A few thoughts occurred to me with regards to the glut of stories and accusations, mainly emanating from the Guardian, in relation to 40 days for life.
If women are being hassled, harangued, bullied and intimidated by those on the vigil, then why on earth is no-one actually doing anything about it other than writing angry and inaccurate features in the pro-choice press?*
Think about it for a moment. If you were the manager of a business and a clearly mentally unbalanced individual or a drunk was stood outside threatening and harassing your customers as they entered, then naturally you would take steps to have them removed, such as calling the police. Section 5 of the Public Order Act is very precise as to what constitutes a criminal offence.
(1)A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b)displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,
within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby.
Women entering into abortion clinics are undoubtedly vulnerable and it could well be argued that they are likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress. Surely if the vigils are threatening or intimidating as claimed, then the police should have been called and arrests made? No-one on vigils from 40 Days for Life has been arrested or even warned. BPAS keep a camera trained on the vigils at all times. Surely if anyone has engaged in the type of behaviour which they claim, then why hasn’t the evidence been provided to the police and a prosecution ensued?
Furthermore Ann Furedi said in her recent interview on Radio 4’s Today programme, that very often there is only a solitary person and there is nothing that requires the presence of official escorts such as some clinics in the US employ.
So, there’s no criminal offence being committed and no action is necessary to protect those entering the clinics. But it’s still a bit of a problem though isn’t it? You’ve got people standing opposite your premises, mainly praying, but 1 of whom may offer a leaflet dissuading that potential client from using your services. A bit like an anti-globalisation protestor standing outside Starbucks or McDonalds, questioning the ethics of their business. That is not for one moment to equate a woman considering an abortion with someone going for a hamburger or coffee, but the effect upon the business or provider is the same. They don’t want people to be dissuaded and so the arguments they employ are all about the protection of their customer, and of course are able to co-opt the admittedly vulnerable client to this aim.
There’s no physical threat, there’s nothing that constitutes harassment otherwise the police would be called on a regular basis and there’s nothing to suggest that any violence or intimidation may be in the offing. Surely a business would be seeking to reassure their clients that they are perfectly safe, they won’t be harassed and should not be worried about entering the premises? Isn’t it rather irresponsible to claim that a non-existent concern exists, couldn’t this actually deter women from entering the premises, far more than the actual sight of a few people praying a rosary? Very often the fear is much greater than the reality. Any business that truly cared for its clients would be seeking to reassure them that there would be no problem, just to ignore, after all, no-one is forced to engage with those on the vigil.
Why is it then that they use the only means available to them, such as the mainstream media and the internet in order to whip up an irrational fear of those on 40 days for life? Could it actually be because they are effective? Because they have got people rallying to their cause and *sharp intake of breath* praying? Could it be because there is a danger that they could bring about a renewed public discussion about the nature of abortion and the role abortion clinics have to play? Or could it be a simple distraction technique to divert attention away from the recent exposes of the abuses of the law and the incidents of fraud and neglect that are a daily occurrence in these clinics?Abuses such as gender selective abortion, abortion-on-demand with no questions asked, doctors pre-signing huge batches of forms without ever even seeing the patient. Or perhaps they are trying to detract attention from the recent CQC finding that the counselling provision in many clinics is poor or non-existent?
It certainly seems that they are scraping the bottom of the barrel in their recent report, attempting to link 40 days for life with the lack of doctors prepared to carry out abortion. There are a few reasons why there may be a dearth of doctors prepared to carry out abortions:
They’ve read the Hippocratic Oath which swears to protect life and take it seriously
They’ve studied anatomy and understand fetal development
The NHS is contracting out the majority of abortion provision to clinics hence junior doctors lack the skills, as a rotation in gynae may not equip them with these skills, particularly not when it comes to late-stage provision
Having spent time in maternity, they are increasingly uncomfortable with carrying out abortion procedures, especially at a late stage
As the report itself admits, there are less than a dozen doctors in the UK who are prepared and able to carry out late-stage abortions and a dearth of doctors lining up to join the abortion clinics, although many are happy to provide early stage provision, as part of a repertoire of clinical skills on the NHS. Perhaps a career solely devoted to aborting unborn babies does not appeal? Can’t think why that might be?
It’s obviously a concern for the abortion clinics. There they are expanding their territory and customer base (as referred to in their annual reports), building shiny new clinics and yet there will be a dearth of staff to fill them. What to do? Blame 40 days for Life, that’ll work?
For those who still maintain that they are a “charity” providing good works and services, I have just one teensy little question. Most charities provide charitable relief and assistance to others for free. How does BPAS fit into this mold. Most charities want to work to reduce the need for their services, not increase them.
Of course the clinics have a point, in that a climate or public opinion, that does not favour abortion on demand is not going to help their business of providing abortions for money, one little bit. No wonder they are chucking absolutely everything they have at those who oppose them – there is a lot to lose.
*Postscript:
The Guardian have posted a video on-line which purports to show the harassment of women by 40daysforlife at my local abortion clinic, Wistons, in Brighton. Apparently the reporter was ‘approached.’ The narrative doesn’t fit with the recording. Here is a transcript of the conversation. (My thanks to Neil Addison for providing this). Harassment? Or poetic licence? No wonder the clinics are concerned. It’s not about the women at all:
Reporter: Is this the Wiston Clinic?
40daysforlife: Yes can I give you some information before you go in?
Reporter: What is it?
40daysforlife: We’re here to offer help and support if you feel you would like to reconsider. I don’t know what you’re going in for; but we’re standing here (inaudible) options.
Reporter: Do you work with the clinic?
40daysforlife: No. No. We don’t work with the clinic. We’re 40 Days for life. Some people come because they feel they have no other option. We’re here to say if we can help or support you come and speak to us. Are you going to have a scan this morning? (This section of video ends at this point, however it certainly does not demonstrate any evidence of harassment by the 40 Days for Life participant, nor does it demonstrate any attempt to mislead)
Here is a round-up of coverage from the 40daysforlife vigil in Bedford Square on Friday night. There seems to be some disparity about numbers. I blogged the numbers who attended, using the figures tweeted by Madeleine Teahan from the Catholic Herald, who live-tweeted from the event with the dispassionate eye one would expect from a professional journalist. Joseph Shaw has an entirely different perspective. Joanna Bogle wrote the most poignant and moving account of the vigil that I have read, professing her overwhelming sadness with regards to what she witnessed. She encapsulated what most of us feel.
What struck me from all the coverage that I have read, is the contrast between the two sides, not only in terms of overall attitude, for the most part it seems that those attending the vigil were attempting to peacefully pray in silence as opposed to those determined to make as much noise as possible with the aim of disrupting the vigil, but also the contrasting diversity in terms of participants on both sides. From what I can gather, there was a wide spread of people attending the 40daysforlife vigil, from the very young, even the unborn in the mother’s womb, to the old, people of difference race, gender and class. The pro-abort demonstration seemed to consist of predominantly middle class angry white young women and men.
The twitter feed of those on the pro-abortion protest seemed to indicate that the majority of protestors were men, but that reality certainly doesn’t seem born out by the photographs. This beautiful woman doesn’t look much like a “creepy old man” to me. I note, despite being very prominent at the front of the vigil and indeed prostrating herself in prayer, by all accounts for much of it, the pro-choice demonstrators didn’t see fit to make fun of her, unlike with the “horrid old men praying”. I wonder why that would be:
Creepy old man? Provocative?
We should all be glad that the vigil went off peacefully, it would be disingenuous to state that all of the participants on the 40daysforlife vigil were faultless, there were two reported incidents where people were not threatening but were perhaps reckless, perhaps understandably in the face of such raucous, confrontation and provocative behaviour, one planting a placard containing a photo of the unborn child in the crowd of pro-abortionists, the other apparently using his rosary in a provocative fashion. Frankly the mind boggles, it sounds like something out of Monty Python, only not as dangerous as the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch and rather telling that people might be frightened of a rosary, but whatever happened it wasn’t the most sensible, given the explicit instructions that were given by the organisers of the vigil not to engage with the protestors in any way at all.
