has been appointed Director General of Ireland's Health Service Executive. The Irish Family Planning Association is, of course, an affiilate of the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), the world's largest abortion-promoting agency.

Thus, IPPF has its feet firmly under the top table of Irish government. Read the blogpost of Pat Buckley, European Life Network Ireland director, for further information about the implications of this appointment and pro-lifers' dismay.

Last year IPPF launched It's all one curriculum. A quick review of that document shows the kind of policies which the Irish government might reasonably expect an IPPF man to promote as director general of Ireland's health service executive. I urge all Irish citizens, and all those who love Ireland, to read my earlier post on it.

It tells you everything you need to know as to what utterly corrupt and corrupting policies, targeted at young children, to which at least some in the Irish government appear to want to sign up.

The big question now is: Will Catholic church leaders stand up and be counted - in Ireland, or in Rome - and try to stop what is almost certain to happen to the Irish people unless they act?

Accommodation of the pro-abortion lobby, as we saw in 2009 with Archbishop Rino Fisichella, hasn't worked. It's simply served to embolden the most powerful political leaders in the world - Obama in the US, Blair and Cameron in Britain - who know that they can promote their abortion policies without fear of disapproval.

It's time to take Catholic doctrine on the sanctity of human life, on the duty to oppose the scandalisation and corruption of young people, off the shelf; shake off the dust on the pages which has accumulated after decades of lack of use; it's time to get up in the pulpits and out in the public square; it's time to speak the truth and to defend this generation's families and children - just as the Scottish bishops have done so well over the years and in recent weeks.

As my pro-life colleague in Ireland, Pat Buckley, said to me recently:
"Until now Ireland's fidelity to the Christian faith has helped it stand almost alone in Europe in prohibiting abortion.  At the same time it has led the world in the reduction of maternal mortality.  For both these reasons Ireland is hated by the forces of the culture of death which are preparing the imminent destruction of its pro-life laws."
The pro-life groups in Ireland are doing what they can. Will the Church speak out? will they help them?

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, 27 July 2012

Pro-abortion "practising Roman Catholic" MP to address Catholic Justice and Peace annual meeting

The Catholic diocese of Brentwood website is advertising the annual conference of its Commission for Justice and Social Responsibility. The conference is to be opened by Bishop Thomas McMahon and it's to be addressed by Jon Cruddas MP for Dagenham and Rainham on social justice issues. He is described in the media as a practising Roman Catholic.

If the Brentwood Diocese's Commission for Justice and Social Responsibility was actively planning to endanger vulnerable children, in the sense clearly understood and explained by Catholic teaching, they could not have done better than to invite Jon Cruddas MP, who has told Andrew Marr, the TV political journalist:
“I fully support the gay adoption proposals the Government put into place.”
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, on the other hand, teaches that allowing children to be adopted by couples in homosexual unions "does violence to these children":
"As experience has shown, the absence of sexual complementarity in [homosexual] unions creates obstacles in the normal development of children who would be placed in the care of such persons. They would be deprived of the experience of either fatherhood or motherhood. Allowing children to be adopted by persons living in such unions would actually mean doing violence to these children, in the sense that their condition of dependency would be used to place them in an environment that is not conducive to their full human development. This is gravely immoral and in open contradiction to the principle, recognized also in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, that the best interests of the child, as the weaker and more vulnerable party, are to be the paramount consideration in every case."
If the Commission for Justice and Social Responsibility had been actively planning to undermine the work of the Catholic Church and the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children in defence of the family, based on marriage - the permanent, exclusive union of one man and one woman - it could not have done better than invite Jon Cruddas to speak to their annual conference on social justice issues a man described as:
"Someone who believes ... that same-sex couples should be provided partnership rights equivalent to those of married heterosexual couples ... "
and who has expressed his pride in his voting record in support of the homosexual agenda.

The Catholic Church, on the other hand, has very clear teaching in respect of Catholic politicians and legislation in favour of homosexual unions. The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith says:
"If it is true that all Catholics are obliged to oppose the legal recognition of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are obliged to do so in a particular way, in keeping with their responsibility as politicians. Faced with legislative proposals in favour of homosexual unions, Catholic politicians are to take account of the following ethical indications.

