17th November 2009: Success Stories in Adult Stem Cell Research
Zenit reports that there is a new website which details success stories in the use of adult stem cells.
Adult stem cells are taken from the patients own body and do not involve the destruction of embryos. The process is therefore ethically sound. Adult stem cell therapies have been used for many years. New therapies using adult stem cells are being developed all the time.
Navigate to this new website by clicking here
Earlier this year, Professor Colin McGuckin, Professor of Regenerative Medicine at Newcastle University decided to move to the University of Lyons, claiming that the Government and funding bodies were biased to embryonic stem cell research rather than research on adult stem cells. "You would barely know that adult stem cells exist at Newcastle", he said.
2nd November 2009: Abortion can affect Women's Mental Health says NZ Professor
Melanie McDonagh reports in the Daily Telegraph this morning that Professor David Fergusson has just concluded the longest and most thorough investigation into the question of whether women who have had abortions are more likely to suffer mental health problems; anxiety, depression, self-harm.
The results of his investigations, based on a 30 year study of 500 women affirm that an unwanted pregnancy leading to abortion is likely to be a risk factor for mental health problems; unwanted pregnancy leading to a live birth is not.
Those having an abortion had mental health disorders between 1.4 and 1.8 times higher than those not having an abortion. This means that mental health disorders are between 40% and 80% more probable if the woman has had an abortion. In any other health area, this would be headline news. But because it is unwelcome news to do with abortion, the news media are silent.
Remember too, that the most common statutory reason an abortion to take place is that the physical or mental health of the woman is more likely to be harmed if the pregnancy continues to term. With the excellent pre-natal facilities available in the UK, it is very rare that the woman's physical health could be at risk.
In 2008, in England and Wales, there were 195,546 abortions were performed for this reason - 97% of all abortions (NHS statistics). Professor Fergusson points out in the Psychiatric Bulletin that
to provide such a justification requires strong evidence showing that the mental health risks of unwanted childbirth outweigh the mental health risks of abortion.
He goes on to say that
the clinical assessments used to judge the extent to which abortion poses a risk to maternal mental health are not currently supported by population-level evidence showing the provision of abortion reduces mental health risks for women having unwanted pregnancy.
This is not exactly old news. Professor Fergusson first published in 2006. The results have since then been published in the British Journal of Psychiatry. Will this paper be studied carefully by sexual health practitioners? Don't hold your breath!
All this does not faze the pro-choicers in the US. Lifesite News reported some time ago, that their response from certain pro-choice doctors was 'So what? Abortion is a civil right'.
CFAM has been reporting recently that Pro-choice activitists are continually lobbying the UN to get abortion recognised as a 'human right'. Could this be the reason why they are so keen to do this?
28th October 2009: 'No dice' say the Lords to Allardice
On Monday 26th October, Lord Allardice agreed to withdraw his assisted suicide amendment to the Coroners and Justice Bill.
It became clear, after an hour’s debate in the House of Lords, that there was general hostility in the house towards his amendment. The House therefore decided to bring the debate to a close without any vote being taken. You can view CNK’s report of proceedings online by clicking here.
21st October 2009: Assisted Suicide advocates try again
The Falconer Bill put forward in the summer to make it easier to assist people wishing to commit suicide was roundly defeated in the House of Lords
Now the Lobbyists advocating assisted suicide are trying again. Do they not think that the House of Lords has other business to exact?
This time, Lord Allardice has just tabled an amendment to the Coroners and Justice Bill allowing exceptions to the offence of assisting suicide which reads as follows:
'Exceptions to offence of assisting suicide
Notwithstanding sections 53, 54 and 55, no offence shall have been committed if assistance, is given to a person to commit suicide who is suffering from a confirmed, incurable and disabling illness which prevents them from carrying through their own wish to bring their life to a close, if the person has received certification from a coroner who has investigated the circumstances, and satisfied himself that it is indeed the free and settled wish of the person that they bring their life to a close.'
