Charitable? Call me Bernard.

The Right to Know campaign released a report yesterday with evidence highlighting the theme of this blog for quite some time, namely that abortion providers are in this for the profit.

Here are some salient figures:

In 1991 the NHS funded 9,197 abortions carried out by the private sector.

By 2010 that figure had risen to 111,775 – an increase of over 1100%.

In 1991 the NHS funded 10% of abortions carried out by the private sector.

By 2010 that figure had risen to 93%.

In 1991 the NHS funded 84,369 abortions.

By 2010 that figure had more than doubled to 181,304.

The growth of NHS-funded but privately provided abortions entirely accounted for this increase.

As noted last week, BPAS’s statement of aims to the Charity Commission outlines its wishes to extend both the scope and the amount of its NHS contracts; in its Annual Report and Financial Statements for 2009-2010 it notes the following achievements:

• “The attainment of an additional 2,400 NHS procedures in calendar year 2009 compared to 2008.

• An increase of more than 3,000 procedures at less than 9 weeks gestation in calendar year 2009 compared to 2008.

• A key role in the development of DH policy regarding the commission and provision of abortion services.”

The Business Plan for 2010-2011 sets out the following:

Our key aim is to:

• Develop further our use of the internet and multimedia to market services.

• Identify opportunities and develop strategies for expansion…

• Generate a surplus of £2m, before depreciation and refurbishment costs, to support further investment in our services, and move towards reinstating a cash reserve.

All seems very business-like to me. It’s all about growing a business, absolutely nothing different there from the stuff you’d read in the annual accounts of any PLC. The report also contains descriptions of free marketing materials handed out to doctors surgeries as well the copy of a job description for a Business Development Manager. Their primary responsibility would be to “promote the growth of business and income generation within the region” and to “actively source and develop new business (private and NHS). Other duties include “to undertake local marketing and public relations activities” and to “work in conjunction with the Business Development department to meet business needs”. The successful candidate should ideally posses “A diploma and experience in sales and marketing”.

The word charity is conspicuously absent, not appearing once in the job specification. For all of the whining that these are charities motivated by altruism, not the dirty word of “profit”, it would seem that BPAS doesn’t even think of itself as a charity, the language being purely corporate speak. It’s about brand, marketing and image as drivers for new business.

Now there’s nothing inherently wrong with charities organising themselves around business models, in fact it makes sense to ensure that you have your marketing and finances in order to maximise revenue streams. Private schools often take a lot of criticism for their charitable status, as like BPAS and MSI they are not-for-profit. It is recognised that private schools are run as businesses, for the benefit of the institution in order to be self-sustaining for many years into the future. The difference is that an argument may be made for the public benefit of private schools. The parents of pupils who attend private schools effectively pay double for their child’s education, both in school fees and in taxes and remove the burden of the cost from the state. Private schools also now have to demonstrate how they benefit the wider community and so facilities must be made available to state schools and more scholarships and bursaries available to those who would not otherwise be able to benefit.

Without getting into an ideological debate about the public/private school system, there is at least a case that might be made for private schools to retain their charitable status. I fail to see how any sort of case might be made in the case of BPAS or MSI. What public benefit do they provide? They don’t offer free abortions to those who are unable to access the NHS for whatever reason, the vast majority of their abortions are paid for by the NHS, they are simply an organisation to whom the NHS outsource. Why does the NHS outsource in this way? The answer is that fewer and fewer doctors wish to be involved in performing abortion and exercise their right of conscientious objection, something that the previous government tried its hardest to overturn.

Their aims are to increase the numbers of those having abortions on a year on year basis. How on earth may that be said to be in the public benefit, unless of course you are some sort of eugenicist. BPAS are profiting from human misery. “Oh but they provide other services too, like contraception”. And what happens when the contraception invariably fails, where will the user come back to?

Laurie Penny asks why profit is an unacceptable vested interest when it comes to the provision of healthcare services? Because this is women’s lives and the lives of their unborn children. Because, unlike in other situations, the client needs to make a choice whether to accept intervention or not. In almost every case the woman will not die from lack of intervention.A woman facing an unplanned pregnancy needs care and support, not coercion and sales messages. Whatever she does this is going to have an impact on the rest of her life and thus if she is confused about what course of action she should take, no organisation which stands to make money from one particular outcome should be in the position of advising her. Besides which the issue of abortion is a cross-party one, there are many who feel that private providers should play no part in the NHS.

As an aside, Lord Alton is currently lobbying the government in order to ascertain precisely how much money is spent outsourcing abortions to private providers every year. The government say they have no idea as to the figures, they have not kept any records. If these figures are published, they should make very interesting reading.

Not everyone is motivated by profit but no doubt Ann Furedi’s salary package is commensurate with her helping BPAS to achieve their stated aims in expanding the number of abortions carried out every year and generating a £2 million profit. It can hardly be surprising that they are vehemently opposing any measures that might reduce their revenue streams.

It’s amazing what passes as charity these days. What is clear is that for BPAS the word charity means nothing more than a favourable tax status, one that is highly dubious, given that BPAS exists simply to sustain itself and grow its business to abort ever increasing numbers of unborn children. A business that seeks to take taxpayers money to provide “healthcare” , a business who has rid itself of an unprofitable pension scheme, a business who seeks to make a £2 million profit, off the back of women’s misery, none of which will be spent on providing any sort of free services, is a charity? It’s as much a charity as I am an ordained Catholic priest called Bernard.

Hacked Off

Is it just me, or is anyone else, fed up with the relentless coverage over the phone-hacking scandal?

Twitter and the mainstream media have become a boring echo-chamber with events being reported and poured over with glee; speculation is rife about who will be the next major figure to fall.

Nobody comes out well and of course we need our media to clean up its act, but we need to remember that the story about MPs expenses came about through illegally obtained information. Journalists have always pushed the boundaries and clearly certain practices and cultures need to be stamped out. Of more pressing concern than phone-hacking is the degree to which the metropolitan police were involved in bribery and corruption. Even more than that is the issue of politicians from all sides courting of the media – acting in the media’s best interests and not ours, the people who voted for them.

The press coverage is simply a mirror image of what has been going on for years, it is in the journalists’ and political commentators best interests to keep pushing this story in order to up their own personal profiles, “look, I got the scoop first” and to be able to offer their expert or informed opinions.

Here’s mine. Murdoch was not the first. Anyone remember the relationship between Maxwell and the Labour party? The Trinity Mirror Group and Associated Newspapers have as much to answer for in terms of bad practice, and the BBC has a case to answer in terms of their relationship with politicians.

