Category: Abortion

Always two sides

A yet another nasty piece of misinformation has cropped up from the pro-choice lobby with Abortion Rights tweeting a link to a blogpost that is being spread in order to to attempt to disprove the peaceful nature of the 40DFL prayer vigils.

I attended a vigil at Bedford Square last Wednesday, like Laurence, I should not be promoting something that I was not prepared to do myself. I shall be attending more vigils throughout the campaign, however to date I have witnessed absolutely no intimidation of women, and my experience of the kick-off rally evoked similar feelings to those of Fr Dominic Allain who was subject to the most disgusting verbal sexual harassment. I wonder whether or not it would be acceptable for men to jeer and heckle women in such vulgar sexual terms?

I am admittedly rather torn as to whether or not to disprove many of the factual inaccuracies and draw attention to the partisan nature of the post, but no doubt this will be incorporated into the myths propagated by the abortion industry advocates, so it seems important to have the facts out there.

The post starts with a photograph of a volunteer from The Helpers of God’s Precious Infants or Good Counsel Network. Not 40 days for Life. The clue is that she’s holding rosaries, which, anyone who has bothered to do their research, will be aware of.

Obviously the poster, Rachel Garrick, thinks its perfectly acceptable to take a close-up photograph of a volunteer, put it on her blog, ensure it spreads around the internet, ask for her to be identified and given a hard time because she is ‘very guilty of harassment’. Even if this was the case, surely if the volunteer had committed a criminal offence, the police should be the first port of call? Provoking an internet witch-hunt and encouraging vigilantism is not responsible behaviour, regardless of what you might think a person has done. The person justifies her taking a close-up photograph by way of response to the alleged clinic filming incident back in March. For starters 40DFL have apologised and stated that they do not endorse or encourage such behaviour, volunteers who do not abide by their statement of peace will be asked to leave, the incident such as it was, appears to have been an over-enthusiastic cameraman who was making a documentary.

In any event, even if this volunteer was guilty of harassment and therefore ‘deserved’ the same treatment, as I say to my children, two wrongs don’t make a right. Rachel wonders why the volunteer looked away from the camera: ‘I am not sure why. Maybe some modicum of humanity still exists in her which makes her realise what she does is wrong.’ How about the fact that she didn’t appreciate being photographed at close range. It’s a tactic used a lot by the anti-life brigade. They like to shove cameras in your face and take photographs at the most unflattering angles. It happened several times at the kick-off vigil, as soon as you joined in the prayers, some camera would appear millimetres from your face in an attempt to intimidate. I had to tell one person in no uncertain terms not to stick a flashlight millimetres from the baby’s face. ‘Why are you doing this’, they would scream as they pushed a camera in your face. Also check-out the attempt to de-humanise and so vilify the volunteer, she is obviously beyond human, capable of carrying out all sorts of evil, such as, um, trying to prevent women from destroying their unborn babies.

‘I am not particularly drawn to the women’s reproductive rights debate but I believe in choice and the safe provision of abortion.’ So you are completely and utterly impartial then? So impartial that 7 months ago you were drawn to taking close up photographs of a volunteer in an attempt at revenge and drawn to posting that photograph over the internet and attempting to whip up hatred. Ms Garrick goes on to say that she is a staunch feminist, so clearly no vested interests whatsoever, just a completely impartial observer?

“In the 7 months that I have worked in the area, I haven’t seen active harassment of women. I’ve seen passive aggressive intimidation through presence and ostentatious yet hypocritical prayer. I’ve even seen a woman on her knees covering her eyes and aping tears as an ambulance arrived at the clinic.”

Right, so an admission that no active harassment has taken place, however look at the confirmation bias. The praying is ‘passive aggressive’ intimidation. How about it’s just prayer, prayers for the women going in there, prayers for the babies whose lives are ending and prayers for the clinic workers? The poster is obviously omniscient, she knows that real intention is to intimidate, that the prayers are ‘ostentatious and hypocritical.’ She is all-seeing, all-knowing she has a unique insight into the volunteers’ hearts, she knows that it isn’t anything genuine that causes them to give up their free time and stand unpaid outside clinics desperately praying for an end to the horror and doing what they can to stop it. No, it’s all really an act, pro-lifers don’t care about suffering, either of babies, or women, they just do it for the kicks. Obviously when we see an abortion go so horribly wrong that a poor woman requires hospital treatment and spontaneously cry and pray, that’s not genuine emotion either. No, we are all evil automatons who have no soul or humanity and our prayer, is simply a pretence. This woman can look into our deepest souls and just know our intentions and motivations. She just knows that we are all unfeeling uncaring brutes. If I had this level of telepathic omniscience I’d put it to much better use than being an office worker down the road from Marie Stopes!

“I have even had conversations with one of the most regular women who spend their entire time outside of the clinic and found she is pro intervention in cases such as ectopic pregnancy”.

Gosh, you’ve brought yourself to speak to these people. You’ve EVEN had a conversation with them. How very brave and enlightened of you. Yes, the volunteer probably will be in favour of intervention in ectopic pregnancy because it is not abortion. Treatment for ectopic pregnancy involves the removal of the diseased fallopian tube to save the life of the mother. The death of the embryo is the side effect of the life-saving treatment, without which both mother and baby would die. The intention is not to destroy the embryo but to remove the diseased tissue to which the embryo is attached. I’m in favour of intervention in the case of ectopic pregnancy. Every pro-lifer is. It’s rather irrelevant anyway as Marie Stopes won’t be performing life saving ectopic surgery.

‘Recently, the regular protesters have been joined by the more militant 40 Days for Life group who have erected stands opposite the clinic.’

Oh dear – total fail. It’s the SAME group. Good Counsel and Helper’s of God’s Precious Infants are the ones who conduct the clinic vigils outside Marie Stopes and it is the Good Counsel Network who are running 40DFL outside Whitfield Street and encouraging people to come along. 40DFL are not more militant, whatever that might mean. It is the very same people who are always there who have organised the vigils. The stands. What the ones with a picture of a dove and Scripture quotation? Ooooh scary! Try doing some fact checking next time.

‘They are sponsored by right wing Christians from the USA.’ Any evidence of that? Yes, it’s inspired by the campaign in the US, but volunteers give up their free time and are not paid. Right-wing and Christian eh? Obviously a double dose of evilness!! What has either political ideology or faith got to do with any of this?

I found the woman in the photograph above talking to a young woman whom she had reduced to tears and a young man who was with the young woman.


How do you know why the young woman was in tears? Something of an assumption that it was the volunteer’s fault. Maybe she was having second thoughts about the abortion, perhaps she didn’t want to have one, perhaps she was being coerced by the young man? Perhaps the volunteer had made her think twice and she really didn’t want to have the procedure, but felt under pressure? It’s not possible to say what had upset her, but I’d wager that someone who was upset to the point of tears before going into the clinic would be having second thoughts and was not 100% decided, or had her doubts about whether or not to abort her baby. Someone who had no belief in the humanity of their unborn child and was totally confident about their decision would walk straight past. Clearly she must have engaged in some way.