It’s obviously very difficult for the organisers of the vigil to physically remove somebody who isn’t abiding by the rules, the most that can be done is to ask them to desist and/or leave, keeping the peace is largely a matter for the police, who are not going to arrest someone for over-enthusiastic jangling of a rosary. That’s not to say that there is room for complacency, though 40daysforlife deserve our congratulations and thanks for their brave witness, as do the participants, it seems fair to comment that once Holy Week is over, there needs to be some sort of official debrief of the campaign if one has not been planned already. It would be helpful to review events, strategy, organisation in order to see what worked, what could be improved upon and to ensure that participants do stick to the rules in order that they are not left open to allegations of harassment. Having witnessed the vigil in Brighton on a couple of occasions now, without actually participating (it’s very difficult for me to arrange childcare for 3 children during the Easter holidays and my younger 2 are simply not up to sitting still in a buggy for an hour on a busy road) having sat in a car with the DVD player on and watched and prayed a rosary from a discreet distance, or played with the children in the park opposite, I have to say that it is my observation that no women are hassled or harangued whatsoever. At most 4 people stand under a banner with a sign saying, we are here to help. I have a copy of the newspaper that they offer out – it is devoid of graphic imagery and there is no incorrect or misleading scientific information. Passers-by are asked if they would like a copy of a newspaper – that is all. It seems to be members of the general public that approach those on the vigil rather than vice-versa. There’s been no cameras or videos that I have witnessed. The other day there was simply a solitary man stood there in the pouring rain, getting very wet as he prayed. I know several of the regular attendees of the Bedford Square vigil who are not in the business of hassling women. One man, who we all know very well, featured in several articles in the Daily Telegraph and Guardian. This man is so very frightening that on the occasion I attended the Michael Voris talk in London, he was thoughtful enough to realise that I would be bringing my young baby who I was breast-feeding, rang me on the train and asked if he could meet me to help with the buggy etc as he was worried I might be struggling. A young single man in his twenties, who spent much of the time cuddling my baby or little Miss Pidge as he called her. Not the vicious, intimidating thug insinuated by the glut of photographs, which made me giggle and indignant at the same time. Other friends of mine who attend are again, not the bullying type and would refuse to be associated with an event that included the haranguing of women. All of them categorically deny ever having witnessed any members of the vigils filming. Frankly I know who I am minded to believe.
There have been criticisms of the man who was apparently filming, but 40daysforlife have disassociated themselves from this and the person was asked to refrain from repeating his actions. 40daysforlife have come in for repeated criticism with regards to this incident and how they handled it. Whilst it is almost impossible to physically stop people from filming and leave a public area, if they are not breaking the law, perhaps the PR could have been handled more professionally.
What has utterly dismayed me however, is that some pro-lifers seem to be revelling in criticism of 40daysforlife and keen to denounce their every move. What has shocked and dismayed many, is the criticism levelled at 40daysforlife by people who simply were not there, either during the campaign itself or at Friday night’s vigil. Any of us can be a keyboard warrior and opine on the internet, but it takes guts, courage, determination and commitment to set up and run a campaign like 40daysforlife. What Robert Colquhoun has done deserves the utmost respect, admiration and praise. As I said previously, he is not a professional, he is not paid to run 40daysforlife, he has a day job and other commitments, but he does it because he committed to the concept of prayer and fasting to end abortion.
I don’t actually want to criticise Robert because I think he’s done an absolutely marvellous job. He is a saint who puts most of us to shame. We can all opine about 40daysforlife, who should run it, how it should be run, if it should exist at all but to me the man is a hero, because he got off his backside and actually did something. He has mobilised many many Catholics in this country to actually come together and pray for an end to abortion as well as unite various groups in order to offer support for women who may change their mind at the presence of those praying on the vigils. Catholics have been crying out for years in frustration and impotence in terms of actually being able to “do” anything to help save the unborn – 40daysforlife have harnessed and mobilised that desire.
There may be questions about whether this should be a diocesan controlled event, who should be in charge, how it should be run, strategy, whether or not it is a manifestation of deep fissures in the pro-life effort that need to be resolved, but at least it’s a start. There may be many problems and issues, but why not use 40daysforlife as a starting point – keep what’s good, tighten up on procedures, have the campaign more tightly organised and stewarded, but it’s been an excellent foundation, it’s raised awareness and certainly got the pro-aborts concerned. Babies have been saved and women have been helped, maybe not in the vast numbers that critics would like to see in order to keep them statistically satisfied, but there is no doubt that women and babies have been helped. Better some than none. There is one not very far from me, who had it not been for the presence of 40daysforlife would have aborted, feeling that she had no other choice and by her own admission, probably would have ended up committing suicide as a result. She desperately wants to keep her baby and people are doing their best to ensure that she is supported in that.
40daysforlife has always been a lay initiative. If it needs to be improved, consolidated and have slick professional full-time PR or employees such as groups like Abortion Rights, then that needs both time and money that are in short supply. Perhaps ways can be found to help them? But rather than publicly carp about perceived faults, why not celebrate and applaud in a spirit of charity all that 40daysforlife have managed to achieve? Why not try to work with Robert and his team, instead of public critique and handing out ammunition which has been eagerly seized upon by the pro-abort campaign? It was heartening to see so many foot-soldiers turn up on Friday, rather than wannabe generals.
Instead of criticising, carping, using this as an excuse to air deeply held grievances against “enemies” (and really no Catholic should be in the business of making enemies of anyone, let alone other Catholics) why not offer this expertise and knowledge to help improve the campaign and make it better? 40days sprang up to fill a definite void in pro-life action, it gives people an opportunity to be pro-active and “do” something. We can all disseminate and bemoan the reasons why the void existed in the first place, but how does that really help us going forward? What does that achieve other than negativity? Perhaps the CBCEW should get involved, or donate resources, but actually what we should all be doing is congratulating 40daysforlife for what they achieved to date, not with complacency, but with a genuine, honest eyes of charity and love and getting involved in whatever way we can, if we feel as passionate about pro-life as we claim.
When I look at Robert Colquhoun and what he has done and when I look at what I have done, I feel nothing but awe and a sense of shame that I’ve only really, thus far, been able to opine on the sidelines, although I have contributed in other ways. I have providentially been inspired, to find ways of helping out locally with those who were on the 40daysforlife vigil in Brighton. It is an exciting time for us locally. We have big plans afoot that don’t involve the perceived harassment of women but constructive, positive, practical support and help. The abundant graces that flow once one has made a decision to chose life are innumerable.
It is Holy Week, a time of reflection and preparation, how did Lent go for you, if you were pro-life what did you do? Join the vigils, or if you could not, did you pray at home, fast, give alms for an end to abortion? Did you get off your backside and actually do something positive and make an effort? Or did you just sit on the fence or alternatively carp, criticise and opine at one end of a keyboard?
40daysforlifevigil tonight at Bedford Square - photo courtesy of the Diocese of Westminster
I took the decision not to attend the pro-life vigil in Bedford Square this evening. Robin is on call and so it would have entailed a return train journey between London and Brighton together with 3 children, two in a double buggy and an eight-year-old. Though I was desperate to be there, having supported 40daysforlife spiritually and certainly since the inception of this blog, if not always physically, it simply would not have been fair on anyone. The counter-40 days for life demonstration had the potential to turn unpleasant and I did not want to expose a sensitive 8 year old to potentially graphic slogans and a confrontational crowd.
I am also very torn about whether or not to explain the concept of abortion to my daughter. Robin feels very much that she is of an age to understand, an American priest friend of mine told me how he was taken to these types of vigils every weekend from a very early age, however no matter how sensitively I explain the issue, there is an intuitive part of me that wants to protect my children from the horrors of the adult world, until I feel that they are able to emotionally cope with them. I think my daughter could cope if I’m honest, I think she’d be quite shocked, but I also think she would be compassionate, as she understands that being pregnant is very hard for some ladies like mummy and she knows that life is going to be very demanding for us, come August, with 3 children under the age of 3 and not much in the way of practical support or childcare.
So we stayed home and prayed together as a family instead. Fortunately, it all seems to have passed off rather peaceably, although no official reports have been filed as yet. Madeleine Teahan from the Catholic Herald was live-tweeting, as were a few other Catholics and the impression that I got was that though outnumbered – there were approximately 300 vigil participants to 700 pro-choice demonstrators, thankfully no actual violence took place. It seems that the pro-choicers did get a bit too close for comfort to those on the vigil and were predictably quite disrespectful to those who were praying, they attempted to drown out Soul of My Saviour with 10 green bottles and generally chanted and shouted some derogatory slogans at those who were trying to pray, but that was to be expected.
The instructions for those attending the vigil were not to speak to or engage in any way with the protestors and to make as little noise as possible. The vigil was to be a silent, peaceful and prayerful affair, and this is largely what seems to have happened, the peaceful, gentle nature of the 40daysforlife participants, providing a stark contrast with the brash noisy jangling chants of the protestors. Here is the statement of Bishop Alan Hopes, the auxiliary Bishop of Westminster who was leading the prayer vigil.