If you click here you will find a list of peers who are known to oppose the legalisation of assisted suicide. Please write to them urging them to be present to vote against the Alderdice amendment (66), should it come to the vote on 26 or 28 October. We suggest you write to the two or three peers with surnames closest to your own, but you can chose you wish to write to. Given the uncertainties of the postal strike it is currently far better to use email.
You can either email them by clicking their names on the website (for those whose email addresses we have) or mail them at The House of Lords, London, SW1A 0PW.
We suggest you write as follows:
Thank them for opposing Lord Falconer's assisted suicide amendment on 7 July.
Urge them to vote against Lord Allardice's assisted suicide amendment to the Coroners and Justice Bill if it comes to the vote at report stage on 26 or 28 October.
Say briefly why you are opposed to the amendment (use two to three of the bullet points below)
- The amendment would remove legal protection from vulnerable sick and disabled people who could be brought under pressure to end their lives so as not to be a burden on relatives, carers or the state
- The Coroners and Justice Bill is attempting to tighten up the law to prevent internet promotion of suicide and this amendment attempts to hijack it for another purpose altogether creating legal confusion
- There are no safeguards in the amendment to prevent abuse e.g. there would be nothing to stop a person 'assisting' a sick person's suicide even if it was not requested, once the Coroner had given permission, and there is no provision for ensuring mental capacity
- The job of the coroner is to investigate and record the cause of death rather than to give license to others to help bring it about
- The House of Lords has already this year considered and rejected an attempt to legalise suicide in some circumstances
- The current blanket prohibition on assistance with suicide both deters abuse and allows mercy in hard cases - it does not need changing
LATEST NEWS (28th October 2009): Lord Allardice has withdrawn his amendment
16th October 2009: Vote against Assisted Suicide and confound Lord Joffe!
There is to be a public lecture by Lord Joffe, pro-assisted suicide campaigner on Tuesday 27 October, at the University of Bath. Lord Joffe has made numerous attempts to change the law to legalise Assisted Dying.
The University has given the public a chance before the debate to have their own say on assisted dying and has posted a poll on their site. The poll will close on Monday 26 October and the results will be published online.
Please vote now (and, if you have a spare moment, why not leave a brief comment on their page too?)
To register your vote, please click to this link to the Bath University Site
Click "Vote Now" and vote NO
A similar vote organised by the Hartford (Connecticut) Courant shows so far a massive vote against assisted suicide.
Thanks to Care not Killing for alerting this to us. Why not visit their website and sign up to their newsletter.
LATEST NEWS (28th October 2009): Bath University reported that 87% of those voting on the internet voted NO. The University has observed that many of the voters were from outside the UK and that a poll alert was issued globally by the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition. So what? These polls are suspicious in themselves. The organisers put out a disclaimer that they are not scientific (true) but guess what they would do if the result went the other way?
6th October 2009: Sign the UN Petition for the Unborn Child and the Family!
Last autumn, 467,000 people from all over the world signed the UN Petition for the Unborn Child and the Family.
The Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute (CFAM) presented this petition at a UN press conference that was broadcast throughout UN headquarters in New York. The petition was also presented privately to a number of UN ambassadors.
The petition urged governments to begin interpreting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights as it should be interpreted. Specifically, it should protect the unborn child from abortion and it should give special protection to the family.
All in all, the campaign was a great success in raising the awareness of the unborn child within the context of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
A coalition of pro-life and pro-family groups, being led by C-FAM will present the petition names to the UN this December. This time the goal is 1 million names!
If you signed the petition last year, you cannot sign it again.
But if you have not already signed the petition, you are urged to do so via this link, which takes you to the petition. You will also note that the petition has been translated into more than 15 languages. It is truly universal!
Please sign the petition and then send an email to everyone you know with the following link in the body of the message:
http://www.c-fam.org/campaigns/lid.2/default.asp
Your friends will be able to link to this page and act accordingly.