‘The woman in the photograph was brandishing a laminated photograph of mutilated foetus of quite advanced gestation and was using it as a prop under the poor young woman’s nose as she spoke at her.’

Clearly NOT 40dfl who do not use graphic imagery and neither do they make any comment about those who do. How does this poster know exactly what the gestation was of the mutilated foetus? As the recent Abort67 case demonstrated, a man testified that he had no idea that the photograph being displayed was of an early gestation. He thought it was of a foetus of 6 months development, not 12 weeks. Perhaps the woman had asked to see it? Without being party to the entire conversation it is difficult to tell, however what I will say is that I have never witnessed these photographs being used by any on 40dfl vigils, it is not a feature of the campaign.

Rachel Garrick then intervened and informed the woman about to go for an abortion that the information was incorrect. Again, it begs the question how as a dispassionate observer that she claims to be, that she knew for sure. It also shows that she was unnerved by the photograph and also attains to their power; her reaction being that the baby was much more human than the one she believed the woman to be expecting. Think about the implications of that. That baby is more human than yours, because it is allegedly much more developed. She is actually implicitly acknowledging the humanity of the unborn child. The gestation of the baby in the photo shouldn’t be the issue. If it is wrong to do that to a baby of that gestation, why isn’t it wrong to do it to a baby of younger gestation? But we only have the poster’s word for it in terms of the photograph and so far she hasn’t shown herself to be very good on the accuracy front.

‘ I said “You don’t have to listen to her, you can just walk away”. The young woman said “I have an appointment in there.” I replied “Just walk around her, you don’t have to listen” and she tried.’

Clearly the woman wanted to listen and engage up until this intervention. Note her response. Not ‘this woman is upsetting me’, not ‘thank you’ but ‘I have an appointment in there’. Of course it depends on the tone of voice, but that response is one of uncertainty. She could have felt obligated to attend the appointment since it was made, she might have been worrying about being late, but it’s telling that the response didn’t thank the poster for her intervention nor did it attack the volunteer. It has the ring of confusion and hesitancy. “I have an appointment”. It could either be urgency, in which case why did she engage with the lady, or seeking comfort in the known – i.e. the fact of the appointment. She might not have known what to do, but what she did know was that she had an appointment, the very existence of which could have been causing her stress.

Ms Garrick then describes how the volunteer allegedly blocked the entrance to the clinic for the woman. Did she really? Did she use force to try to stop the lady from entering. Or did she just try to engage in further conversation. It’s difficult to say, but I would be surprised at a relatively elderly lady using force. She put her body in the way of the woman trying to enter? What does that mean exactly? The pavement outside Marie Stopes is quite wide, as is the entrance. Look at the physique of the volunteer, she is hardly big and burley. Did she try to continue to engage with the lady? Most probably. But that’s not the same as a body block – hence shuffling. Perhaps the volunteer could sense that the woman was being coerced, if she was under pressure (who knows) then the presence of a well-meaning stranger backing up the young man with her, would not have helped the situation. But it’s clear from the “shuffling” there was not any violence and most likely not any harassment either.

What concerns me is not the actions of the helper, but actually of the young man who needed to help her in. Was it really impossible for her to side-step the lady? Many other women do. Or did this poster actually exacerbate the tension and up the emotion here. Because if the woman was dead set on entering the clinic, she would have walked straight past, not made eye contact and not spoken to the woman. It’s not hard to do. I do it regularly with the chuggers in Hove High Street, no matter how emotive their pleas about “don’t you care about child cruelty”. Without actually being a party to the events, they are at the very least ambiguous.

Though I don’t condone women being hassled, it seems as though Rachel had made her mind up as to the situation in front of her, without actually appraising the finer details of what could be happening. Her intervention could well have made things worse, my experience is that the volunteers who do the pavement counselling have very sharp intuition and those whom they speak to do often change their minds. The truth is full of nuances. I wonder how this blogger will feel if it turns out she’s misread the situation and inadvertently helped a man who was pressurising his girlfriend not to have a baby despite her better judgement. All we know from her is that she had an appointment and that she was distressed.

Rachel Garrick was clearly determined that no-one should be allowed to give this lady any information. The lady had to get to her appointment and woe betide anyone who may give her a different narrative to that of abortion being perfectly acceptable. We do know though that Rachel felt she was being very restrained not using violence, she put her hand on the volunteers shoulder several times in an attempt to distract her from putting her body in the way, (again note the presumed intention) that she has no qualms about shoving cameras in people’s faces or encouraging harassment of others via the internet. She is however a very gentle individual who needed much willpower not to get violent, apparently evidenced by the fact that she used to be a professional wrestler.

Where was Marie Stopes where all this was going on? Without witnessing precisely what happened it’s difficult to tell, however wouldn’t it be awful if a staunch pro-choicer in all her fervour and determination to help the woman walk into a clinic, had actually contributed to a coerced abortion? There’s always two sides to every story.

Osborne re-toxifies Tory brand for Catholics?

Generally speaking I try to keep this blog apolitical for a multitude of reasons, perhaps because like many Christians I have absolutely no idea where I fall on the political spectrum: biblical Christianity does not fit neatly into the left/right praxis of modern Western democracies and currently like many orthodox Christians and Catholics and it would seem, most of the electorate, I feel politically disenfranchised. If an election were called tomorrow, I couldn’t vote for any mainstream political party in good conscience, and even choosing the candidate most likely to reflect Catholic teaching is a rather tough call in Brighton and Hove.

Any residual sympathy for the Tories, who seem to be more sympathetic to a pro life agenda and who, unlike Labour, allow their MPs a free conscience vote on matters such as same sex marriage and life issues, has dissipated with George Osborne’s announcement that he plans to curb child tax credits. The precise details have not yet been announced but this will be a blow to thousands of families already feeling the squeeze in the most difficult economic climate for generations.

Make no mistake, the welfare system does need an enormous overhaul, we are trapped in a vicious circle where most families need government welfare in order to top up household income to afford the cost of living. Whilst the government continues to subsidise us, the deficit continues to grow and employers have no incentive to raise wages and thus the cycle continues, but if working tax credits are withdrawn thousands of families will fall into poverty, with waves of house repossessions and potentially catastrophic circumstances.

Osborne’s answer to the spiralling welfare bill seems to be very short-sighted, namely to stop families from having too many children in order to reduce the state’s financial burden. Whilst this might appear to be a sensible policy on the surface, anyone in dire financial straits who seriously cannot afford to feed, clothe or house additional children should temporarily delay having children until they are in a better position, it does at the very least, send a very clear message that more than two children should be the preserve of the wealthy. It also dangerously assumes that the state should assume financial responsibility for families, which of course, is one of the difficulties with welfare as a whole.