When legislation in favour of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic law-maker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against it. To vote in favour of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral."
And if the Commission for Justice and Social Responsibility were actively planning to undermine the work of pro-life groups and Catholic teaching on the sanctity of human life, they could not do better than invite an MP who says he supports a woman's right to choose [abortion]; that he's perfectly happy with the current situation (which provides legal sanction for the killing of 550 unborn babies daily); and who has voted 18 times with the anti-life lobby, for example voting in favour of the anti-life Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act at second reading (which denotes approval for the bill's principles) - a law designed to kill millions of innocent human beings deliberately created never to be born.

This is not my idea of justice and peace.
Concerned readers of this post may wish to express their views to the Brentwood Diocese's Commission of Justice and Social Responsibility.

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, 26 July 2012

45 years ago Dr Michael Ramsey, Archbishop of Canterbury, sold the pass on abortion

Today is the 45th anniversary of the Committee stage of David Steel’s Medical Termination of Pregnancy Bill in the House of Lords. Although the pro-abortion lobby were buoyed by their success on Second Reading, things did not go quite as well as they had planned when the Bill reached its Committee stage.

Although Second Reading decides the principle of the Bill, the Committee stage opens the whole Bill to scrutiny and amendment, with the Bill being debated line by line and Clause by Clause.

Two major amendments were carried by the House of Lords against the wishes of Lord Silkin (who sponsored the Bill in the Upper House) and the pro-abortion lobby.

Things got off to a ominous start for Lord Silkin and his friends in the pro-abortion lobby when an amendment moved by the former Conservative Lord Chancellor, Viscount Dilhorn, that one of the two doctors required to certify an abortion under the Bill must be employed under the National Health Service as a consultant or must be approved for this purpose by the Minister of Health or in Scotland by the Secretary of State.

Viscount Dilhorne said the amendment sought to ensure there was the right medical advice and opinions of the right medical people before the operation was performed to ensure it was performed by a person well qualified to perform it.

Lord Silkin on behalf of the sponsors of the Bill argued that in his opinion the Bill as it stood was right. Abortions, he said, could be carried out only in institutions for the purpose. He added that the previous week (during Second Reading) 123 peers had wanted the Bill passed. They approved it. He argued that, quite frankly “time is against us and if we pass any amendments of which the Commons did not approve, we have effectively killed the Bill.” The amendments had all been discussed in the Commons who had come to the conclusion as it stood in the Bill.

Silkin begged the House not to play around with it now. He was prepared, if the amendments were withdrawn, to discuss them later and see whether they could find an acceptable form of words to be moved after the summer recess. This drew a rebuke from Viscount Dilhorn who said: “the noble Lord has not promised to put in any words at all. All he has done—and he has done it before—is to say that he would consider it seriously. I am rather tired of that formula. I know the noble Lord does 'consider seriously', but nothing ever happens on this Bill after that consideration.”

Despite the opposition of Lord Silkin, the pro-abortion lobby and of the Labour Minister, the amendment was carried by 116 votes to 67.

The second amendment carried by a narrow 87 votes to 86 removed the words which permitted an abortion if the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk of injury to the physical or mental health of the women’s existing children.

Viscount Dilhorn who moved the amendment said the provision was seeking to introduce as a justification for abortion a criterion wholly unrelated to the condition of the pregnant woman.

He said he found it difficult to visualise how the birth of a child could affect the physical or mental health of any existing child. Maybe little Willie would get so upset at the prospect of having a little brother or sister that his mental health would become disturbed, but that is no ground for terminating a human life.

Other amendments made on this day to the Bill included a re-writing of the conscience clause and at the request of the Home Office an amendment was carried delaying the commencement of the Bill by six months.

These two defeats led to a hysterical reaction by the pro-abortion lobby and their allies in the media who spoke of a constitutional crisis should the Lords amendments be rejected by the House of Commons.

The full debate in Committee can be seen here.

However, the story doesn't end on 26th July 1967.

During the summer recess, there was a campaign led by the pro-abortion lobby about a constitutional crisis if the House of Commons rejected the amendments and the Lords insisted on keeping them. At one point, there were even calls for the Archbishop of Canterbury to lose his Seat in the House of Lords.