2nd October 2009: Benedict XVI: The protection of life cannot be abandoned
Pope Benedict XVI greets ambassadors to the Holy See from Phillipines, The Netherlands and the USA (H/T to Fr Ray Blake and his blog entry for 3rd October)
His themes were Peace, Economic Ethics and the role of Religion in Public Life
2nd September 2009: Blood Money
LifeSiteNews in the US reports that a group of film-makers have recently produced a documentary that aims to expose the terrible reality of abortion, focusing on the financial aspect of the multimillion dollar abortion industry. (H/T to Fr Finnegan and his blog entry for 29th August)
The film, entitled "Blood Money," includes numerous interviews with leaders of the pro-life movement, in which they lay out the facts about the abortion industry and the effects that abortions have on women
It is shown how the pro-abortion lobby have created an abortion industry in the US. One interviewee, who used to run an abortion clinic in Dallas, Texas (and is now a pro-Life speaker) describes how teenagers were groomed to have abortions.
In the UK, organisations such as BPAS, the British Pregnancy Advisory (and Abortion Providing) Service carried out 55,000 abortions last year. (This is about one quarter of the number of abortions carried out in England and Wales last year). 92% per cent of abortions carried out by BPAS were on behalf of the NHS, so paid for by the tax payer. Blood Money indeed!
BPAS has been a registered charity since 1968. BPAS claims that it is a not for profit organisation, but the revenues that they attract can fund executives on fat salaries and the funds to advertise and expand their 'business'.
After all, we have the example of the BBC, which is also a not for profit organisation. Everyone in the UK knows how this provides a top class lifestyle to its executives and an expansion of its business in all areas to the detriment of other entertainment providers.
The abortion business in the UK is growing on average at between 1% and 2% every year.
20th August 2009: What's Amnesty International up to now?
Amnesty International is slamming yet another Latin American country for its pro-life laws.
In a recently released report, Amnesty has called Nicaragua's total ban on abortions a "cruel, inhuman disgrace" and charged that the new law has led to an increase in maternal deaths. As in the cases of Mexico, the Dominican Republic and Peru, Amnesty's latest report on Nicaragua incorrectly argues that international law requires countries to permit abortion, and, according to critics, it misrepresents the facts which actually show a decrease in the maternal death rate.
For the full article navigate to the CFAM report
Amnesty International is an organisation founded by a Catholic convert and was hi-jacked by the liberals a couple of years ago. Catholics who still support Amnesty International (and there may be still a few) may wish to reconsider where their hard earned moneys are being directed. Aid to the Church in Need is a more more worthy cause, or CFAM, the Catholic Family and Human Rights Institute, whose mission is to defend life and family at international institutions and to publicize the debate.
12th July 2009: President Obama in Africa
President Barack Obama delivered an uncompromising
message on his first visit to sub-Saharan Africa,
castigating the continent's leadership for creating
a culture of 'brutality and bribery'. This was
the burden of the reporting in the newspapers - that he
had said things which no white politician would have
dared to say.
But afterwards he and his family
visited Cape Coast Castle, Ghana last week. Cape Coast
Castle was one of the most notorious slave stations
along the West Coast of Africa.
Outside the former slave station the President said:
"one of the most striking things that
I [have] heard was that right above where the male
captives were kept was a church, and that reminds us
that sometimes we can tolerate and stand by great evil
even as we think we are doing
good"
"We can tolerate and stand by great evil even as
we think we are doing good" - a sentiment that can
apply to the issue of abortion today.
7th July 2009: Lord Falconer's Amendment defeated
in the House of Lords
Lord Falconer's amendment to the Coroners and
Justice Bill, which would have legalised aiding the
terminally sick to seek assisted suicide abroad, has
been defeated in the House of Lords by 194 votes to
141.
This is very good news. You can read more about the
points raised in the debate on the SPUC website
here. Our grateful thanks to
everyone who wrote to Peers in the House of Lords to
make their views known.