The problem is that in an ideal world, welfare should be a safety net only, society has a duty and obligation to look after those who are unable to provide for themselves, however we have got ourselves into a situation where most families rely on assistance from the state, for better or worse. The ideal would be for the state to help families wean themselves off support, however this is not going to happen when wages are not keeping pace with rising inflation, not to mention the catastrophic property boom which has made buying and even renting a family home, out of the reach of many.

If George Osborne curbs child tax credit, the effect will be felt hardest amongst families at the lower end of the earnings scale. Apparently the thinking behind it is to prevent the caricature families with 15 children, parents who have never worked, possess large flat screen TVs, coupled with smoking and drinking habits that the mainstream media like to demonise. No doubt there are families like this who do abuse the system, but welfare is a very blunt instrument with which to cut down on abuses, and as the ESA reforms show, it is largely innocent people who get caught in the crossfire.

From a pro-life point of view these reforms could well exacerbate the soaring abortion rate as well as encourage euthanasia twenty years down the line, when our ever-aging population finds that it has a real shortage of young people to boost the economy. Who is going to work to pay taxes to help fund the costs of care for us when we are elderly and sick? Will there be enough people to actually physically look after us or will care homes and hospitals find themselves with labour shortages? Is it fair to put the burden of looking after elderly parents on one child?

The abortion statistics show year after year, that the majority of abortions occur in the 25+ age category. Around 30% of women who terminate their pregnancies are aged 30 and over. These are very often women who already have a family, who are well aware of foetal development, who know the realties of pregnancy and child-rearing and yet feel that they have no other realistic choice. It’s a situation with which I have much personal empathy. I know only too well what it is like to be pregnant and worried about the future holds, to be seriously scared about whether or not you will be able to provide for another child, financially, practically and emotionally. Even if your child tax credits are not topped up substantially, the extra £13 per week in child benefit provides reassurance that at least the nappies will be affordable. For those thinking that an extra baby need not be a huge expense – simply the nappies, without any other expenditure put an extra burden on the grocery bill, and that’s before one’s thought about formula milk, then later shoes, which can’t always be passed down, and the extra food required – break, milk, cereals, fruit and veg, which have all seen substantial price rises over the past few years. I still shudder when I realise that it’s impossible to buy a loaf of bread for under £1 in most supermarkets.

Women who abort, don’t tend to do it for just one reason alone, there are a plethora of inter-related anxieties, of which money and finances often feature highest on the agenda, particularly for those who already have children. For many it is not simply a case of having to forgo luxuries but very real pressing concerns about making ends meet. George Osborne might think he is preventing dependence on the state, but the grave side effect of this policy is that it will encourage abortion. What happens to a woman who loses her job or whose partner loses their job or perhaps walks out on her when she’s pregnant and already has children to look after? She either aborts, adopts or struggles to fend for her children, but it’s hard to give hope and encouragement when the government are saying that unless you have a steady permanent well-paid job, your children are not welcome. It’s certainly at odds with a government whose leading members are wanting to reduce the abortion time limits.

It makes no sense that Ian Duncan-Smith’s eminently more sensible idea of means testing payments such as the winter fuel allowance for the elderly, many of whom are the baby boomers who have profited from the property bubble and are enjoying a lavish retirement, has been rejected, in favour of targeting so-called feckless families and only drives these families further into poverty, regardless of whether or not they are in work. Perhaps the Government needs to do more in terms of job creation?

It is fear of stigmatisation, fear of people’s perceptions, fear of being written off as being either a feckless teenage mum or a scrounger on welfare that is a very real deterrent for women with unplanned pregnancies, along with concerns about how they are going to manage. These proposed welfare cuts are a real blow to creating a more life accepting society.

I am not sure whether or not a Catholic in good conscience could endorse such a government which not only seeks to use its powers to limit the number of children the average family has (given the previously mooted cuts to child benefit) but also creates an environment more likely to drive women to abortion. What if these so-called feckless families out of work continue to have children, undeterred by the cuts? Even if they save money on the welfare bill, they are still likely to cost more in terms of needing support from other services such as health or education providers.

The words of Paul VI seem ever more prophetic.

Who could blame a government for applying to the solution of the problems of the community those means acknowledged to be licit for married couples in the solution of a family problem? Who will stop rulers from favoring, from even imposing upon their peoples, if they were to consider it necessary, the method of contraception which they judge to be most efficacious? In such a way men, wishing to avoid individual, family, or social difficulties encountered in the observance of the divine law, would reach the point of placing at the mercy of the intervention of public authorities the most personal and most reserved sector of conjugal intimacy.

Co-operation with evil?

This quote taken from the Seido Foundation sums up the position on a limit cut neatly.

Provided Catholics don’t campaign for a limit cut on its own merits, as to do so acknowledges and accepts abortion, as long as we make it very clear we are opposed to all killing of the unborn, then we can, in good conscience support an amendment to the abortion law, provided it was correctly worded, because it seeks to make the law ‘less harmful’. So not so reckless after all. 🙂

Of course this is all conjecture because much would depend on the proposed wording of any bill. Any fresh perspective also needs to address why politicians are so keen to sanction the destruction of less than perfect humans.

“Nevertheless a citizen who takes part in a legislative body and who has not been able to block an immoral law can take part in the determination of particular sections of the law. He can vote or abstain from voting for particular sections of the law which are not immoral and for amendments which would make the law less harmful. Even so, all scandal must be avoided and disagreement with the general content of the law must be expressed.”

Limits of thinking?

The debate surrounding the potential reduction in the 24 week abortion limit is very timely given the recent debate as to the merits of incrementalism on the Catholic blogosphere and Twitter.

Jeremy Hunt’s remarks, whilst perhaps not a distraction as previously thought, it seems that he was answering a straight question perfectly honestly, (even if primed by No 10) do seem indicative of a sea change in government thinking, in line with the views of the electorate. He has been applauded for his honesty even if many disagree with his thinking, although the outrage as to a politician expressing a genuinely held viewpoint is comical. People seem to have forgotten that Mr Hunt is the Secretary of State for health, he is an elected partisan politician and not a civil servant, therefore he is more than entitled to speak out about health matters according to his own personal and or political viewpoint.

What new scientific facts are there to prove that abortion after a certain period of time should be outlawed? Actually the science is to a certain degree irrelevant, life issues are never scientific but always ethical. We may use science to reinforce our ideological position but how we interpret the science will always be coloured by our philosophy. So for example you have pro-choicers at one end of the scale talking about the low survivability rates of babies of premature gestation and at the other, pro-lifers using the science to point out foetal development and sentience.

The issue of late-stage abortion shouldn’t pivot around the viability or survival rates of premature babies; whenever a baby is born alive every effort should be made to preserve its life. Ethically speaking the deliberate destruction of human life is equally grave whether we are talking about a 3 week old unborn baby or a terminally ill elderly patient with only a few weeks to live, but there is nonetheless something viscerally repellant about a late-stage abortion. David Alton goes into the detailed medical specifics but I defy anyone to read his description (no graphic photos) and not feel sick to their stomachs. It is undeniable that late stage abortion is repugnant and ought to be banned in any decent society.