I am not going to speculate on David Cameron’s guilt or innocence in this affair, because I believe there is information that is yet to come into the public domain; the way events are moving and political chess figures shifting, it really wouldn’t surprise me to wake up tomorrow to find Tony Blair back in charge. Whatever it is that David Cameron may have done, or not done, whatever he may have known or didn’t know, was it really as bad as Blair and Campbell leading us into an illegal war via lies and media manipulation? A decision that has resulted in thousands of unnecessary deaths of soldiers and civilians and has done little to advance our reputation overseas. There was a much stronger case for Blair to be deposed, than it seems that there is for Cameron.

Right now it feels like we are in the throes of our own personal French Revolution with tweeters casting themselves into the role of tricoteuses. And look what happened after the French slaughtered all those associated with the nobility regardless of guilt in a bloody massacre. Just like with the Russian revolution of 1917, they replaced one form of tyranny with another and their press is now highly regulated and controlled by a rich and powerful elite. Is that really what we want?

In the meantime the European debt crises escalates, the price of gold is at an all time high, Greece is about to default, Italy and Spain are teetering on the brink and the US is two weeks away from running out of money to service its debts, both the dollar and the Euro are looking precariously weak. Is the collapse of the government really in everyone’s best interests in the middle of such financial tumult?

Is Ed Milliband, a man who cannot exercise any effective leadership over the squabbling members of his party the man for the job? If Labour had been able to demonstrate any sort of alternative and any indication that they are in touch with the concerns of the ordinary people in this country, then many would have been open to persuasion. But what is Ed Milliband’s finest hour to date? Being able to spin some half-way decent PR by attacking the PM for a media scandal, which he and his party were every bit as embroiled in as the Conservative Party. The only reason that the Lib Dems have remained untainted is because the media knew they had no chance of a whiff of power and didn’t waste their time.

Bread and circuses. Media folk – stop spinning this and show you are in touch by reporting on stories that are not simply in your own interests. The politicians, media and police work for us, not the other way around.

Still who cares, there’s a lynching to be seen later. I wonder what Rebekah Brooks will be wearing. Best get knitting.

Pragmatic compassion

My post on the non-directive counselling services provided by LIFE was pure marmite, the responses being polarised between “superb” and “rubbish”!

For me this is one of the joys of blogging in that those who had a negative response gave some detailed analysis of their objections that has challenged my thinking. Once again apologies for lack of linkage, I will rectify once I get access to a laptop, but Joseph Shaw at Casuistry Central blogspot posted a thorough examination of the potential problematic issues that result from LIFE’s provision of non-directive counselling services.

In terms of the practical issues, there is no evidence that non-directive counselling is more likely to be effective in terms of a pro-life outcome. This is indeed true and probably why the idea of independent impartial counselling is being advanced by Dorries and Field. Nadine Dorries obviously feels very passionate about abortion issues, although she cannot be accurately described as pro-life because she seems to endorse the notion of “informed choice”, the language of those who have no fundamental issue with a the choice to abort a child. If people looked at the actual substance of her proposal they would realise that far from being the perceived oppressor, Dorries is a true feminist, she wants women to come to their own informed decision, conscious of all the information and options open to them. The problem is as Nadine has previously stated her wish to reduce the numbers of abortions and her general overall PR problem, the public, perhaps understandably have issues of trust, which is an enormous pity, considering the gravity of what is at stake.

As things currently stand, the two providers which the NHS refer to, do not provide all the information and thus cannot be said to be impartial or non-directive, having a vested interest in the outcome of counselling. This is hotly disputed, but from both personal experience and the testimony of others, what the abortion clinics do categorically do not do, is pass on or provide information with regards to the financial help that might be available. They do not help a woman to explore whether or not the costs of having a baby may be insurmountable. There are a lot of myths surrounding newborns; actually in practical terms a newborn baby costs relatively little in terms of initial expenditure and outlay; not being able to afford the latest designer pram or buy the fripperies which baby magazines are so keen to push and end up being total white elephants, is not a good enough reason for ending the unborn life of a child. Even if one doesn’t breastfeed or use reusable nappies, two ways which save considerable amounts of cash, but aren’t for everyone, child benefit, tax credits and grants can cover the “running costs”, although there are of course there are other financial issues involved, one can’t generalise. The point is that none of this is discussed by the current abortion providers.

The other issue that is not discussed is the stage of fetal development, every woman I have spoken to has reported that prior to the abortion they are given an ultrasound to ascertain precisely what stage the pregnancy is at, but they have never been shown the scan, the screen being turned sharply away. Even if a woman has asked to see, she has been persuaded that it is not in her best interests.It is a policy of abortion clinics not to show women the scan so she is in the dark about the precise stage of pregnancy that she might be at. Isn’t this rather patronising? Shouldn’t a woman at least be given the option? At six weeks the fetal heartbeat can be detected, even if a woman is adamant that she doesn’t want the baby, shouldn’t she at least know, if abortion is a ‘medical procedure’ the precise nature of her treatment? It could be argued that women are able to access images of fetal development on the internet. Many of them may do so already. Do abortion clinics ask women if they have already done so?

The answer to this is no, the same response to the question of whether or not clinics advise as to the potential complications or side-effects of an abortion. The ‘counselling ‘ provided by these clinics is affirmative, confirming a woman in her decision without ever challenging it. The physical realities are often glossed over as I have written about previously. Whilst singing the praises of Marie Stopes, Laurie Penny waxes lyrical about how wonderful they were on the phone when some acquaintance was experiencing trauma due to post operative bleeding which she didn’t know whether or not was normal. Had the clinic done their job properly, then the woman would have had an idea of what to expect.

If “no woman wants an abortion”, then the issue needs to be thoroughly explored with her to ensure that this really is in her best interests. Many women would dispute this however, Deborah Orr testifies to having had two abortions and though the procedures themselves were unpleasant, she states that afterwards it was like being let out of prison and that for her counselling would have been a waste of time, money and effort. According to Orr, feminists need “to stop with the hand-wringing”. That hardly fits with the no woman wants to have an abortion narrative. A more accurate statement would be “no woman wants to be in the position of needing an abortion”. If this is the case then there is a simple answer. If despite her best efforts a woman unexpectedly finds herself with an unplanned pregnancy, then counselling is necessary to ascertain whether or not the pregnancy is a “need”.