If only that this were the end of the matter! However
'Dignity in Dying', once known as the Voluntary
Euthanasia Society, but repackaged to make it more user
friendly, will continue to lobby and are well funded
and persistent. A Peer wrote to one of our supporters
that while he would not support this amendment:
with much better safeguards I think there is a strong case for the terminally ill who do not wish to drag their life out in pain, causing heartache to their families, to be allowed to end their lives if necessary with assistance.
The issue has not gone away. The arguments against
these proposals must be continually sharpened.
Continued vigilance is necessary.
Bishops oppose the proposal to allow Abortion and
Contraceptive Adverts on TV and Radio
The Catholic Bishops of England and Wales have
expressed their opposition to a proposed code which
would allow for the advertising of abortion and
contraceptives on broadcast media in the UK.
Their views are outlined in a submission to a public
consultation on the draft BCAP Broadcast Advertising
Standards code.
To download a copy of the Bishop's submission,
prepared by the Catholic Bishop's Conference of
England and Wales and by the Linacre Centre, click
here.
18th June 2009: Advertising abortion on TV - MP's
Early Day Motion
The Christian Institute reports that Jim Dobbin (Labour
MP and leader of the Cross Party Prolife Group in the
House of Commons) has put down an Early Day Motion
pointing out the groups behind plans to allow TV ads
for condoms and abortion services make their money from
promoting these things.
The Christian Institute webpage
recounts what the the Family Planning Association,
Brook and BPAS are getting up to behind the scenes to
mould UK society into their world view.
The text of the Early Day Motion (18th June 2009) is as
follows:
That this House notes:
the recommendation of the Broadcasting Committee of
Advertising Practice that services providing abortion
should be permitted to advertise on prime time
television and radio to ensure reaching children from
10 years of age, well below the age of consent;
further notes that the original recommendation resulted
from a memorandum from the Government Independent
Advisory Group on Sexual Health and HIV whose members
are all involved in programmes promoting abortion;
further notes that some of the Advisory Group's
members have a vested interest in the recommendation
and include paid officers of the British Pregnancy
Advisory Service, the Family Planning Association and
Brook, which receives major grants to provide
contraception and abortion to unmarried young people
including under-age children, often without parental
knowledge;
further notes the claim that advertising is needed to
lower teenage pregnancies in the UK which they claim
result from ignorance;
further notes that despite the Department of Health
doing more than any other government body in Europe to
promote abortion and contraception, the rate of
under-age conception in this country continues to
increase and is the highest in Western Europe;
and calls on the Government to encourage more normal
lifestyles with deferment of sexual activity among
under-age children and adolescents rather than
introducing measures that will further sexualise them.
26 Mar 2009: The Advertising Standards Association
proposes to allow condom and abortion adverts on TV and
Radio
The Advertising Standards Authority is
considering allowing the abortion industry to advertise
through broadcasting media. Their website is publishing
a consulation document on their review of advertising
codes. You can download an overview of this document on
Code Review Overview and the full
document from this link BCAP Consultation Document
Of particular concern is the following:
Condoms - to relax the late-night scheduling
restriction on condom advertising in response to
evidence from the Independent Advisory Group on Sexual
Health and in light of the UK having the highest
teenage pregnancy rate in Europe. Ads will be kept away
from the youngest viewers.
Pregnancy advice services - to be permitted to
advertise in broadcast media (for the first time on
radio), with the requirement to make clear if they do
not refer women for abortion. That information is
important because, for those women who opt for it,
delay in performing an abortion could result in medical
complications.
Bishop Patrick O'Donoghue of Lancaster has recently
put out a statement expressing his horror and
opposition to this idea.
He points out that the proposal originates from the
Independent Advisory Group on Sexual Health and
HIV, which he describes as an organisation at the
heart of the abortion industry. If these proposals are
accepted, then this will be a further hammer blow to
the sanctity of human life in this country.
You can read Bishop O'Donaghue's press
statement at this link
Code Policy Team
Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice
Mid City Place
71 High Holborn
London WC1V 6QT
Telephone 020 7492 2200
Fax 020 7404 3404
Email:
Their website recommends that if you write to them, you
should include a response cover sheet. The link to this
is on their website, but for convenience, you can
download it here. Download Response
Cover Sheet
The consultation period closes on Friday 19th June
2009
Abortion in the case of Rape?