No reputable vet would do this to a dog and yet it’s somehow acceptable to do it to unborn children, simply because as humans we are able to make a reasoned decision?! Not only do the babies die in agony, (note that the central nervous system is formed by six weeks) but being the recipient of such a violent procedure is also no good for women, either psychologically or physically. Typical injuries include scarring on the cervix, increasing the risks of infertility or problems in future pregnancies, infections and that’s before the psychological effects of having to give birth to a fully formed baby, or having been given medication whilst awake to cause the waters to break. No wonder women are reporting struggling with future wanted pregnancies, phobias about labour and giving birth and difficulty bonding with their newborns. In addition no specialist support is given to women experiencing pregnancy after a late-term abortion, unlike women who have had stillbirths. The abortion is deemed to have been their choice and many women report feeling too ashamed to be able to discuss things fully with their midwives.

The practice is utterly indefensible and needs to be stamped out. The death of the child, the moral evil, is exacerbated by the cruel and barbaric method by which it is executed.

This talk of limits is not simply just talk. Jeremy Hunt and Maria Miller have added their voices to a chorus of leading members of the Tory government who wish to cut the limit to 20 weeks, including Theresa May and David Cameron himself. Nadine Dorries indicated yesterday on Twitter that the issue could well come up, as back-benchers are again proposing a private members’ bill, although in her column in today’s Conservative Home, she has also stated that she believes the glut of Tory support to be a sop for some of the Tory grassroots Christians who have been alienated and outraged by the government’s determination to enact gay marriage in law, despite overwhelming opposition. Interestingly, Alex Neil, the Scottish minister for health has also now added his voice to the fray, pledging his support for a reduction in the 24 week limit.

Guido Fawkes points out that the Government is publishing its sexual health strategy in the autumn which will include contraception and abortion. A proposed limit cut could be on the cards. It is not simply media hype or a Twitter storm. David Cameron can state with total honesty that he has no plans to introduce legislation to reduce the abortion limit, however there is nothing to stop a private member’s bill from being introduced. Abortion has historically always been a conscience vote for individual MPs, and not a governmental or party policy, therefore we could see a bill being introduced before the end of this Parliament in 2015.

So what does that mean for pro-lifers? Can or should we support this? Can a Catholic pro-lifer support a politician who is lobbying for a reduction in the abortion time-limits? It requires some careful thinking.

SPUC have said this week’s events are just media hype, but it’s time to take a fresh look at the abortion issue. They are right up to a point, in that the way that the government funds the abortion and abortion-related industry certainly needs to be examined, especially the relationships between the DFID and Marie Stopes, who forcibly implement China’s one child policy and are expanding their global franchise.

The problem with taking a fresh look at the abortion issue is that this paves the way for pro-choicers to demand even more liberal abortion laws, such as removing the doctor’s second signature and making early stage abortion unrestricted. I won’t link to the more outrageous polemical pro-choice rants, but one “angry woman” went off on a hysterical flight of fancy where women were simply dropping like flies through coat hangers and so on and called for abortion to be available throughout the duration of pregnancy. “As long as it’s inside it can be aborted” she cried. Whilst the public would never sanction such a thing, public opinion is firmly on the side of the 20 week limit, the trouble with emphasising the human form of the 20 week old foetus, is that it can have the opposite effect of de-humanising the early stages of pregnancy, after all it’s quite difficult to go all gooey over a blastocyst and even the little bean with paddles doesn’t have quite the aw factor. By concentrating on the foetal pain and awareness issues, as well as the revolting procedure, one risks inadvertently endorsing early stage abortions, which could be seen as more humane.

As yet the public appetite is not yet in favour of a total ban, so what we could realistically see is yet another compromise, along the lines of the debacle in 1990, when following the filibustering of Alton’s 1988 bill, a bill was passed lowering the abortion limit to 24 weeks, but allowing it up until birth for disabled babies, including conditions such as Downs Syndrome and cleft palate. Pyrrhic victory is too trite a phrase to describe the devastating effects and implications for the disabled, following this concession.

Another issue is whether or not a cut to abortion limits could render an overall abolition unlikely? Is there a chance that having cut the limits, even to an unlikely 12 weeks in line with most other European countries, that the majority of the country will be satisfied and there is little opportunity to work so that no woman ever feels the need or compulsion to abort her unborn baby?

It’s very difficult not to fall into utilitarian thinking, whichever way one approaches the issues. I think the response from right-to-life campaigners has to be qualified support. If the intentions are to primarily save lives, such as the almost 2,000 healthy babies who would undoubtedly be saved by a simple 4 week cut in limit and to prevent suffering, then morally there can be no question that this is the right course of action. The politicians have explicitly stated that such a cut would exclude disabled children – a disgusting, disgraceful and disappointing decision. If there is the opportunity to save 2,000 lives with no additional cost, then of course this should be grasped, in the same way that we grasp the opportunity to save just a single life.

Where due caution has to be exercised is in ensuring that any such cut to the limits is not accompanied by liberalising of early stage abortion, which is a real danger. I wrote last year about the realities of early stage medical abortion in response to the proposed change to allow people to administer the pill at home. Fortunately common sense prevailed in the court room, but as the case of Jessie-Maye Barlow demonstrates, destruction of the unborn child aside, early stage abortion is not risk free, particularly when the abortion clinic is negligent in terms of follow-up care.

But provided right-to-lifers are clear, not only about the sanctity of all life, provided that they take care not to endorse, encourage or condone abortion at any stage, then, they can, in good conscience support any measure that seeks to reduce the number of those killed and wounded by abortion, whilst continuing to work for total abolition, not only via parliamentary means, (including the creation of social conditions as to make abortion unnecessary) but also via prayer, practical help, education and support.

Most Catholics and those who support a right-to-life are neither qualified moral theologians, political strategists or social scientists, but simply those seeking an acknowledgement of the humanity of the unborn. It is impossible to know with any certainty what effect a rate cut might have – more legal protection for the unborn is no bad thing, although the inequality of the disabled must not simply be ignored.

What we have to ask ourselves is on that terrible day of judgement when we are called to account, was when we had the opportunity to save lives, did we grasp this with both hands, did we engage in activity such as galvanising support and writing to our MP etc? Or were we paralysed by fear that this was the wrong strategy or so concerned by the unforeseen consequences that we passed up the opportunity to outlaw a barbaric practice, enshrine advances in thinking in favour of the humanity of the unborn and thus allowed lives to continue to be lost and suffering to continue unabated, whilst waiting for the perfect solution?

Distraction technique?

Jeremy Hunt has now added his voice to that of Maria Miller, only this time he’s gone even further, stating that he would like to see the abortion limit dropped to 12 weeks.