Non-directive counselling does not preclude the provision of all the additional information that is conveniently omitted by the abortion providers and though there is no concrete evidence which suggests that it is more likely to produce a particular outcome, the likelihood is that furnished with all the information, women may well reconsider a decision to abort. When this issue is discussed, the feminists tend to change tack and display their usual cognitive dissonance. They go from violently objecting to the concept of counselling which they deem manipulative, casting the woman in the usual status as victims unable to be able to see through the nasty underhand tactics of the pro-life crazies, to a narrative which suggests that all women who have an abortion are well-informed, know their own mind and do it in a spirit of sadness. The truth of the matter is that there is a broad spectrum in terms of vulnerability, attitudes and levels of knowledge. The NHS does not hesitate to assume a low level of knowledge and expertise when it comes to new mothers or even experienced ones. My 12 week old is my third baby, I’ve breastfed all of my children for over a year, I know the signs of illness, failure to thrive and so on, but even yesterday the Health Visitor rang me, whilst on holiday on the beach, to berate me for not going to baby clinic and to fuss about the health of the baby! “I’m fine, leave me alone” is what I wanted to say to her, but realised that she was only doing her job, child welfare and health was her main concern and for every experienced mother exasperated by unnecessary nannying there is another one in need of advice and support. The same could be said of counselling services, for every woman confident that she is in full possession of all the facts and information, there is another who isn’t. After all who really researches the facts of early stage pregnancy until it becomes of immediate concern to them? Most women who tend to find themselves with an unplanned pregnancy, know they have a time limit and set about fixing the problem whereupon they find themselves on the abortion conveyer belt.

Joseph Shaw made the excellent point that the Dorries/Field amendment introduces the concept that non-directive counsellors may well become legal gatekeepers to abortion. In Catholic terms this is problematic and correlates with his idea that to provide non-directive counselling is to co-operate with evil. This already happens in Germany whereby women are legally required to undergo counselling prior to an abortion. Women who have received counselling and still wish to proceed with an abortion need to produce a certificate to this effect. The CDF has asked Catholics to disassociate themselve from groups who provide this counselling, because the provision of the certificate is to co-operate with the evil of abortion. The problem is not the counselling per se, but the provision of the certificate, therefore if the amendment is passed provided that no similar system requiring documentation from the counsellors to proceed is implemented, then this should not be a barrier to Catholic groups.

It is the idea that there should be any sort of gatekeepers which is arousing the ire of the alleged pro-choice lobby. Abortion is still technically illegal in the UK, it may only be performed under prescribed circumstances. This is why the signature of two doctors is currently required, in order that there may be a check and balance, the second signature is supposed to ensure that no malpractice, coercion or criminal offence has occurred. A second opinion was part of a law that recognised the gravity of the act and ensured that abortion was a last resort. Doctors were trusted to be the moral arbiters, not a woman. Over the years the fears of the slippery slope of many of the leading campaigners against the Abortion Act have been realised. A law designed to prevent the estimated 50 annual deaths in the UK from unsafe abortion has resulted in almost 200,000 abortions being performed in the UK on an annual basis. We have abortion on demand, which is why women seem to believe that it is their right and their choice. This is why Deborah Orr and her ilk vigorously campaign for the removal of the requirement for a second signature to make abortion even easier to access. The second signature, though treated as an exercise in bureaucracy, a complete subversion of the law, legally enforces the notion of abortion as the necessary evil, the last resort, not the back-up to contraception which Orr and Furedi claim it should be. Mandatory independent counselling consolidates the law as it stands, it is not a chipping away of rights, the right never existed in the first place. The amendment should be supported for this reason alone.

When discussing the idea of directive counselling, both Ben Trovato and Joseph Shaw noted that I constructed a straw man in suggesting that clients would be told what they should conclude at the beginning of the session, rather than, as is the case with other pro-life organisations, helped to reach this conclusion by the end of the session. I agree, however I was responding to some typically emotive rhetoric which I have never been able to establish whether it was grounded in truth. A vehement feminist, told lurid tales of women being brow-beaten, emotionally blackmailed, told they were “baby-murdering sluts”, shown graphic photos of dismembered fetuses and made to handle life-size models of fetuses. I would like to see these claims substantiated, we can’t assume that this does not go on, but the account seems grossly exaggerated. However as we have seen in the media, the Guardian in particular, publishing a disproportionate number of articles devoted to misrepresenting LIFE, they face an enormous task in surmounting their reputation as “religious nutjobs”. If nothing else my blog proves their impartiality beyond all reasonable doubt, given the reaction from Catholics. Any pro-life organisation provision of counselling is going to prove an anathema to the liberal press which will do its best to sway public opinion and whip up misplaced indignation. Ann Furedi has publicly attacked LIFE, but the one thing she has done is to admit that when BPAS sent someone undercover to investigate claims of manipulation, these were found to be unsubstantiated. LIFE, she concedes, does provide non-directive counselling, no graphic or distressing material was used.

We live in a depressing age of moral relativism whereby every choice or decision is said to be equally valid. The current zeitgeist is for an “evidenced-based” approach and for the issue of abortion to operate in some sort of moral vacuum. It has to be better that a pro-life group such as LIFE is able to be at the forefront and provide what will be seen as a best-practice model, furnishing a woman with all the facts, exploring all of the options with her, than an abortion clinic who will simply affirm a woman’s initial visceral and perhaps misinformed reaction. Certainly LIFE stand a better chance and as I said, retain the moral high ground in the secular area of medicine. This is what we have to recognise, the field of medical ethics is predominantly secular. We see nurses sacked for discussing views on abortions with colleagues and the previous government did their utmost to remove the ability from medical professionals to conscientiously object to practices against their faith. Faith is seen to have no part to play in the sphere of medicine. Appeals based on faith-based ethics are disregarded. Though the pro-life position is one that does not require any faith whatsoever, it is a common feature of all major religions, hence pro-lifers are often met with derision; objections tend to centre around descriptions of sky fairies, flying spaghetti monsters, before degenerating into generic attacks upon religion, via diversions of perceived misogyny, corruption, power and control, finished off with a liberal dusting of pedophilia, where the fundamental principles of the pro-life belief are obscured in a deluge of irrational and illiberal prejudice. Under these circumstances it seems that LIFE has no other option if it wishes to retain any secular credibility and build upon that. It is better placed than other organisations who nail their colours very firmly to a particular evangelical Christian or Catholic mast and thus risk alienating those who may otherwise be open to persuasion.

