News from St John's Pro-Life Group

As ever it's been quite a task to coordinate our diaries - mainly because most of the members of our Group are taken up with "pro-life in action", i.e. family life with all its often last-minute demands!  Praise God for it.  However on Monday of this week four of the Group - Katherine, Chris, Niki and Anneli - did manage to meet up for a somewhat overdue St John's Pro Life Group meeting in the church hall, with apologies from other members.  Here follows a brief rundown of our plans and discussions.

Same-sex "marriage"

For obvious reasons this has been high on our Group agenda lately.  Before the Commons vote some members of the parish had attended a very informative meeting held at our church hall by SPUC with the aim of equipping priests and lay people to campaign effectively against the same-sex marriage bill (see previous post here). It was a great day and we got loads of useful material.  Just one quibble though: understandably the meetings (held by SPUC at various locations through the country) were arranged rather hastily, but communication from SPUC HQ was a tad random, with for example Stella getting a personal 'phone call in advance of the day and Katherine (our group Chair) only finding out via a last-minute letter meaning she didn't have time to make the necessary arrangements to attend.  Hmm... The pro-same-sex marriage campaigners are very well-organised in their publicity and lobbying efforts.  We need to be, too.  But in any case, many many thanks to SPUC for an extremely helpful and heartening meeting.

Our discussions on Monday night ranged from the fact that, whilst carried and without as many abstentions as we might have hoped, the Bill was by no means a landslide victory with a significant vocal minority in the House ready to defend traditional marriage (we await the Lords debate with interest) to our MP's dismissive reply to a letter sent by Anneli and Edek on the topic recently (most of our points were simply ignored) and the widespread vitriol and vituperation exhibited by supporters of same-sex marriage to those opposing it.  If it is not permissible (and it certainly isn't) to bully gay people, why is it acceptable to send death threats to those who advocate keeping the meaning of marriage as it is or to bully their children in the playground? Does freedom of conscience only apply to the "in crowd"?

But I rant, exactly the behaviour I'm complaining about!  Pausing only to reflect, as we did on Monday, that the vehemence displayed by some supporters of same-sex marriage may be indicative of a superficial view of "individual rights" resulting from a lack of cognisance of the wider issues involved - and that doubtless some supporters of traditional marriage haven't been minding their manners either - we'll move on!

40 Days for Life

Katherine and Chris supported this campaign last time round and plan to go up again on Sunday 3 March where we have booked a slot to pray quietly and peacefully in front of the BPAS centre.  They will be joined by Anneli and any other St John's parishioners who would like to come.  Meet us at the 9am Mass at St John's or at Horsham Station where we will be catching the 10.30am London train.  If you aren't able to make it, please consider saying a daily Memorare for the Campaign during Lent:

Remember, O most gracious Virgin Mary, that never was it known that anyone who fled to thy protection, implored thy help or sought thy intercession was left unaided.  Inspired by this confidence, I fly unto thee, O virgin of virgins, my mother.  To thee I come, before thee I stand, sinful and sorrowful.  O mother of the Word Incarnate, despise not my petition, but in thy mercy hear and answer me.  Amen.

Pro-Life Mass and All Night Vigil

Some of the most beautiful events held in our parish have been pro-life Masses followed by all night vigils before the Blessed Sacrament.  With our parish priest's permission we are hoping it will be possible to celebrate another in March. We've done this now (two? three?) times with the inclusion of all the mysteries of the Rosary, said for pro-life intentions, during the night.  The idea is that people sign up in advance for an hour's prayer slot, with two people at the minimum being required during each slot for the practical purposes of safety - but we've always managed at least that!

Sometimes it does seem that there's so little we can do.  The prevailing ethics of modern society can feel like a huge black Goliath of a supertank growing ever bigger as it guns and speeds onwards, with pro-lifers a small, small band of Davids standing knock-kneed before it clutching our slings and stones.  (Possibly I have been spending too much time watching my offspring play X Box games.)  There's something bigger and more powerful than the Goliath supertank though and that's prayer.  Every time we gather quietly to bring pro-life intentions before our Saviour, we raise up new strength and inspiration for ourselves and new power for the spiritual battle.  That all sounds rather "violent" but in fact we are fighting for hearts - the heart of our society, the hearts of humankind, the beating hearts of the unborn, vulnerable and elderly.