Recently a priest blogging on the internet (a citation is needed) gave what I thought was an excellent reply to those who advocate abortion in cases of rape. He said that it was not enough to quote that 'hard cases make bad law'. That just does not get home to people. It is better to make the point that the child conceived during rape is an innocent person. The guilty person, the rapist will not be put to death, so why should we put to death the innocent person?
Jamie Carragher
Jamie Carragher is the Vice-Captain of
Liverpool Football Club and a European Cup Winner. He
is a stalwart of the Liverpool defence.
He originally hails from Bootle, Liverpool.
Various Blogs, the Catholic Press and lately the Daily
Telegraph have reported an amazing snippet taken from
Jamie Carragher's life story.
In the opening pages of his book, he has this to
say:
'My book of Revelations begins with the most
dramatic: if my mum hadn't been a Roman Catholic, I
might have been aborted.
Paula Carragher was given the option of a termination
due to complications halfway through her pregnancy.
She was told I had spina-bifida – a birth defect
that affects the spinal cord.
She was too religious to consider abortion, no matter
how disabled I'd be.
"Our Lord told me to have the baby", she
still claims.
She's the rock on which my family is built.
I owe everything to that decision she took thirty years
ago'.
Next time you watch Jamie play his usual
committed game for Liverpool on 'Match of the
Day', it is worth reflecting on this
revelation.
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill soon to
become law
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill passed its Third and final Reading in the House of Commons on 22nd October. MPs approved it by 355 votes to 129. Amongst those who approved the bill were our two local MPs, Jim Knight and Oliver Letwin. The Bill now passes briefly to the Lords and then to Royal Assent. All further attempts to amend the Bill failed and it is now extremely unlikely that any of it will be changed.
Animal-human hybrids, so-called 'saviour siblings' (designer babies) and fatherless IVF children will soon be with us. All of this was virtually inevitable given that this is a Government Bill that the Government was determined to pass and all previous attempts to amend it had failed.
The voting patterns were:
| Party | MPs Voting | Turnout (%) | Voted for the Bill | Voted against the Bill | %age voting against |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Conservative | 133 | 69.6 | 49 | 84 | 63.2 |
| Labour | 285 | 82.2 | 269 | 16 | 5.6 |
| Lib-Dem | 46 | 73.0 | 30 | 16 | 34.8 |
| DUP | 4 | 44.4 | 0 | 4 | 100.0 |
| SDLP | 3 | 85.7 | 0 | 3 | 100.0 |
| PC | 2 | 66.7 | 2 | 0 | 0.0 |
| Ind | 3 | 75.0 | 1 | 2 | 66.7 |
| Ind Lab | 1 | 100.0 | 1 | 0 | 0.0 |
| UKIP | 1 | 100.0 | 1 | 0 | 0.0 |
| Totals | 355 | 129 |
a) Just under 70% of Conservative MPs turned out to vote as opposed to 82.2% of Labour. Why couldn't the Conservatives be bothered to turn out for such an important bill?
b) Only 16 Government MPs voted against the Bill. This was just 5.6% of those who turned out. Prominent Labour MPs who voted against the bill were Jim Dobbin, Frank Field and Ruth Kelly, who had resigned from the cabinet a few weeks prior to the vote.
c) Of the 49 Conservatives who voted with the Government, 25 were front bench MPs including David Cameron, George Osborne and Oliver Letwin.
d) The majority of Liberal Democrats voted with the government, with just over one-third voting against. Their turnout was 73%. Prominent Lib-Dems who voted against were Vince Cable, Alan Beith and Charles Kennedy.
e) all the Northern Ireland MPs (DUP, SDLP) voted against the bill, and also two thirds of the SNP.
