Sauce for the goose

Neil Addison has just contacted me with the following email which he has sent to BPAS for clarification. Given that the abortion clinics have threatened the pro-life outreach workers who operate outside Marie Stopes with referral to the ASA, despite the fact that they are not actually advertising, then it seems only fair to hold them accountable with the same standards that they wish to impose on others. I’ve added in the UK stats in green.

Dear Sirs 

I refer to your Advertisement at http://www.bpas.org/nomorenames/ and the Statistics quoted therein namely

  • One in three women will have an abortion in her reproductive lifetime.
  • More than half of women who have abortions are already mothers. (The UK stats state that in 2011, 51% of women who had abortions, had one or more previous pregnancies that had resulted in a live or still birth, up from 47% in the previous year. So that’s technically over half, but does that equate to 51% of women already being mothers? What about those who aborted following a stillbirth for example).
  • Last year, there were nearly twice as many abortions to women over 35 than under 18. (Nearly being the operative word. Last year, 14,599 women under 18 had abortions, compared to 27,199 women over 35. That’s 8% of  abortions performed for women under 18, compared to 14%  for women over 35. Still statistics can be spun any way you like. It might contextualise this figure better to learn that 15 out of every 1,000 women under 18 had an abortion in 2011, compared to 6.9 women out of every 1,000 over 35. So proportionately more women in the under 18 age cohort are having abortions than those in the over 35 cohort. BPAS are spinning the data to suit their message)

Can you please provide me with the sources for these statistics in particular what study they are based upon, whether it is a study in the UK or elsewhere and the statistical analysis upon which the figures are based.

Do you ” hold documentary evidence to prove your claims” and are they capable of “objective substantiation” as required by the Advertising Standards Authority ? 

I look forward to receiving your reply

Sincerely

Neil Addison (Barrister)

We await the response with eagerness. If BPAS are unable to substantiate their one in three claim, then their campaign will need to be modified and referenced.

Report BPAS to the ASA

BPAS have been accused of exploiting the recent abortion limit controversy by launching a new pro-choice campaign, to be featured on billboards and in bus shelters around the country, called No More Names. 

The campaign raises a number of issues, such as whether or not an organisation which receives £25 million a year, most of which is received from the taxpayer for providing abortions on the NHS (93% of its work is NHS funded) should in fact be advertising to normalise and promote as a good, what is for very many people, a last-ditch enormously tragic procedure.

Of primary concern is the dubious claim that one in three women will have an abortion in their reproductive lifetime, abortion is therefore a necessary medical procedure and women should not be stigmatised or called names for having one. No-one is arguing that women who have abortions should be stigmatised and neither is there any evidence to suggest that any marginalisation does take place; despite claims to the contrary, none of the groups who conduct clinic vigils in the UK, either 40 days for life or Abort 67 are in the business of shouting or name-calling of women entering the clinic. There are there to help and offer alternative solutions, not to alienate and abuse women who they recognise are often in a very difficult position. No Christian with a shred of spiritual conscience,  intellectual honesty or emotional intelligence would so abuse a post-abortive woman in such a way, the default position is always one of compassion and sympathy for all involved, we know that these situations are not always easy and for many their decision has come about for a variety of reasons.

So if there is no discernible name-calling, then the entire point of this campaign is to normalise and promote abortion, which is always an ethical choice, as a necessary medical procedure, which most women will need to undergo in their lifetime. This is demonstrably false. Last year no abortions were performed under grounds F and G, i.e. in the case of an emergency to save the life of the pregnant woman or to prevent grave permanent injury to her physical or mental health. 102 out of 189,931 abortions last year were performed under ground B, which is deemed necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman. No abortions were performed solely to save the life of a woman – ground A. The 45 abortions that fell into this category, were combined with other grounds such as the most common one, ground C, which gives the most flexibility. If we then factor in the findings of a recent maternal health symposium in Dublin which ruled that direct abortion is never medically necessary to save the life of a mother, this idea of abortion being necessary, looks increasingly shaky.

