Tuesday 30 April 2013

Leaders of Britain's black-majority Christian denominations speak out against same-sex marriage

Rev Yemi Adedeji
Yesterday The Telegraph published a letter (see full text below) from the leaders of Britain's black-majority Christian denominations, in which they spoke out against the government's bill to enact same-sex marriage (see The Telegraph's report). The letter is also signed by the leaders of Chinese and south Asian Christian denominations. Among other things, they say:
"By changing marriage from its historic foundation they would be creating a legal fiction, and consequently devaluing this vitally important social institution."
This sentence from the black-majority Christian leaders reminds of Martin Luther King Jnr's famous "Letter from Birmingham Jail" about which I blogged in January last year. He wrote:
"[T]here are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of Harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.. [and] ends up relegating persons to the status of things."
I pray that many people will rise up and join the Christian leaders in speaking out against the unjust law of same-sex marriage which the government is moving to enact. Please email me today at johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk to find out how you can help.

Vote on gay marriage

SIR – The Government is forcing through fundamental changes to the nature of marriage, and has failed to think through the consequences properly. We are leaders of large, ethnically diverse denominations in Britain – growing churches. Instead of hearing our concerns, the Government is taking direction from tiny faith groups to infer backing for its plans.

If the Government gets its way, it will not be a victory for equality. Equality requires diversity, and diversity requires distinctiveness, and marriage is and always will be distinctively a union between a man and a woman. By changing marriage from its historic foundation it would be creating a legal fiction, and consequently devaluing this vitally important social institution. The Government is not respecting difference, and it is not promoting a plural society.

The people of Britain need to have their say. These plans were not in any party’s manifesto, and if the Government had any respect for democracy it would allow a referendum before making fundamental changes to the nature of marriage.

Rev Yemi Adedeji
Director, One People Commission

Rev Kingsley Appiagyei
Senior Pastor, Trinity Baptist Church

Bishop Eric Brown
National Overseer, New Testament Church of God

Rev Dr Daniel Chae
Executive Director, Amnos Ministries

John Glass
General Superintendent, Elim Pentecostal Church

Pastor Agu Irukwu
Senior Pastor, Jesus House

Dr Tani Omideyi
Senior Minister, Love & Joy Ministries

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Monday 29 April 2013

Pro-life lobbyists appalled by bullying of Africans at UN meeting

Pro-life lobbyists supporting African delegates at the United Nations Commission on Population and Development meeting in New York have been appalled at the veiled threats directed by Doris Mpoumou, a Planned Parenthood lobbyist, against Joy Ogwu, Nigeria's Permanent Representative at the UN and the First Chair of the UN Women committee. Ambassador Ogwu's delegate, speaking on behalf of the African Group, had objected to references to the terms 'sexual and reproductive health services and reproductive rights' in the commission's draft document. (Please see below the full text of a letter from Ms Mpoumou to Ambassador Ogwu.)

Sharon Slater, President of Family Watch International, a pro-life/pro-family organisation, said:
"Abortion is illegal in Nigeria, as well as in other parts of Africa, so Nigerian delegates are entirely right to tell the UN that they cannot agree to documents that espouse concepts such as 'reproductive health services' and 'reproductive rights' which are interpreted by many as including abortion."
These terms are also interpretated by radical lobbyists to include same-sex marriage, explicit sex education and legalised prostitution.

Killing the unborn is never a justifiable act, let alone a human right. Besides, Nigeria's high maternal mortality rate will not be curbed by promoting abortion, as many western countries and organisations demand. Effective action to reduce maternal mortality requires better pre-natal care, more midwives and trained birth attendants, and improved access to emergency obstetric care when problems arise in labour.  This is why mothers and babies die, and promoting abortion will not save lives.

Threatening delegates from developing countries who resist the western anti-life agenda, promoted by elitist western governments and their pet groups, is a contemptible strategy - against democracy and all the values of the UN."
Letter from Doris Mpoumou, International Advocacy Officer, International Planned Parenthood Federation/Western Hemisphere Region (IPPF/WHR), to Ambassador Joy Ogwu, 25 April 2013:
Dear Ambassador Ogwu,

We commend you for the leadership role that Nigeria has taken in advancing women's rights within the United Nations.  We are particularly proud of your efforts, as the first chair of UN Women, to promote gender equality and women's empowerment.  As you know, achieving gender equality and empowerment of women depend on the full realization of sexual and reproductive health and rights.

As a result, we are writing to express our concern about the position taken by Nigeria during the 46th Session of the Commission on Population and Development.  We are particularly concerned about the fact that Nigeria has called for the bracketing of all language around sexual and reproductive health and rights.

The government of Nigeria has reported to CRC that the maternal mortality rate is estimated to be 800/100,000 live births (2009).  According to a recent Lancet study (2010), Nigeria has the second highest number of maternal deaths in the world, accounting for more than 10% of maternal deaths worldwide. The study further showed that Nigeria's maternal mortality ratio has substantially increased between 1990 and 2008. (2010) Also, the 2008 National Demographic Health Survey found that among women aged 15 to 49, girls between 15 and 19 were the least likely to know of a contraceptive method.

As a signatory to Protocol to the African Charter on Human and People's Rights on the Rights of women in Africa, we trust that your government will commit to a positive resolution that reaffirm women's rights, gender equality and women's empowerment. We stand ready to work with you to ensure that Nigeria continues to serve as leader in advancing sexual and reproductive rights and health within the United Nations.