One always knows that one is doing something right, when one receives flack from all sides and certainly I had much sympathy for Bishop Alan who seemed to be coming in for rather a lot of harsh and unfair criticism over the vigil. The abortion industry had the gall to call him immoral, the irony of that statement obviously bypassing them and a tiny minority of pro-lifers who don’t think that 40daysforlife is a politically wise venture, similarly criticised him, for stirring up trouble. As I said last week, Pro-life for Catholics, should consider of politics, prayer, PR and of course, positive action to help mothers with crisis pregnancies, not just in terms of short term measures but working for changes in society. As Catholics, we should never underestimate the power of prayer, our faith is empty without it, so it was profoundly depressing to see a Bishop being criticised, for what is his job, or more accurately vocation, in terms of leading his flock in prayer. As Christians we believe God is everywhere, not confined to the linear space of a Church and we must not be afraid to carry our faith with us wherever we go. 40daysforlife is not intended as a substitute for decent political activism but rather as a compliment. It has certainly been successful in raising awareness of the issues, but I agree with Megan Moore’s commentary that the pro-life “movement” such as it is, must ensure that it is not only associated with vigils. The Catholic Bishops in England and Wales often attract criticism from the Catholic blogosphere as do clergy who are often not perceived to be doing enough in terms of pro-life work. Therefore we have to give credit where credit is due, it’s a rum do if a Catholic Bishop can’t lead his flock in support of key teachings of the Church. To be fair to the Bishop, I don’t think he anticipated that there could have been a backlash, the counter protest was only arranged after he had announced his presence. Rumour has it that Laurence England was present as well as the stalwart Clare, so it will be very interesting to see their accounts of what happened as well as read Madeleine’s official account in the Catholic Herald.
On the subject of Laurence, his moving blogpost from a few days ago, detailed the case of a woman who had been a victim of rape, who didn’t really want an abortion but felt she had no other choice. I decided to go and offer 40daysforlife in Brighton my support earlier today. There were only 4 supporters, not particularly frightening, standing next to a banner stating “We are here to help you” in the late evening sunshine. They confirmed that this lady is currently staying at their house, literally having nowhere else to go, she is homeless, needs help on a detoxification programme, is under pressure from her GP and Social Services to abort the baby, who she would really like to keep. When I tweeted about this, I was overwhelmed by the offer of help from an incredibly kind pro-life tweep who has offered to pay for a private health subscription for her. Though hackneyed, I’ve literally been crying tears of joy that someone could be moved to be so astonishingly generous. When we decided that it wouldn’t be a good idea for me to take the children to Bedford Square this evening, Robin pointed out that there would be plenty of other opportunities and that prayer at home could be just as productive and certainly safer for us.
The Holy Spirit certainly knows what he is doing. Had I attended Bedford Square then I would not have attended the Brighton clinic, made plans to support them over the weekend and I would not have tweeted about this brave woman who deserves all the support and help that she can get. God always answers our prayers, but never in the way that we might expect. What a providential end to the day. Deo Gratias.
Ever keen to push a bit of PR for her company that has the tax status of a charity, Clare Murphy, director of Press and Public Policy, from BPAS has written an article in today’s Independent claiming that those who are using the language of business and commerce for abortion clinics are insulting women who choose to have an abortion.
She starts off by the customary dig at Nadine Dorries for her use of the word “industry” and goes on to state that this is not an original term, it has been borrowed from the US abortion lobby. It’s important that pro-abortionists mention the US at all times, because since 1973, 8 members of abortion staff have been killed. Never mind that equates to two-tenths of an abortionist a year, that regardless of the small number the vast majority of pro-lifers abhor and condemn such mindless acts of violence for which there is no justification and that all of the perpetrators have been caught and brought to justice, the general public need to be taught to fear pro-lifers and view them in a suspicious light. If you support the right of the unborn child to live, then you must be an unreasonable extremist who will resort to tactics of violence and intimidation. Let’s put to one side the notion that it is precisely the act of violence of killing an unborn child and elderly or sick people, to which pro-lifers object. It’s also important to ignore the very different political climate in the US, with its distinctly Christian demographic and relaxed gun laws.
But this is not an industry, and the people who provide this care are not tycoons.
Right – this is not industry, despite BPAS describing themselves as “the UK’s leading abortion specialist” as the leading strap line on their website? Presumably if they are the leading specialist, then other specialists must exist, ones that aren’t quite as good as BPAS? That indicates that several abortion providers exist, there are several to choose from, but BPAS is the “leading” operator. Why would one wish to describe oneself as that, if one did not want to attract several clients? If a woman requires an abortion, surely she will attend the abortions service to which her local GP may direct her? So long as the clinic operates according to strict medical guidelines, what does it matter if one is the leading clinic? Do they not all operate to equally high standards? That’s certainly what the abortion providers have been at pains to repeatedly point out of late, claiming harassment by Andrew Lansley and the Care Quality Commission who have had the audacity to inspect them to ensure that they are adhering to standards laid down by the law and following best practice.
But no, it’s not an industry, because an industry may be defined as “A particular form or branch of economic or commercial activity”. Providing abortion in exchange for money, be that from the NHS or private individuals, may not be described as commercial activity, according to Clare Murphy. It is an act of selfless generosity, from which the abortion providers do not “profit” because they do not pay out a dividend, not having any commercial shareholders. Let’s ignore the fact that for the past 2 financial years BPAS have made a profit surplus of £1million. In their accounts they state that they have managed to reduce costs by slashing the staff pension scheme that was proving too expensive. But, no, absolutely not a business. Nor an industry, the fact that different specialist abortion providers exist is a mere coincidence. And my name is Bernard.
Here’s two of their aims for the forthcoming year, as submitted to the Charity Commission.
Goal 2: Increase the proportion of abortions in the UK that bpas provides.
Goal3: Ensure performance is in line with agreed budgets.
But no, not a business, absolutely not.
Here’s how they met some of their targets:
Increase in Market Share
We acheived this by Further development of internet and multi media,Opening of 4 new Daycare units, Development of specialist resources for referers, and obtaining new NHS contracts
Performance in line with agreed budgets
We acheived this by putting an Investment and refurbishment programme in place, significantly reducing our borrowing and obtaining a satisfactory discharge of our commitment to a closed final salary scheme
Build upon our position as “thought leaders”
We acheived this by Increasing our media impact, promotion of local services, and acheiving clarification of the law in relation to Early Medical Abortion
But, not a business, dear me no. Obtaining new NHS contracts, increasing market share, bowing out of a final salary scheme and increasing media impact are all acts of charity. As are the forthcoming TV adverts. Employing marketing managers and business development officers is not a commercial activity and neither is attempting to increase market share. And my old man’s a mushroom.
On the subject of tycoons, whilst no-one would deny the right of those to be paid a fair day’s wage for the work that they do, no matter how unsavoury, BPAS’ annual accounts state that Ann Furedi earns between £110-£125,000. My guess would be that the figure falls somewhere into the higher end of that bracket, because if we look at what her peer, Tim Black from Marie Stopes earns, it is £125,000. As BPAS are the “leading” UK abortion provider, then one would expect Ann’s salary to match that at least. Last year Mr Black earnt £111, 000 but this year had a 12.7% pay rise to £125,000. The identical bracket to Mrs Furedi.These figures would not include other benefits such as pensions, expense accounts or company cars for example, which would considerably add to the value of the overall package. But no, Ann and Tim are definitely not “tycoons”, but they are definitely wealthy , as opposed to oligarchs. Whether millionaires or not, both run multi-million pound companies. Marie Stopes may well contest whether or not BPAS are the leading provider of abortion services in any rate, as last year, Marie Stopes UK had an income of £39 million, as opposed to BPAS’ meagre £25 million.
Interesting to note also that in BPAS’ accounts, termination of pregnancy services generated an income of £23.8 million, but cost £21.6 million. Their vasectomy provision is a loss-leader, losing £44K and their contraceptive provision makes a relatively small profit, sorry surplus of £100,000. Overall their contraception and vasectomy services constitute a tiny proportion of their main business, perhaps that is why they feel justified in describing themselves as “specialists”?
Anyone spot the irony, that Mrs Furedi and Mr Black earn more than the heads of Save the Children, Bernandos, Help the Aged and so on? Much better to end the lives before they start rather than alleviating the symptoms of poverty and disease and/or looking for a cure. One thing that I find it hard to get my head around is how well-paid the executives of these “charities” are in comparison to their peers. Tim Black ranks at number 3 in the top 10 of charity Chief Executives’ salaries, earning considerably more than say, the head of Marie Curie Cancer care, who has over double the income and yet earns £30,000 less. Even if Mrs Furedi does earn the bottom figure of £110, 000 that still puts her at number 9 in the top 10 of charity earners.
According to Clare Murphy, Nadine Dorries is quite in the wrong to use this language as it is obviously encouraging and inciting others to see beyond the abortion providers’ rhetoric of being charities simply in it to help vulnerable women. Though the similarities between them and a business are striking, the Department of Health must be lobbied in order to stop this dangerous terminology being used. We can’t possibly point out the information that is publicly available as a result of their choosing to apply for a certain tax exempt status.
Truth hurts. It’s more than obvious who is being insulted and exploited.
Just as a counter to the many stories and rumours about 40daysforlife which are being circulated as “truth”, it’s well worth reading Clare, a regular participant of the vigils, as well as what Laurence has to say on the vigils that have been taking place in Brighton.
I was particularly struck by this comment, made on the Bloomsbury Pro-choice website earlier today, by a potential pro-choice supporter.