If abortion is a medical necessity, then why does it need to be advertised on billboards, hoardings and in bus-shelters alongside consumer products as if it is a lifestyle choice? It rather makes a mockery of the attempted perjorative “anti-choice” label? Are these adverts, which seek to promote abortion as well as brand awareness of a major abortion provider, suitable for children and teens, who are being sold a message that abortion is a necessary and desirable procedure?

The advert itself could be construed as pro-life, featuring a photo of a beautiful baby. The agency either missed the irony of putting a photograph of a baby on a clinic that provides abortions and suggests that we should call women who have had abortions, “mother”, or more disturbingly, wants to present an idealised stylised image of motherhood in the same way as any company wishing to sell you a product to make you buy into an image or vision. In this case we have a picture of a beautiful young model and her baby. The message is clear, unless you are in a position to have the perfect yummy mummy lifestyle with the beautiful blond haired blue eyed angelic looking baby, then abortion is the answer. Abortion advocates have switched to using worrying new tactics – unless you can live a sepia-toned, airbrushed vision of motherhood, the kind of lifestyle promoted by manufacturers of baby products and magazines, then you should not be having children. It is not life that matters, but presumed quality of life and nothing less than a sanitised, white teeth and baby-Boden vision will do. If you can’t live the yummy mummy dream, then you should not be having children.

The choice of models is equally telling, they are all middle-class, and bar one, all young and white. Abortion is obviously the choice of the young beautiful white people, whereas the statistics tell us a very different story. 49% of women who had repeat abortions in 2011, were Black or Black British, 45% were mixed race, 33% were Chinese or another group and 32% were Asian or Asian British. Statistically speaking it is not the white middle classes who are having to resort to abortion, which begs the question why the advert does not reflect this, unless of course they are seeking to extend their client base, hence the unrepresentative models.

The crux of the advert, is the claim that one in three women will have an abortion. I previously wrote about who the one in three women are, but I’ve been doing some digging as to the basis of this statistic, which has been provided by the Guttmacher Institute, the research body funded by Planned Parenthood, America’s biggest abortion provider. BPAS provide no breakdown or statistical analysis of how they have produced this figure, other than it has come from the Guttmacher Institute.

The Guttmacher’s figures relate solely to the American population, so is it statistically correct to extrapolate this to the situation to the UK? Secondly the figure appears to be some sort of straight averaging, which is again misleading. A woman who has had multiple abortions (36% of abortions carried out in the UK IN 2011 were repeats) is going to skew the figures. Furthermore it seems that abortion is defined in these statistics as a Dilatation and Curettage (D&C), which is not strictly used for abortion. Many women require a D&C post natural miscarriage, or in my case, following the birth of my first child, therefore it is inaccurate to include D&C procedures within abortion statistics. Perhaps a third of women will require a D&C at some point in their reproductive life, but that is not the same as a third of all women requiring abortion.

The Advertising Codes laid down by the ASA state that advertisements must not mislead or offend. The BPAS advert definitely falls into the former category and for a significant majority of the population, the latter. It misleads as to the number of people who have an abortion, the type of people who have an abortion, provides no statistics to back up any of it claims, either in terms of the amount of women who have abortions or the perceived stigmatising of post-abortive women. It is offensive in that it portrays an ethical decision which results in the destruction of an unborn child and often severe trauma to the mother, as being a medical necessity and/or a consumer choice. The complaint form is here. 

Women who have abortions are mothers, sisters, friends. They all deserve better.

Baleful Biden

Just reading through a précis of last night’s Vice Presidential debate between Joe Biden, Obama’s number two and Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney’s running mate, billed as the clash of the Catholics.

On the question of abortion, Biden said the following, which is being lauded by the liberal left:

“My religion defines who I am,” says Biden. “I’ve been a practicing Catholic my whole life, and it has informed my social doctrine, which is about taking care of those who cant take care of themselves. With regard to abortion, I accept my churches position on abortion. I accept it in my personal life. But I refuse to impose it on others, unlike my friend here. I do not believe that we have a right to tell other people that women can’t control their body. It’s a decision between them and their doctor.”

Being a practicing Catholic means taking care of those who can’t take of themselves, such as, in this instance, the unborn. Since when was the unborn, with it’s separate DNA and unique genetic fingerprint part of the mother’s body? Controlling one’s body should not extend to destroying another’s.

