Thursday, 28 February 2008

one-child policy propaganda

Anthony Ozimic, SPUC political secretary, has commented today on how Western media outlets are disseminating misinformation by the Chinese Communist regime allegedly implying that China might scrap or significantly relax its one-child, forced-abortion population control policy.

Reuters and the Guardian have today published reports analysing comments by Zhao Baige, Chinese's population control minister, to a Beijing press conference. The headlines read "China could scrap its one-child policy" and "China considers ending one-child policy", even though nothing in the minister's comments suggests such a move.

Anthony comments: "Experts know that the Chinese Communist regime makes misleading statements about human rights when the international spotlight is on China, such as now in the run-up to the Olympics. Such statements are intended for Western consumption only and specifically designed to mislead Westerners into wishful thinking that the regime's crimes against humanity, such as the one-child policy, are coming to an end.

"The false claim by the Guardian's Tania Branigan that the one-child policy's 'enforcement system is far less punitive than in the 80s and early 90s' is one such example of how the Chinese regime has been successful in planting such misinformation into the Western media.

"After the Olympics, the Western media should conduct on-the-ground investigations into the one-child policy's implementation, where they will discover the reality of continuing forced abortions rather than the myths the Communist regime has led them to believe," Anthony concludes.

Pictured is Hui Rong Mesrinejad, a refugee from the one-child policy (read more about her story here).

Most Excellent Order?

It’s sad to see that Vivien Crouch, a nurse who promotes the culture of death to schoolchildren, has been made an OBE (Officer of the British Empire). The notice from Buckingham Palace says that:

“For the last 27 years she has worked as a school nurse in the Bath area. She ensures that young people are aware of and can access confidential guidance on sexual health issues. One of her innovative approaches was opening up the way for girls, at one school, to access emergency contraception through establishing a drop-in clinic linked to a local GP practice. She works alongside schools, young people and parents to promote and develop effective programmes of sex and relationships education to allow young people to make informed decisions....She is a trustee for the Brook Advisory Service which promotes the rights and needs of young people in sexual health.”

We know of course that “confidential guidance on sexual health issues”, “emergency contraception”, “informed decisions”, and “rights and needs of young people in sexual health” are all euphemisms for abortion and its promotion without the knowledge or consent of parents.

Brook started in 1964 as an offshoot of the Family Planning Association, which is basically the UK’s national branch of the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), the world’s largest provider and promoter of abortion. Brook pioneered the tactic of divorcing children from their parents' protection by an absolute rule of confidentiality when providing ‘counselling’ (i.e. brainwashing with anti-life propaganda), which often leads to Brook referring them for an abortion.

See today's SPUC release commenting on the latest teenage pregnancy statistics.

Although it is true that OBEs and most other recipients of royal honours are nominated by the Government and not by Her Majesty the Queen herself, it is nonetheless sad to see any link between our monarchy and the culture of death. In 1989 HRH The Princess Royal (Princess Anne) visited Brook to celebrate its 25th anniversary, one of a number of cases over recent decades when members of our Royal Family have either explicitly or implicitly supported anti-life activities. I hope that one day our national leaders, both royal and governmental, will give a better example to society by promoting a culture of life.

Wednesday, 27 February 2008

abortion is never therapy

It’s good to read the report about scholars from the Catholic University of St. Paul, in Arequipa, Peru, pointing out that abortion is never a therapy, even in pregnancies when the life of the mother is endangered. The scholars’ statement is made in response to an aggressive pro-abortion protocol published by the regional government which lists 24 reasons for which a “therapeutic abortion” may be justified.

The scholars have medical science on their side. In 1992, a group of Ireland's top gynaecologists wrote: "We affirm that there are no medical circumstances justifying direct abortion, that is, no circumstances in which the life of a mother may only be saved by directly terminating the life of her unborn child." (John Bonner, Eamon O'Dwyer, David Jenkins, Kieran O'Driscoll, Julia Vaughan, 'Statement by Obstetricians', The Irish Times, 1 April 1992)

The Peruvian scholars’ statement also usefully draws attention to the distinction between abortion – the direct killing of the unborn child – and ethical treatments in which the death of the child is foreseen but not intended.

Monday, 25 February 2008

abortion amendments at best a distraction

The Daily Mail reports today that David Cameron, the Conservative leader, would like to vote to reduce the current 24-week deadline in what is the first Parliamentary vote on the issue since 1990. "If there is an opportunity in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, I will be voting to bring this limit down from 24 weeks.”

With all due respect to Mr Cameron and the Daily Mail, they are jumping the gun.

Or rather, they are watching the wrong hare – one that isn’t even running yet. Of prior importance is the HFE bill itself – a hare that is running, and on a disastrous course. It is a wholesale extension of the already deplorable law on embryology. The bill contains a plethora of measures that will lead to the abuse, manipulation and destruction of countless more embryonic human lives.

Talk about abortion amendments is, at best, a distraction which will prove helpful to the government which wants to maximise its majority at the Bill’s second reading.