Sincerely,

Doris Mpoumou | International Advocacy Officer International Planned Parenthood Federation/Western Hemisphere Region (IPPF/WHR)
Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Friday 26 April 2013

Must-read pro-life news-stories, Fri 26 April

Top story:

Abortion ruling welcomed by SPUC who backed Glasgow midwives
SPUC has welcomed the verdict in the appeal by two Glasgow midwives fighting for their right to opt out of abortion. Connie Wood and Mary Doogan, who won their appeal against the Greater Glasgow and Clyde Health Board, are senior midwives each with more than 20 years' experience and had the role of Labour Ward Co-ordinators. SPUC has given the midwives its backing throughout the case. Paul Tully, SPUC's general secretary, said: “The difference this judgment makes is that hospital managers must recognise that the legal right to opt out of abortion goes beyond those who directly undertake abortions. [SPUC, 26 April]

Other stories:

Abortion
Sexual ethics
General
  • My tribute to the late Dr Margaret White, former SPUC vice-president [John Smeaton, 26 April]
  • Foreign and gay couples 'to be banned from having surrogate babies in India' [Mail, 25 April]
Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

My tribute to the late Dr Margaret White, former SPUC vice-president

St Mark's church, Englefield
This afternoon I have had the privilege of paying tribute, at the invitation of her family, to the late Dr Margaret White. She died on 17th April and was for many years vice-president of SPUC. She had reached the marvellous age of 93 – complaining to her doctor a week before she died that she could only get through a quarter of The Times crossword (due to drugs she was receiving). This is what I said at the Thanksgiving for her life at St Mark's church, Englefield:
In 1974, as an inexperienced south-east London lad from West Norwood, in my early twenties, I helped to start a branch of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children. Our local branch invited Dr White, then a leading member of the Society, to speak about abortion at a public meeting in Upper Norwood. For me she was the epitome of worldly glamour, smoking her cigarettes with an elegant cigarette holder, and opening her talk as follows:
"My grandmother was a bareback rider in a circus. She galloped round the ring one way and picked up a handkerchief with her teeth. She galloped round the other way and picked up her teeth in a handkerchief."
Referring with good-humoured mockery to the false statistics being put out by our pro-abortion opponents, Margaret said things like:
“I spit on them – and where I spit no grass grows.”
I was captivated and bewildered by this great lady.

Her involvement in the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, founded in January 1967, goes back to the very early days of the Society. The joint-founder of SPUC, Elspeth Rhys-Williams, now Elspeth Chowdharay-Best, and present here this afternoon, personally proposed her as member of the Executive Committee – and she went on to become vice-president of the Society and to travel the world promoting the pro-life cause. Her contribution to the pro-life movement was vast.. I will pick out just a few highlights.

I received recently the following email from Jón Valur Jensson:
“Life goes on, dear colleagues and combatants for the right to life of the unborn. Here am I, an Icelandic pro-lifer who got his initial enthusiastic awakening from Dr Margaret White.”
And poignantly a few months ago I received the following message from Peggy Hartshorn, the president of Heartbeat International, the US-based pregnancy-care organization with over 2000 counselling centres in America:
“I hope all is going well with SPUC. If you can, would you also email me the contact information for Margaret White (you said she was in a nursing home)? As I mentioned to you when we met, she is one of the founders of Heartbeat International and came over several times to speak to our conference while she was still able to travel. I would love to write her!”
Her book about abortion Two Million Silent Killings, published in 1986, one of her many publications, received the following commendation from Bishop Maurice Wood, the bishop of Norwich:
“This compassionate and hard-hitting books is the most robust and loving defence of the unborn child which I have read. It combines Christian orthodoxy, social caring, and medical knowledge will be hard to refute by any theologian, sociologist or doctor who may resist its bold pro-life stance”.
Bishop Wood was chairman of the Order of Christian Unity, also an organization in which Margaret was a leading light. Joanna Bogle, the chairman of the Order Christian Unity, and also here today, tells me that Margaret White joined the Order of Christian Unity in the early 1970s, when it had been reorganised and taken over by Lady Lothian.
“Margaret worked with enthusiasm on Christian projects and produced some excellent materials: one of the best was "Real Questions - real answers", a booklet for schools based on the real questions that teenagers asked her about sex and relationships. Through the Order of Christian Unity and other groups, she became a regular speaker in schools, and the young people would write questions on any topic they wanted, and put them anonymously in a box and she would answer them. Over the years she did much good work this way, speaking to young people with honesty, kindness and real wisdom.”
Joanna reminded me:
“She could be amusing and forthright: I remember when it was suggested, by some well-meaning people, that we might ask that the Government appoint a Minister for the Family ‘Oh no!’ she said ‘It would certainly turn out to be a Minister against the family!’ She knew only too well how government bureaucracy worked.”
Humour, including earthy humour, was as natural to Margaret in her campaigning work as breathing is to the rest of us. Whether she was talking about abortion, or inappropriate sex education, or the effects of contraception or hormonal replacement therapy on women’s health, she would spice up her talks on these subjects and make people laugh. Although she was a distinguished doctor, who debated as an expert speaker on various topics at both the Oxford and Cambridge Union, a member of the General Medical Council, a vice-president of the Mothers’ Union, her sense of fun, rollicking good humour, and compassion for the most vulnerable were always the most obvious things about her. She had zero sense of self-importance.

In her latter years, Margaret’s good-humoured mockery was still very much in play in a letter she had published in The Times on euthanasia. The trouble was, not everyone understood the intended irony in her letter, published by The Times in August 2009, which read:
"Sir, I am over 90. My husband and I worked full-time in medical practice, my husband until 70, and I till 66. My husband has died and the pension I receive for myself and as my husband's widow does not cover the cost of my nursing home.

During our lives we saved for our children but the income from our savings, with the pensions I receive, are not enough to make up the cost, so I am forced to draw on my capital.

I am happy here in the nursing home with no wish to die, but were voluntary euthanasia to be made legal I would feel it my absolute duty to ask for it as I now have 19 descendants who need my legacy.

I am sure I am not alone in this resolution.