Accepting the church’s position does not mean that one has a right to force that view on other people, that is, he can’t make other people subscribe to the same ideas.

As a Catholic politician however, he has a duty to work hard for legislation and other methods to reflect his view in society. Working to bring about social change based upon one’s views, ethics and beliefs is the role of any principled politician. It’s not the same as forcing people to hold identical values.

Biden’s personal views on abortion could be applied to any area of policy that affects individuals, such as, for example taxation. Is it fair to impose his view of how much tax everyone should pay on society or more pertinently to impose his view of whether institutions should pay for contraception in their health care and force them to go against their beliefs?

That’s what politics is all about isn’t it, working to mould or change society for the better according to a set of beliefs, be they politically, ethically and/or religiously defined. In a democracy you will always be ‘imposing’ beliefs upon those who disagree with you.

Otherwise his politics are all just crowd-pleasing, insincere and cowardly. Joe Biden is prepared to flaunt his Catholicism card, prepared to let his faith influence his social policy; a social policy that doesn’t extend to the weakest of all and does not reflect his Church’s doctrine in the most important of areas – right to life. Pilate-like he washes his hands of the unborn.

20121012-092340.jpg

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?

Now then…

The torrent of indignation flying from high profile Catholics at the Telegraph,in the direction of the BBC following the revelations about Sir Jimmy Savile is unfortunate and insensitive. Motes and beams comes to mind. We are still trying to heal and come to terms with what went on in our own beloved Church, accusing other organisations so pointedly, may not be the most prudent of moves.

The BBC undoubtedly does have a case to answer, in terms of whether it did cover up or ignore any allegations regarding the former star and it also needs to make public the relevant documentation and emails surrounding the suppression of the Newsnight report, which would have brought the allegations to light.

The inevitable parallels have been drawn with the abuse scandal that the Catholic Church has had to deal with, but there are some differences, such as the Catholic Church does not rely on a compulsory tax levied by the government for its existence and we are only dealing with the alleged abuse surrounding one particular star.

Of more interest is the similarities between the two organisations. Everyone likes to think of the Catholic Church in terms of “The Vatican”, believing it to operate in a similar fashion to the Labour Party under the expert hands of Peter Mandelson and Alistair Campbell, but the reality could not be more different. The Vatican consists of a myriad of different departments, consisting of hundreds of staff, both lay and clerical. Anyone who has had any dealings with the Curia will know that administration tends to be interminably slow, simply due to the complex number of channels various documents and procedures have to go through, although they are thankfully in the process of modernisation. Only yesterday Fr Alexander Lucie Smith complained how the Vatican museums need to catch up with the rest of the world. It took the Catholic Church far too long to get to grips with the abuse scandal that shamed us all.

Whilst the same claims could not be made of the BBC in terms of technological advancement or ease of communications, in fact one could argue that its much easier for the BBC to keep tabs of its employees, especially when one compares the size of the corporation to the sheer numbers of members of the Catholic Church spread throughout the globe; they are both similar in terms of trying to keep track of each individual diverse employee or associate. So for example, allegations have spread that Saville’s abuse was an “open secret”, i.e. various chauffeurs, make-up artists and production assistants knew of his propensity for wandering hands and his eye for the young girls, in the same way that perhaps members of the congregation may well have had suspicions about members of the clergy.

But that is not the same as the BBC having definite evidence of Savile’s crimes. Now the allegations have surfaced, various other pieces of the jigsaw are coming to light, such as his involvement with the Jersey children’s home which was investigated for abuse or his associate with Duncroft Approed School in Surrey, but hindsight is a wonderful thing. Various employees having their suspicions about Savile’s proclivities does not equate to an enormous conspiracy at the BBC. A chauffeur or production assistant may well have noticed something untoward, a surreptitious fumble or grope, but that does not mean that they would have reported it either to their superiors or more importantly the police, especially if the subject of his attention did not seem to be uncomfortable.