Just a week ago, a small cross-party group of MPs with extreme views were planning to hijack the Bill to introduce a series of amendments to the Abortion Act, which if passed would have meant abortion on request up to 24 weeks; abortion by nurses and in GP's surgeries with completion at home, and extension of the Abortion Act to Northern Ireland. There was even an amendment proposing prison sentences of up to two years for pro-life pregnancy crisis counsellors found guilty of 'misleading advertising'.
However, the Government succeeded in scheduling the discussion of amendments so that there was not enough time to discuss abortion-related issues. Harriet Harman and her cohorts were concerned that this would be a 'bridge too far' for pro-life Labour MPs and these could create enough mischief to jeopardise the main HFE bill.
This means that all attempts to liberalise the abortion law have failed for the time being. It is a huge answer to our prayers and support, writing and sending postcards to MPs, that none of these measures were passed.
But Ms Harman has promised to make parliamentary time available to introduce new measures to bring the 1967 law 'up to date'.
These vicious amendments will no doubt surface later on, with the full might of the Parliamentary Labour Party behind them.
We need continuing representation to our MPs to make them in no doubt what our views are.
The future of the Family in the 21st Century under Labour?
Labour Home Website
Ann Furedi, speaking to the Labour home Website on
Monday 20th October was looking forward to the HFE vote
on Wednesday 22nd October, when she said that MPs have
a once-in-a-generation opportunity to bring the
abortion law into line with government policy and
medical opinion. Our comments are
in red
Ann Furedi, who is the Chief Executive of the Charity
BPAS (the British Pregnancy Advisory Service) hoped
that MPs will bring about a modern abortion law that
was 'right for science and right for society'.
She said:
"Speaking at the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority conference on October 13, Public Health Minister Dawn Primarolo MP spoke of her enthusiasm for the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, which reaches third reading and report stage in the Commons on October 22. The Minister stressed to the IVF and embryo research regulatory body that the law must keep pace with scientific and medical developments, and that services need 'proportionate' regulation. She rightly called for a law that is both 'right for science and right for society'.
"As a former Director of Policy and Communications at the HFEA, I remember the frustration of scientists and clinicians who were unable to pursue rational and ethical lines of work because of the prohibitions of an overly prescriptive and out-of-date law. This HFE Bill is necessary, if not overdue, in order to set the legislative framework necessary for fertility research and treatment in the twenty-first century.
"The same frustrations are shared by the doctors and nurses striving to provide a modern, evidence-based abortion service as part of family planning care in the UK. The 1990 HFE Act amended the 1967 Abortion Act, shaping the manner in which abortion services are currently provided. Ungainly as it may seem to yoke these two areas of legislation together, new clauses to the HFE Bill on abortion are appropriate and necessary to make sure that abortion services, too, can keep pace with scientific and medical developments and are regulated proportionately. If Furedi's vision came to pass, there would be little regulation at all
The proposed new clauses to the HFE Bill affecting abortion care are all aimed at allowing women to access abortion care at the earliest possible gestation, primarily:
● Removal of the need for two doctors' signatures to give permission before an abortion can be carried out - instead abortion would be provided on the basis of informed patient consent and in their best interests, as with all other medical procedures. (Evan Harris MP et al, New Clauses 1 & 13)
● Allowing nurses and midwives to carry out abortions where appropriate (Frank Dobson MP et al, New Clause 2 & 14)
● Allowing abortions to be carried out in GP surgeries and Family Planning Clinics where appropriate (Jacqui Lait MP et al, New Clauses 7 & 10)
● permitting home administration of misoprostol (the second dose of medication when undergoing early medical abortion (Christine McCafferty MP et al, New Clause 9)
● Preventing misleading advertising by pregnancy counselling groups which won't refer women for abortion and don't provide treatment, but don't make this clear to women in their publicity (John Bercow MP et al, New Clause 11) Does this mean that BPAS will have to change its name to the British Pregnancy Advice and Abortion Providing Service?