Dr Margaret White
Winchester"
Margaret’s true legacy is far more important than money. As Joanna Bogle rightly said: Margaret helped many young people – and I would add many older people too – to have a vision for life. A vision which wisely teaches people to understand that her beloved medical profession was not infallible; a vision which embraced poor women in Puerto Rica used as guinea-pigs in contraceptive trials by the manufacturers of the pill – an alarming number of whom had died of unspecified heart attacks. And a vision which embraced the most innocent, most vulnerable members of humanity and of her own family whom she adored. I conclude with an extract of the SPUC executive minutes on 6th May 1989:
“Phyllis Bowman [my predecessor as national director of SPUC] reported that on her retirement from the Bench Margaret White had asked her fellow JPs to make a gift to a fund she was establishing under the umbrella of the SPUC Educational Research Trust. She had herself given £1,000 to this. The purpose of the Anna Fund was to help parents of Downs children to get the kind of remedial help that at present was only available through Professor Lejeune. The name came from her granddaughter, Anna, who had been born with Downs Syndrome and who had had to be flow to Paris before any remedial help could be found. The committee congratulated and thanked Margaret and her daughter for this excellent and noble idea.”
Thank you Margaret. God rest you!
Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Wednesday 24 April 2013

Abortion ruling welcomed by SPUC who backed Glasgow midwives' case

SPUC has welcomed today’s verdict in the appeal by two Glasgow midwives fighting for their right to opt out of abortion.

Connie Wood and Mary Doogan, who won their appeal against the Greater Glasgow and Clyde Health Board, are senior midwives each with more than 20 years' experience and had the role of Labour Ward Co-ordinators. (See further below for a statement by the midwives today.)

SPUC has given the midwives its backing throughout the case. Responding to the judgment, Paul Tully, SPUC's general secretary, told the media earlier today:
“Today’s verdict is very welcome and we congratulate Connie and Mary on their tenacity and deep sense of professionalism. We hope that the Health Board will abide by this verdict and enable life to return to normal for Connie and Mary. The result is a tremendous victory for these devoted and caring professional women. This outcome will be a great relief to all midwives, nurses and doctors who may be under pressure to supervise abortion procedures and who are wondering whether the law protects their right to opt out. 

The difference this judgment makes is that hospital managers must recognise that the legal right to opt out of abortion goes beyond those who directly undertake abortions. For the sake of good morale and good relations with all members of staff, it is important that the Board move to re-establish normal working relations straight away. The mothers and babies depending on the Southern General Hospital deserve no less.

“Mary Doogan and Connie Wood deserve the fullest support and gratitude of their medical colleagues for resisting the pressure to give up their legal protections. It is important to recognise that their stand applies to people of all faiths and none: the right to refuse to participate in abortion is based on conscientious objection, whether religious or purely moral, so it applies to everyone.

They are anxious to get back to normal after the protracted internal grievance procedure and legal action. This dispute has seriously disrupted their professional lives over the past 4 years and more.”
Statement by Connie Wood and Mary Doogan:
"Connie and I are absolutely delighted with todays judgement from the Court of Session, which recognises and upholds our rights as labour ward midwifery sisters to withdraw from participating in any treatment that would result in medical termination of pregnancy.
In holding all life to be sacred from conception to natural death, as midwives we have always worked in the knowledge we have two lives to care for throughout labour; a mother and that of her unborn child.

Today's judgement is a welcome affirmation of the rights of all midwives to withdraw from a practice that would violate their conscience and which over time, would indeed debar many from entering what has always been a very rewarding and noble profession. It is with great relief we can now return to considerations that are all to do with child birth and midwifery practice and less to do with legal matters.

Lastly, we wish to thank the many individuals the length and breadth of Britain and, indeed, further afield, who have given us great help and support throughout the duration of our dispute with GG&CHB. Though too numerous to individually highlight, special mention has to be given to both sets of family,  without whose support we could not have taken on this case, to SPUC and to  our very talented legal team whose expertise and support we could not have done without. Thank you to each and everyone."
Background to the case:

Midwives employed at Glasgow’s Southern General Hospital as  Labour Ward Co-ordinators (LWCs) were told that they had to oversee abortion procedures when the hospital reorganised abortion services, transferring late abortion patients to the labour ward rather than the gynaecology ward.

Previously midwives who opposed abortion on grounds of conscience had always been allowed to opt out of any involvement under the conscience clause in the Abortion Act, which recognises the right not to participate in abortion treatment.

The Court of Session heard arguments about whether midwives in the role of LWC are entitled to opt out of delegating and supervising abortions in which staff midwives are providing most of the hands-on treatment, with LWCs as the first line of back-up.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Monday 22 April 2013