Other stuff

We aim to produce a pro-life newsletter approximately quarterly which is distributed to all parishioners at Mass and hopefully we will be able to release another one to coincide with the Vigil, trying to explain why we are opposing the same-sex marriage Bill and reporting on our trip to London.  We also aim to have another post-Mass Cake Sale (big respect to our Cake Team of Amanda, Demelza and Chris who know how to hold a cake stall like no-one else does) - I suppose we'll have to wait until after Lent for that one though!  After the Sale we will be making a donation to a local charity, as yet TBD.  We passed a resolution some time back that we would aim to support a different local charity each year through fundraising; last year Aila's Fund was grateful to benefit.

We're happy to report that all is well with the Memorial to the Unborn Child in Hill's Farm Cemetery, so lovingly restored and planted by Stella and her daughter Bekah, and would like to thank the staff at the cemetery for the kindly eye they are keeping on it so that it remains safe and beautiful.

That just about concluded proceedings, though in a rare burst of efficiency we managed to put a date in the diary for our next meeting in April!  A  big vote of thanks to our amazing Chair, Katherine, who manages to keep the Group alive and active despite having a thousand other calls on her time.  If anyone reading this would like to get involved, please do contact her via this blog.

Our Lady of Guadalupe, pray for us.

Same sex marriage - why we must act urgently

Today two members of our parish pro life group, Stella and myself, had the good fortune to attend one of SPUC's Information Days for clergy and laity which are to be held around the country on the subject of the same sex marriage Bill that the Government wishes to introduce imminently.  We were spoilt in that the meeting was held in our own church hall - other delegates had to brave icy roads and snow-delayed trains to attend, but I'm sure they thought it was worth it.  An inspiring and informative day which has, I'm sure, left us all convinced of the necessity of urgent action.

The first speaker was Anthony McCarthy, a bioethicist and Philosophy tutor who now works for SPUC overseeing their educational work and publications and their website.  His talk, Protecting Marriage - Protecting the Unborn, set the whole day in context by illustrating just why the issue of same sex marriage is so important for all of us and why an organisation whose primary concern is protecting the sanctity of life had got involved in the issue.  He pointed out that one doesn't have to be "religious" in order to believe that marriage, defined as an exclusive and committed union between one man and one woman, should be protected.  As Catholic Christians, yes we believe that Jesus Christ raised marriage to the dignity of a sacrament, but the very existence of that sacrament depends on a prior reality - natural marriage, as inbuilt into our very natures as male and female human beings.  This natural reality precedes all civil definitions and thus determines them.

Natural marriage involves a very particular type of love; that between a male and a female, whose sexual union is oriented towards and contains the possibility of procreation.  To attempt to introduce same sex "marriage" is not a widening of that definition but in fact abolishes it.  If "marriage" is redefined as simply the union of two individuals (gender irrespective) who love each other and want to have sex (procreative potential irrespective), that is a new definition which supersedes and makes redundant the former more particular one.  Marriage as we know it will have been legislated out of existence!  The new definition is one which ignores all the natural attributes which come with our birth gender and its procreational characteristics; our bodies, our human natures, become blank slates which we can "orientate" as we wish.

The implications of this are far reaching and beyond the scope of this post to narrate in detail.  What I find frightening is that we seem to be wiping out any givens when it comes to defining human nature.  We are each a mini god, not only able but with a positive right to create ourselves into whatever we want to be, to do whatever we want to do, without any externally imposed limitations.  This is a highly individualistic worldview which ignores the many familial and social ties that were previously accepted as resulting from our inherent male or female human natures.  Ignoring ties means ignoring responsibilities and in a world of competing individual rights, whose right is going to dominate (because for the sake of social cohesion, someone's has to)?