By Savile’s activities being an open secret, I suspect what is meant is that he had a reputation. Which is why the BBC never held any investigation or enquiry into his actions, simply because without any formal or even informal complaint or specific allegations it is very difficult to take action. It is probably quite likely that this did go to the top, in as much as producers and directors would have been aware of his reputation, but if one remembers the era and social climate surrounding Savile’s rise to fame in the sixties, then it is hardly surprising that a blind eye was turned to any underage philandering in a time that was all about the breaking down of sexual taboos. So long as the jangling jewellery pulled in the millions of viewers and listeners, then who really cared?

As we now know, sexual abuse was allowed to run unchecked in the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s in a number of institutions, schools, children’s homes, Scouts, the Church of England, the Catholic Church and now, we learn, the BBC. That does not make the abuse acceptable nor should it colour our response to it, but historical context is important. Even as the recent report on the child abuse that occurred in the Anglican diocese of Chichester makes clear, organisations are still struggling to ensure that appropriate child protection measures are in place, something that the Catholic Church in the UK pioneered, following the publication of the Nolan Report, which is now widely accepted as the gold standard.

The BBC, like the Catholic Church did not deliberately oversee or enable deliberate and systematic child abuse. The truth of what went on will be more nuanced, involving failures of reporting and communication, alongside the wilful misbehaviour of any individuals. What investigation into the abuse crisis in the Catholic Church has demonstrated is that incidents of abuse steadily increased throughout the sixties and seventies, and declining rapidly by the noughties. In common with what seems to have happened at the BBC, there was a substantial delay of the reporting of the sexual abuse, with many incidents still being reported as of today, but they continue to fit into the distribution of abuse incidents concentrated in the mid 1960s-1980s. Savile’s alleged behaviour seems to fit in with this.

Fortunately society has moved on, there has been a substantial increase in knowledge and understanding about the methods, psyche and treatment of sexual offenders and the harm that sexual abuse causes, changes have been made to all institutions or employers who are responsible for children, safeguarding measures have been implemented, legislation has been passed and most importantly attitudes have changed and we are all now far more vigilant and aware of these issues, in a way that we were not when Jim was fixing it for millions. The fact that an authority figure might have a penchant for young boys or girls is no longer seen as a harmless or worse still, amusing, foible.

What the BBC is experiencing, is similar to what the Catholic Church had to go through and perhaps there could be some lessons to be learnt, these things must not be brushed under the carpet and the y shame us all. The BBC, like the Catholic Church needs to thoroughly examine its history, procedures and culture and where necessary make amends and reparation to the victims. All of its dirty dank recesses, need to be held up to the purifying light and it must get its house in order.

What isn’t helpful is to indulge in the hysterical accusatory language that the BBC was somehow involved in a giant conspiracy to enable widescale rape and cover-up, particularly when the facts are not yet known. We as a Church did not like the factually incorrect hyperbole surrounding the Papal visit in 2010, we need to shy away from calumny and detraction and above all offer our sympathy and prayers to the victims. We also need to remember that though our memories of Jim’ll Fix will now forever be tainted, in my case I never forgave the show after they ignored my letter, actually Sir Jimmy Savile was by all accounts, not a pedophile abusing the children on his show, but a hebephile, a necessary but important distinction. That’s not to apologise for or lessen his behaviour in any way, but to state that it’s unlikely he would have targeted those on the show, who tended to be of a much younger age. We were not sending our children off to be abused by him on live TV, despite what some of the more emotive tabloids would have one believe.

Finally, we should remember, that heinous though Sir Jimmy Saville’s alleged offences were, he did also raise over £40 million for good causes and dedicated a substantial amount of his time and energy to helping the less needy and fortunate. That’s not to excuse him in any way, but to point out, that the pathologising of sexual offenders that makes for good copy is rarely nuanced or helpful. As the life of Sir Jimmy Savile indicates, there is capacity for enormous good and enormous evil in all of us, it is rare to score so highly on both sides of the spectrum, but it seems that he was a troubled and conflicted man. capable of altruism and evil in equal measure.

As a wiser, infinitely more saved person than me pointed out yesterday, Sir Jimmy Savile was a Catholic, we should all pray for his immortal soul.