Whilst many of us are delighted to see abortion back up at the top of the political agenda, I can’t help but inwardly sigh at all the inevitable clichés that are going to be trotted out by all sides.

Abortion is an apolitical, secular issue which requires neither recourse to any sort of theism or tribal party loyalty of any description. It boils down to one very simple question: is it ever morally justified to take the life of an unborn child? A negative answer does not necessitate an appeal to God or any belief as to a free-market economy, as evidenced by the various commie, atheist and pagan members of the UK secular pro-life society.

Anyone care to guess how many articles are going to be churned out by the Guardian on this over the weekend? Smoke is already erupting from the keyboards of Diane Abbot and Sarah Ditum. Christian right wing, US tactics, culture wars, women’s health, blah blah.

Nope, just a bunch of people who think killing unborn children is quite wrong. Women do not need direct abortion for their health and how, in this instance late term abortion with all its horrors and side effects can be justified as healthy, is beyond me.

As far as pro-life is concerned, Andy Stephenson is quite correct, this is all a total irrelevance. Time limits and survival rates of premature babies are not the main issue here. The question is when does life begin? Not when does sentience start or when can the baby be said to be alive or philosophical beard stroking as to definitions of awareness, but when does human life begin? If not at conception when precisely does the unborn child suddenly become either human or alive?

The science is firmly on the side of the pro-lifers, even Ann Furedi of BPAS admits as much, writing that

“the question is not when does life begin but when does it begin to matter?”

The answer to that does not depend upon religious views or political leanings although of course they may influence one’s answer. I can’t reconcile myself with how the Labour party, once traditionally preoccupied with the protection of the poorest and most vulnerable in society, with its traditional ideology of solidarity, can ride roughshod over the rights of humanity on the grounds that it is not yet born. The lives of those humans who are yet to make the journey through the birth canal are not as important as those who have?

Abortion limits matter little when one is talking about the lives of the unborn. It is as abhorrent to kill a three week old unborn baby (who incidentally has a heartbeat) as it is one at twenty four weeks.

Whilst all pro lifers support measures that would reduce the amount of abortions being performed and suffering caused to women, actually what we want to see is an end to abortion.

Neither Jeremy Hunt, Maria Miller or even Nadine Dorries are pro life as they all support a lowering of limits and nothing more. It’s laughable when they are portrayed as pro-life bigots when the truth is that pro-lifers are crying out for politicians who openly support the cause and not what they believe to be achievable.

Personally, like many others I am in favour of a reduction in limits as it will save lives and avert terrible suffering, but there is the risk that such a measure could backfire. We know that women are often pressured and coerced by others, not least by the abortion industry itself. An early limit could in some cases cause a woman to rush her decision and make a mistake that she will regret for the rest of her life. It will however spare some women the agony of late term abortion and could force the unwanted pregnancy rate down.

There is no comparable statistical data available as to what happens when a country drastically reduces the limits on abortion after 40 years of effective abortion on demand, so whatever side of the debate you are on, pro choice, incrementalist or absolutist, the consequences are, to a great extent, guesswork.

It’s great to see the topic of abortion back in the spotlight, public opinion is beginning to change, but the cynic in me scents a distraction. Maria Miller and Jeremy Hunt have not proposed any such legislation or even consultation on the matter, this is simply their personal views. Cameron’s Conservatives are doing appallingly, his personal rating is at an all time low, Osborne is not doing much better, the department of Transport made a huge Horlicks last week, the re-shuffle was a damp squib, Ed Milipede has begun to emerge from his chrysalis, the government have made more u-turns than a motorist who’s switched their sat-nav to Apple maps and suddenly the focus is on private views held about abortion?

Either it’s a total distraction to keep the media and masses talking or they’ve run out of ideas and want the coalition government to be seen to have been decisive and achieved at least one thing over their disastrous tenure.

There is nonsensical talk emanating from the pro-choice lobby about an “abortion policy fit for the 21st century”. What does that mean, teleporting unborn children out of wombs? It’s a desperate attempt to make those who oppose the killing of our unborn seem out of touch, Victorian, paternalistic and uncaring. At least the Victorians actually took some responsibility for the poor and weak, as opposed to outwardly killing them off. What this talk is aimed at is reforming our abortion laws in order to enshrine abortion on demand as a right and removing current medical safeguards. What could happen in practice is we see a reduction in limits coupled with unrestricted early stage abortion, something that would neither be good for women or children, however politicians and members of the public would feel appeased by an intellectually dishonest and unsatisfying compromise.

If the government or an MP really wants to make a difference in terms of reducing abortion, they should stop funding the abortion clinics who make money off the back of women’s misery, not just in the UK but as in the case of Marie Stopes, in China. They’ll also stop funding organisations who promote abortion as being the main option for unplanned teen pregnancies. They’ll ban advertisements for abortion services and pour money into helping mothers, especially young or single mothers and heavily subsidise childcare for those in greatest need. They’ll also give pro life organisations funds to properly counsel and support frightened pregnant women.

Unless and until all of those things happen, it’s all tinkering around the edges, a lot of unnecessary conjecture and a contrived escalation of the perceived culture wars. Let’s face it, the government has firmly stuck its fingers in its ears over the overwhelming majority who do not wish marriage to be re-defined, why are they suddenly going to introduce legislation to cut abortion limits?

The fewer babies killed and women hurt the better, but let’s be honest, without the above measures, bringing limits down is of very little import if one’s ultimate destination is in the sluice of BPAS.

20 week limit – some facts

A 4D ultrasound of a baby at 20 weeks gestation

Maria Miller, the new minister for women, has courted controversy by stating that she supports a lowering of the legal abortion limit down to 20 weeks from the current deadline of 24 weeks.

No doubt anticipating the howls of outrage from the feminist lobby, she has valiantly attempted to reframe this as being a feminist issue, that it is in women’s best interests that the abortion limits are lowered. One has to admit that she has a point.

Medically and psychologically speaking it is certainly better for women who have an abortion to do so sooner, rather than later. The advice of the RCOG and the NHS is that around 10 weeks is the optimal time to terminate a pregnancy, in terms of minimising the risks to women. The procedure for a late-term abortion is especially gruesome and traumatic; either one is given massive doses of hormones to induce labour (which can last 6-12 hours) and then delivers a dead baby; alternatively the baby’s heart is stopped via an injection either vaginally or through the stomach, medication is given to soften the cervix and then 12-24 hours later woman is given a general anaesthetic and the dead baby is dismembered and removed surgically.

Those are the indisputable scientific facts. Medically, there is no question that if we are talking solely about female physical wellbeing, then an early stage abortion, though no picnic, has to be the less risky and traumatic option. No woman gives birth to a stillborn baby without experiencing a very deep level of trauma. Here’s some testimonies from women who have had late-stage abortions in the UK, from a non partisan women’s website.  The replies are well worth reading.

hi i had an abortion when i was 20 weeks pregnant
they didnt explain to me that i would have to give birth as i didnt really no anything about abortions at the time
its bin a year and half and i still struggle to get through the days, i regret what i have done but if i could turn back the clocks then i think i would, it was 4 the best but i cant live with my self for what i have done.