● Clarifying that the legal right of conscientious objection does not also extend to the non-provision of contraception on this ground (Evan Harris MP et al, New Clause 12)
● Extending the Abortion Act 1967 to Northern Ireland (Diane Abbott MP et al, New Clause 30)
"Abortion, as a solution to the serious public health problem of unintended pregnancy, is very much a part of modern society. No woman ever wants, or sets out to have an abortion, but women want, and need abortion to be there as an option for them when our contraception fails, or we fail to use it effectively.So abortion is just another form of contraception. Good news for the lads - their girl friends can sort out any mistakes.
"Today's abortion services have tried to develop as best they can in spite of our out-dated law, by working to limit best practice to within its strictures. But this approach requires constant clinical compromise - and negates the needs of women in Northern Ireland entirely. Is it of no importance then that all parties in Northern Ireland are opposed to abortion? Why should women and their doctors be expected to continue trying to 'work around' a law that is no longer fit for purpose? They do pretty well at present with 200,000 abortions per year, and rising
"Two doctors are still required to give permission for an abortion, by certifying that an abortion would be in the interests of the woman's mental or physical health. Everyone can agree that forcing a woman or girl to have a child that she doesn't want, or can't cope with will damage her state of mind. As an abortion is not more dangerous than continuing the pregnancy and birth, the physical health grounds of the Act are always met - so why the need for women to receive two doctors' permission, which can delay them from medical treatment in their best interests?
"Nurses are still prohibited from taking legal responsibility for abortions, while with appropriate training their role has expanded in all other areas of the health service. Yet in many services that provide the non-invasive early abortion 'pill' method at under 9 weeks, nurses already treat women, doing everything except sign the prescription and legal permissions, which must be done by a doctor in accordance with the 1967 Act. Why should women have to wait to access the nurse-led services they need, while a doctor is sought to sign off their paperwork?
"Because the Act was written in the days before the abortion 'pill' method was developed, women having early medical abortions must also return to clinics unnecessarily to have the second part of their abortion medication administered on 'licensed premises' to accord with the law. They then discharge themselves to hurry home to expel the non-viable pregnancy in the comfort and privacy of their home with their partner or friend at their side More likely their boyfriends will be down at the pub. If that same woman spontaneously began to miscarry at the same gestation, good practice in the NHS is to offer her these same drugs to self-administer at home, in recognition that the medical treatment involved is extremely safe. Both scenarios can be emotionally demanding and women understandably may prefer to be in their home surroundings to experience the early end of a pregnancy. Why should the law not make this possible?
"Women are still denied abortion in Northern Ireland because the 1967 Act did not extend there. Those who can afford it can travel abroad for services, but they must pay privately for them. Poor, young and vulnerable women bear the burden of not being able to access a safe, legal abortion and are known to be turning to unlicensed, often fake drugs available over the internet used with no medical supervision. How can any UK citizen be legally forbidden from accessing healthcare safely, simply because of where they live?
"In all these aspects, the requirements of the out-dated abortion law, framed for a different era of medicine, force women to jump through extra hoops to get treatment, or prevent them being treated according to best practice and accepted concepts of patient choice and autonomy. This Government should wear a commitment to abortion law reform as a badge of honour. A badge of HONOUR!!! 200,000 abortions per year???? It already has policies recognising - in line with the opinion of the medical and nursing professions - that the earlier it is possible for an abortion to be provided, the safer and better for the woman it is and the more cost-effective for the NHS to provide. And if the woman is beyond the statutory limit, BPAS can always send then to Spain to find a clinic that is more lax All sides of the debate can see that the current 1960s law is no longer fit for purpose.
"October 22 offers MPs an opportunity to bring the law into line with the needs of a modern society that values women and acknowledges our need to plan our families. If this opportunity is lost, Ministers will need to explain to us how they had a once-in-a-generation chance to provide us with a modern, evidence-based abortion law and threw it away."
The Labour home website goes on to point out that
Ann Furedi was writing in a personal capacity.
BPAS (the British Pregnancy Advisory (and Abortion Providing)
Service)carried out 55,000 abortions last year. (This
is about one quarter of the number of abortions carried
out in England and Wales last year). 92% per cent of
abortions carried out by BPAS were on behalf of the
NHS.