During the Report stage (held on 23rd October, the first day back from the summer recess), the House of Lords reversed the two amendments to the Bill which they had approved in the Committee stage, and then went on to complete the Bill’s Third Reading.

In reversing the two amendments, they thus avoided a clash with the House of Commons which would probably have wrecked the Bill for the 1966-67 Session and could have caused - so the pro-abortion lobby argued - a constitutional crisis.

First the House of Lords defeated by 113 votes to 79 the requirement that one of the two doctors needed to agree on an abortion must be a National Health Service consultant. They had voted this amendment into the Bill in July by 116 votes to 67.

Later that day the House of Lords voted by 80 to 69 to restore the "social" clause, allowing an abortion on the grounds of injury to the health of children of the family. They had defeated this clause in July by a majority of one.

It seemed at first as if the House of Lords would stick with their amendments, led by Viscount Dilhorne, Lord Brock (president of the Royal College of Surgeons), the Marquess of Salisbury, the Earl of Longford, and the Archbishop of Canterbury (pictured above).

The first sign of weakening came when the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Ramsey, after speaking firmly against the deletion of the requirement of an NHS doctor, voted in favour of its deletion. Rebuked by Viscount Dilhorne, the Archbishop said he had been convinced by arguments during the debate and changed his mind.

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

Macmillan Cancer Support's response on euthanasia

Last year SPUC re-launched its information on charities as an online index, with new entries and updated information added as and when new information is received. Today's charity is Macmillan Cancer Support.

Macmillan Cancer Support provides practical, medical and financial support and push for better cancer care.

In a letter dated 28 June 2012, Macmillan Cancer Support said:
"Macmillan Cancer Support does not have a policy on euthanasia and assisted suicide. With regard to advance directives or living wills, we have an information page on our website, titled 'Advance decisions'."
As anti-euthanasia groups such as SPUC have pointed out over several decades,
"one of the key problems with living wills is their application in circumstances where it would obviously be contrary to best medical practice enacted in the best interests of the patient. It is no surprise that the pro-euthanasia people are very interested in living wills because they see an opportunity to use the denial of treatment - that would be encouraged as the content of a living will - as a form of soft euthanasia." (Dr Greg Pike, Southern Cross Bioethics Institute, 7 August 2008).
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

Must-read pro-life news-stories, Wed 25 July

Top story:

MPs who vote for Cameron gay marriage pledge will be punished at election time
MPs who vote for David Cameron's gay marriage pledge will be punished at the general election, says SPUC. SPUC was responding to Mr Cameron's speech, reported by The Telegraph http://goo.gl/fNQJn in which he promised to enshrine same-sex marriage in law before the next general election in 2015. John Smeaton, SPUC's chief executive, commented: "There are numerous reports that the Conservative party is already losing huge numbers of voters, members and activists because of Mr Cameron's foolish support of same-sex marriage. SPUC and its colleagues in many pro-family, Christian and Muslim groups, representing countless thousands of supporters and activists up and down the country, will ensure that same-sex marriage becomes a big general election issue, especially in marginal constituencies." [SPUC, 25 July]

Other stories:

Abortion
  • Disability no longer to be legal ground for abortion, announces Spanish government [ThinkSpain, 22 July]
Sexual ethics
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
Labels:

Wednesday, 25 July 2012

MPs who vote for Cameron gay marriage pledge will be punished at election time

SPUC has responded to David Cameron's speech, reported by The Telegraph this morning  in which he promised to enshrine same-sex marriage in law before the next general election in 2015.

As I told the media this morning, there are numerous reports that the Conservative party is already losing huge numbers of voters, members and activists because of Mr Cameron's foolish support of same-sex marriage. SPUC and its colleagues in many pro-family, Christian and Muslim groups, representing countless thousands of supporters and activists up and down the country, will ensure that same-sex marriage becomes a big general election issue, especially in marginal constituencies.

Mr Cameron's speech reveals that his understanding of marriage and religion is woefully simplistic and ignorant. His mantra of 'equality' totally ignores the nature, history and role of marriage, which is the union of one man and one woman ordered towards the procreation of children.