Why has SPUC got so involved in this issue?  The redefinition of marriage and the new genderless, "orientationalist" concept of the human being impacts, as Anthony pointed out, upon our notions of sex and complementarity - and therefore our concept of the human family itself, where a man and a woman commit to a union from which children can potentially result.  Far more abortions occur outside of marriage than within it.  It follows that marriage has a primary role in protecting the unborn child and to weaken marriage is to leave many more children in the womb vulnerable.  Marriage and the family relationships stemming from it have in fact given rise to our societies as we know them and have very fundamental implications for our self-identity as individuals.

I've rambled on a bit but I think these foundational issues are important, because so many people will say "Yes marriage is important, but if people with same-sex attraction want to marry each other, let them - what difference will it make to the rest of us?"  Anthony showed (with a skill I have not been able to reproduce) that it will in fact make a fundamental difference to the rest of us, to the way we view ourselves, to the ethos and structure of our society.  He and Antonia Tully of SPUC (whose talk followed) both stressed the frightening legal implications for schools and churches.  Not only are pastors, teachers etc who refuse to teach the equality of gay and "straight" marriage unlikely to be able to avoid legal censure, in the case of some professions to the extent of losing their jobs (despite the Government's talk of protection of conscience, any cases brought against such professionals are likely to succeed in court once the basic legislation equalising all sexual relationships is in place), but there are implications for school curriculum content.  Antonia mentioned the insidious ways in which "gay sex ed" is already subtly infiltrating lessons.  Just a photo here, a phrase there, but the mindset is being prepared and the avalanche has been triggered...

So what can we do?  Antonia and the third speaker, SPUC's Honorary Treasurer Bob Edwards, had some clear suggestions to make.  First and foremost, lobby and/or write to your MP and get others to do so!  Consider getting a group together to pop SPUC's leaflets through letterboxes (see SPUC's website for order details).  Have you signed the Coalition for Marriage petition yet (you can do so via this blog on the right)? Catholic parishes should soon be receiving postcards from the Bishops for parishioners to send to their MPs; perhaps organise a table at the back of church so that people can sign these on the spot, and then arrange for them to be delivered to your MP en masse.  Do other people in your church fully understand all the issues implied in same sex marriage and that opposing this marriage does not mean one is a homophobe (it is worth noting that all gay people are by no means united in support of gay marriage)?  Can you work with your priest or pastor to inform others?

This is a difficult and sensitive area, of course, and it is hard to convince people that in opposing gay marriage one can still respect the sensitivities of those with same-sex attractions and understand that they have often suffered greatly.  None of us, gay or straight, are totally defined by our sexuality - we are more than that in our common humanity.  I'd be the first to admit that there are many, many gay people who are far better human beings than I and far more worth knowing!  That is not the issue.  This is not about judgement or condemnation, but it is often seen as such.  Neither, for that matter, are gay people the only ones of whom the Catholic Church asks celibacy.  And from a secular point of view, civil unions already provide gay couples with the same legal rights vis-a-vis property and inheritance etc that married couples enjoy.

Our own group plans to meet soon to discuss some of the things we could do.  And as our Deacon Tom pointed out at today's meeting, our most powerful weapon has to be prayer... For marriage, for our government, for all those who struggle with same sex attraction, for all of us that everything we do may be founded in truth and charity.

Remember, O most gracious Virgin Mary, that never was it known that anyone who fled to thy protection, sought thy help or implored thy intercession was left unaided.  Inspired by this confidence, I fly unto thee, O Virgin of Virgins, my Mother.  To thee I come, before thee I stand, sinful and sorrowful.  O Mother of the Word Incarnate, despise not my petition, but in thy mercy hear and answer me.  Amen.