Why the government's plans to redefine marriage must be opposed

On Saturday I spoke to the Union of Catholic Mothers of the Archdiocese of Southwark, at Amigo Hall next to St George's cathedral. You can read a report of my address on the SPUC website. In summary, I said:
  • David Cameron and his government were seeking to deny children’s birthright, to be brought up by both a mother and a father, by institutionalising fatherless and motherless families.
  • Legalising same sex marriage is not about being nice to people with same-sex attraction and letting them get married if they want to. It is about the destruction of the oldest human institution in the world which protects the mental and physical wellbeing of men, women and children
  • Research by Dr Patricia Morgan, commissioned by SPUC and presented to Parliament, shows that in countries in which same-sex marriage has been legalized, real marriage is undermined.
  • Government statistics on abortion clearly show that unborn children are four to five times less likely to be aborted if they are conceived within marriage. Undermining marriage will result in more unborn children being killed.
  • Same-sex couples will demand the right to have children – making it even more difficult for pro-life groups effectively to oppose in vitro fertilisation. Defending the right to life of unborn children will be increasingly viewed as an attack on the rights of homosexual couples.
  • Same-sex marriage is about the sexual rights of adults. Real marriage is about best interests of children.
  • Claims by government ministers that a teachers will continue to have the right to teach children that marriage is between a man and a woman do not stand up to legal scrutiny nor to statements made by political leaders such as David Cameron, Nick Clegg, and Ed Balls.
  • Schools will come under further pressure to teach pupils about homosexual sex.
  • Whether the battle is won or lost on the government’s same-sex marriage bill, those in society, including the UCM, who have a clear understanding of what’s at stake must maintain an unceasing educational campaign to warn parents and the general public about the impact of same-sex marriage legislation.
  • Unless we continue to insist, through taking our information door-to-door throughout the country, future generations of children will simply never know, still less experience for themselves, that the natural habitat for children is the family based on the marriage of a man and a woman as a permanent exclusive union, as upheld in international human rights instruments.
  • We must act now to prevent our country descending into centuries of barbarism.
  • I urge members of the UCM to write to their Members of Parliament calling on them to vote against the third reading of the Marriage (Same Sex) Couples Bill. Briefings can be found at www.spuc.org.uk
  • I urge UCM foundations to leaflet their parish churches on the weekends of 5th May and 12th May – since the third reading of the Bill could be as early as the week beginning 20th May. Leaflets are available from SPUC. Telephone me at 020 7820 3128 or email me at johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
  • I appeal to leaders to come forward who would be willing to organize a team of people locally to provide a permanent outreach to the local community. We need 900 groups who are each capable of leafleting 10,000 local homes.
  • I greet the West Norwood UCM foundation at whose meeting on 21st February 1951 my birth of the day before had been announced!
Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Must-read pro-life news-stories, Mon 22 April

Eamon Gilmore
Top story:

Abortion law timetable on track, says Irish deputy PM
Eamon Gilmore, the Irish deputy prime minister, has said that the Irish government's timetable for abortion legislation is on track. He told journalists: “We have a timetable which is to have this legislation dealt with by the summer recess." The Irish Times reports that draft legislation is due to be published tomorrow (23 April). [Irish Times, 22 April]

Other stories:

Abortion
Euthanasia
  • Battle for right to die to be enshrined in law is 'doomed to fail', claims Manchester university ethics expert [Mancunian Matters, 19 April]
Sexual ethics
General
Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Friday 19 April 2013

Must-read pro-life news-stories, Fri 19 April

Top stories:

Government 's clumsy effort to appease sex-education lobby threatens parental rights
The Government's clumsy effort to appease the sex-education lobby threatens parental rights. SPUC was criticising comments about sex education by Elizabeth Truss, the education and childcare minister. Mrs Truss said in a letter published in The Times yesterday (15 April) that just as much sex education will be included in the new National Curriculum for England. Antonia Tully of SPUC's Safe at School campaign said: "There is no evidence that teaching primary age children about sex improves their sexual health as they grow up." [SPUC, 16 April]

Baroness Thatcher's voting record on pro-life and pro-family issues
Some SPUC supporters have asked for information about Lady Thatcher's parliamentary record on pro-life and pro-family issues. The following list is necessarily incomplete. In short, she:
  • voted for (what became) the Abortion Act 1967 at 2nd reading and at Report stage (voting many times for the bill during all-night sittings), though she was absent at 3rd reading
  • showed a mixed pattern of voting on several attempts by anti-abortion MPs to amend the Abortion Act (St John Stevas, Corrie, Alton)
  • supported the Human Fertilisation and Embryology bill (now Act) 1990, which enshrined destructive embryo research in law and via which the Abortion Act 1967 was extended with ministerial help
  • voted against the equalisation of the homosexual and heterosexual ages of consent (2000)
  • voted to retain section 28 (banning the promotion of homosexuality by local authorities) on 24 July 2000
  • voted against homosexual adoption (16 Oct. 2002)
  • voted against various anti-life/anti-family provisions of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology bill (now Act) 2008
Her record was mixed, with a move in a more positive direction in her later parliamentary years. John Smeaton, SPUC's chief executive, commented: "After we have prayed for the repose of her soul, we must renew our prayers that one day we will have clear pro-life leadership from our elected representatives." [John Smeaton, 18 April]

Other stories:

Abortion
Sexual ethics
Euthanasia
Population
General
Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Thursday 18 April 2013

Baroness Thatcher's voting record on pro-life and pro-family issues

I join with the large number of people at home and abroad who have been praying for the repose of the soul of Baroness (Margaret) Thatcher and the comforting of those who are bereaved at her departure. The vulnerability of human beings at both the beginning and the end of life is well summed-up in the following words sung at her funeral yesterday:
"We brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out ... Man that is born of a woman hath but a short time to live, and is full of misery. He cometh up, and is cut down, like a flower ... In the midst of life we are in death"
Secondly, some SPUC supporters have asked for information about Lady Thatcher's parliamentary record on pro-life and pro-family issues. The following list is necessarily incomplete. In short, she:
  • voted for (what became) the Abortion Act 1967 at 2nd reading and at Report stage (voting many times for the bill during all-night sittings), though she was absent at 3rd reading
  • showed a mixed pattern of voting on several attempts by anti-abortion MPs to amend the Abortion Act (St John Stevas, Corrie, Alton)
  • supported the Human Fertilisation and Embryology bill (now Act) 1990, which enshrined destructive embryo research in law and via which the Abortion Act 1967 was extended with ministerial help
  • voted against the equalisation of the homosexual and heterosexual ages of consent (2000)
  • voted to retain section 28 (banning the promotion of homosexuality by local authorities) on 24 July 2000
  • voted against homosexual adoption (16 Oct. 2002)
  • voted against various anti-life/anti-family provisions of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology bill (now Act) 2008
It is fair to say that her record was mixed, with a move in a more positive direction in her later parliamentary years. After we have prayed for the repose of her soul, we must renew our prayers that one day we will have clear pro-life leadership from our elected representatives.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Tuesday 16 April 2013

Government 's clumsy effort to appease sex-education lobby threatens parental rights

Elizabeth Truss, education and childcare minister
SPUC has criticised comments about sex education by Elizabeth Truss, the education and childcare minister. Mrs Truss said in a letter published in The Times yesterday (15 April) that just as much sex education will be included in the new National Curriculum for England.  A draft new curriculum has been issued for consultation, which closes today. The Government's clumsy effort to appease the sex-education lobby threatens parental rights.