I was in attendance today at Bedford Square and I saw all of what occured, from the moment of the table-move onwards, and I have to say that I was utterly disgusted. Perhaps I honestly could have believed that 40DfL were intimidating women entering the clinics, perhaps I could have been sympathetic to tea, biscuits and balloons, or your arguments and literature – but honestly, every chance of that died today. The true face of the so-called ‘pro-choice’ movement was shown today – not in the cozy strumming of guitars or sun-bathing, but in the direct aggression and intimidation employed against those praying with 40DfL. You can both have quiet protests in corners, or even loud ones, but to move camps deliberately to (as you correctly state) a metre from the opposing protest is a terrifying move to make – one that has lost you both supporters and potential allies today. What possible good motive can there have been to shift tables and demonstrators to right infront of another demonstration? Imagine if Bobby Copper had been there, and seen you shifting selves and equipment in what could be construed as direct provocation. By blocking their signs you denied their right to protest. What would that same policeman say, if he then saw you turning a megaphone towards to face those you criticise for intimidation, and to all chant at only a few feet from them all sorts of attacks? All this while you filmed them, some so close that the cameras practically touched them. Then members of your counter-demonstration danced around mockingly pretending to be Jesus on the cross, as per Monty Python, or mocked the religion of those attending saying “You’re talking to an imaginary friend!” and “No one can hear you!” among other things. THAT is intimidation – a few Catholics praying is something of an entirely different order. You were here for most all of this – you did not put a stop to it, even though it was beneath your banner (and that of the Socialist Worker). If you can still, after what occured today, invite everyone who partook of it back for Friday’s demo, refer to them as awesome and give only the slightest apology (not merely grudging, but at every point self-justifying through comparison with 40DfL’s entirely less threatening activities) then I can have no respect for you or your group. I have little doubt that you will have done nothing today but have strengthened the resolved of the pro-lifers, and made sure that as many as possible attend to oppose your vicious tactics on Friday. The mockery of their religion, the shouting in their faces, and the deliberate occupation of the same corner can only be used by them as a propaganda coup. What does it matter how many numbers turn up on Friday, when those whom you bring on Sundays act like that? Regards,
As Louise Allain, noted on Twitter earlier, it seems to be those bearing witness and holding others in prayer, who are the most vulnerable. They certainly seem to be getting an inordinate amount of abuse.
I’ve found it really hard to keep up with The Guardian over the weekend, which has become the paper of pro-choice propaganda. No sooner did one misleading, dishonest and factually incorrect article appear, ready for fisking, then another pitched up. I’ve counted at least six on this subject since Friday. The general theme seems to run along the lines of “we’ve been caught breaking the law, therefore the law is wrong and needs to be changed, abortion isn’t a medical procedure, women have a right to it without any medical consent, gender selective abortion doesn’t happen anyway and even if does then it doesn’t really matter, any clinics found to be breaking the law are being harassed by the government and media and it’s all the fault of 40days and SPUC and LIFE, who need to be stopped from giving pro-life presentations to schools in case it deters people from having abortions because we all know that abortion is such a wonderful thing, in fact we need more of it”.
As I’ve said before, these guys are plainly rattled and are throwing as much mud as they possibly can in the hope that some of it will stick. Attack is always the best form of defence and those in favour of abortion are definitely on the defensive. 40daysforlife is a quiet prayer vigil, but is being painted as something altogether different and sinister, in order that a perceived threat can be seen to be addressed. The only threat the abortion clinics face is prosecution in the face of breaking the law and a sea-change in public opinion. Which is why they are doing their best to discredit by any means possible.
It’s all getting very interesting and potentially very very dirty indeed.
I’ll end with a few comments from an “angry feminists” timeline. I think that tells us all we need to know.
I’m bleeding – according to their bible I’m unclean – can I go and rub myself up against them?
Response: DO IT. DOOO ITTTT
In your face much? Directly in front of 40daysforlife
I like it but it kind of looks like you want to punch foetuses out of the uterus 😉
Well we might have to if the wing nuts get their way!
sick of “pro-life” fuckwittery. Can we drown them in amniotic fluid for the irony & lulz?
How very peaceful and civilised. Abortion is a violent act – it can be no surprise that this violence is reflected in the rhetoric and tactics of those who wish to defend it.
The controversy about 40daysforLife continues to rumble on, following their appearance on the Today programme on Wednesday morning, which with an audience of over 4 million people, was a massive publicity coup for an ‘organisation’ which is run on a shoe-string.
The amateur nature of 40days is both a blessing and a curse. It’s a blessing in as much as without access to any sort of slick PR machine, unlike the abortion clinics and their associated groups, 40daysforlife cannot be accused of back-door lobbying or underhand techniques. There is no flashy website or dedicated social media manager. They are very much what they say on the tin. An attempt to unite Christians and other faiths, in an invitation to attend vigils to peacefully pray for all those inside the abortion clinics. There can be no doubt with regards to the sincerity of the organisers or participants. Credit needs to be given to Robert Colquhoun who brought this campaign to the UK and who has mobilised the prayers of many people, both in front of the clinics and encouraged prayer, meditations and fasting for those at home.
That 40days have appeared on national media, following their appearance on Radio 4, they were then the subject of discussion on Matthew Wright’s show on Channel 5, is a testament to their success. They are certainly raising awareness. There can be no doubt that they have pro-abortion advocates rattled, with the emergence of counter-campaigns and lots of attempts to smear and discredit.
Which brings me on to the flip-side of their efforts. It needs to be remembered that this is a wholly amateur operation. Every single volunteer, from Robert Colquhoun downwards, is unpaid and gives up their free time. They all have day jobs. There simply is not the money to employ anyone. Which means that their social media account is not running in as professional a way as would be desirable. Getting the PR right is an essential part of activism, and social media plays a not inconsequential part. Understandably, 40days sees their main role as prayer and fasting, they are far more concerned with the spiritual than the temporal, which leaves them open to criticism.
More seriously, the amateur nature of the campaign also means that it leaves themselves open allegations of malpractice and harassment such as the filming and harassment of women. The filming of women both on the street and going in and out of the clinic is wholly unacceptable. 40daysforlife do not condone or encourage this is any way. The difficulty for them is, that despite the presence of at least one organiser at every vigil, it becomes very difficult to control the behaviour of other people. Participants do need to sign up to the statement of peace, which explicitly prohibits people from acting in a manner that may be harmful and asks participants to ensure that they reflect Christ’s compassion and love. The difficulty is that Christian compassion and love may be interpreted in a myriad of ways, however we can be reasonably confident that Christ would not condone the filming and invasion of privacy of vulnerable women. Once somebody does start to behave in a way that is unacceptable, they are immediately disassociated from the vigil, but as the participants are supposed to act in a peaceful way and are predominantly concerned with prayer, it becomes almost impossible to force someone to stop doing something unhelpful. Filming in public is not against the law and even Sunny Hundal was not averse to turning up to Bedford Square and filming, although he did not specifically film the faces of women. Unless any specific laws are broken or public order offences committed, though the organisers can politely request people to stop filming or behaving in a way that may be deleterious, they are powerless to act, other than call the police. The filming would appear to be a two way street, participants on the vigil have informed me of being very disconcerted that for the entire duration of their stay (usually an hour) there has been a member of the clinic with a video camera trained directly upon them.
On the Today programme Anne Furedi read a statement from a woman who said that she had been followed to the clinic and then made an allusion to women being pinned up against the wall. Obviously if this has happened it is despicable, however as BPAS are obviously filming the protest, surely if this had happened there would be evidence which should have been passed to the police. Personally speaking, if someone had done that to me whilst entering an establishment, I would have alerted the staff inside straight away, identified the assailant and called the police. There was another accusation of encirclement, followed by an admission that very often there will only be one protestor, which makes encirclement impossible. If one person follows another to the clinic door as alleged, unless they are some kind of super-hero with extraterrestrial powers, or able to bi-locate, encirclement seems highly unlikely.
Whilst loathe to accuse anyone of lying, it seems possible that some distortion has gone on here. The modus operandi of 40daysforlife is that most participants take part in prayer and witness and volunteers take turns to distribute leaflets. The following accusation, is not one of stalking, but of women being followed to the door of the clinic. If this does happen, the zeal is understandable, but it must stop. I have spoken to several participants of 40days vigils over the past few days and none of them recognise this type of behaviour. What usually happens is a leaflet is offered, if the person wants to accept or engage in conversation, discourse takes place, but following anyone down the street is not encouraged and would disassociate someone from the vigil.