BPAS has been a registered charity since 1968.
A Baby Heartbeat at 10 weeks
Knights of Columbus / Fr Z
Father John Zuhlsdorf has posted on his website a
podcast by the Knights of Columbus featuring the heartbeat of a ten week old unborn
child.
This is part of an advertising campaign by the KCs in
the USA which will last up to 4th November, for which
the slogan is 'Vote your heart - vote Pro-Life'
A similar powerful pro life statement is made by
wearing the 'Precious Feet' lapel pin, which
depicts the exact size and shape of an unborn
baby's feet at 10 weeks after conception. These are
sold by all pro life groups and can be bought at the
Life Babyshop in Weymouth
(The precious feet image is from the Heritage House 76 Web site, and is used with permission.)
Cardinal Keith O'Brien - an open letter to Gordon
Brown
The Daily Telegraph reports that Cardinal Keith
O'Brien, the leader of the Church in Scotland has
sent an open letter to Gordon Brown attacking the HFE
Bill. The Cardinal points out that Schedule 3 of the
bill was not discussed in Parliament, but would allow
tissue to be taken from incapacitated adults and
children without their consent in order to create
embryos for research.
He writes that should this Bill become law, removing
tissue from incapacitated adults or children, without
their specific consent in order to create animal-human
hybrid or other embryos would be permissible, as would
creating artificial sperm or artificial eggs from bone
marrow or even cord blood.
He goes on to say that such behaviour was last seen
under the Nazis.
Click this link to read the full article.
Stem Cell Expert quits UK over 'lack of
support' for Adult Stem Cell Research
The Daily Telegraph reported on Moday that Professor
Colin McGuckin, professor of regenerative medicine at
Newcastle University claimed that the Government and
funding bodies were biased to embryonic stem cell
research rather than research on adult stem cells.
Professor McGuckin, a Roman Catholic pioneered the
extraction of stem cells from umbilical cord blood for
the creation of skin and liver tissue. The method has
no ethical problems because embryos are not involved;
nor is any embryo destroyed.
Adult stem cells have been shown to provide a number of
cures, while those from embryos have so far not
resulted in any cures. (See Fr Dylan's paper elswhere on
this website)
After a series of public warnings, he has decided to
move to the University of Lyons in January. He told the
Times Higher Education: "My vocation is to help
patients and unfortunately I can't do that in the
UK".
Click on this link to get more information
and in particular note the supportive comments by
people commenting on the article.
When Does Human Life Begin? - A scientific perspective
Dr Maureen Condic, Senior Fellow at the Westchester Institute for Ethics and the Human Person
Zenit reports today (7th Nov 08) on
an interview with Dr Maureen Condic who is a Senior
Fellow at the Westchester Institute for Ethics and the
Human Person. She is also an Associate Professor of
Neurobiology and Anatomy at the University of Utah
School of Medicine. Dr Condic has recently written a
paper exploring the question of just when does human
life begin after the moment of conception.
Dr Condic says that the object of her study is to
establishing the scientific fact is critical for a
reasoned policy debate over abortion and human
embryology research.
Based on universally accepted scientific criteria, a
new cell, the human zygote, comes into existence at the
moment of sperm-egg fusion, an event that occurs in
less than a second.
Dr Condic argues that the behavior of the zygote is
radically unlike that of either sperm or egg separately
and is characteristic of a human organism. Thus, the
scientific evidence supports the conclusion that a
zygote is a human organism and that the life of a new
human being commences at a scientifically well defined
“moment of conception.” This conclusion is
objective, consistent with the factual evidence, and
independent of any specific ethical, moral, political,
or religious view of human life or of human embryos.
You can download Dr Condic's paper from the
Westchester Institute's
website, and read the interview clicking on the
Zenit link above.
During the recent presidential campaign, the then
candidate Barack Obama was asked when he thought human
life began. He answered that it was above his
paygrade.
Really it wasn't so difficult, was it?