Memorial to the Unborn Child

Since our group's inception we have been holding small fundraising events (predominantly cake stalls...well everyone likes cake, don't they?) so that we could tidy up the Memorial to the Unborn Child in Hills Cemetery. The memorial, which consists of a simple marble tombstone (although I hasten to mention no-one is buried beneath the plot) that humbly commemorates all children lost before birth whether through miscarriage or abortion as well as still-births. Erected by the old SPUC branch in Horsham several years ago it had been left untended for a long while but was still being regularly visited with flowers and soft toys being left behind. Over the last 9 months a group member's daughter, Bekah, has been digging and slowly preparing the site for planting. It was slow going as, since the ground had never been dug, the soil was as hard as concrete! But now, as you will read in the Pro-Life newsletter at the end of the month, I am very pleased to say that the work is done, the plants are in and it looks wonderful!

If you are up that way do go and have a look-see, say a prayer if you have time for someone you know of who didn't make it to birth or, perhaps, spiritually adopt a child in danger of abortion.

Pro-life victories at home and abroad

Every now and then it's good to "look on the bright side" and celebrate some of the achievements of the pro-life movement!  We do win some of the battles, so why not pause and take heart from some of the positive stories that have been in the pro-life news recently...?


Congratulations to SPUC's SAFE AT SCHOOL CAMPAIGN, and particularly campaign leader Antonia Tully, for the part it has played in getting the BBC to review its controversial sex education video.  The video, designed to be shown in primary schools, contained clips of animated figures making love, computer-generated images of men and women in explicit sexual positions and more - the Mail Online has an article here.  Altogether "much too much, much too soon" for nine-year-olds.  Antonia Tully addressed a meeting of concerned parents in Northampton and the MP for South Northamptonshire, Andrea Leadsome, got involved, to the extent of helping deliver SPUC's Safe at School petition to the Department of Education. She and a group of parents met with Schools Minister Nick Gibb who in turn raised concerns with the BBC, saying, "Parents are justifiably worried materials like this are being used in lessons."

Ms Leadsome's comment was, "This material is explicit.  It is shattering the innocence of childhood." Quite. We do seem intent on shortening that part of life known as "childhood" until it scarcely exists.  However we should bear in mind that whilst we may be able to do this in terms of destroying innocence and encouraging age-inappropriate behaviour and dress, we do not have the same power over children's minds and emotions, which remain that of children.  What short-term distress and long-term damage may we be doing through this premature sexualisation of the younger generations?  It is a culpably irresponsible abdication of our duty of care towards our children and the future society they will build.

Well done SPUC, Antonia and Andrea Leadsome for taking effective action!

It is good to remember that pro-life issues are global and that some of their most serious ramifications are felt in the developing world.  There has been a positive pro-life development at the UN too, namely at a session of the Commission on Population and Development (CPD). C-FAM reports via the Friday Fax that youth activists - sponsored by the likes of the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), the Youth Coalition, and the International Women’s Health Coalition (IWHC) - failed in an attempt to "place controversial language in the [conference] outcome document that would undermine the right and responsibility of parents in the sexual education of their children and include sexual and reproductive health 'rights' as well as comprehensive sexuality education (CSE)." C-FAM says, "Though comprehensive sexual education was eventually included in the document, countries refused to mention it without reference to 'the rights, duties and responsibilities of parents' to provide 'appropriate direction and guidance on sexual and reproductive matters.'  Similarly, any reference to sexual and reproductive rights in the document was explicitly understood by countries not to include abortion as a method of family planning."

The Conference theme was "Adolescents and Youth", initially defined as being 10-24 years old, but happily countries were not willing to give the "sexual and reproductive rights" mentioned in the document to 10 year olds and this definition was not included.  The only reference to sexual orientation was also cut out.

In the end, as C-FAM tells us, "countries rejected [the demands of the youth activists for homosexual rights and abortions] and produced a fairly balanced outcome document that focuses on more pressing youth concerns like education, employment, health and development."  Phew.  One would sometimes think that lobbying for "sexual rights" completely trumps the need for action on poverty, famine, education, employment and other things that really do fundamentally affect human dignity and quality of life.

Finally, a rather heartening report from John Smeaton about the Faroe Islands where pro-life convictions are alive and well from governmental level downwards.

Deo gratias!