This is the crux of the argument as to why LIFE needs to continue and expand its provision of non directional counselling. Though the outcome may not be guaranteed, it is better that a group such as LIFE provides these services than an abortion clinic. As Joseph Shaw notes, a client will have some clue as to their stance, but the BACP accreditation provides the much needed reassurance. A client of an abortion clinic will be assured by their counsellor that abortion is a perfectly acceptable and valid choice, one apparently taken by one in three women, an argument incidentally I fail to understand, one in three men might have had sex with a woman without her consent, the frequency or commonality of the occurrence does not render it any the more acceptable. Upon entering an abortion clinic a woman will be exposed to lots of their literature reassuring them that abortion is a removal of the products of conception, making no reference to the fetus and with the emphasis heavily upon this is a normal everyday event, nothing major, no great shakes. All of this works towards a subliminal reinforcement of the message, downplaying the procedure, as well as fundamentally misleading a woman also increases the risk of subsequent trauma; a woman feels taken aback by her unexpected feelings of loss and at the same time unable to grieve. There are well over 30 independent studies which show a link between abortion and subsequent PTSD.

For me, the most pressing question posed by Joseph Shaw, one that I’m not sure whether or not I can satisfactorily answer without an element of deception is whether or not non-directive counselling amounts to co-operation in a moral evil, in that silence is a way that one may be an accessory to another’s sin. This is undoubtedly true, it would be disingenuous of me to deny it or indeed to find wriggle room. My only observations would be to note that this would not be a concern to a non-Catholic counsellor and by funding LIFE we would not be direct accessories to sin, but facilitating accessories to sin. Would the scale of the amount of lives potentially saved, the good, outweigh the bad? The potential to sin would be carried out by a third party as an accessory to another. It’s an indisputable problem nonetheless. Sin is sin. We cannot ignore that fact.

I think the answer for Catholics in good conscience would be to continue to fund LIFE, the good work they do significantly outweighs the morally neutral and it must be remembered that counselling only constitutes a portion of their work which as I pointed out, encompasses a huge field, from education to practical assistance and aid. My husband is one who was persuaded of the validity of the pro-life cause on a purely secular basis when in the sixth form and remains profoundly grateful to this day. Other teachers and school chaplains have verified their efficacy, no graphic images are shown and students are encouraged and stimulated to hold lively debates where all points of view are considered. I am not convinced that a Catholic should engage in non-directive counselling, however LIFE do provide free post abortion trauma services, another vital ministry and there is no reason why a Catholic could not help to heal the hurt.

Allotment Girl, a much appreciated, thoughtful regular here, gave me pause for thought. I think she deserves to have the last word.

Non-directive counselling is one way to show compassion to women who are in a situation they find difficult. Such counselling starts with the practitioner showing “unconditional positive regard”. This might be the first time a woman in this situation has been accepted for her own sake- not brow beaten and pushed in different direction. If a counsellor goes in with an outcome in their heads, it becomes more difficult to respond to the woman in front of them with proper care. It is crucial that this approach is kept and LIFE should be supported in this.
For Christian practioners they can truly be “Christ” to the women they work with. Christ deals with many people in the gospels and when he does so, he is gentle and loving, whatever their background or current situation. This has to be the model for any Christian for this is where change can happen. The way this issue is dealt with is as important as the issue itself.

Christ loved the sinner whilst abhorring the sin. The Catholic approach is always holistic, we must not get so caught up in protecting the unborn child that we neglect the humanity and needs of its mother. Christ would be smashing the abortion mills, he would be unequivocal in his condemnation of the killing of the innocents and almost certainly directive, however he would also extend a cloak of protection, compassion and love to frightened, desperate pregnant women. We should aim for nothing less.

Beware of lies

The twitter user who had said false things about me has apologised for the hurt she caused me in relation to what she publicly concedes were the untruths about my family and my finances which of course she could not substantiate. I have apologised to her for questioning her sanity.

I was going to remove the post, but as I closed the Guardian CIF page where she clearly alludes to and defames me, I re-read what she said. She accused me of persecution and lies. Anyone who reads my blog regularly or follows me on Twitter will know that up until today I have kept my silence and ignored her as not to give her credence.

However, given I was publicly accused of telling lies and persecution, I’ll let the reader be the judge as to who was the real victim of tweet and blog trolling, not to mention untruths.

 

It’s all the same though. I’ve read blog after blog accusing those who are pro-life of being propaganda peddlers, supporters of eugenics. I’ve read attacks on Diane Abbot, suggesting that by supporting a woman’s right to choose, she is going against her “people” because of the high number of women from Black British backgrounds who have had termination, using the word “holocaust” to describe it.

And yet these same people, in the very same paragraph, speak about how their opinion is the only RIGHT way – that pro-life is all about fluffy bunnies and happy endings. They talk about LIFE offering impartial counselling, but cannot accept that a pro-choice organisation could be similarly open minded about options.

I support choice – whatever that choice might be. I don’t think people who think abortion is wrong need to change their opinions, because I think if we lost a strong pro-life voice from our society, it could lead to abortion on demand. What I DO object to, is the hysterical screamings from the anti-abortionists (and I make a very definite distinction between pro-life, and anti-abortion) which are full of hypocrisy. These same people shout from the rooftops when they feel their right to raise their own family without state interference is being infringed, but they think nothing of heaving their weight around when it comes to their “moral duty” to save the lives of hundreds of thousands of unborn babies, and effectively tell other people that they MUST become parents because it’s the ONLY RIGHT WAY.

But the very worst thing of all of this, is the LIES they tell. I mean really, it’s utterly breathtaking. I had to stop discussing this in the past, because of persecution by a anti-abortion fanatic, which started to impact on my own family life, such is the ferocity with which they will campaign against those who disagree with them.

It actually scares me. Really really scares me.

It scares me too. Enormously. Such is the ferocity of those who cannot stand challenge, that they project and distort. It scares me how dirty people are prepared to fight in the name of “choice”. We fell out after she found it acceptable to tweet and blog about my family. As she notes in one of her blogposts when attempting to parody me she says “Hey buddy only I get to choose whether or not I can use my personal circumstances to further my point or elicit sympathy from bystanders when I can’t think of anything else to say. Subjects that induce the rage are children (or lack of them), personal income, private education or anything else which indicates why they might be taking a particular angle on something”.