40days recognise that women entering the abortion clinic are vulnerable. That’s why they have a big sign “we are here to help” and why they offer back-up support, which I will discuss in a later post. Abortion rights groups are so concerned by the impact of these vigils that they are using every tool in their arsenal to smear and discredit, that they are also targeting the Good Counsel Network, again another voluntary organisation, entirely reliant on charitable donations and who are more concerned with their daily work of actually getting on and providing real practical help, than mounting PR campaigns or properly defending themselves. Those on 40days must ensure that they do not leave themselves open, if a leaflet is offered and refused then that should be the end of it. An opportunity to engage and change hearts and minds has been put forward, pestering women who are in terrible situations is counter-productive. IF this happens, and I’m not convinced it does, but if it does, then organisers need to stamp on this. Though I am in no way vulnerable, I know just how annoying it is when someone attempting to advertise a product or hand out a leaflet won’t take no for an answer. It just puts one’s back up and causes defensiveness. On an everyday level, there is an incredibly pushy group of cosmetic salesmen in Brighton’s Churchill Centre, who seem to target me every time I have the children in the double-buggy. Despite the fact I am clearly preoccupied with manhandling a buggy, stopping child A from pulling child B’s hair or preventing child from clambering out of buggy or tantrums etc, a “no thanks” seems to have no effect, these boys continue to sidle up alongside you, repeatedly cajoling you to try their luscious products. Never mind the hand-cream, it’s Arnica they need if they don’t leave me alone. If unwanted hand cream samples give me the rage, it can only be imagined what a passionate pro-life supporter might do to a woman who is in a delicate emotional state. A leaflet offered is the most that should be attempted and a refusal met with good grace.
Ann Furedi and others have commented that the actions of 40daysforlife are un-Christian in their actions. Whilst I usually attempt to ensure that my pro-life arguments are predominantly secular, a pro-life viewpoint does not necessitate theism, I am not ashamed to admit that I am first and foremost a Christian, and for me, being pro-life follows holistically from my Christian faith. Prayer constitutes an enormous part of Christianity. I don’t talk about my prayer life as often as I should, but that is partly because for me, it is deeply intimate and personal. As personal to me as my intimate life with my husband. I worry that talking about it, somehow violates my relationship with the Lord, but prayer is a huge feature of my daily life. As Christians we should never under-estimate the power of prayer, which is part of the success of 40daysforlife. There have globally been thousands of babies saved.
Some, including Christians, have mooted that this prayer should be in the confines of our own homes. To me, that seems to be pandering to the modern secular agenda. It’s Okay to be a Christian, but we have to be nice mute ones, never causing any trouble. That isn’t what Christ was about, he was a radical, he hung about with the poor, the dispossessed, the outcast and the vulnerable. He drove money lenders out of the Temple and was non too concerned with what view the authorities may take of him. Would he have been outside an abortion clinic healing women before they went in? The answer is most definitely. However, though Christ always meets you where you are, He does not force Himself upon you. All of those who encountered Christ, saw Him and came to Him. He did not chase people, He invited them to follow Him. Which is of course the lesson for those outside clinics. An invitation must be issued, but not forced.
When it comes to the issue of Christians publicly manifesting their faith, we seem to have something of a crisis in the UK, which is feeding into a culture war. Politicians love to tell us that we are a tolerant and diverse society, but what that seems to entail in practice is smiling tolerantly and happily at women in their hijabs or saris or at Gary and Jamie holding hands whilst walking their Gucci-clad chiuaua down the street. Isn’t it wonderful, we tell ourselves, that people can now live their lives without harassment or fear. Whilst that is most definitely true, the same is not said of Christians who could be said to be serious in their faith. We are “fundy nutters” driven by religious fervour and hatred apparently. What is forgotten is that a key part of Christianity is not only prayer, but evangelisation. Spreading the Good News. Clearly this has to be done in an appropriate way, one that is not counter-productive, but in an allegedly tolerant and diverse society, it should be possible, to gently talk about your faith or your beliefs without living in fear of hate-speech or dismissal. If a work colleague wants to ask me my views on something, I should not be too frightened of the consequences to honestly engage.
Far from being un-Christian praying peacefully outside an abortion clinic is an act of witness and of faith, it is a living out of the Christian vocation and should not be eschewed out of fear or because it is thought impolitic. There seems something diabolic behind the notion that Christians should not be praying outside of Churches or their own homes, let alone in front of abortion clinics, where so much destruction of life is taking place. It comes to something when Catholics are suggesting that other Catholics should not be praying in public, for fear of other’s reactions or negative PR.
For those who suggest that their presence is un-Christian in that it potentially upsets women, I refer to my previous post; if abortion is upsetting and traumatic – why is that? This person appears to think that it is nothing of the sort – I love abortion she says. Women must be treated compassionately and sensitively, which must rule out harassment, invasion of privacy or anything that could amount to condemnation, however a presence which offers another choice or point of view, a way back from abortion, does not lack compassion. Abortion is the ending of the life of an unborn child, which hurts not only child, but the mother as well. A pastoral team in my diocese patrols Beachy Head, spotting potential jumpers and offering fellowship, comfort and support, a way back. No Christian would stand back and watch a person hurl themselves off a cliff, because it’s their body, their choice and they were scared of being intrusive. Offering a leaflet or saying a rosary in those circumstances would be a wholly inadequate approach. A pro-life presence signifies to people that they do not have to end the life of their unborn child.
What all Christians need to be aware is that pro-life should consist of the three Ps; politics, PR and prayer, which all have equal import. 40days need to ensure that their wonderful prayer efforts are not undermined by lack of PR or politics. “Professional” Catholic pro-life activists must not forget or deny the power of prayer and public witness.
Responding to Robert Colquhoun’s statement that those attending vigils were there out of a spirit of compassion and love, Anne Furedi requested that they should “take your love elsewhere”. It doesn’t take a genius to work out which of those statements is most in accord with Gospel values.
Postscript
During yesterday’s vigil at Bedford Square, a member of the public arrived and covered the vigil in horse dung. They calmly ignored it, continuing to pray, clearing up the site when they left. That’s intimidation for you!
As I wrote both on the blog and in the Catholic Herald last week, pro-lifers are gaining momentum, the pro-choice lobby are on the back foot following the recent scandal of sex-selective abortion with the issue of post-birth abortion hot on its heels and they don’t like it one little bit, hence they are resorting to the oldest trick in the book and as I know to my cost, the staple of those in an ideological corner – attack, which is supposedly the best form of defence.
Today has seen a flurry of articles in the paper of pro-choice propaganda, commonly known as The Guardian, fretting about the activities of 40daysforlife, whose peaceful prayer vigils, expose the self-deceit at the heart of those who support a woman’s supposed “choice”. They claim that the very presence of peaceful protestors is somehow intimidating, that it is imposing views on vulnerable women facing a difficult decision, whilst denying the humanity of the unborn child. If this is not an unborn child, but simply a cluster of cells, or an unviable fetus that would be unable to survive outside the mother’s womb, then why is the presence of those on the vigil so troublesome and disturbing? If a woman is simply exercising a choice available to her, i.e. not to have a baby, then what on earth has she got to worry about? She should hold her head high, march straight on into the abortion clinic and get them to remove the products of conception forthwith and pay no attention to the religious nut jobs praying to their invisible sky fairy. If it is simply a choice, a meaningless decision, then 40daysforlife are nothing more than an advertising campaign for the alternative choice and if a woman has made her mind up she is unlikely to be swayed.
Tragedy?
The problem for passionate advocates of abortion rights is that many of their own, such as Diane Abbott, accept that abortion is a tragedy, because it entails the destruction of life. Even if they prefer to term it the destruction of potential life, they are some way to recognising abortion for what it is. If abortion is a difficult and burdensome decision it is precisely because those faced with seemingly impossible situations who enter the abortion clinic with a heavy heart, recognise the gravity of their actions, yet feel that there is no other solution for them. For these women who are most definitely vulnerable, the presence of those praying for them, their unborn children and the staff in the abortion facility, is problematic, because it is a tangible reminder of the seriousness of their potential choice. It makes it more difficult for women to ignore the reality of the human life within them.
Pro-life protestors are problematic for the abortion clinics and supporters of abortion because they are either an advertisement for the opposing course of action or a physical reminder of the life of the unborn, not to mention the enormous elephant in the room, namely that human nature is to seek the approval or validation of others. This is precisely why every single abortion-rights group emphasise the “one in three women will need and abortion” slogan at every opportunity. This not only reinforces the idea that abortion is a basic necessity, every mother must be able to get rid of her unborn child, but also uses social validation, a known technique for helping those who are undecided, typically in the world of retail when contemplating what product to buy, we are influenced by the decisions of others. Protestors outside a clinic are a manifestation of people who are in disagreement and who, whilst enormously sympathetic to the plight of women facing horrendous circumstances, cannot and will not condone the killing of an unborn child. What is deemed unacceptable is that there is a group of people present who disagree with the choice that is being made. It is always difficult when people express disagreement with our own personal moral choices, but that is life. Those who care about us try to sensitively point out when we are making harmful decisions. That isn’t hatred or condemnation – it’s genuine care, concern and compassion.
What happens during these vigils?
Admittedly I am yet to attend one, however this will shortly change. The highly respected and well-renowned Catholic priest Fr Stephen Wang attended a 40 days vigil at the weekend, and it was his moving testimony that has motivated me to overcome my reticence. The only reason I have not previously attended is that last year I was heavily pregnant throughout the 40 days, indeed Felicity was born in the final days of the campaign, on Maundy Thursday last year, commuting to London heavily pregnant with a toddler in tow and negotiating the London Underground was too much of a chore. Similarly during the campaign of last Autumn, I would have needed to jostle toddler and newborn single-handedly around London and felt that though worthwhile, the exercise would have been too fraught with logistical difficulties.