St John's Pro-Life get together again

Left to right: Niki, Katherine and Demelza

On Wednesday night those members of the group who could got together for one of our regular St John's Pro-Life Group meetings.  It's rare for all Group members to be able to meet up at the same time and Wednesday was no exception, but it was a very profitable gathering nonetheless.  Chief on the agenda were remembrance, awareness-raising and almsgiving.

Remembrance took the form of discussing planting plans for the plot of the Memorial for Unborn Children in Hills Farm Cemetery, Horsham.  I can't say "our" Memorial, firstly because it wasn't instigated by us (the now-defunct Horsham SPUC branch worked hard to fundraise for and erect it some years ago) and secondly because we would like to encourage a shared sense of ownership of the Memorial amongst all St John's parishioners, the town of Horsham and anyone who has a little person to remember.  However our Group has taken on the task of "refurbishing" the somewhat neglected plot.  After months of talking (by us) and hard digging (by Stella and her daughter Becka) it seems that planting may now be just weeks away!  If you look hard you can see that the girls in the photo are poring over a book of roses lent to us by Stella.  They may look knowledgeable but they're only pretending.  None of us in attendance on Wednesday had much of a clue really and we're referring the drawing up of the planting plans to Stella and to Demelza's gardener friend Paula.

OK girls, who are you kidding?

Awareness-raising involved talking about our regular parish newsletter and about this blog.  Are there particular topics you'd like to see covered or questions you'd like answered?  Let us know in the combox.

We also discussed leafleting.  I have done door-to-door leafleting in the past and I'll be honest, I find it SCARY.  My personal approach is to push the flyer into the letterbox as quickly as possible and then speed-walk down the drive (actual running would look silly and, as an unpractised person who on principle never runs unless being chased by plague-spreading zombies, I'd probably fall over)... after which I scuttle along to the next house hiding my clutch of leaflets under my cardigan, emanating guilt and embarassment yet kidding myself I look casually nonchalant.  I have been known to stoop as low as to send my sons, in their much younger days, to do it instead, on the grounds that no-one round where we live is likely to hurl abuse and eggs at children.

More seriously and less selfishly, there's also the question of how a leaflet is worded (short, snappy and attention-grabbing can easily become either superficial or harsh and intolerant-sounding) and of whether putting a necessarily limited message on a piece of paper through someone's door is the best context for raising awareness of certain complex and sensitive issues.

In the end, we decided that - if our clergy think it appropriate - we will distribute one of SPUC's latest leaflets within our parish.  It's been designed to tie up with the journey of the Olympic torch and you can find out about it here.  We liked it; it's attractive, simple but not simplistic and includes a brief summary of the development of the unborn child within the womb, and the topical link-up grabs one's attention.

Almsgiving - well, it's not Lent any more but of course this should be an ongoing part of Christian life. Over the months and years our Group aims to support a range of local charities in turn, not only because we'd like to help and to raise awareness of them, but also in order to broaden the concept of "pro-life" - many people tend to think of it rather narrowly, as being confined to opposing abortion and maybe euthanasia.  I and my family already have great reason to be thankful to the Group for their support of "Aila's Fund"; other causes we'd like to support include a local hospice and the town's crisis pregnancy centre, a disability awareness group and a ward of the local hospital.  It's all part of protecting, nurturing and celebrating human life at every stage and in all the diversity of situations this world throws at us.

Fittingly, Katherine opened and closed the meeting in prayer.  We invite anyone reading this blog to join with us in praying for the whole gamut of pro-life causes from conception to natural death.

Queen of Heaven, rejoice, alleluia.

For He whom you did merit to bear, alleluia.

Has risen, as he said, alleluia.

Pray for us to God, alleluia.

Rejoice and be glad, O Virgin Mary, alleluia.

For the Lord has truly risen, alleluia.

Let us pray. O God, who gave joy to the world through the resurrection of Thy Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, grant we beseech Thee, that through the intercession of the Virgin Mary, His Mother, we may obtain the joys of everlasting life. Through the same Christ our Lord. 

Amen. 

Regina coeli, laetare, alleluia.
Quia quem meruisti portare, alleluia.

Resurrexit sicut dixit, alleluia.
Ora pro nobis Deum, alleluia.