She is right: only I get to talk about my children, in a way that is entirely appropriate, only I decide which bits of information, if any, I want in the public domain. I tend to be quite circumspect about what I say about my children for obvious reasons. I have however learnt that any information that you put out there, is considered fair game and that in their desperation to discredit you, people will make what may be charitably described as suppositions or assumptions without any sort of fact checking and present them as truth. To use an assumption as an attempt to score a personal point in an attempt to discredit is a tactic used by someone who has run out of ideas. Of course it is unacceptable to blog about another person’s financial and personal circumstances when you know nothing about them and when that person is not a professional politician, but one blogger and tweeter out of a multitude.

Whatever her motivation, as she accepts, this action was wrong, hence why she apologised and removed. I have absolutely not persecuted her, a simple check on Twitter will verify that, I only know her real name which I have not divulged, I have no idea as to her address or email address so I am unsure as to how I am supposed to have launched a campaign of persecution that has impacted on her family life. Up until this point she had been ignored. I should also mention that during this period, particularly during Lent, I pared down online activity. I had a traumatic cesarean birth which took quite a bit out of me as indeed did the demands of 2 babies 17 months apart. My primary focus was and still is the demands of my family. I blog in my precious spare time.

If we fell out, it had nothing to do with the pro-life cause. The lies some people will tell are indeed breathtaking.

I won’t Fisk the rest of her post, it speaks for itself.

Online curtain twitching

My passionate views merit passionate responses. That’s to be expected when talking about the subjects with which I deal.

What is hard to deal with is an on-line stalker. Imagine if you had a deranged neighbour who spent their time watching your every move and then writing about it, simply because you once had the temerity to disagree with them on an ideological basis. Imagine if your stalker wrote a blogpost naming you, calling you insane and divulging personal details about your children.

This is what happened to me when I was pregnant. A fellow twitter user published a blogpost in which she dismissed my support for the scrapping of EMA and my tentative support for tuition fees as being rooted in self-interest and lies because apparently my daughter goes to private school, paid for she kindly noted, by someone else and because I have private trust funds for my children so will be able to provide for their education.

The first is true, it was my ex’s express wish that our daughter attends a private school and therefore he picks up the school fees. My other children will not attend as we cannot afford it. Secondly my children do not have trust funds other than the accounts that all children were given upon birth. They may have been topped up by birthday and baptism gifts but that is all. My share of equity from my former house which was hardly significant was put into a savings account in my daughter’s name. I am not going to state the amount, it is nobody’s business as indeed my finances are nobody’s business, but my ex can clarify that it is not enough to be called substantial nor indeed does it qualify her as a trustafarian. This was my money, gained from the sale of a house to which I contributed 50% of the mortgage. It was implied that I had no moral integrity in that I allegedly profited from the breakdown of my relationship. I did not profit, far from it.

I shouldn’t have to publicly discuss this, however when someone blogs public untruths about your family’s finances and how they may impact on your views, and names you, as she did, then I have little choice.

My finances have no impact on my views. To blog about an individual and their private circumstances and their children from a snippet of information one has gleaned from a baby forum is as low as the recent News of the World scandals. I will resist with tit for tat reprisals, and in fact as a gesture of good will I offered to donate to charity the fee I had received for writing an article as my fellow twitterer claimed to be a Christian. She said that there was no need for this as she was going to  delete what she had said anyway. As a gesture of good faith, I donated the fee to charity anyway.

I then protected my twitter feed, particularly following the hate attacks from the so-called liberals who couldn’t cope with the idea that I might not actually be a homophobe and who also thought it acceptable to drag my daughter’s name through the mud.

I recently unprotected in order that I can engage with non followers. Since then every single tweet has been under scrutiny. I had a piece published on the Conservative Home website and she published a blog analyzing every single one of my tweets, savaging my choice of the word “nuance” and making facile comments about my data and research, “look how clever I am with my fancy charts”.

I ignored: I could not help but think that the poor woman must be mentally ill if she feels the need to obsess over my every word and devote whole blog posts to me. She tweets things to deliberately get into my timeline to provoke, hence she is blocked, She doesn’t seem to understand my distress at her thinking my family and my finances are fair game for her to publicly lie about. I do not as she states, have a private income. That is a libel. We receive help from a charity set up to aid former Anglican priests who find themselves homeless and jobless. To suggest that we would defraud them by having a private income is a vile slur which I must disabuse.

Today she has accused me on a CIF thread of obsessively stalking her and affecting her family. I have done no such thing, I have attempted to ignore her and not give her the attention she craves.

I won’t name the woman, but I would like her to exercise some honesty. She referred to my blog on a CIF thread, quoted from it, yet didn’t have the courage or integrity to name me.

I am a mother of three young children who has neither the time nor inclination to online stalk or pursue a vendetta. I blog and tweet for relaxation and evangelisation. I am passionate about the pro life cause and will defend against the anti natalists whilst I have breath in my body.

What I am not prepared to accept is lies or broadsides against my family. They are not fair game.

Catholic LIFE support

Two prominent and well-respected Catholic bloggers James Preece (Catholic and Loving It) and Ben Trovato (Counter-cultural father) (I’ll fix the links when back home) have posted interesting discussions regarding whether or not Catholics should support LIFE, given their BACP (British Association of Counselling and Psychotherapy) accreditation means that they offer non-directive counselling.

When counselling a pregnant woman, LIFE cannot and do not offer any opinion as to the morality of abortion and will not do anything to deter or prevent a woman from having an abortion, instead helping her to explore her feelings on the matter. Faithful Catholics wonder whether this is an immoral approach; LIFE is openly against abortion therefore are their counsellors who are presumably pro-life, lying to themselves and misleading women when they offer no opinion on abortion? Shouldn’t women know the truth, i.e. that abortion is a destruction of life, the killing of an unborn child, to fail to point this out is in itself misleading and could be seen as endorsing or condoning abortion?

One has to feel sorry for LIFE in this regard, they are caught between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand they have the likes of Sunny Hundal, Diane Abbott and Evan Harris absolutely refusing to concede that they are capable of impartiality and disregarding their professional credentials, and on the other, they have Catholics who should be natural supporters, criticising them for their non-judgemental, non-directive approach and suggesting that Catholics should not offer their financial support.