Responding to Mrs Truss, Antonia Tully of the SPUC’s Safe at School campaign told the media:
“Mrs Truss has prejudged the outcome of the consultation which only closes today. The National Curriculum for science contains no reference to sex and relationships, but only to ‘reproduction’ - including plants and animals.

“Sex education is not currently part of the mandatory science curriculum and is included only in the non-statutory suggestions for PSHE lessons. A consultation exercise about the National Curriculum has been in progress since February."
In a submission to the consultation (full text) SPUC Safe at School points out that references to 'reproduction' in the science curriculum are being abused. Explicit sex-education resources are being used in mandatory science lessons for primary school children. In some cases, resources have simply been transferred to science periods to thwart parents' rights to object to what some have called 'kiddie-porn'. Parents are entitled to withdraw children from sex lessons, but schools can force parents to submit their children to attend science classes. 

Antonia continued:
“Sex education lessons are required to be appropriate to the age and cultural background of the children, but this requirement does not apply to what children are shown in science lessons. 

We believe the curriculum should make clear that it does not permit discussing explicit sexual matters with primary school children at Key Stages 1 and 2. In some ways, the draft new curriculum is an improvement on the current curriculum. It will no longer be possible for teachers to interpret the science curriculum at Key Stage 1 to include sex organs when teaching 5-6 year olds about basic body parts. However, the Year 5 programme of study requires children to describe reproduction in a variety of animals, and humans are included. This means that children aged 9-10 years may be subjected to graphic sex education from which their parents are powerless to withdraw them.

There is no evidence that teaching primary age children about sex improves their sexual health as they grow up."
Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Monday 15 April 2013

Must-read pro-life news-stories, Mon 15 Apr

Top story:

The Telegraph's adulation of IVF pioneer Robert Edwards is nauseating
SPUC has criticised the adulatory obituary written by The Telegraph newspaper following the death of Professor Sir Robert Edwards, the inventor of IVF. Anthony Ozimic, SPUC's communications manager, said: "The most notable things about Edwards is that IVF has resulted in the ending of the lives of millions of embryonic children, outnumbering over twenty-fold the number of children born following IVF. SPUC has often claimed that IVF is not primarily about helping couples with fertility problems but is driven by a desire of some scientists to 'play God' with human life."  [John Smeaton, 11 April]

Related story: I wish IVF had never been invented, says heartbroken journalist [Mail, 15 April]

Other stories:

Abortion
Embryology
Euthanasia
Sexual ethics
  • Argentina: Catholic priest expelled from church for supporting equal marriage [Pink News, 13 April]
  • US Republican Party votes to reaffirm opposition to same-sex marriage [Pink News, 13 April]
  • Same-sex marriage would end role of mother and father, says Irish Catholic bishop [Evening Echo, 13 April]
  • Uruguay Congress approves gay marriage bill [BBC, 11 April]
  • Archbishop says that Catholics who support same-sex marriage shouldn't receive Holy Communion [John Smeaton, 9 April]
Population
General
Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Friday 12 April 2013

Wales donors show signs of reacting against deemed consent Bill

Potential organ donors in Wales are showing signs of reacting against the Welsh government's deemed consent bill. 

SPUC in Wales has commenting about a catastrophic collapse in numbers of organ donors in the past year, at the same time that the deemed consent bill is being promoted.

Janet Secluna Thomas, SPUC Wales's development officer, told the media today:
"The government push for organ seizure seems to be affecting the voluntary organ donation system. Figures show that only 52 donors volunteered for organ donation from April 2012 to March 2013. This is a fall from 67 in 2011-12. Thus Wales’ performance fell from the best in the UK to the worst in the UK in one year. All other nations of the UK showed a major increase in the donor rate.

The politicians in the Welsh Assembly deny any responsibility. However, oral evidence to the Health Committee*  showed that donors were reacting against the proposed bill to enforce organ seizure and to ignore the right of patients to require their express consent. The bill appears to have had a very damaging effect." * (30/01/13 Section 63)

No real consultation has taken place. The government has ignored mounting opposition, which showed about 96% against in September 2012 including standard letters, and 90% against in January 2013. Many distinguished medical experts and bioethicists are against the bill. All the churches and Islamic authorities are against it also. In September,  over 2,000 letters from individuals against the bill were sent to the health minister. Since then Assembly members have received over 12,000 letters against the bill.

The Labour Party made a political decision in 2009 to adopt presumed consent and has ignored the outstanding previous success of the voluntary organ donation system. Now the potential donors on the organ donor register are starting to withdraw their permission.

Lesley Griffiths, the minister said with reference to human rights: 'Consent could not be valid if people did not understand the system; it would be in breach of human rights.' But the minister has failed to convince a wide swathe of opinion that her proposed system can ever achieve the informed consent she admits is necessary. She has even admitted* that without other measures (such as greatly increased numbers of intensive care beds, there may be no increase in organ donors. Wales has the lowest level of such beds in Europe. * (Oral evidence, 30 Jan. section 100)

Professor Fabre, an expert on presumed consent in Spain, said that the minister's claim that Spain's success regarding organ donation was achieved with the help of presumed consent. In fact, the opposite is true. This is the lesson the Welsh government has persistently ignored.

One option being proposed is a system of 'mandated choice', where all those who have not registered a choice on organ donation are prompted and informed to register their choice. This would remove the obstacle that families do not know what their loved ones want when they are asked if they will consent to organ removal. It is hoped that Mark Drakeford, the new health minister, will take a step back from the rush to introduce legislation and consider this and any other promising options for voluntary donation.