Gaude et laetare, Virgo Maria, Alleluia,
Quia surrexit Dominus vere, alleluia.

Oremus: Deus qui per resurrectionem Filii tui, Domini nostri Iesu Christi, mundum laetificare dignatus es: praesta, quaesumus, ut per eius Genetricem Virginem Mariam, perpetuae capiamus gaudia vitae. Per eundem Christum Dominum nostrum.
Amen.

Our right, their wrong

Never the twain shall meet?

'Twas not my intention to blog just now - sat down at the computer to do something completely different! - but I came across an exchange between the Guardian newspaper and SPUC which I thought threw up some good points about the whole debate between pro-choicers and pro-lifers, so decided to post it up.

You can read the exchange for yourself at Revealed: what children are being told about abortion (no hint of melodrama there) and here on John Smeaton's blogsite (where he reports that the Guardian has published SPUC's response to its article).  Essentially it centres around a presentation given by a SPUC speaker at a secondary school in Comberton, which I assume we can take to be fairly typical of the school talks generally given by SPUC.  This particular talk was disclosed to the Guardian by a group of ladies known as Feminist Action Cambridge who were so shocked by its contents that they nearly had to resort to their smelling salts, with Andrew Copson, Chief Executive of the British Humanist Association, galloping up on his charger to proclaim that "It is deeply disturbing that anti-choice groups are so easily able to enter schools and present these damaging fictions... the government should be more pro-active in preventing groups that persistently make false claims of this nature from having access to vulnerable children, especially in schools."

Let those of us who are not regular Guardian readers, with due fear and trembling, find out what those nasty black-cloaked people at SPUC have been peddling to our innocent youngsters.

Now to be fair, a major concern of the Guardian seems to be that SPUC's talk made a clear link between abortion and an increased risk of breast cancer.  Whilst carrying a first pregnancy to full term does seem to confer a protective effect against breast cancer, the link between abortion and an increased risk is much debated with various studies reaching different conclusions (although the Guardian only quotes one study, which reaches the conclusion that suits it, i.e. a study co-ordinated by Cancer Research UK and published in the Lancet which concludes that abortion does not increase the risk).  In this I think there is a lesson to be learned by pro-lifers.  We must be careful about the statistics we use and the claims we make.  The link between abortion and breast cancer may or may not have been made as clearly in SPUC's talk as the Guardian claims, but at the least the topic seems to have been presented in a way that begs a particular interpretation, whether or not this was the speaker's intention.

Whilst pro-lifers will have a passion for truth and love of life that they long to put across, it is important not to get carried away but to do so with calm rationality.  Being sure of the strict accuracy of one's facts is vital so that, in all justice, we can give a fair hearing to the opposition's point of view without distortion. I can remember myself being put off pro-life work at one stage because it seemed to be gushing with "rivers of blood", riddled with "anti-life conspiracies" and the like... Thankfully the language used seems to have moderated these days.

Of course we may not ourselves be treated with the same justice.  Emma-Rose Cornwall from Feminist Action Cambridge retorts in the Guardian's article, "SPUC's supposed concern for zygotes is a poorly concealed desire to see women forced back into their 'god-given' roles as mothers and housewives, and simultaneously to punish what they perceive as promiscuous sexuality."  Eh??!!  Oh well, maybe Emma-Rose had taken too big a whiff of those smelling-salts.

The fact is that between those who are "pro-choice" and "pro-life" there lies such a huge gulf that the former see statements as appalling which the latter would regard as true and self-evident.  The Guardian quotes a few shockers from SPUC's talk as the denouement of its article:

The 1967 Abortion Act
"What the [abortion] act did was effectively make unborn children a class of non-person. In other words, they didn't have a right to life."
Abortion and disability
"This was an act that gave greater rights to protect people with disabilities... and this is a good thing. But we have a strange situation where on the one hand we do everything we can to help people with disabilities after they're born but it is legal within the Abortion Act to do abortion for disability right up until the birth of the baby."
Women's reproductive rights
"There are certain things as a society we decide are unacceptable, we don't have a right to do. So for example, if somebody were to beat up an old lady, we wouldn't say that's their right to do that. I would say... I would say without the right to life all the other rights become irrelevant."