I had an abortion at 21weeks and 4days and it was the most horrible experience of my life…The clinic where i had the procedure done was horrible, it was clean… but it was just like a baby killing factory. A conveyor belt of women. I was upset and no-one cared. I was left alone for ages. I had to get a d and e procedure. I had something placed in me to dilate my cervix… i was lying in a small shut off room alone, when I felt gushing coming from me… I waited untill i was getting my temperature taken and told the nurse, that was my water breaking… I cried and cried when I was alone, then a short while later at 12.15pm I was taken and given my anesthetic an that was it over. Woke up in recovery. Was put back in my bed where my tempertaure and blood pressure was taken and that was it. No-one spoke to me untill i was being discharged, and given my anti-biotics. At the whole time i was there i wasnt asked why i wanted an abortion, if i was sure this is what i wanted… Just got on with it. I am not anti abortion, but I wish the option hadnt been there for me to get it so late.

As many of the late term abortion apologists cite the relatively low number of late term abortions in order to qualify them on medical grounds, it’s worth having a look at these figures. In 2011 2,729 late term abortions took place between 20-24 weeks. None were under ground F – to save the life of the pregnant woman, or Ground G – to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the mother. 778 were under Ground E – there was a ‘substantial risk of abnormalities, as to be seriously handicapped.’ So thats a total of 1951 healthy babies aborted between 20 and 24 weeks.

Let’s also remind ourselves of the findings of a recent symposium  comprised of 140 experts on maternal health in Dublin who ruled that direct abortion is never medically necessary to save the life of a mother.

The danger in defending the lowering of a 20 week limit is that it risks encouraging and endorsing early stage abortions as well as ignoring the disgusting discrimination against babies with disabilities, although if any such change to legislation is mooted, it would be an excellent opportunity to reexamine the law surrounding Ground E abortions.

Even those who feel that a woman should have a right to choose, baulk at the notion of a 20 week baby being killed, simply because a mother has left her decision too late. If people are uncomfortable with the idea of a fully formed baby being killed, then we need to ask why it is acceptable to dispose of disabled babies. What does that tell us about our society – are we saying that the lives and bodies of disabled people are of lesser value and worth? Anyone who feels intuitively uncomfortable about late stage abortions for social reasons, needs to re-examine their conscience as to why they feel they are acceptable for babies with disabilities.

As for the science of foetal pain, this is contentious. What we do know is that babies of 16 weeks gestation will recoil from a noxious substance in the womb and that babies born prematurely under 24 weeks will withdraw and cry if stabbed in the heel with a needle. Though the RCOG’s official position is that babies under 24 weeks do not feel pain, other experts feel that this is based on an outdated understanding of physiology.

There are also disturbing cases of babies born alive following attempted abortion. As Peter Saunders notes, “in a 2007 West Midlands study of 3,189 cases of termination for fetal anomaly, 102 (3.2%) babies were born alive. This included 65.7% of those between 20 and 24 weeks. Accounts such as these understandably upset people.”

Here’s Millie McDonagh thriving after being born at 22 weeks and 6 days. Amilia Taylor, the world’s most premature baby was born at 21+ 6 days. Baby Jayden was not so lucky. He was born at the same time and allowed. to die. A 20 week limit could ensure that treatment is attempted for all premature babies. Or do the feminist principles of equality for the weakest only apply to those who have the strongest chances of growing into adulthood without disability?

Three quarters of the public have expressed a desire to see the limit brought down to 20 weeks. If such a change is passed not only does it increase protection for the unborn but is a significant step towards recognising the humanity of all unborn children. Perhaps that’s why it is being opposed quite so vehemently?

Report from Msgr Reilly to all pro-lifers

Here is the official statement from Monsignor Philip Reilly, Director of Helpers of God’s Precious Infants. Let’s pray for similar in the UK.

OB/GYN Pavilion at the Ambulatory Surgery Center of Brooklyn has been a Center for abortions since June of 1971. It was the oldest and largest abortion clinic in New York City and for many years, in the United States, where I believe more than a quarter of a million unborn children lost their lives.
I use the verb was rather than is, since the abortion clinic was closed on Sept. 1st 2012. Obviously the pro-lifers are happy and the unborn babies are happy but so also are the owners of the abortion Center. Why are the owners happy?

The Helpers are present in prayer outside of abortion clinics not simply to save babies but to save souls. Indeed the Helpers are present not simply to witness the truth but to convert people to the truth and to change hearts. After so many years of good lay people, religious, priests and Bishops praying and fasting outside of Ambulatory Abortion clinic; after so many years of dedicated laypeople offering help by sidewalk counseling to the pregnant women entering the clinic, the Lord has granted a complete victory.

On Monday September 17th the same building will reopen under the same ownership but as the New York Center for Specialty Surgery where only true healing will take place. In this building there will be absolutely no more abortions, abortifacient contraceptives, morning after pills, RU486 etc. performed or distributed. The old owners change of heart is real and complete and all the new doctors are real doctors who will not do an abortion procedure. Praise God.

PSALM 115

Non nobis, Domine, non nobis
Sed nomini tuo da gloriam

Not to us, O Lord, not to us
but to thy Name give glory

That’s the way to do it

This is why the abortion industry doesn’t like 40 days for life or abortion clinic protests. There is evidence that they actually work.

Msgr Philip J. Reilly, executive director of Helpers Of God’s Precious Infants, (left), and Father Kevin Sweeney at the Ambulatory Surgery Center of Brooklyn.
Abusive protestors?

According to this report in the New York Daily News, Sunset Park Abortion clinic has shut down and it’s all the fault of those pesky Catholics praying. The Ambulatory Specialty Surgery Center of Brooklyn on 43rd St., closed earlier this month and will reopen in October as a new medical center providing outpatient surgeries, but not abortion.

It’s interesting that pro-choicers are spinning this closure as being due to the pressure and harassment faced by those conducting clinic vigils and yet it seems odd that no legal action was taken if there was some sort of public order nuisance, threat to security or individuals.

Though we cannot downplay the importance of prayer and reparation here, I think more telling is the statement of Terry Lazar, the clinic owner who states that had the clinic attempted to continue to provide abortions, they would have “gone out of business”. Not language one would expect to hear in the UK, where pro-choicers decry the allegation that BPAS and MSI may be in the game for anything other than purely altruistic motives, whereas here the motives are clear – the abortion clinic existed to make money and provide jobs.

Now that the clinic is closing down its abortion facilities, all of a sudden they are inundated with new staff, twenty doctors have expressed interest in working there, whereas a month ago, they were struggling to recruit employees. I suspect that the decision to change direction has as much to do with economic reasons as it does the vigils, although there can be no doubt that they play a part. The vigils have no right to obstruct the public highways and will not physically be preventing people from getting to work, it’s more likely that their presence has pricked a few consciences, or perhaps that doctors don’t actually want to kill people – strange as that concept might seem!