As Fr Stephen states, these vigils are entirely peaceful. I imagine that the non-religious would find them interminably boring. It’s literally a small group of people praying underneath a non-graphic banner with a depiction of a Dove and a Bible verse. Hardly the most chilling or gruesome of images. Look away now.
Terrifying aren't they?
As Fr Stephen notes:
People at the vigil are not there to judge, but to pray and to offer hope. And you feel the reality of this prayer and hope when you are there, even if it highlights the starkness of the choices many people are facing.
Ben Quinn wrote an uncharacteristically balanced piece, the tone of which sympathised with the staff of BPAS, but nonetheless conceded that often the protestors consist of
a solitary participant…reciting the rosary across the road from the clinic.
Sarah Ditum, on the other hand, was a lot more strident, her piece contained no direct evidence, but simply quotes from Clare Murphy of BPAS who claims that protestors “encircle” women on the doorstep. 40daysforLife is in its third year. If this alleged harassment is occurring, then why have the police not been alerted and why have BPAS not used a camera of their own in order to prove what is allegedly occurring?
Here is the statement of peace that every single attendee of the 40daysforlife vigil has to sign as a registered participant.
1. I will only pursue peaceful solutions to the violence of abortion when volunteering with the 40 Days for Life campaign
2. I will show compassion and reflect Christ’s love to all abortion facility employees, volunteers, and customers
3. I understand that acting in a violent or harmful manner immediately and completely disassociates me from the 40 Days for Life campaign
4. I am in no way associated with the abortion facility or its affiliates by way of employment, informant, volunteer, client, or otherwise
While standing in the city right of way in front of the abortion facility:
5. I will not obstruct the driveways or sidewalk while standing in the public right of way
6. I will not litter on the public right of way
7. I will closely attend to any children I bring to the prayer vigil
8. I will not threaten, physically contact, or verbally abuse the abortion facility, employees, volunteers, or customers
9. I will not vandalize private property
10. I will cooperate with local city authorities
It hardly tallies with tales and tactics of intimidation. Where the problem has arisen, is that it seems like some over-enthusiastic participant has been spotted videoing the entrance to the facility. This is unacceptable and 40daysforlife have disassociated themselves from and condemned this action. The facts are not entirely clear, but when I spoke to Robert Colquhoun this afternoon, he confirmed that participants often do take cameras, but any photography or videoing that takes place, is not of women, but of the participants themselves, often to guarantee their own safety.
As the indomitable and heroic Clare, testifies, having been to several vigils, it is actually the protestors themselves who find themselves threatened and harangued by passers-by. When she attended a vigil outside the Marie Stopes clinic in London, a passer-by thought it appropriate to take photographs of her children, telling her that he was going to send them to Social Services as she was clearly an unfit mother. Last week at the 40days vigil in Bedford Square, a local man approached her children, telling them that their mother was doing “devil’s work” and that he was going to call the police. He made good with his threat, the police duly appeared having been informed that there were children outside the clinic who should be in school, whereupon it was explained that the children were home-educated and the policeman said no further action was necessary.
On one occasion Clare was interviewed for the Catholic TV channel EWTN, therefore a camera crew were filming quite legitimately. Robert informed me that three years of prolonged threats and insults on the vigils had toughened him up considerably, therefore though he continued to find reports such as those in the Guardian irksome in that they were full of inaccuracies, falsehoods and innuendoes, they no longer bothered him. 40daysforlife is clearly proving effective, given that the Guardian have devoted two articles in the space of 24 hours to them and has now written over 4 articles, so concerned are they by a handful of religious protestors praying the rosary. If these articles generate more national coverage of the campaign, it could well have a positive effect of encouraging more Christians to participate, or to set up groups in their locality.
On the issue of filming, this is not an activity that is carried out by 40daysforlife, nor is photography. The campaign is run on an absolute shoestring, there is no money for this type of equipment and no desire to film women entering or leaving premises. The official marshals, themselves unpaid volunteers giving up a few hours of their free time like the participants, need to remind people not to film either deliberately or inadvertently any members of the public entering or leaving the facility and will disassociate themselves from anyone who does this and ask them to leave the vigil.
When interviewed by Sarah Ditum for the Guardian, Robert was issued with a set of demands and instructions as to what 40daysforlife “should” do. Understandably he feels it inappropriate to be dictated to in an aggressive fashion by a pro-choice columnist, the peace statement is comprehensive and any participants with video equipment or using their mobile phones will be reminded not to video either the entrance or those entering/leaving.
No-one is encircled, bullied, harangued or manipulated and there is no evidence to the contrary, otherwise the police would act. Passers-by are asked if they want a leaflet. Refusals are accepted gracefully. Participants are there primarily to pray. If pregnant women are spoken to, it is because they themselves approach or speak to the participants. Women who wish to engage with the protestors, often do so because they are experiencing doubts and/or they feel that they need to justify their situation. It is this engagement that produces turn-arounds.
Being able to engage with women facing crisis pregnancies takes a lot of skill and emotional intelligence. It requires an open-hearted, non-judgemental attitude, not haranguing a woman, or telling her that she is evil, but a willingness first and foremost to listen and let her speak. There is no manipulation, women are told that there are other options and people willing to help them. There is a big sign up saying “we are here to help you”, which often provides the impetus for women to approach those on the vigil. Whether she admits it or not, a woman who approaches pro-life supporters outside an abortion clinic that she is about to enter, is subconsciously crying out for help. Any turnarounds that occur, are not due to women being “repulsed” by the protestors, if a campaign repulses one, such as say the images used by anti-vivisectionists, the normal response is simply to put ones head down and walk past very swiftly. A banner with a dove and a handful of “bead-rattlers” is hardly likely to deter a woman who is determined to abort her baby.
The spectre of the American bogeyman
40daysforlife is what it says on the tin. It’s not a 24/7 campaign. Participants give up an hour of their free time. No-one is outside Bedford Square at 3am, similarly the clue is in the name. The campaign lasts 40 days and coincides with Lent. A further campaign is takes place in the Autumn. To put it in perspective, that’s 80 days out of 365, one fifth of the year. Not a prolonged onslaught.
Both Ben Quinn and Sarah Ditum are extremely keen to compare what is going on in the UK, to what happens in America, despite the fact that the demographics and politics of the two countries are entirely different as are the abortion laws and indeed the gun laws. There can be absolutely no justification for the killings of abortionists but these need to be put in perspective. Since abortion was legalised via Roe V Wade in 1972, there has been a grand total of 8 abortion doctors killed. That is 8 too many, but these occurrences are rare. Compare that to the 50 million terminations that have been carried out since then. The pro-life movement condemns and abhors these acts of violence which are in the minority, but that does not stop people from wishing to brand pro-lifers as violent lunatics. Every year in the US, 1.2 million unborn babies are killed, compared to two tenths of an abortionist. (LifeSite News)
It’s the old slippery slope argument, that is so often derided by the so-called liberals.
Note the emotive and suggestive language, “escalation of protests”. Note the attempt to link in the unrelated hacker who incidentally aligns himself with a group who this week hacked the Vatican and threatened to release confidential details of all the Vatican journalists. There will always be those who are unable to see the unacceptable nature of their actions. Many people felt equally strongly about vivisectionists. No calls were made to curtail the anti-vivisection protests on the basis of the illegal and shocking actions, terror and intimidation techniques of the crazed minority. These were dealt with by due process of the law. Legitimate, lawful protests are not banned on the basis that a loner may hijack the cause. Abortion protestors are no more imposing their views on anyone, than any social or political causes that you see out on the High Street or in town centres on a Saturday morning. In any event there is no history in the UK of pro-life violence, terror or intimidation techniques. The Catholic Church, whose involvement has been highlighted, condemns all acts of violence, but let’s count them in anyway to add to the perceived “lunatic fundamentalist” effect. I also noted the reference to the law requiring ultrasound in 2 US states, which has thankfully been amended in order to remove the possibility of enforced vaginal ultrasound. But let’s put that in there anyway, to scare people further, even though it’s not a reality and not even on the table in the UK.
There is a reason why BPAS are not going to go down the route of escorts for women entering abortion clinics. Firstly there is no threat and secondly, it would add to their overheads. There is a reason why BPAS are trying to fling mud at pro-life protestors – they are proving effective. Whilst the public may support access to abortion, 74% think it is too easy to obtain. There is widespread revulsion regarding late-stage abortions, gender selective abortions, abortions used in place of contraception and the 200,000 abortions that take place every year. There is a reason why people are suspicious of abortion clinics, they can see the financial motivations of these “not-for-profit” (a tax status only) organisations – the heads of both Marie Stopes and BPAS are paid in excess of £125,000 a year. There is a reason if the language of the Right-to-know campaign is being used, namely that it is true and the metaphor of the conveyer belt of the abortion facility is striking a chord with many women who have suffered abortion.