Redefining marriage to include same-sex couples is outside Mr Cameron's remit as a political leader. The family - not the government - is the first and vital cell and source of human society, and is therefore a pre-political institution. By seeking to redefine marriage, Mr Cameron is also seeking to redefine the family, which is based upon marriage between one man and one woman. Mr Cameron is clearly doing his best to copy Tony Blair as a social engineering guru.

SPUC's position paper on same-sex marriage explains why SPUC, as a pro-life campaigning organisation, campaigns against same-sex unions.

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, 24 July 2012

Must-read pro-life news-stories, Tue 24 July

Top story:

SPUC welcomes new Catholic archbishop of Glasgow
SPUC has welcomed the appointment of Bishop Philip Tartaglia as the new Catholic archbishop of Glasgow. John Smeaton, SPUC’s chief executive, commented: “Archbishop-elect Tartaglia has been outspoken in the defence of the sanctity of human life, as well as the dignity of the family based solely on marriage between one man and one woman. We at SPUC look forward to supporting Archbishop-elect Tartaglia in his pro-life and pro-family ministry in the coming, challenging years." [SPUC, 24 July]

Other stories:

Abortion
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
Labels:

SPUC welcomes Philip Tartaglia as new Catholic archbishop of Glasgow

SPUC has welcomed the appointment of Bishop Philip Tartaglia as the new Catholic archbishop of Glasgow.

As I told the media earlier this morning, Archbishop-elect Tartaglia has been outspoken in the defence of the sanctity of human life, as well as the dignity of the family based solely on marriage between one man and one woman. In 2011 he said that:
"[T]he fundamental human right is the right to life from conception to its natural end... [L]egalised abortion is the primary fatal injustice of our times, which has no place in a civilised society." (endorsement, 40 Days for Life 2011)
Archbishop-elect Tartaglia has been equally strong in opposing same-sex marriage, saying:
"Nature, reason and religion concur that marriage is uniquely the union of a man and a woman, which, by its very nature, is designed for the mutual good of the spouses and to give the children who may be born of that union a father and a mother ... Same-sex ‘marriage’ will change the nature of parenting. The normal mother and father model of parenting will be replaced in law and then gradually in culture by a non gender-specific model of parenting which will deprive children of their right to have a mother and a father" (pastoral letter, 4 October 2011)
We at SPUC look forward to supporting Archbishop-elect Tartaglia in his pro-life and pro-family ministry in the coming, challenging years. We thank Archbishop Mario Conti for the support he has given to SPUC and to the pro-life and pro-family cause over many years.

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, 23 July 2012

Concerned parents in Tower Hamlets hear family issues expert

Dr Lisa Nolland
On 11 July 2012, over 500 mums streamed into the London Muslim Centre, to hear Dr Lisa Nolland, a leading family issues expert. Most of the parents had been active in collecting over 10,000 signatures for a petition calling on Tower Hamlets council to stop funding explicit sex education in the borough’s primary schools.

In a lecture titled, “Giving our children the best”, Dr Nolland gave a social historian’s analysis of how we come to have UK schools showing graphic cartoon sex scenes to young children in the classroom.

It all started with Dr Alfred Kinsey (1894-1956), whose “sick-sex ideology” spread through Playboy, pornography, world sexual health organisations and into sex education programmes.

Dr Nolland encouraged parents to read up on this, to fully understand the background of what we are facing now.

In Dr Nolland’s view Alfred Kinsey’s legacy of perverted sexuality, including sexualising young children through explicit sex education programmes, can be seen today:

• Numbers and rates of sexually transmitted infections have risen costing the NHS £1 billion annually
• Teen pregnancy cost the NHS: £63 million annually

• Family breakdown costs the state around £42 billion annually.

Dr Nolland’s key message to parents was to understand these issues in order to be better prepared and able to protect their children.

“I want you to be the best and most effective mothers (and fathers),” she told the meeting.

“All children need lots of the 4 As from you, their mothers and fathers:

• Your AFFECTION (physical and emotional)
• Your AFFIRMATION
• Your ATTENTION
• Your ADVOCACY"

Please read the edited version of Dr Nolland’s presentation, which includes the books she referred to during the meeting.

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)