And the Guardian's problem is...?

OK, again, to be fair, the allusion to beating up old ladies was I think a misjudgment, because it leaves the speaker open to the accusation that he/she is comparing women who have abortions to muggers of old ladies. But other than that, these are statements with which I would wholeheartedly agree.

The Guardian also objected to the fact that children were told abortion can be harmful to women, either physically or mentally.  We cannot brush under the carpet the fact that it can - more often the latter than the former perhaps.  There are countless testimonies given by women who have had abortions which support the claim that after abortion many women do indeed experience trauma, and ongoing, even lifelong regret.  Whether this can be accurately described in psychiatric terms as "a form of post-traumatic stress disorder" (which SPUC's speaker did) I don't know; but there is no justification to complain when children are warned that yes, regret and depression do happen.  The Guardian also seemed to find it shocking that it was suggested to the young people that giving birth to a baby after rape might be allowing "something positive" to come out of the experience.

Enough.  As Anthony McCarthy of SPUC said in his reply to the Guardian, "Supporters of abortion may not like to hear such things, but do they have a right to stop schoolchildren hearing them?"  This incident is indicative of the huge gulf between the pro-life and pro-choice perspectives: we each call the other's right, wrong; and the other's black, white.  It will take calm, dignity, integrity and much prayer to bridge that gulf.

(SPUC have a briefing note about "Abortion and Women's health" which you can download here.)

Judge rules midwives must cooperate with abortions

News is out today about two Scottish midwives who have just lost their legal battle to opt out of supervising other midwives who are performing abortions.  The Catholic Herald reports on it here.

The midwives "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".  Despite the fact that the Abortion Act 1967 allows for opt-out in the case of conscientious objection - "no person shall be under any legal duty, whether by contract or by any statutory or other legal requirement, to participate in any treatment authorised by this Act to which he has a conscientious objection" (Section 4(1)), this being only subject to the subsection 4(2) which maintains the person's duty to participate in treatment necessary to save life or prevent grave permanent injury to the pregnant woman's physical or mental health - Lady Smith ruled at the Court of Session in Edinburgh that the midwives' supervisory role was not covered by this clause.

It is difficult to see how overseeing a midwife performing an abortion is not participating in the abortion, which presumably would not go ahead without the correct supervision.  It is surely material cooperation.  Where does such a judgement logically leave a number of other medical personnel with peripheral or facilitatory roles in the abortion process?  There are several roles involving promoting, condoning or cooperating in the abortion other than that of the person who actually performs the act itself.

SPUC have been supporting the women in their case and Paul Tully, SPUC's general secretary, said “We are very disappointed by the judgment. SPUC has supported the midwives in bringing their case, and will now be considering their further legal options with them."

Is the law really an ass, or just prepared to ignore the safeguards it has itself put in place?  The Guild of Catholic Doctors (UK) suggests, "The reality is that there is little any law framed like the Act can do to provide significant safeguards once the concept of abortion becomes acceptable".  Scary stuff.  Please pray for these brave ladies and their battle to uphold the right to follow one's conscience.  It is especially poignant that this judgement is affecting midwives, whose primary role is to help bring new life into the world, not snuff it out.

Sex selective abortions

This morning The Daily Telegraph is leading with a story on sex selective abortions being carried out with "no questions asked" here in the UK. Undercover reporters accompanied pregnant women to nine different abortion clinics and secretly filmed the conversations had with the doctors (one of which can be viewed on the Telegraph's page, see link above). Despite sex selective abortions being illegal in this country this was overlooked and ignored by the doctors in question with one of them even saying, "I don't ask questions. You want a termination, you want a termination. ... That's my job..." On learning of the report Andrew Lansley, the Health Secretary, said, "I’m extremely concerned to hear about these allegations. Sex selection is illegal and is morally wrong. I've asked my officials to investigate this as a matter of urgency."