They don’t like it up ’em
There is a reason why a one-off event is being magnified out of all proportion. Opposition to abortion is growing. The 40daysforlife campaign is becoming increasingly successful, it’s managed to unite disparate sections of the pro-life lobby in a simple but effective campaign of gentle protest and prayer. The pro-choice lobby are backed in a corner like a cornered animal, hence their increasingly desperate attack.
In response to the series of exposes by the Daily Telegraph last week, Voice for Choice, ‘the coalition to defend and extend women’s choice on abortion’, has released an open letter of support. (h/t SPUC)
I was left open-mouthed in astonishment by some of its claims, which are crying out for a good fisking.
As can be expected, all of the signatories are members of pro-abort lobby groups and providers, including Ann Furedi, Chief Executive of BPAS and Lisa Hallgarten, director of the former charity, Education for Choice. The amateur nature of the arguments encapsulated in the letter was summarised by the suggested reading list, which included blog entries from the various signatories, such as Ms Berer and Ms Hallgarten, a link to Nadine Dorries’ piece on Conservative Home, links to the Telegraph articles and most amusingly an editorial from that bastion of common sense and moral ethics – The Observer. Had the pro-life lobby signed a letter with those sources, Dr Evan Harris and his ilk would have been all over it like a cheap suit, decrying the lack of scientific evidence and satirising the use of opinion pieces as sources. Instead of linking to scientific studies and sources, or academic papers regarding the practice and ethics of gender selective abortion, readers are urged to reference individual blogs and a supportive column in the national press and take this as “supporting evidence”. The only reason for the mention of the Telegraph and Mrs Dorries’ piece is so that the reader can read what is being referenced and instead of being directly linked to in the letter, they are listed at the bottom of the list of sources, to be read once the pro-abort lobby have had their say. If I wrote something for widespread circulation that I expected to be taken as a basis for informing policy and debate citing only opinion pieces and personal blogs, then the work would be written off for lack of an evidence base and its biased nature.
In the style of the indomitable Father Z, I shall reproduce certain extracts and highlight my comments in bold.
In the face of the Daily Telegraph’s attempt to entrap and discredit a number of doctors who provide abortions – entrap? That means to force a person to commit an offence that they would not ordinarily have committed. So the doctors would not normally have referred to abortions on the grounds of gender then? They would not normally have said “no questions asked” or, as in the case of Dr Mohan, falsified paperwork? Those mean old undercover investigators made them do it?
we believe…that the provision of safe, accessible abortion care is a vital element of health care provision. – I guess that depends upon whether or not you are the unborn baby, for whom the procedure is not particularly ‘healthy’. Nobody has mentioned the Republic of Ireland where abortion is banned and yet maternal death rates are among the lowest in the world and still dropping.
Similarly, abortion on grounds of sex selection is neither legal nor illegal in itself.1 Under the 1967 Abortion Act, it is the effect of the pregnancy on a woman’s health, mental health and life that must be taken into account to determine whether or not she has grounds for abortion. – actually they’ve got this bit correct, but that still means that “no questions asked”, which 3 of the consultants stated, was in breech of the Act. It is morally and legally dubious to pronounce that having a specific gender is going to cause so much damage to a woman’s health, mental health and life, that she must abort the baby, with no further questions asked. The law demands further enquiry and probity.
Rather, the law gives doctors the responsibility to decide whether the risk of continuing the pregnancy to the woman’s health and mental health is greater than if the pregnancy were terminated. In making this judgement, doctors are directed by the law to take into account the woman’s personal circumstances. – which rules out a no-questions asked policy. Duh!
The 1967 Abortion Act gave doctors the responsibility for authorising abortions in the belief that women could not be trusted to take this decision for themselves. – spot the feminist revisionism. No it didn’t. The Abortion Act gave doctors the responsibility, because it recognised the gravity inherent in the taking of a life of the unborn. Trusting a woman had nothing to do with it. The Act recognised that this was a medical procedure, like any other and thus the clinical decision needed to be taken by the medics, having taken into account all of the circumstances, if all other possibilities were closed to a woman. Abortion was NEVER envisaged as a right or a lifestyle choice. If I went to the GP tomorrow and asked for breast implants to take me up to a double HH, otherwise there was a serious risk to my health, the doctor would not simply refer me for the procedure forthwith. They would recognise the risks inherent in surgery and explore whether or not this was a strictly necessary procedure. The abortion is the ending of a human life, the removal of a baby from a mother’s womb. Why is this decision of less gravitas than cosmetic surgery for whatever reason? A woman will still have to live with the outcome of her cosmetic surgery or lack thereof, so what right does a doctor have to refuse it?
Hence, most doctors are willing to provide an abortion referral for a woman if she requests it because they understand that continuing an unwanted pregnancy is not good for women or their children, and will almost always cause a woman greater distress than having an abortion. – really? Do we have the stats to back that up? If so why are they not cited? Whether or not abortion is more harmful than pregnancy is greatly contested amongst the academics. Certainly not what the study published in the British Journal of Psychiatry reported in September 2011 – stating that women who had an abortion had an 81% increased risk of mental health problems. Have any qualitative studies been carried out of women (such as myself) who have carried an unplanned/unwanted pregnancy to term? Would it really have been better for me to have had 3 of my children aborted? Would I feel so much better? Hmmm. No-one can qualify this claim with any certainty because of the nature of the variables.
We think that abortion should be available on a woman’s request, and not be governed by criminal statute at all. – in the words of Mandy Rice-Davies – they would say that wouldn’t they? Which would presumably mean abortion up to birth and post-birth abortions, if you follow through that logic.
We are also opposed to gender discrimination, but sex selective abortion is not gender discrimination. – ???? Eh. What???? Lovely piece of semantics here. Sex is not gender because it’s a social construct presumably? We’re in Blackadder territory – “Lord be Praised, it’s a boy without a winkle”!! In any event it’s evidence that most have not yet thankfully bought into Judith Butler’s nonsense. Discrimination means choice. What is abortion on the grounds of a lack or addition of penis, if it is not gender discrimination?
Gender discrimination applies only to living people. A fetus does not have rights in the same way as a living person does, and therefore cannot be said to suffer from discrimination. – ah there’s the nub of it. It’s not really a person and therefore has no rights, therefore we can do as we please with it. Choosing to abort because the baby is not a boy/girl isn’t discrimination, which can only apply to a person. I see. Discrimination is only concerned with the treating of people unfairly, so given it’s not a person, it can’t be unfair to kill it because of its gender. Hmmm. I see…
sex selective abortion may be one of the consequences of gender discrimination, but it is not a cause of gender discrimination. – its getting increasingly slippery here. Think you’ll find that if there are less girls (or boys) in a country’s overall demographic due to sex selective abortion, it has a massive impact upon that society’s behaviour. Societies where there are less girls for example, suffer from more violence, more violent crimes against women and higher rates of sex-trafficking. China is taking steps to limit this practice due to concerns that a boy’s inability to marry will cause psychological concerns and more violent crimes. Sex selective abortions are all about the worth of a particular gender’s (usually women) life.
Andrew Lansley, the Health Secretary, who otherwise claims he wants doctors to be in charge of all our health care services, said that doctors would face the “full force” of the law if they break the 1967 Abortion Act. This is hard to swallow, especially considering that many of us hadn’t even been born the last time a doctor had to face the full force of the law in relation to illegal abortion. – how’s that for a piece of irrelevant cant? I wasn’t alive when the offence against the Persons’ Act was passed, most of us weren’t alive when many laws that affect our everyday lives were passed, that doesn’t make them any the less applicable or binding. Ignorance of the law is no defence.
The Health Secretary should know better than most that the 1967 Abortion Act was formulated precisely to allow doctors to exercise their professional judgement. It is shocking that he would threaten them with prosecution for doing so on such flimsy evidence. – flimsy evidence? You mean video recordings showing the doctors not making any attempt to adhere to the law and make any enquiries as to whether or not the woman fitted any of the grounds laid out in the Abortion Act. Nothing like a piece of outrage to up the emotional ante, attack being the best form of defence.
Then follows the obligatory smear of Nadine Dorries, without which, no pro-abort literature is worth its salt. Then to conclude:
The vast majority of heterosexually active people of reproductive age are currently using a method of contraception to the best of their ability, but one in three women in Britain will have an abortion in her lifetime. – no contraception is 100% effective right? So is that 1 in 3 women will have a contraceptive failure, or 1 in 3 women will choose to have an abortion? Nice bit of conflation to befuddle the issue and typical of the soft marketing messages given out by the abortion providers. Social conditioning is a known sales, marketing technique. When faced with a choice or dilemma we look to the examples of other people to validate our own actions. What do we teach our children? I’m not interested in what little Johnny does. What matter is what YOU do. Same principle.