The fact that some Catholics are critical of LIFE certainly verifies their non-directive stance. Though it might prove difficult for some to accept, by adopting this approach, LIFE is able to gain leverage and credence amongst a political class that would otherwise prove hostile. It gets them a seat at the table, a place on the sexual health forum, although whether or not they will be able to capitalise upon this remains to be seen. Compare LIFE’s approach of being open to what others have to say, to be prepared to listen and engage, to the attitude of other organisations who have stated their hostility and antipathy to LIFE; an organisation who have women’s sexual health as their key aim. It cannot be argued that the fewer sexual partners and abortions that a woman has, the more likely she is to enjoy good sexual health.

In the light of the cross-party amendment, proposed by Field and Dorries, LIFE’s BACP accreditation, which BPAS and Marie Stopes do not have, gives them the moral high-ground. They are impartial and have the credentials to prove it.

LIFE do much to raise awareness of bio-ethical issues in a society that wishes to turn a blind eye, ignore or deny their realities. Their work with young people is outstanding and they are one of the few organisations who put their money where their mouth is in terms of actually assisting those with unplanned or crisis pregnancies, providing financial, practical and emotional support to women, as well as housing and education opportunities. They help women to help themselves. LIFE are accredited by 23 Supporting People Authorities.

If their non directive approach enables LIFE to do work to reduce abortions by preventative means or to provide assistance which means that women are not financially compelled to abort, then that is a price worth paying. If a non directive approach actually encourages women to seek their advice and be given the full story about abortion, knowing that they will not be pressured, coerced or prevented from seeking abortion, again that is a positive fact. It will lead to less women having to suffer the physical and emotional repercussions of abortion and from a pro-life approach, will lead to fewer abortions.

An approach which from the outset tells pregnant women what they should do is, in any event counter-productive. Those who assume this is what LIFE do are massively mistaken and buy into a patriarchal culture. Any organisation that takes a hectoring, coercive or bullying approach will surely be able to be seen as what it is. Or are women so naive as not to be able to make their own decision and not able to resist or see through manipulation? What non-directive counselling does is to explore and affirm a woman’s feelings about abortion and to highlight any perceived barriers or fallacies.

From a Catholic perspective it is not immoral as it does not involve a lie. It does not degenerate into a means justifies the end dilemma. Not offering an opinion does not amount to dishonesty. Non directive counsellors do not tell untruths. The only difficulty for a specifically Catholic pro-life counsellor occurs when a woman, furnished with the whole truth, decides to proceed anyway. Should a counsellor stop her? Catholicism, like all faiths requires its adherents to come to it out of free will. God requires us to choose him. We cannot force others to act in accordance with our beliefs, which means that we cannot use our faith to prevent others from exercising their free will, in a way that society legally permits. As long as the counsellor does not procure or arrange the abortion, as long as they have done nothing to encourage it, their conscience is clear, even if their predominant emotion is that of grief.

No doubt Marie Stopes and BPAS would claim that the directive counselling they offer is non- manipulative. If organisations who are offering abortion and who stand to make a profit from it are able to offer directive counselling which does not seek to manipulate, based on their ideology that abortion is a moral good, why can’t an organisation offer the alternate view in an equally non-manipulative fashion? What Marie Stopes has in common with the evangelical organisation CARE, is that they are both motivated by ideology, upon which they base their counselling services. Where LIFE differ is that they don’t let their ideals and interest in the outcome affect the service they provide. Hence in that respect they are demonstrably the most impartial organisation in the field of abortion counselling.

LIFE offer real-life success stories, tales of women for whom motherhood or an additional child has proved a source of richness and of blessing, experiences of happiness. Theirs is a vision of hope, respect and dignity for the unborn child and for that reason they will continue to enjoy my support. The fact that LIFE don’t tell women exactly what they should or must do makes them a shining beacon of pro-life feminism.

You say potato…

I am pro-life. What does that label mean? It means that I hold all human life as precious, of equal worth, value and dignity, from the moment of conception until the moment of natural death. Just because a person may be disadvantaged in some way, just because their life might seem to contain more suffering than others, does not render that life any less valuable or worthwhile.

I often express pro-life sentiments on Twitter which result in the same old discussions; the label “anti-choice” is bandied about a lot. This is an attempt to be perjorative and smear the pro-life cause as being dictatorial or totalitarian; the dreaded “illiberal”. The prefix of anti being deliberately chosen to subvert the positivity of the pro-life cause and cast it into a negative light. Nothing could be more polarising.

The label implies pro-lifers wish to restrict basic freedoms and choices. Abortion is a grave matter which results in the ending of the lives of the most vulnerable. Let’s call a spade a spade. What is the choice that is under contention? It is the choice as to whether or not to kill your unborn child. Are pro-lifers against people having the automatic right to kill their unborn children at any stage in the pregnancy, no questions asked? You betcha we are, because the choice to kill should not be a right, a basic freedom or choice, in any civilised society. Abortion was legalised in the UK on that very premise, it was seen as a compassionate measure, one to alleviate suffering, a tightly regulated necessary evil, not an automatic right or privilege of every woman. Aleck Bourne, a doctor who performed an illegal abortion, one of the pioneers of the abortion movement, was horrified by the idea of abortion on demand and campaigned for a ban on the practice of doctors receiving a fee for performing or recommending an abortion.

Pro-abort seems the much more accurate label than “pro choice” as does “in favour of women being able to have a safe legal abortion”. That seems descriptive, factual and devoid of moral loading. As is “pro-life”: it does what it says on the tin. We are in favour of life. ALL life. Trouble is “in favour of women being able to have a safe legal abortion” (IFWSLA) is not quite so snappy. Nor is it emotive, which is how many wish the frame the debate. If the case is going to be made in favour of abortion, it needs to be using emotive and language, in order to evoke compassion for the women in terrible and desperate circumstances, which are the arguments that are always trotted out when abortion is discussed. The trouble is, as many of the fevered advocates are only too well aware, when you start using the hard cases, it plays straight into the pro-lifers hands as it admits that abortion is fundamentally an awful thing. This inherently validates the pro-life cause, so instead abortion is described as a fundamental right or choice, which is certainly not what the Abortion Act of 1967 was enshrining. Furthermore the truly genuine cases are very few and far between, even in Catholic theology, the law of double-effect kicks in if a woman’s life is genuinely endangered by pregnancy. A pregnant woman would be able to accept treatment that would save her life, even if the side-effect would result in the death of her baby.

It is time for some honesty from the pro-choicers. If they wish abortion to be a choice or right that every woman has, then they polarise debate and further entrench positions. If pro-choicers admitted that abortion should be an absolute last resort, that abortion is indeed a tragedy for women and children alike, then they would get a lot more sympathy. Perhaps, if the pro-choicers could couch the debate in terms of a necessary evil then both sides would have common ground and consensus upon which to build and maybe, some lasting social progress could be made on the issue? But smearing the other side with misleading labels is not the way forward.