Many people argue strongly that a great deal more could be done to improve voluntary donation. Muslims have set an excellent example by starting an initiative to tackle the lack of organs from ethnic minorities, by sending out young recipients of organs to speak of the difference it has made to their lives."
Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Thursday 11 April 2013

The Telegraph's adulation of IVF pioneer Robert Edwards is nauseating

The Telegraph newspaper published yesterday an adulatory obituary of Professor Sir Robert Edwards, the pioneer of in vitro fertilisation (IVF). Anthony Ozimic, SPUC's communications manager, has sent me his reflections on extracts from the obituary, by way of the 'fisk' below:

The Telegraph:
"Professor Sir Robert Edwards, who has died aged 87, developed the in vitro fertility (IVF) treatment that led to the birth of the first “test-tube” baby, Louise Brown, in 1978, and ended the misery of millions of barren couples..."
Anthony Ozimic:
In fact, natural family planning, including the highly-successful Billings Ovulation Method, was ending the misery of barren couples using modern science before IVF. The most notable things about Edwards is that IVF has resulted in the ending of the lives of millions of embryonic children, outnumbering over twenty-fold the number of children born following IVF.
The Telegraph:
"Early attempts to fertilise eggs from ovarian tissue – using his own sperm – proved fruitless"
Anthony Ozimic:
This fact highlights the little-publicised truth that the sperm used to fertilise the eggs in IVF is almost always obtained by masturbation, assisted by the provision of pornography. Masturbation instrumentalises and thus debases the sexual faculty, which is proper to marital union, not laboratory experiments. The sexual organs are structured for depositing sperm into the vagina, not into a jar. A masturbator - even one motivated by a desire to fertilise eggs, even his wife's - is 'making love' to his hand, which is unnatural and a form of self-abuse.

Masturbation for any purpose - including providing sperm samples for medical purposes - is intrinsically unethical. Catholics in particular should note that it is forbideen by a decision of the Holy Office on 2 Aug. 1929, and by Pope Pius XII (address to delegates, 26th Congress of Urology, 8 Oct. 1953; address to 2nd World Congress on Fertility and Sterility, 19 May 1956.)

Edwards' activity highlights the violation of marital sexuality which is part of IVF. Not only was he masturbating for the sake of IVF, he was trying to conceive children both outside of wedlock and via women (using their ovarian tissue) other than his wife (Edwards was married).
The Telegraph:
"A spokesman for Roman Catholic Cardinal Heenan described what the scientists were doing as “murder” since it involved the destruction of fertilised human eggs."
Anthony Ozimic:
Of more importance is The Telegraph's euphemistic demeaning of embryonic children as "fertilised human eggs". There is no such thing as a fertilised human egg. An embryo is no more a fertilised human egg than an adult.There are human eggs and there are human beings, the latter which are called at various stages of development zygotes, blastocysts, embryos, foetuses, infants, teenagers and adults. These are scientific facts, not spiritual beliefs or philosophical theories.
The Telegraph:
"'If it was wrong, God wouldn’t have given Mr Steptoe or Dr Edwards the ability to do this work,' observed John Brown [father of Louise, the first IVF baby]."
Anthony Ozimic:
God has given human beings the ability to do great evil, through the ability to invent things capable of great evil e.g. weapons of mass destruction, extermination camps, instruments of torture etc. Edwards abused the abilities and the free will which God had given him.
The Telegraph:
"Edwards never shrunk from confronting his critics. The creation of a human embryo in the laboratory, he explained later, was “about more than infertility. I wanted to find out exactly who was in charge, whether it was God Himself or whether it was scientists in the laboratory.” He had no doubt about the answer: “It was us. The Pope looked totally stupid. Now there are as many Roman Catholics coming for treatment as Protestants.”"
Anthony Ozimic:
SPUC has often claimed that IVF is not primarily about helping couples with fertility problems but is driven by a desire of some scientists to 'play God' with human life. Edwards's implied claim that the invention of IVF disproves God's dominion over life was totally stupid, not the Pope. God works through His creatures to bring about new life: this is what is meant by 'procreation'. This God-given power of human beings can be used in an ethical context (marriage) or an unethical context (IVF in the laboratory, fornication, adultery, incest, rape). The invention of IVF no more disproves God's dominion over nature than the invention of electric lighting disproves the power of the Sun.

The fact that some Catholics resort to IVF simply highlights the urgent need for increased catechesis about sexual ethics and increased promotion of the highly-successful alternatives to IVF (e.g the Billings Ovulation Method; NaProTech)
The Telegraph:
"Worldwide about one in 10 couples are infertile and, until IVF, doctors could do little to help."
Anthony Ozimic:
This is simply a lie - as I have pointed out above, natural family planning, such as Billings Ovulation Method, was helping couples with fertility problems before IVF was invented. The Telegraph's obituary doesn't give a definition of 'infertility'. Much so-called 'infertility' is in fact simply a temporary difficulty in conceiving because of a lack of knowledge about the woman's cycle. A high proportion of women who undergo IVF could have conceived instead with the help of Billings or NaProTech, which would have provided that close knowledge of their cycles.
The Telegraph:
"Edwards’s breakthrough was critical for many other important medical advances, including pre-implantation genetic diagnosis for diseases, and for the derivation of the first human stem cells – all of which kept him in the thick of the medical-ethical debate."
Anthony Ozimic:
But pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD) and embryonic stem cell research are not "medical advances". PGD is simply a means of searching out and destroying certain human beings whom some people regard as not worthy of life. Embryonic stem cell research has been revealed as a dud - as SPUC and many other people predicted decades ago.
The Telegraph:
"Though Edwards was awarded a Lasker Prize in 2001, the failure of the Nobel committee to award him a prize for many years was regarded as little short of a scandal in the fertility community."
Anthony Ozimic:
Who or what is "the fertility community"? This again gives the entirely false impression that IVF = fertility, that all fertility practitioners are pro-IVF, and that only IVF practitioners are addressing fertility problems.
The Telegraph:
"The only dissident note was struck by Ignacio Carrasco de Paula, head of the Pontifical Academy for Life at the Vatican..."
Anthony Ozimic:
The Telegraph's obituary singles out the Catholic Church no fewer than four times as the opponents of IVF, thus casting 'the Vatican' in the role of villains and Luddites. This is very poor journalism, which one expects of The Guardian but not The Telegraph.
Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Tuesday 9 April 2013