One thing that immediately strikes me about this story (although it is not the main issue) is the hypocrisy of it all. We live in a country which has spent a lot of time and energy in making men and women social equals, for instance in the workplace you cannot hire or fire or give a pay rise to one person just because they are male or female. We live in a country where discrimination against gender is, quite rightly, not tolerated...but for some reason this is now only extended to a person once they are outside the womb. This is the ultimate form of gender discrimination and yet it is allowed to occur behind closed doors. Other "reasons" are cited, excuses made, loopholes found (for example going private to avoid certain questions from the NHS) and a baby dies.

So how and why has this disturbing state of events been able to come about? There has been a great deal of anger and condemnation of these events since this story broke from both pro-life and pro-choice voices but, to a certain extent, this is not actually surprising at all.

Before you can honestly and thoroughly start to examine how the notion of killing an unborn child just because he or she is a boy or girl has taken hold in the UK you have to take a long, hard, realistic look at what abortion is in the first place. No matter how clinics or pro-choice advocates try to play it down (for example by calling the unborn child a "clump of cells" or whatever else) abortion is the intentional killing of another human person. Whilst it is not our place (and nor would we ever want to) to judge those who have had abortions in the past there is nothing that can change this fact. And in the UK abortion is available "on demand"; if you don't want to keep your child you can go into a clinic and they will organise a termination for you. Since it was legalised in 1967 it has become more and more acceptable to end your pregnancy if you can't afford to have a baby, if you don't wan't a baby, if your partner doesn't want a baby, if your baby is disabled or if, especially during IVF, there are "too many" babies. When you consider the attitude towards pregnancies where the child will be born with Down's Syndrome (for one example), where the child won't be "normal", it is not that great a leap for our culture to terminate one simply because the baby will be born the "wrong" sex. Children have become a commodity and with that they become disposable when they are not precisely what we want them to be. This attitude has come out of the easy, "no questions asked" access to abortions over the decades (as outlined in SPUC's statement here.) Sex selective abortions are, quite literally, the tip of the iceberg and what makes this so abhorrent is not simply the reason a girl could be killed just for being a girl, it is the fact that a child died in the first place. All abortion at any stage is totally and utterly wrong, completely immoral and the only way to properly address this recent and disturbing development in the attitudes towards sex selection are to change the way people see abortion in the first place. The law needs to be changed, life needs to be cherished, respected and loved in all its forms. Somehow our culture has forgotten this or tries to forget it when the truth of the beauty and dignity of all human life  becomes inconvenient and needs, desperately, to re-learn it and soon.

What to do about abortion ads?

Scroll down and you will see the blog post written by our group Chair, Katherine, on "Abortion Advertised as a Service".  She's covered the subject admirably and with her usual eloquence and conviction, so I have nothing to add... apart from to maybe muse as to how anyone could think a three minute slot between ads for Max Factor lipstick and Mr Muscle kitchen cleaner (note: the St John's Pro Life Group is not giving personal endorsement to either of these products!) is an appropriate context in which to offer information about such a serious topic with all its implications in the areas of physical and mental health and of ethics.  It makes it all too easy to think of post conception advice as just another service and abortion as just another “product”, but hey, one doesn’t pop out in one’s lunch hour to pick up the dry cleaning and to dispose of the unwanted products of conception.

With that last sentence I don’t want at all to belittle the struggles of conscience and the difficult circumstances of many women who are considering or who have had abortions - but it seems to me that we are in danger of constructing a social attitude that does just that.  This is serious stuff.  Let’s be responsible about it and let’s keep it right out of the arena of commercial advertising.

As Katherine points out, prayer is our most powerful weapon in the pro-life armoury (and yes, when we are talking about defending life, we are talking about spiritual warfare, even as we compassionately tend those wounded in battle... which includes women who have had abortions).   Having said that, prayer gives rise to action and our group members are writing to our MP again on this one, because there are powers the Government can use to block advertising by commercial post conception advice services.  In doing so we have drawn heavily on some guidelines drawn up by SPUC – thank you SPUC! - which can be found on their website. Please consider doing the same yourself.