A victory for feminism?

Tomorrow a “pro-choice” rally takes place in central London, in response to the Dorries/Field right-to-know campaign, which aims to make independent counselling a mandatory part of the abortion process. The well-rehearsed slogans and soundbites regarding a woman’s autonomy over her own body and her right to access safe healthcare are being shrieked across the ether with increasing ferocity.

Tomorrow’s rally is perplexing in that a woman’s right to choose is not under contention. Abortion “rights” are not being eroded, the right to procure an abortion is not under threat, the only threat is to those clinics with vested financial interests.

In its submission to the Charity Commission in January 2011, BPAS states “our main priority in the coming year is to ‘grow’ our business by utilising and expanding our capacity to treat clients and extending our collaboration with the NHS”. A collaboration which proves extremely profitable. According to their accounts, the provision of abortion services accounted for £23 million of their income in 2010, but these services cost them £22 million thus they only made a profit of £1 million. When outlining the overall financial health of the ‘charity’, BPAS state that they are now in a better position than previously because “it has relieved itself of the burden of a previously underfunded pension scheme to improve its overall position”. BPAS’s charitable feelings obviously don’t extend to their employees. In terms of its aims for the forthcoming year BPAS says that it wants “to increase the number and value of contracts with NHS commissioners” as well as “extend services nationally to meet the needs of a greater number of clients”. As the organisers of the rally note, “they are professionals, not volunteers”, these extra abortions are not going to be carried out free of charge out of the goodness of their hearts. Just so they don’t feel left out, Marie Stopes, mention in their annual accounts that in 2008 they received £59.9 million in governmental fees and reimbursement for providing sexual and reproductive services globally. In 2009 this figure had risen to £71.4 million.

It’s worth bearing the above in mind amid all the slogans. If abortion is the ‘healthcare’ that women have a right to, then in common with every other medical procedure women should accept that the final decision lies in the hands of the medical practitioner. A doctor is always a moral arbiter to a certain extent, in that they recommend the appropriate course of treatment for the patient, one that may not always accord with the patient’s wishes. A patient cannot simply demand a particular course of medical treatment solely based upon their gender or their feelings in any other situation. A pregnant woman seeking a caesarian section needs to satisfy the consultant that she has strong grounds for what is major abdominal surgery, that she understands the risks and that the alternatives are unworkable in her situation. She cannot just see her GP and be instantly booked in for surgery.

Safe healthcare is a right that everyone should have access to, which is one of the reasons why BPAS lost their bid to permit women to take the RU486 without medical supervision. Safe healthcare needs to be appropriate to the needs of the patient. Pregnancy does not, for an overwhelming majority of women, require medical intervention in order to save the life of the mother. In 2010 98% of abortions in the UK were carried out for social reasons under category C of the Abortion Act provisions. If a woman feels that she is psychologically at risk from continuing a pregnancy, then counselling needs to be an important part of the decision-making process, as it is with any other medical procedure, one in which the potential risks are clearly outlined. Only then may her ‘choice ‘ such as it is, be said to be truly informed, consensual and ‘safe’.

The irony is that by removing counselling from those who may profit from a certain outcome, Dorries and Field are actually reinforcing women’s choices, rights and health. What are the vehement pro-choicers so scared of? That a woman might not have an abortion? That abortion rates might go down? Or that she might be “manipulated” into keeping a child by an organisation which doesn’t worship the god or ideology of “evidence based practice”, subscribed to by abortion clinics, who hold that abortion is a good or at worst, morally neutral. That an organisation might give her the idea that killing an unborn child is wrong and give her practical, emotional and financial support, advice and encouragement throughout her pregnancy?

What could be more of a victory for feminism than women empowered to overcome social, cultural, financial and emotional constraints to pregnancy? If enough of them do it, society really will be transformed in terms of gender equality. A woman’s ability and right to bear children at any time in her fertile years being taken as a given and factored into employment and benefits legislation and filtering into attitudes. But whilst abortion continues to be debated in terms of an indefatigable right and inherent gender-privileged choice, regardless of circumstance, then the debate about support for women with childcare needs will never be advanced as motherhood will always be seen as a “lifestyle choice” and the demand for widespread abortion will increase, making the cause so much harder for those very few genuinely tragic and hard cases for whom the 1967 Abortion Act was designed.

Compare and Contrast

My ex is an airline pilot. He earns a deservedly high salary. Becoming a commercial pilot is no mean feat. He spent years earning less than minimum wage whilst instructing at a flying school in order to build up the required number of hours whilst at the same time studying for numerous technical exams,many of which require a minimum 90% pass rate. During this time he was entitled to very little in terms of benefit because he was fit for other work. The job centre desperately attempted to lure him off income support with offers of work in fast-food restaurants, instead of his piecemeal £2/hour flying job.

He was determined to make it and after almost 8 years of subsisting on next to nothing, was offered the position of First Officer with a major commercial airline. In order to qualify for the position however, he was required to pay £30,000 for his type rating on a Boeing 737. Most airline pilots enter the profession with debt that make university fees look like small change. Some airlines may pay part of the costs of type rating and deduct it out of your salary for the next however many years, others do not. It’s supply and demand, generally there are more willing to enter the profession than there are jobs, most don’t do it for the money, the terms and conditions have been whittled away by companies such as Ryan Air, they do it for the love of the job – dare I call it the Tom Cruise aspect! Once the self-loading freight are on, doors are shut, wahey, its up, up and away, but bustling air spaces and 5 sector days and increasing bureaucracy as well as much tighter security post 9-11 are making for a much more stressful working environment. The golden era of flying, when passengers made an effort to get on a plane, they dressed up, looked smart, some even wore a hat and pilots were revered as gods has long since past, although some airlines like JAL and Saudi still require their female crew to walk several paces behind the pilots when walking through the terminal. Ssshhh no-one tell Penny Dreadful, Polly Pot or Germaine Grimace, I think they’d explode in apoplexy.