We applaud their commitment in the face of unwarranted harassment and condemnation. – unwarranted harassment. I remember last year Dr Evan Harris’ absence of evidence is evidence of absence argument. He argued that because there was no evidence of abuses by clinics with regards to abuses of the law, then that lack of evidence was in itself evidence that everything was fine. Undercover filming to ascertain whether or not clinics are operating in according to the law, is not harassment. It’s a review, which should have been done by the Quality Care Commission. Every other industry is subject to outside review, it seems that this is yet another area in which the CQC has been lax. Which is why Cynthia Bower resigned last week.
every public debate show that most people in Britain are aware of and support the right to use contraception and the right of women to seek abortion when pregnancy is unwanted. – rightyho, so what do you make of the Sky News Live poll last week in which 74% of participants expressed the view that abortion is far too easy to obtain?
We call on everyone who supports family planning, including safe abortion, to express their appreciation for the health professionals who provide them. – by baking them cakes and buying them thank-you cards, like the 40 Treats for Life people? Bleurgh. Looking at that photo stream again, I noticed that Easter eggs are some of the treats donated? Could anything be more subverted than the Easter egg, the symbol of new life, given to people who think that destroying it is serving some great purpose to humanity.
Voice for Choice. It’s a catchy name for a group, but like so many other slogans, it’s utterly shallow.
Press statement from the Thomas More Legal Centre 29 February 2012:
Court ruling will make all Medical Staff complicit in abortion
Commenting on the ruling by the Edinburgh Court of Session in the case of Mary Doogan and Concepta Wood, Neil Addison, the director of the Thomas More Legal Centre, said:
“The case is yet another example of the way in which the UK Courts are interpreting s9 of the European Convention on Human Rights (Freedom of Religion) in the most limited and restrictive way possible. The courts have not hesitated to use the convention to protect murderous terrorists but have refused to use it protect two midwives who do not want to kill unborn children.”
“What is more surprising is the extremely restrictive interpretation the judge has put on the Conscientious Objection clause in s4 of the Abortion Act. As the judge has interpreted s4 believing Catholics, Muslims and others will never be able to take any form of supervisory or management role as midwives or nurses unless they are prepared to be complicit in the provision of abortions.”
“This decision is in stark contrast to recent decisions in the United States’ courts which have applied the American First Amendment to protect the conscience rights of pharmacists who refused to dispense the morning-after pill.”
Caroline’s Comment
Since the birth of my first daughter it was my desire to go into midwifery. I made several enquiries, spoke to University admissions departments and was offered unconditional places. I discovered that there could be no guarantee that I would be exempt from participation in abortion procedures. Today’s ruling legally confirmed that. Catholics may not be midwives. Though we cannot claim persecution, it is a worrying state of affairs when religion disbars one from a profession. To deny reasonable exceptions (after all midwifery has never been concerned with the killing of babies) is, if not a form of oppression, a form of serious discrimination.
Ironic for a society that prides itself for its tolerance, diversity and anti-discrimination. There can be no freedom of conscience in the sphere of medical ethics it would seem. All must obey and/or be dammed. I sincerely hope that this decision is reversed on appeal.
Having given the matter much thought and prayer and following several requests to write regarding some of the big pro-life stories that are hitting the headlines and the moment, I am making a tentative return to blogging.
I am still largely staying away from Twitter, other than to occasionally check for links. The one thing that Twitter is extraordinarily useful for is keeping up to date with news stories, but other than re-tweeting links and making the odd comment, I am scaling back Tweet and general internet activity. I thoroughly recommend it. Though engaging and informative, the flip side of the net can prove thoroughly toxic. A friend made an off-the-cuff comment which is rather apt and certainly brought a smile to my face. “I think the fact that you have a complete stranger screaming and ranting at you on the net from the other side of the country, definitely counts as a form of corporeal mortification”.
I have written an article for this week’s Catholic Herald on how this week has been absolutely seismic for the pro-life cause. There has been a wave of revelations regarding unethical and illegal practices carried out by the leading abortion clinics. Dominic Lawson beautifully summarised the issue in yesterday’s Independent. Unfortunately today’s exclusive by the Herald, came after the deadline, but it is a chilling indictment and a logical conclusion of a culture that condones the killing of the unborn, to call for the killing of newborns. Still, at least the ethicists are not being discriminatory, stating that the killing of newborns should be acceptable in all cases where abortion should be a consideration both in disabled and able-bodied babies. Newborn babies are not actually people, therefore it’s perfectly alright to euthanise them if they are not convenient.
As Will Heaven points out, the only way forward is to oppose all abortion, time-limits only serve as fudges or compromises. Either a baby is fully human from the moment it is conceived or it is not. Though I support any reduction in time-limit, recognising that for now, a total ban is not on the table, thus I think pro-lifers have to fight for as many lives as they can, one stage at a time, there is a conundrum, because by supporting a lower limit of say 20 weeks as proposed by Nadine Dorries, that implicitly accepts that any abortion before then is fine. That is clearly ethically not the case. I am 14 weeks pregnant. Last week I had a scan and witnessed a fully formed baby. Not something that simply appeared to be human, but a clearly identifiable fully-formed tiny human being. S/he had tiny little feet and hands, we saw separate toes, separate fingers, hands reaching out to grasp the cord, little feet kicking energetically and a propensity for summersaults. Every time the probe was pressed firmly on my stomach, the baby either wriggled away or tried to grab the source of the pressure. I still have another 10 weeks in which the law says it would be acceptable to end the life of my child, for either social or medical reasons. Having seen my baby, and I don’t care what philosophers attempt to claim, the biology and physiology was undeniably human and alive, there is nothing on earth that could justify my arbitrarily ending of its life. Even something catastrophic happened in terms of our family circumstances which meant that we really could not give the baby the care it deserves, I can think of several childless Catholic couples to whom I would entrust the care and upbringing of my child. Heartbreaking though that would prove and it would have to be an absolute last resort, it would still be preferable to know that my child was being brought up by a loving family, rather than dead. Adoption has to be a very last resort, the majority of mothers can be helped to look after their babies provided they have the right support.
Though the news is outwardly depressing; abortion has enabled widespread gendercide and the defence of this practice and now unbelievably a debate as to the ethics of infanticide, it has finally put abortion back at the top of the political agenda. These stories are forcing the general public to consider the very nature of abortion, that it constitutes the taking of an innocent life and whether or not this is something that we as a society should encourage. These stories cannot be reframed as “religious fanatics wishing to impose their will upon women’s bodies”, or if they can it is not very convincing. The issue is simple – can it ever be acceptable to kill an unborn child? Why is it acceptable to kill a disabled child, or a child who has arrived at an inconvenient time, but not on the grounds of sex? Why is it acceptable to kill some newborn children but not others? Are children, are humans, only worthwhile if they have been wanted or planned? Are some more equal than others?
Pro-lifers have the perfect opportunity to change hearts and minds on this most crucial of issues. Due to the constraints of the word count, I didn’t have the opportunity to note that I cannot help but wonder whether or not any of this success is down to the efforts of the Forty Days for Life Campaign. Robert Colquhoun’s mention in the Top 10 Catholics of 2011 was well deserved. The achievements of him and his team should not be overlooked here. We must never underestimate the power of prayer; reading the reports, the testimonies and witnessing the photographs of those who have bravely stood in silent witness outside these clinics praying not only for the women and their unborn children, but also the staff of the clinics, never fails to move me. This year the campaign has expanded to Brighton, Birmingham and Manchester, with plans afoot for Oxford as the next location.
If any more evidence were required, we need only to see the attempt at a counter-campaign, forty days for choice. Clinics are obviously feeling under pressure. In Brighton, activists are so concerned by the double whammy effect of Abort 67 and the 40 days campaign group, they have set up a counter group, which is attempting to forge trade union links (since when did being in a trade union mean that you had to support the killing of the most vulnerable, seems totally contrary to the aims of unions who should be fighting for the weakest) and lobby the Church at which members of Abort 67 worship. Interestingly they don’t seem to understand that 40 days for Life, though supported by Abort 67, is an entirely separate campaign. Perhaps most distastefully they have set up their 40daysoftreats campaign, distributing various cakes and confectionary to staff of the clinics and the women attending them. The sight of cakes and a thank-you card is far more stomach churning than the images to which they object. A thank-you card?! “Thank-you for being paid to abort the babies of vulnerable women. Thank-you for aborting babies, you are doing a great job. Have some cake or a piece of chocolate as a sign of my gratitude for the babies you got rid of today”. As for the women themselves, could anything be more patronising and indeed misogynistic in nature. “I’m sorry you’ve had an abortion dear. Never mind, have a piece of the cake I baked”. It would be funny, if it weren’t so grotesque.
The public are waking up to the reality and the issues of abortion. For the first time in recent years, the pro-choice lobby is on the defensive, there is much public appetite to re-consider the morality of abortion. There is the opportunity for much momentum, the pendulum is shifting, but we must not neglect the power of prayer. Last year Francis Philips called for a March for Life, similar to the one held annually in Washington. Let’s use this opportunity and get mobilising. I’m game and so are thousands of others.
The Catechesis of Caroline 