It seems to be this shortage of doctors that proved the problem, coupled with a lack of customers. The owners can blame the clinic vigils all they like, but its more likely to be a case of simple economics, supply and demand. A rally is planned in support of another abortion clinic in New York, which is also struggling to find doctors and patients.

Even if the vigils are proving something of a deterrent effect, which as the leader of the local chapter for the National Organisation for Women, says is something she’s never previously heard of, then that can be no bad thing. Although is a woman who is so utterly desperate for an abortion, really going to be put off by a group of people displaying their opposition to her choice? Is a woman really going to seek a dangerous and illegal backstreet procedure as opposed to to braving a few allegedly vocal volunteers?

Monsignor Philip Reilly has held a Mass in celebration – I also sincerely hope that there is a Mass said for the souls of the countless babies who have died since this facility was opened.

This is exactly what clinic vigils are all about. Not hassling and harassing women, but praying for the conversions of heart, prayers which seem to be bearing fruit. With no doctors and not enough patients it seems like abortion is becoming a less and less profitable business in the USA. Let’s pray for a similar conversion in the UK. After all, if doctors don’t want to perform abortions and fewer women want to have them, then there seems little point in the clinics continuing to exist.

No wonder the industry is panicking. As one pro-choice activist anxiously tweeted “things are getting serious. Priests are celebrating closures with Mass”. May there be many more.

One in three

On the subject of imports from the abortion industry, I see the US has now picked up the rhetoric of the soft marketing messages used by the UK abortion clinics and sex education providers. The Guttmacher Institute, funded by Planned Parenthood , the US’s largest abortion provider, has launched a new 1 in 3 campaign, stating that 1 in 3 women will obtain an abortion before the age of 45. Sound familiar?

As the Right to Know campaign pointed out last year, this ‘statistic’ is trotted out time and time again, in order to validate abortion as an option. The best-selling academic and author, Dr Robert Cialdini, Professor of Psychology at Arizona State university, describes ‘social proof’ as being one of the six key principles of persuasion. People are more willing to take a certain or recommended course of action if they see evidence of others doing it, particularly if they perceive those others as being similar to themselves. So it’s highly likely that a woman considering abortion could well be persuaded by the ‘evidence’ of other women. Social proof is most influential if someone is undecided as to a particular behaviour, they look to what other people are doing and observe that as correct. A technique which is doubly effective if they identify with the other subjects in some way.

So it’s highly likely that a young person who is yet undecided as to the issue of abortion, will encounter this message on an Education for Choice website and be convinced – if one in three women are having an abortion, then it must be not only necessary, but also perfectly acceptable, surely? The same goes for a woman with an unplanned pregnancy in an ambiguous situation who is unsure of what to do. The fact that 1 in 3 women allegedly have an abortion is only there to influence her decision. Surely what other people do should be of no relevance, in terms of her own personal situation? If pro-choice is all about doing what is right for that individual woman in her particular circumstances, what does it matter what other people have done?

There is no reason to include that statistic other than to attempt to influence opinion. Still it’s very sneaky indeed. Simcha Fischer from the National Catholic Register gives some insight as to who these one in three women are.

Robyn Reed is one of the one in three. When she tried to escape from the abortion clinic where her family had dragged her, the abortionist tore off her clothes, hit her, tied her to a bed, aborted her child, and drugged her so heavily that she was unconscious for twelve hours. Reed was fifteen years old at the time. She is one of the one in three women in America who obtains an abortion.

This mother is one of the one in three. When doctors told her she would die if she didn’t abort, she refused and refused, but finally agreed to be induced early, on the condition that they would try to save her baby’s life. She delivered a son, and no one made any effort to help him. He died in her arms. Later, she discovered that he was healthy, and that she had never been at risk. She is one of the three women in America who obtains an abortion.

Here are notarized affidavits from women who were pressured into having abortions. Each of these women is one of the one in three women in America who obtains an abortion.

Here are hundreds of pages of written testimony from women who were forced or coerced into abortions. Each of these women is one of the one in three women in America who obtains an abortion.

Here and here and here are hundreds of accounts written by women who had an abortion and regret it. Over and over again, they use the phrase, “I felt like I didn’t have a choice.” Each one of these women is one of the one in three women in America who obtains an abortion. They are part of the one in three.

These are the women the Guttmacher Institute is counting when they used numbers to make the claim that women want and need abortion.

This is what the “1 in 3” Campaign seeks to normalize: pain, regret, coercion, violence, despair. It is a campaign to make women understand that abortion is normal, abortion is their fate — that they have no choice.

Personally I’d like to see the stats behind one in three. Is it really one in every three women who have had an abortion before the age of 45? How has this figure been worked out? The ONS doesn’t routinely give out statistics regarding first time and repeat abortions unless one submits a Freedom of Information request, so how can we vouch for the veracity of the figure. Is this just the number of abortions averaged out between the number of childbearing women in the UK. According to this American campaign 22% of pregnancies end in abortion, but 1 in 3 women will have one. It seems that they have done a straight averaging job here, which means women who have had repeat abortions will skew the statistics, as will women who have never fallen pregnant. I’d love to see the raw data.

Even if the figure is true, what does that say about our society? One in three women are in such desperate and dire circumstances that they have no other choice than to abort their unborn baby? Or is it that contraception fails one in three women? Whatever the answer, it’s certainly not something that anyone should be treating with a healthy dose of pragmatism, unless of course we really do live in the culture of death.

Coming from America

Predictably enough, the pro-choice lobby has moved up a gear in response to 40daysforlife, despite the fact that no actual changes in the law are being mooted or lobbied for, with a glut of the usual rhetoric appearing on a daily basis on the internet, therefore this blog will take on even more of a pro-life bent until the end of the campaign, as much misinformation abounds.

A rather slick new website that appears to be supported by and it would seem, an initiative of the “charity” Education for Choice has sprung up. * (see note). It’s worth noting that Education for Choice masquerades as that Holy Grail of “evidenced based” information, whereas it is obvious from their website, that they are in fact all about promoting abortion. Given that they’ve managed to totally misrepresent the Roman Catholic position on abortion, falsely claiming that the Church used to accept abortion until quickening – it doesn’t inspire much confidence as to the impartial nature of the rest of their information. In any event, Education for Choice, is a wholly owned subsidiary of Brook Advisory, the “charity”, concerned with providing with sexual health advice and services. It can’t be any surprise that they are opposing anything that might present a challenge to the status quo on abortion, but it makes their false claims of 40DaysforLife being a professional political organisation, awash with cash, rather hypocritical.