Archbishop says that Catholics who support same-sex marriage shouldn't receive Holy Communion

The Detroit Free Press newspaper reports that Allen Vigneron, the Catholic archbishop of Detroit (USA), has said Catholics who support same-sex marriage shouldn't receive Holy Communion. It also quotes the archbishop saying:
"For a Catholic to receive holy Communion and still deny the revelation Christ entrusted to the church is to try to say two contradictory things at once: 'I believe the church offers the saving truth of Jesus, and I reject what the church teaches.' In effect, they would contradict themselves. This sort of behavior would result in publicly renouncing one's integrity and logically bring shame for a double-dealing that is not unlike perjury. [The Church wants to help Catholics] avoid this personal disaster."
The newspaper also reports that the archbishop told a press conference last month:
"Were we to abandon [our views opposing abortion and supporting traditional marriage], we would be like physicians who didn't tell their patients that certain forms of behavior are not really in their best interest."
I pray that all bishops and clergy will be blessed with the same admirable balance of firmness and pastoral concern as Archbishop Vigneron.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Friday 5 April 2013

There is no right way to carry out abortions ... in Ireland or elsewhere

Recent news from Ireland surrounding the tragic case of Savita Halappanavar urgently requires deeper reflection on the part of pro-life leaders.

Pregnant women who are ill should be protected by good and ethical means. A woman should not be denied life-saving treatment which targets her own body and does not target her baby’s body, even if her baby dies as a result.

In this connection it must, however, be noted that, whilst deliberately choosing to 'remove a baby' before he or she is viable may have the good further motive of protecting the mother, the immediate intention and procedure is sadly identical to that involved in other abortions.

All abortions involve, at the very least, the intention to end the pregnancy. They target the baby and the baby's own tissues, unlike legitimate life-saving operations on the woman where harmful effects on her baby and on the baby's presence in her body are mere side-effects of treatment. Deliberate induction of pre-viable babies is abortion and is acceptable neither in medical ethics nor in Catholic Church teaching - which is an important fact for pro-life Catholics, and indeed for some pro-lifers from other faiths (or of no religious faith).

The statement put out this week by the Pro Life Campaign (PLC), a pro-life organization in Ireland, does not appear to rule out abortion in certain cases and is part of a worrying trend. Some have gone further in their defence of inducing pre-viable babies: thus one Irish pro-lifer has said of Savita's case:
“hospital staff should have considered accelerating delivery once miscarriage was inevitable in an attempt to pre-empt any infections that might be caused by Savita’s cervix being open”
In other words, induction of the pre-viable baby is now to be encouraged even in cases where the mother is in no immediate danger of death. It is easy to see how this could then be extended by pro-abortionists to allow induction for suicidal pregnant women if it is wrongly claimed that this will help them (of course, abortion does not help suicidal women in any way). This is how we get liberalised abortion: by neglecting to analyse 'hard cases' in detail, which in practice means neglecting the most vulnerable babies and letting down the most vulnerable mothers, who instead need life-affirming health care.

Some defenders of pre-viability induction have gone on to defend D&Cs and D&Es – and it is hard to see why these two options should not also be allowed in principle once we start advocating abortion by induction, albeit with a good further motive.

The baby's own bodily integrity and its physical presence should always be respected, even as we treat illness or infection in the woman's own body as vigorously as we can. Doctors who respect the lives and bodies of both patients, in a way reflecting age-old principles of medical ethics, should be affirmed in this and should not be condemned by any guidelines, medical or otherwise, which are not truly pro-life. Nor should pro-lifers become involved in drawing up guidelines which instruct doctors in the ‘right way’ to carry out abortions. There is no right way to carry out abortions.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Wednesday 3 April 2013

Russian pro-family campaigners issue major legal document in defence of children

Leading pro-family campaigners in Russia last week released a major legal document defending laws in Russia which protect children from being indoctrinated with homosexual propaganda. I am very grateful to Fr John Fleming, SPUC's bioethical consultant, who has sent me his synopsis (below) of the document. The document's arguments are valuable tools against those who would seek to misuse the European Convention on Human Rights to stop the legal protection of children, which is both a prime duty of the state and a fundamental right of parents.

Synopsis by Dr John I Fleming

On the 21st of October 2010 The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR), in the case of Alekseyev v Russia, found that the banning of “Gay Pride marches” by Moscow authorities contravened Article 11 (and Articles 13 and 14 in reference to Article 11) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).

It is the role of the Committee of Ministers (CM) to supervise the implementation of the findings of the ECtHR.  In subsequent meetings of the CM, questions were raised about other laws in various parts of the Russian Federation which prohibited the propaganda on homosexuality being distributed to minors.  The CM sought clarification from the Russian authorities as to how such laws could be compatible with the implementation of the Court’s decision in Alekseyev v Russia.

A response to the concerns of the CM has been prepared by two bodies, The Family and Demography Foundation and the Interregional Public Organization “For Family Rights”.  Both “are Russian non-governmental organizations working to support the family, the “natural and fundamental group unit of society” entitled to “protection by society and the State” (Article 16(3) of UDHR), which includes protecting the relevant fundamental human rights. Both are independent NGOs and receive no public funding.”  The response is titled “Communication to the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe concerning Alekseyev v. Russia (application no. 4916/07” (“the document”).