Apologies, I digress. Anyway, ex paid a significant amount into his pension every single month, as well as contributing towards loss of licence insurance, the slightest health problem could mean that he lost his licence, and £50 a month in union fees to BALPA. Post 9-11 there was a massive spate of redundancies, people lost their jobs on a last-in, first-out basis. There have been periodic culls since then, the last a few years ago. Everyone was nervous. The other thing that happens when airlines make redundancies amongst flight crew is that Captains are demoted to First Officers. Not due to lack of ability, but they often find that having got rid of the most junior crew, there is then an imbalance of numbers and it is claimed that in order to save money, staff have to accept a massive drop in salary and a switch back to the right-hand seat. Most are grateful to hang onto their jobs; when there’s 200 surplus pilots kicking around on the job market due to a lay-off, another flying job is not so easy to come by.

Ex has to date been very lucky in that due to seniority he has kept both his job and his command. What he has not kept is his pension. Despite the significant portion contributed by the pilots, it seemed that during the boom, the company enjoyed the good times, was lax and deferred making their pension contributions, leaving an enormous deficit in the pension scheme. Through absolutely no fault of their own, the pilots were told that the final salary pension scheme would be closed to new entrants then a few years later  it was finally closed and replaced with an infinitely less generous scheme. All pilots have to give up their command at 60, according to CAA regulations. They may, with the permission of the airline, continue flying as a First Officer up until the age of 65, but the contract stipulates a retirement age of 60. Frankly after years of shift work and jet-lag, most of them are absolutely knackered. A frightening number seem to die within a few years of retirement.

Pilots accepted the huge amount of debt with which it was necessary to enter the profession as part of the trade off for doing the job they loved, hoping that they would be able to pay this back quickly. They have not been immune from rising house prices and inflation either. The pension that they worked hard towards, their  reward for their years of shift-work working in a highly stressful and pressurised environment has been taken away from them through no fault of their own. Their pay has been frozen for years and their terms and conditions gradually eroded. They have not gone on strike, recognising that to do so would be suicidal, the airline would undoubtedly fold, its slots and assets gleefully seized by another operator. They would have little public sympathy, despite the fact that their pension has been stripped and they have not had a pay increase above the rate of inflation since the early 90s.

Though initially angry , my ex is now remarkedly sanguine about the whole affair. He will defer his retirement until he is 65 and receive a much less generous pension than his older colleagues, one that bears no resemblance to what he was offered when signing his contract of employment. He wonders whether or not flying will continue to be such a draw for talented people, given the amount of hard graft and pecuniary hardship necessary to enter the profession combined with the loss of pension and increasingly tough working circumstances; pilots now having to accept legal minimum rest times and bearing increasing burden for ensuring efficiency in terms of fuel, turn-around times and so on, always with an eye to reducing costs in the face of severe competition.

Ultimately he believes that people will still be attracted to the profession, that vocation will outweigh the potential remumerary rewards, that people will always want to be airline pilots, just as they will always want to be teachers. When he talks about his reduced pension it’s with an air of regret for a previous golden age long since passed. “It couldn’t go for ever” he says, “we’re all living longer, healthier lives, we just have to accept that we are not going to be as lucky as our parents, I’m not going to starve, it just means that there won’t be as many luxuries as I’d hoped. Besides, I’d much rather go without an extra holiday once a year than pass on this mess to my little girl. It’s not what I’d hoped for but you just have to get on with it don’t you? I’m just lucky in that I’m doing the job that I’ve always wanted to do.”

Blind prejudice

Sunny Hundal is persisting with his calumnious claim that LIFE are “religious nutjobs”. I would suggest that someone who continues to doggedly defend Johann Hari’s journalistic integrity, despite the increasing flow of plagiarised material lifted quotes, needs his critical faculties examining. Still Sunny and Johann are comrades in arms, never ones to let truth get in the way of a good story.

Not only Sunny, but also Diane Abbott seems to be intent on peddling the lie, that “basic abortion rights” are under threat. For as long as they continue to push this, it must be pointed out that this is absolutely not the case.

Whether or not every woman has a “basic abortion right” is nonetheless a contentious issue. The law makes provision for legal abortions to be carried out provided that certain criteria are met. This is not the same thing as a “basic right”. The 1967 Abortion Act was designed to enable abortions to be performed in sterile conditions by qualified staff in an attempt to prevent maternal deaths, which is a far cry from the precept that every pregnant woman has the automatic right to abort her unborn child. The legistlation was drafted in a very precise way, detailing the specific circumstances under which abortion may be legally performed and why the signature of two doctors are required, recognising that abortion is a serious business and not a basic right.

Diane Abbott tweeted “Cameron is showing arrogant disregard for women across the country by pushing changes to abortion without debate or vote”. She should have more integrity (although she has form in the hypocrisy stakes) than to imply that major changes in the accessibility of abortion are in the offing. This is clearly not the case. The proposed independent counselling that will be required prior to abortion, will not prevent women from procuring an abortion. To imply anything else is disingenuous.

It is no surprise that abortion “charities” are bitterly opposed to these changes, the fewer abortions that they get to perform, the less money they receive. Not a week goes by without the Guardian running at least one piece of propaganda, employing not-so-subtle devices such as putting the word independent in inverted commas, in order to highlight their doubt that anyone other than an abortion provider may be able to give a balanced and non-directive perspective. LIFE have BACP counsellors, Marie Stopes and BPAS do not, we only have their word that they are “impartial and non-judgemental”.

Ann Furedi of BPAS highlights the statistic that 80% of abortions are carried out within the first ten weeks of pregnancy. Get the client in, prescribe the abortion pill as swiftly as possible and bill either them or the NHS for £600. Of course they don’t want any delay in this procedure, it could massively impact their revenue stream. The motivations for expediting the process could not be any more explicit.

As Phyllis Bowman says,  “when BPAS was launched  they made it abundantly clear that their aim was to promote the availability of abortion to girls. It was unlawful (as it is still) for clinics to advertise to the public – so BPAS was set up “as a charity counselling service” to fill the gap. If abortion clinics had been able to advertise to the public, there would have been no need for BPAS – and very soon BPAS set up their own clinics so they could do the abortions for women who came.”

No wonder the “charities” are firing on all cylinders in terms of aggressive lobbying and PR campaigns, they have a lot to lose.

As for Diane Abbot, I am surprised that a woman of her intelligence  and cultural background displays such little awareness of the eugenic element to abortion. In 2010 48% of women having an abortion who had a history of 1 or more abortion were either Black or Black British. I’d be interested to know what she thinks of the holocaust of black unborn children?

If wanting to stick up for the rights of unborn ethnic minorities makes one a nutjob, it’s a label I’ll wear with pride. It is not David Cameron who is showing the arrogant disregard for women of his own cultural background.