The professional writer, journalist and pro-choice advocate, Sarah Ditum launches the site, with this post, riddled with inaccuracies. Ditum starts off by describing 40 Days for Life’s American roots, the standard trope de jour when talking about this issue. The point being that abortion is much more of a political hot potato in the US, than it is in the UK. This has nothing to do with clinic vigils and everything to do with the political and religious demographics of the US. Abortion should be an apolitical issue, one doesn’t need to have a tribal allegiance to either left or right wing parties to believe that the taking of an unborn human life is wrong. The pro-choicers who bemoan this, were the very ones who politicised the issue in 1967 and 1973 when campaigning for its legalisation. Those who point to America as being some sort of big bad bogeyman in terms of the abortion issue would presumably reject any of the tactics used by their pro-choice lobby, such as the setting up of a research institute funded by their biggest abortion provider?

The association with the US is repeated time and time again, to draw false analogies between the American bible-belt and the UK population. It’s a not-so subtle form of racism and superiority. Anyone who supports clinic vigils must be some kind of bible-thumping irrational redneck, is the implication. Not to mention the deliberate attempt to install fear, because in the last 40 years, eight abortion clinic workers have been killed in American since Roe v Wade, equating to two tenths of a person per year. That’s not to downplay the abortion related violence that has taken place, but the overwhelming majority of pro-life absolutely abhor all violence and killing, which is precisely the sentiment that motivates the vigils. Eight murders is 8 too many, but in a vastly populated country which has the right to bear arms enshrined in its constitution, it is likely that there will be unbalanced individuals who will take matters into their own hands, regardless of the cause. It does not automatically follow that this is likely to happen in the UK.

As anyone who attended the 40 days for Life kick-off rally on Tuesday night will attest, actually the fanatical aggression came from those on the pro-choice side, who spent a full hour ranting, chanting insults, blasphemy and screaming vile obscenities when faced with a group of people praying the rosary. The more they were ignored, the most venomous and offensive they became, the priest being a particular target of their hatred. A pro-life pagan gives her account of what happened here. As this report states, fanatical extremist violence seems to feature far more heavily from the pro-choice brigade; in America a loaded gun was pointed at the 40 days for life volunteers by an abortionist, at another location an abortion supporter tossed a homemade firebomb at them and recently we saw the attempted murder and mass shooting, averted by the bravery of a security guard at the Family Research centre in Washington DC. If American style tactics are taking place, then it would seem that it is actually the pro-lifers who are bravely putting themselves on the line in defence of the unborn.

A UK “pro-lifer” has added fuel to the fire by giving Ditum the “benefit” of their wisdom. Referring to a one-off incident where it is alleged that a volunteer filmed women entering the clinic, (he was supposedly filming for a documentary) something that 40 Days for Life does not condone and behaviour which will result in the volunteer being immediately asked to leave the vigil, said pro-lifer opined “what starts with a camera could end with a gun”. I cannot begin to dissect the motivation of someone who seeks to paint their alleged brethren in Christ who stand in silent prayerful solidarity with the unborn as crazed loonies with the potential to kill people, it’s not the kind of actions one might associate with Elizabeth Anscombe, Edith Stein or even Phyllis Bowman, but it goes without saying, that regrettable though that alleged incident was, it is not indicative of a desire to kill or even intimidate anyone and neither is it representative of the volunteers. Just as one cannot castigate the political LGBT lobby groups for the actions of an isolated gunman, anyone with a modicum of common sense can tell the difference between an over-enthusiastic cameraman and a gunman. Or are we saying that quiet prayer vigils should not occur in public places because no-one may be trusted to behave appropriately? Whilst we are on the subject of cameras however, what have BPAS got to say about the camera that they have constantly trained on the volunteers from the confines of their upstairs window? Could that end up as a gun also?

Ditum continues with her theme of intimidation and harassment despite the fact that no-one from 40 days for Life in the UK has been arrested, charged or even asked to move on by the police. Surely if women were being followed, encircled and generally harassed, there would be some evidence of this made public as well as criminal charges? A quick google maps search will throw up the location of the vigils – over the road on a public square, a good 50 yards from the clinic door. Women entering the clinic do not need to even walk ok the same side of the road as the vigil or past it. I don’t doubt for one moment that BPAS would not hesitate to call the police, press charges and display any incriminating video footage should this exist.

Other blaring inaccuracies include the statement that 40 Days for Life began in the UK in the Spring of this year – nope that’s incorrect, they commenced in the Autumn of 2010. She alludes to an email sent to her by Robert Colquhoun in which she claims that 40 days for Life house post-abortive women in the same building as women whom they are helping to keep their pregnancies – proof she says, that 40 days for Life have scant regard for women’s welfare. I’ve seen the email concerned and the most charitable interpretation is that there has been some misunderstanding on Sarah’s part. 40 Days for Life do not house post-abortive women in the same building as pregnant women – Robert was in this email attempting to set up an interview with Sarah and another journalist with 2 pregnant women who have been helped, along with the perspective of another, post-abortive woman, on the counselling and help from 40 days for life. Quite where she got the impression that they were all living together is not clear, but then again, despite the funds available to Education for Choice, she probably wasn’t paid for the piece and thus did not do the usual fact-checking.

It throws into doubt her central claim that 40 days for life don’t care for women’s wellbeing, given it’s based on this misinformation, the evidence of harassment or encirclement is absent and the US conclusions rather spurious at best. Presumably she wouldn’t have too much of a problem with the HSS bill or Obama-care – that’s one American import that’s definitely alright. Neither is there evidence that abortion clinics have shut down due to bullying. The industry is made of sterner stuff than that. Where clinics have shut down it has been due to withdrawn funding and/or losing licences to practice having been discovered being in breach of state laws governing safe practice, not due to the a group of people praying outside. Abortion clinic workers have quit the industry having had their eyes opened as to their unseemly grisly trade, not because 40 days for life have bullied or threatened them. Again evidence for this claim is missing. Of course, as Sarah rightly points out we will celebrate these conversions of hearts and minds and the closure of abortion facilities. That’s fairly obvious! And there’s the entire nub of their opposition. The US pro-life lobby has gained great momentum and had some incredible successes. No wonder 40 Days for Life is described as a noxious import – it actually works.

For an organisation that likes to tout it’s information as evidence-based, it seems clear that Education for Choice/40 Days of Choice etc opinion is firmly subjective, based on misinformation and bias. Still, all we can do is keep praying, whilst they keep desperately spinning. In the meantime, God Bless the USA – Land of the Free and Home of the Brave, where clinic vigils are lawful, successful and require courage.

Some scary American volunteers

*Brook Advisory is almost entirely funded by the UK government, proving that the word charity denotes tax status only. Still it’s good to know where tax revenue is being spent. Personally I can’t see why Brook Advisory can’t be incorporated back into the NHS and am rather concerned that it seems to be seeking to lobby to change government policy, in terms of its new campaign for more funding for sexual health in the light of government cuts. So let me get this straight, the government is funding an organisation that seeks to lobby itself for more cash. Rightyho…