In this response the two NGOs argue that the laws prohibiting the propaganda of homosexuality to minors (propaganda to minors) are, in fact, compatible with Alekseyev v Russia.  Moreover, they also call into question the findings in Alekseyev v Russia, suggest that the ECtHR is influenced by ideology rather than law, does not pay sufficient respect to differing moral views in the different societies which constitute the EU, and place little importance on the need to protect children from being influenced to enter into immoral and unnatural relationships with all of the physical and mental health impairments that that might bring.

Russian laws against propaganda to minors in ten regional legislatures, with similar laws under consideration in other Russian regions.  As well there is a draft federal bill which has already passed the first reading stage in the Russian State Duma.

The purpose of these laws:
This legislation is aimed at protecting the children from information posing threat to their health and development. It is being introduced in accordance with the federal laws aimed at protecting the rights and interests of children, specifically Article 14(1) (“Protecting the child from information threatening his health, moral and spiritual growth, its promotion and propaganda”) of the 1998 Federal Law On Fundamental Safeguards of the Rights of the Child (no. 124-FZ of 24 June 1998) which charges Russian authorities with taking “action to protect the child from information threatening his health, moral and spiritual growth, its promotion and propaganda”. It should be noted that among types of information threatening health and/or development of children Article 5(4) of the law lists information undermining family values.
“The document” shows that the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation has found that these laws in no way violate the constitutional rights and freedom of its citizens.  The Supreme Court reached similar conclusions.  The courts have made it clear that these laws do not prevent the public discussion of homosexuality or dissemination of information on the subject or debates about the social status of sexual minorities.  It simply prohibits the propagating of these ideas to minors who, because of their immaturity, are not yet ready to critically evaluate such information.

“The document” also admits that the Russian laws in question somewhat restricts the freedom of expression protected in Article 10(1) of the ECHR.  But this is legitimate since the ECHR itself places restrictions on the freedom of expression in Article 10(2) of the ECHR:

The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. [Emphasis added by JIF]
“The document” then goes to specify just how the Russian laws protect the health of children, the family, and public morality.  In its next three sections the authors outline their reasoning:
1. The health risks inherent in the homosexual lifestyle as objectively identified in the academic literature.  This includes greatly increased risks of STIs including HIV, as well as anal and rectal cancer.  Reference is also made to far greater incidences of serious mental conditions and substance abuse among practising homosexuals.  All of this means that propagating the homosexual lifestyle to children constitutes a serious risk to their future health status.

2. Where the family is concerned, the Russian Constitutional Court said that the Russian laws were “aimed at protecting the family in its traditional meaning”.  The laws prohibiting the propagation of homosexuality to minors are enacted “to prohibit deliberate attempts to make children form ‘perverted notions of traditional and non-traditional conjugal relations being socially equivalent’.  In other words, one of the aims of this law is to protect the family in its child care and upbringing aspect.”

In addition “the document” refers to the idea of the protection of “public order” or, to use the terms of Article 10(2) of the ECHR, “the prevention of disorder”.  “The document” remarks that it is “nearly universally acknowledged that the term encompasses fundamental principles enabling the continuous existence of a society” and provides evidence for that.  Tellingly, “the document” then reminds the CM that the ECtHR’s own case law reflects the idea that the protection of the family “must certainly be viewed as an integral part of the protection of public order (ordre public).  “The document” then specifically refers to Karner v Austriain where the ECtHR noted that, considering whether there are indications of discrimination in a treatment, it “can accept that protection of the family in the traditional sense is, in principle, a weighty and legitimate reason which might justify a difference in treatment” (Karner v. Austria, application no. 40016/98, 24.07.2003, para. 40)

3. An impressive range of authorities allow for the protection of public morals referred to in Article 10 (2) of the ECHR.  A number of universally recognized international human rights norms recognize the protection of morals as a legitimate justification for restricting the right to freedom of expression.

In particular, Article 29(2) of UDHR acknowledges that in the exercise of his rights and freedoms a person can be “subject . . . to such limitations as are determined by law . . . for the purpose of . . . meeting the just requirements of morality”.

Article 19(3)(b) of ICCPR accepts that the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to impart information and ideas, can be subject to restrictions provided by the law necessary for, among other things, “the protection . . . of public . . . morals”.

Article 13(2)(b) of CRC recognizes that the right of the child to freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas can be subject  to certain restrictions provided by the law necessary for, in particular, the “protection . . . of public morals”.

Finally, Article 10 of UCHR explicitly acknowledges that the exercise of freedoms provided therein “may be subject to …. restrictions …. prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society …. for the protection of … morals”.

Said principle can therefore be regarded as universally recognized by international law.
“The document” goes on to show that public morality in Russia disapproves of the homosexual lifestyle seeing it as a perversion of human nature, that these views are held by atheists as well as religious believers, and that 87% of Russians oppose ‘Gay Pride marches’.

“The document” points out that the ECtHR has form when it comes to imposing private ideological beliefs through some of its judgments (eg Christine Goodwin v. United Kingdom).

It concludes by saying this:
"Were the Court to deliver judgements in such important spheres as protection of family and marriage, rights of parents and children, and public order and morals under the influence of controversial ideological concepts, this potentially might delegitimize its judgements in the eyes of at least some of sovereign European states."
This important document contains a wealth of detailed argumentation to support its response to the CM’s concerns about Russian laws designed to protect children from homosexual propaganda, to protect the family, and to protect public morality.

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Tuesday 2 April 2013

Must-read pro-life news-stories, 2 Apr

Top story:

Be a leader in the campaign to save marriage
It seems likely that the next major vote in the House of Commons – the third reading – on the government's bill to allow same-sex marriage will take place towards the end of May. SPUC is looking for leaders to volunteer to co-ordinate local leafleting teams against this legislation. Please email johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk if you can help. [John Smeaton, 28 March]

Other stories:

Abortion:
Population
Euthanasia
Sexual ethics
General
Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy