The appointment of Julia Neuberger to head Liverpool Care Pathway inquiry is worrying

The Government has just announced that Baroness Julia Neuberger, a rabbi and former Liberal Democrat health spokesperson, has been appointed to chair the government's inquiry into the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP) (see my blog last week on the LCP). This appointment is worrying. In 2011 she said in the annual Tyburn Lecture (my emphasis in bold):

“Just so everyone knows, let’s be very clear, I am not in favour of euthanasia, I am not in favour of physician-assisted suicide. I don’t think it is a good idea for our health professionals to kill their patients any more than they do accidentally, I just don’t think it is a good idea.

I do have some sympathy – and many people I think will disagree with me – I do have some sympathy with the idea that that people who are already terminally ill and finding their situation unbearable, that they should be given the wherewithal to take their own lives. I am sure that many people – those who are true Catholics will strongly disapprove of that and there are Jews who strongly disapprove of that – but I do have some sympathy because there are some people for whom actually life becomes unbearable when they can’t control the pain. I think it is the exception. All the experience where that has been tried, for instance, in Washington State in the United States has shown that when people are given the wherewithal they barely ever use it, which suggests they want the reassurance rather than the actual capacity to deal with it.”

But there are few ethical differences between euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide (which she claims to oppose) and suicide assisted by non-physicians (for which she expresses sympathy). In all those three categories, the intentional killing of an innocent member of the human family is brought about.

And in 2005 she voted against an anti-euthanasia amendment to the pro-euthanasia Mental Capacity Bill (now Act). The amendment would have removed the ability of attorneys to deny life-sustaining treatment to mentally-incapacitated patients.

One of the most worrying claims about the nature and operation of the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP) relates to euthanasia by omission (sometimes called euthanasia by neglect) - the  denial of life-sustaining care (food and/or fluids) and/or reasonable medical treatment. Her vote against the amendment should disqualify her from the chairmanship of any inquiry into the LCP.

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

Shocking impact on schools if same-sex marriage allowed, warn experts

Below is the press release we at SPUC have just issued regarding a press conference we held in Westminster today. I hope to blog about the press conference in more detail tomorrow:

Shocking impact on schools if same-sex marriage allowed, warn experts

Westminster, London, 15 January 2013: There will be a shocking impact on schools if same-sex marriage is passed into law, experts warned at Westminster press conference today.

Experts on family policy, sex education and ethics agreed that schools will become a focus for the promotion of radical and explicit homosexual material to schoolchildren. In addition, same-sex marriage will be used as a reason to silence objections by teachers and parents to explicit sex education.

The press conference was organised by the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) www.spuc.org.uk , a leading pro-life and pro-family organisation, to launch its campaign warning headteachers about the consequences to schools of same-sex marriage (see further below for the full text of SPUC's letter to headteachers of all state-maintained secondary schools).

SPUC opposes the redefinition of marriage in law to include same-sex couples, because it would undermine the true nature of marriage and thus the pro-life benefits of marriage. Marriage offers the most protective environment for both unborn and born children. SPUC also campaigns against explicit sex education because such teaching fails to reduce abortions.

At today's press conference, Dr Lisa Nolland, a social historian and expert on child protection (biography below), revealed the shockingly explicit material being spread in schools by homosexual activists. She warned that such material will become entrenched and much more widely promoted in schools if same-sex marriage is allowed. Parents have been kept in the dark about the dangerous so-called sexual health information being given to their children. Dr Nolland added that in places where same-sex marriage has been enshrined, it is becoming socially unacceptable to object to the negative influence of homosexual material on young people.

Dr Patricia Morgan, an expert on family policy (biography below), warned that allowing same-sex marriage would result in an increase in the sexualisation of children through current models of sex education. She said that such sexualisation had many negative health outcomes, and added that her research suggested that promoting sexual abstinence was the key component of effective sex education.

Robert Harris (biography below), the author of the new book “Is there a case for same-sex marriage: questions of eligibility and consequences”, pointed out that the issue of same-sex marriage was often divorced from its wider context, which is cultural. Part of the cultural impact of same-sex marriage will be the mainstreaming of homosexuality via the information given to children in schools.

Antonia Tully, coordinator of SPUC's Safe at School campaign (biography below), highlighted SPUC's letter to headteachers, which explains how legal duties under equalities legislation mean that belief in same-sex marriage will be imposed on schools. There will be compulsory teaching of same-sex marriage, dismissal for teachers with a conscientious objection to teaching about same-sex marriage, and no opt-out for faith schools.

Anthony McCarthy, SPUC's education manager (biography below), predicted that there will be an increase in opposition to same-sex marriage as more teachers and parents begin to realise how the enshrining of same-sex marriage will affect what will be taught in schools regarding sexual ethics.

John Smeaton, SPUC's chief executive who chaired the press conference, said that the chief goal of SPUC's activity regarding same-sex marriage was encouraging and facilitating grassroots lobbying of members of Parliament.

For further information, please contact SPUC's communications department on:

• email news@spuc.org.uk
• mobile 07939 177683
• direct dial landline 020 7820 3129
• Twitter @spucprolife

Biographies of speakers, SPUC press conference, 15 January 2013:
• Dr Lisa Nolland: the convenor of the Working Party on the Sexualisation of Children, Lords and Commons Family and Child Protection Group, Jim Dobbin MP, chair. She edited and co-authored 'God, Gays and the Church' (Latimer 2008) and researches and writes on issues of children, adolescents, sexuality and culture. She also convenes the Marriage, Sex and Culture Group of Anglican Mainstream, whose website she serves as consultant for. Lisa has worked with children and their families in a variety of educational and religious contexts over the twenty five years she has lived in this country.
• Patricia Morgan: Author of numerous books relating to family change and policy, national and international; family structure and outcomes, plus related topics like adoption and child care. Forthcoming work includes a paper and a book on Gordon Brown’s teenage pregnancy strategy. She is also completing a book on capitalism and the family, partly funded by the Atlas Foundation, USA. She has a Visiting Fellowship with the School of Humanities, Buckingham University. She takes a special interest in the impact of same-sex marriage on society.
• Robert Harris: member of the Marriage, Sex and Culture Group of Anglican Mainstream. He is the author of “Is there a case for same-sex marriage?”  The first study of its kind in the UK.
• Antonia Tully: Co-ordinator of the SPUC Safe at School campaign which supports and advises parents who want to protect their children from graphic and pornographic sex education, as well as campaigning for a ban on sex education which sexualises children and usurps parents. She contributes regularly to TV and radio debates on these issues, most recently on Newsnight, opposing compulsory relationships education. She has four children at school.
• Anthony McCarthy: SPUC’s education and publications manager, and author of SPUC’s position paper on same-sex marriage http://www.spuc.org.uk/documents/papers/ssm201201
• John Smeaton (chairing the press conference): SPUC director and blogger http://spuc-director.blogspot.co.uk/

Full text of letter to headteachers from SPUC:

14 January 2013

Dear Headteacher,

Same-sex marriage: The impact on schools

On December 11 2012 the government announced the introduction of such a bill. The impact on schools has been under-reported. We wish to draw your attention to the serious issues your school will face if this bill reaches the statute book:

• Compulsory teaching of same-sex marriage
• Dismissal for teachers with a conscientious objection to teaching about same-sex marriage
• No opt-out for faith schools
• Further promotion of homosexual activity in schools
• Parents undermined.

Marriage between one man and one woman is the basis of the family, the fundamental group unit of society. Research shows overwhelmingly that children brought up by their married, opposite-sex parents do better in terms of health, happiness and education. Marriage also offers the most protective environment for unborn children.

SPUC campaigns against explicit sex education because it sexualises children and teenagers and has failed to reduce teenage pregnancies and abortions.

In connection with our concerns in this area, we are currently writing to every state-maintained secondary school in England and Wales to highlight the position of schools regarding proposals to legalise same-sex marriage, which we believe will further sexualise children and teenagers and further encourage the spread of sexually explicit material in schools.
We urge all schools to oppose proposals to legalise same-sex marriage. It is important to recognise that the equal marriage proposals will have a real, significant and disturbing impact on your school, and therefore it is essential that schools express their concerns about these proposals.

Teachers will have to teach about same-sex marriage

There is no question that schools will be required to teach pupils about same-sex marriage. Schools are already clearly mandated to teach pupils about marriage. The Education Act 1996, Section 403, states that where sex education is delivered in state-maintained schools pupils must be taught about
“the nature of marriage and its importance for family life and the bringing up of children.”
If the nature of marriage is redefined to include people of the same sex, pupils will have to be taught about this.

Leading QC Aidan O'Neill included this point in a legal opinion on the consequences of same-sex marriage legislation:
“… if marriage is extended to include same sex couples then the Secretary of State’s Section 403(1A)(a) Guidance will require to ensure that children learn of the nature of marriage as being a commitment of two people, regardless of gender or sex, and of the importance of this, now gender-neutral institution, for family life and the bringing up of children.  This duty of ensuring that pupils learn of the nature of marriage as redefined and its relationship to family life and the bringing up of children could not be avoided by any suggestion that such teaching might be said to be, in terms of 403(1A)(b),  'inappropriate having regard to the age and the religious and cultural background of the pupils concerned'.”
This means that even if same-sex marriage is contrary to the religious and cultural background of the pupils, they will still have to be taught about it.

Faith schools will not be exempt from teaching same-sex marriage. On 11 December 2012 when Maria Miller, Culture Secretary, introduced the government's measure on same-sex marriage in the House of Commons, she said:
“Teachers will continue to be able to describe their own belief that marriage is between a man and a woman while, importantly, acknowledging that there can also be same-sex marriages.” (Hansard, 11 December, col 167)
Whatever the ethos of the school, pupils will have to be taught about both opposite-sex and same-sex marriage.

Teachers will be unable to exercise conscientious objection

It is also the case that teachers will be unable to exercise conscientious objection to teaching same-sex marriage.

 Aidan O'Neill QC stated in his legal opinion that if a teacher
“refused to obey the otherwise lawful instructions of her employers then this would constitute grounds for her dismissal from employment.”
Helen Grant, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Department for Culture Media and Sport, tries to suggest that teachers with a conscientious objection will be accommodated. In a letter dated 19 October 2012, she states:
 “We would expect that any teacher with concerns about their personal views being in conflict with what they are required to teach would discuss this with their head teacher and reach a mutual understanding on a way forward. There is nothing in the School Teacher's Pay and Conditions Document that sets down what a teacher should or shouldn't teach and it will always be a matter for the head to determine what teachers under his control should be teaching and he/she will have a range of disciplinary measures at their disposal if they are needed including ultimately dismissal.”
It is very hard to see how a way forward can be found for a teacher who holds that marriage is a natural institution uniting a man and a woman, and therefore that a same-sex couple’s legally recognised “marriage” is invalid or immoral.

It is clear from Helen Grant’s statement that teachers will be required to teach something about same-sex marriage. It is likely, in our view, that they will be required to say that homosexual unions are equal in some way to man-and-woman marriages. (The government’s principal reason to justify the redefinition of legal marriage is to try to make homosexual couples ‘equal’ to married couples.)

A headteacher would not be able to accommodate a teacher with a conscientious objection because the headteacher would have a legal obligation to ensure that same-sex marriage is taught to pupils. Mrs Grant makes this clear in her letter when she states:
“Head teachers and governing bodies will always be expected to be fully aware of their responsibilities under employment law and equalities law when reaching any decision on matters of this nature.”
In other words, when the law redefines marriage to include same-sex marriage and schools remain legally obliged to teach pupils about marriage, a headteacher will  be required to silence or sack teachers who oppose 'equal' marriage.

Compliance with equality duties

Teaching pupils about same-sex marriage and gay relationships will be underpinned by the statutory obligation all state-maintained schools are under to publish information showing that they are complying with equality duties arising from the Equality Act 2010.

The equality duties relating to “sexual orientation and gender reassignment” as set out in the guidance for schools issued by the Equality and Human Rights Commission in November 2012, are presented in active terms:
“Under the equality duty all schools must have due regard to the need to eliminate discrimination, advance equality and foster good relations between lesbian, gay and transsexual pupils and those who do not share those protected characteristics. Schools are required to publish information to demonstrate compliance with this aspect of the equality duty.” (Our emphasis).
While it is wrong that any school pupil should be subjected to bullying or discrimination, schools are clearly required to be pro-active in accommodating lesbian, gay and transsexual pupils and will be breaching the law if they don’t say how they are doing this.

These equality duties are effectively requiring schools to promote gay lifestyles and practices.

Effect of legislation in Canada

In Canada, where same-sex marriage was legalised in 2005, the Accepting Schools Act, an anti-bullying law, was passed in June 2012. This law requires all schools to run 'gay-straight alliance' clubs if the students request one.

Such clubs will be used to promote homosexuality in schools. Faith schools in Canada are not exempt.

Although the legal age of consent, in the UK, is 16, you will be aware that prosecutions are rarely brought for under-age sex when the victims are 13-15 year olds. On “equality” grounds, the homosexual abuse of children will be treated in a similar way.

Current moves to teach homosexual practices in schools

There are already moves to bring teaching on homosexuality into schools. For example, the Terrence Higgins Trust (THT), a homosexual charity, has been generously funded by the state to work with pupils age 14 and older in schools in England. In 2011 THT was granted £203,508 to run a peer-led sex education programme in schools and youth clubs. 100 disadvantaged children have been trained to give sex education training to 2,000 further teenagers to deliver sex education in schools.

While much of what can be viewed on the THT website is concerned with support and help for HIV and Aids sufferers, THT also publishes booklets such as “The Bottom Line” and “Below the Belt”.  These full colour booklets use pictures of action man dolls to describe a range of gay sexual activity. For example, on page 22 of “Below the Belt” we read, “No one teaches you at school, so just how is it meant to be done? Here are your tips for successful sucking;”. This high-profile charity will have a major opening when schools come under pressure to deliver information about same -sex relationships.

Gay sexual practices are detailed on sexual “health” websites aimed at teenagers. The NHS Warwickshire website “Respect Yourself” contains a “Sextionary” which gives an A to Z of sexual activities from analingus to donkey punch to spit roast to zelphilia. The NHS endorses this website, announcing that it provides
“more than just the standard guidance on sexual health.”
It is doubtful that such information can be truly classed as health advice. Rimming and fisting, for example, are extremely dangerous. Anal sex is 20 times more risky that vaginal sex, because of the fragile construction of the rectal wall and the very real possibility of tearing the membrane and subsequent leakage back into the blood stream of rectal content which contains high levels of pathogenic organisms. Directing pupils to websites promoting these activities will be seen as evidence that a school is complying with equality duties.

When it becomes mandatory for schools to give equal teaching on same-sex marriage as heterosexual marriage, schools will come under further pressure to teach pupils about gay sex.

Parents and school governors

Schools will also bear the brunt of parents objecting to the teaching of same-sex marriage and other aspects of homosexual life within the national curriculum, for example LGBT history week, from which they are unable to withdraw their children.

Aidan O'Neill QC has confirmed that parents will have “little prospects of success” in challenging schools. Two couples in Massachusetts, David and Tonia Parker and Robert and Robin Wirthlin, made a legal challenge to require schools to notify parents about homosexual teaching and to give parents the right to withdraw their children from such classes. In 2007 their case was dismissed by Chief Judge Mark L. Woolf of the US District Court, who ruled that parents who disagree with what is taught in publicly funded schools have the choice of home schooling or private education.

Once the law is changed, many school governors will be compromised over same-sex marriage. Such governors will be unable to object to teaching on same-sex marriage and the use of materials from organisations such as the Terrence Higgins Trust.

Yours sincerely,

John Smeaton
SPUC CEO

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

SPUC welcomes appeal hearings in Glasgow midwives abortion case

SPUC has welcomed the appeal hearings, held this week in the Court of Session in Edinburgh, in the case of two midwifery sisters who are seeking to uphold the right of conscientious objection to abortion.

The case hinges on the extent to which the law protects the right of conscientious objection to abortions performed on labour wards. The hospital accepts that midwives may opt-out of hands-on involvement in the procedures, but holds that midwifery sisters cannot opt-out of their role of “delegation, supervision and support” of midwives carrying out the abortion procedures.

SPUC supports the right of the midwives to opt-out, and is underwriting their legal costs in the case.

The hospital was successful in arguing for this legal position when the case first went to court last year. The case in the appeal court was concerned with the scope of the conscience clause in the Abortion Act 1967.

Brian Napier QC, for Greater Glasgow & Clyde Health Board, told three judges of the Inner House of the Court of Session that the Board expected midwives to act in accordance with guidance from the Royal College of Midwives.

The Royal College of Midwives is a trade union for midwives. (Not all midwives are members of the union.) The RCM guidance says:

"The RCM believes that the interpretation of the conscientious objection clause should only include direct involvement in the procedure of terminating pregnancy. Thus all midwives should be prepared to care for women before, during and after a termination in a maternity unit under obstetric care."

Counsel for the midwives, Gerry Moynihan QC, argued that the right of conscientious objection encompassed all those who would be part of the team with responsibility for treatment under the Abortion Act.

Judgment is expected in the spring.

People wishing to make donations towards the midwives' legal costs should telephone SPUC on +44 (0)20 7091 7091 or donate online.

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

Britain is blessed by some of the finest Catholic priests in the world

I believe that Britain is blessed with some of the finest Catholic priests in the world.

That belief is confirmed by today's story and letter in The Daily Telegraph under the headlines: Gay marriage could signal return to ‘centuries of persecution’, - say 1,000 Catholic priests ... More than 1,000 priests have signed a letter voicing alarm that same-sex marriage could threaten religious freedom in a way last seen during “centuries of persecution” of Roman Catholics in England.

"One of the biggest letters of its type ever written" is also signed by 13 bishops.

I have often mentioned the excellence of Catholic priests in Britain to pro-life colleagues in other parts of the world - and when I describe the support received by the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children from Catholic priests for our work, and the support that many priests give to the pro-life and to the pro-family cause generally, my overseas pro-life colleagues acknowledge the force of what I'm saying.

We will also see that support played out through the generous support for SPUC's White Flower appeal in hundreds of churches throughout England and Wales this weekend.

On behalf of all the vulnerable people you seek to protect, Fathers, in all your witness, encouragement, formation and prayers, thank 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

Hope grows for mentally disabled mother threatened with forced abortion

Last Monday, the Telegraph carried a report that doctors from the south of England were applying for a court order to allow them to carry out an abortion on a mentally disabled woman without her consent.

The woman concerned reportedly suffers from sickle cell disease and doctors were "concerned that allowing her pregnancy to continue any further could endanger her life".

The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) immediately contacted its lawyers asking to have access to court documents to enable us to consider whether we might apply to be made party to the proceedings referred to in the Telegraph report. SPUC added that the information available to us was limited to what was contained in the Telegraph article.

We made the point that there's a substantial body of medical opinion challenging the contention that abortion is ever necessary to save the life or health of the mother. We argued that "since a mentally competent mother would have the right to take account of such evidence, SPUC considers that such alternative medical opinion should be brought before the court in this case".

The news reports on the case today are varied, but here are some of the key stories:

" ... Mr Justice Hedley, sitting in the Court of Protection at London’s High Court, said it was 'in her best interests' if the woman, who [comes] from the south of England, was 'to continue with the pregnancy ... My instincts are that (her limited mental function) has nothing to do with the issue of whether a pregnancy should continue simply because once the child is born, if the mother doesn't have the ability to care for a child, society has perfectly adequate processes to deal with that." (The Mail)

And the BBC reports:

"Mr Justice Hedley said: 'It is right to observe that both expert and professional and family evidence in the case is it would be in her best interests to continue with the pregnancy, but that is outwith the jurisiction of this court'".

Upon our lawyer's further enquiries, court staff have stated that the judgment has not yet been handed down but that as the hearing was in open court, the judgment is expected to be available through the media in due course.

A leading medical consultant has told SPUC's advisers:

"First of all, the sickle cell disease is very treatable and she is going to have sickle cell disease whether she is pregnant or not pregnant. It does require, however, an obstetrician who is dedicated to seeing to it that it gets adequately treated.

"With regard to her mental disability ... there is literature that suggests that women who have psychological difficulties going into abortion are actually at higher risk to have psychological difficulties or problems after the abortion. Thus, mental disability should not be considered a reason for abortion on the basis that the mother will be helped by the abortion. In fact, the risk is higher for women like this to have problems or difficulties psychologically as a result of the abortion.

"Thus, an abortion in this woman’s circumstance is not necessary to save her life and will not improve her health. Good medical care, however, will improve her health and her life generally is not in jeopardy."

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

There are fundamental problems with the Liverpool Care Pathway

Yesterday afternoon MPs debated (full text) the Liverpool Care Pathway (LCP) in Westminster Hall, which serves as a parallel debating chamber of the House of Commons. The debate was moved by Glyn Davies MP, who described himself as a supporter of the LCP. Mr Davies and many of the other speakers in the debate were anxious to save the reputation of the LCP following much recent negative media reportage. Most MPs in the debate repeatedly reassured each other that the LCP itself was not the problem, but rather bad practice of the LCP and/or 'sensationalist' and 'alarmist' stories in the national press. There was little recognition that experts who have spoken out about the LCP have said that the problems with the LCP are fundamental. It is those fundamental problems, not bad practice of the LCP, which are to blame for the scandals which the media has brought to light.

Here are some of the fundamental problems and systemic issues with the LCP which experts have highlighted:

• The central requirement for starting the LCP is that the patient is in the last hours or days of life, yet doctors' predictions that someone is going to die imminently are almost certainly frequently wrong. The pathway leads to a suspension of evidence-based practice and the normal doctor-patient relationship.
• The LCP has a machine-like efficiency in producing death. As the LCP entails progressively increasing doses of a sedative and a narcotic, improvement in the underlying illness may be impossible to detect.
• Any chance of recovery may be jeopardized by high doses of narcotics recommended by the LCP, which may also be lethal.
• The moral obligation to supply fluid to the dying who may experience thirst - part of basic care - is being flouted under the LCP.
• Doctors are being pressurized to participate in the LCP even when they feel very uncomfortable about it, being told that the LCP is national policy. Some doctors are losing control of the clinical care of their own patients.
• The practice of terminal sedation, involving continuous sedation and cessation of fluids, cannot be justified under the principle of double effect. The prognosis of imminent death may well be a self-fulfilling prophecy. The LCP's combination of narcotics and dehydration is ultimately lethal. In many cases it appears that there is a deliberate intention of hastening death
• The LCP is usually applied without the knowledge or consent of the patient. The lack of assessment of mental capacity of patients and the lawful obtaining of informed consent are serious concerns.
• There is little point in reassessing at four hourly intervals if the patient is in a state of drug-induced unconsciousness. No one should be deprived of consciousness except for the gravest reasons.

Today a parliamentary answer on the LCP from Earl Howe, a health minister, was published. Among other things he said:

"The LCP is not a treatment but a framework for managing treatments. Consent is therefore not required for the LCP itself, but normal consent rules apply to treatments while someone is on the LCP."

However, as is clear from the evidence coming to light - the testimony of over 400 people and rising - patients and/or their loved ones are frequently not informed that the patient's treatments are being managed under the LCP. It is the LCP's modus operandi regarding prognosis, medication and hydration which is causing the widely-reported high number of premature deaths. It is misleading to claim that the LCP is not a treatment and just a framework when in fact it is a treatment protocol.

Also today, The Telegraph reports that Dr Bee Wee, president of the Association for Palliative Medicine and a supporter of the LCP, as saying that the cases which have come to light suggested that “packaging up” principles used in hospices for hospitals had caused difficulties.

The Telegraph also quotes Professor Irene Higginson, of Kings College London:

"What we don’t know really is whether it is the way that the LCP is being used and the environment that is in or whether it is something within the LCP which has confused people or made them use it in a way which doesn’t work so well.”

These are tacit admissions that there may be fundamental problems with the LCP. I am grateful to Bishop Philip Egan, the Catholic bishop of Portsmouth, who issued a pastoral teaching message about the LCP early last month, in which he wrote that there are good

"reasons for a careful re-evaluation of the LCP and its application in practice."

Should not then the use of the LCP be halted?

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

Action Alert: make a submission now to halt presumed consent in Wales

The Welsh Assembly Health and Social Care Committee consultation on presumed consent for organ donation closes on Friday 18th January. It is very urgent that you make a written submission to this committee, setting out why you are opposed to presumed consent for organ donation. Please encourage others to do the same. We are not trying to oppose voluntary organ donation, provided the ethical demands surrounding the definition of death are fulfilled. The draft Bill and supporting documents can be seen here. Presumed consent:

• Abolishes organ donation as a free gift
• Makes the body the property of the state
• Does not necessarily lead to more organs available for donation
• Presumed consent could be extended into other areas of medicine
• Ignores serious concerns about current definitions and practises concerning death i.e. brain death, beating heart donors
• Families will have no or a very reduced say in what happens to their loved one

The current consultation is open to all people. This means you can make a consultation submission even if you do not live in Wales or the UK. Individuals and organisations are encouraged to make a submission. If presumed consent is introduced it could negatively affect organ donation practise in other parts of the UK. Just before Christmas the press reported that Scottish MSP Drew Smith plans to introduce a bill for presumed consent in Scotland modelled on Welsh proposals.

I have previously reported on SPUC South Wales region campaign to stop presumed consent for organ donation in Wales being introduced. During an initial consultation the vast majority of submissions to the Welsh government's consultation (2,601 out of 2,891) were in response to SPUC South Wales' call for action opposing the Bill.

We issued an action alert just before Christmas, calling on our supporters to contact the committee requesting that the consultation period be extended. We still want supporters to do this, but we need to make submissions as well as there is no guarantee that an extension will be granted.

To help you with your submission we have prepared a concise briefing containing lots of information you can include. Put things in your own words.

Your submission should be made in writing and emailed to HSCCommittee@wales.gov.uk or posted to Sarah Sargent, Deputy Clerk Health and Social Committee National Assembly for Wales Cardiff Bay, CF99 1NA.

If possible, please send an email copy of your submission to our South Wales Development Officer, Janet Thomas: jelthomas@btinternet.com Phone 02920 512397 for help and guidance.

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

Appeal hearing in midwives’ legal battle

Mary Doogan and Connie Wood, midwifery sisters from Glasgow’s Southern General Hospital, will go to the Inner House of the Court of Session in Edinburgh tomorrow (Tuesday 8 January) to appeal against a decision that they must supervise staff midwives performing abortions, despite their conscientious objection to abortion. The Abortion Act 1967 states that no-one with a conscientious objection can be obliged to participate in abortion procedures.

Last February, Lady Smith, sitting in the Outer House of the Court of Session, ruled that the midwifery sisters did not have the protection of the Act’s conscience clause, and so must accept the hospital management’s instruction to supervise staff midwives in performing abortion procedures. They are not required, the judge ruled, to provide direct “hands on” assistance, but could be expected to allocate staff midwives to carry out abortions, and give those midwives support and advice throughout the procedure. The abortion procedure in question usually involves the administration of several drugs and typically takes a day to complete.

The appellants’ legal costs are being underwritten by SPUC. People wishing to make donations towards the midwives' legal costs should telephone SPUC on +44 (0)20 7091 7091 or donate online.

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

SPUC's Anthony McCarthy writes on the pro-life significance of Christmas 2012

Thank you Archbishop Nichols for ending the "Soho Masses"

I am delighted to learn in the latest news from the Catholic Herald that Archbishop Vincent Nichols, the archbishop of Westminster, is ending the so-called Soho Masses.

This decision is hugely important - not least because of the evidence that the Soho Masses were organised by and for Catholics who dissent from the Church's teaching on homosexuality.*

Archbishop Nichols's action is further confirmation of the clear leadership he is currently giving.  Last weekend I wrote about his pastoral letter, read out in every parish in the diocese of Westminster, urging Catholics to write to their Members of Parliament as soon as possible to oppose the government's proposal to re-define marriage "with all its likely consequences particularly in schools and in how children are taught about the true nature of marriage".

Thank you, Archbishop Nichols.

*As I've mentioned many times, the late Pope John Paul II, the great pro-life champion, taught in paragraph 97 of his 1995 encyclical Evangelium Vitae that it is an illusion to think that we can build a true culture of human life if we do not offer adolescents and young adults an authentic education in sexuality, and in love, and the whole of life according to their true meaning and in their close interconnection.

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

An unborn child has a legal personality in English law

One of the best-informed pro-life blogs is simply entitled ALDU - which stands for The Association of Lawyers for the Defence of the Unborn.

Last week it re-published an article by the late Gerald Wright QC, B.A., B.C.L.. Mr Wright was commenting on the abortion case, Paton v BPAS, in which William Paton, in May 1979 " ... sought an injunction to restrain the B.P.A.S. Trustees, and his own wife, from aborting a child, his child, which his wife was then expecting."

George Baker, the President of the Court, said in his judgement:

"The foetus cannot in English law, in my view, have a right of its own at least until it is born and has a separate existence from its mother."

Mr Wright disagreed. He says in his article:

"However despite this obiter dictum (for such it must be) it is submitted that a claim made on behalf of the unborn child, the "nasciturus" as it is sometimes called, would stand a very much better chance of success than did Mr. Paton's personal claim as husband and father-to-be. The arguments in favour of a claim so framed are outlined [in the full article]"  

Mr Wright's article is characteristically easy-to-read and erudite - much like ALDU's blog which I recommend to all pro-lifers.

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

Archbishop Nichols urges Catholics to contact MPs to defend marriage

I am delighted to draw visitors' attention to the pastoral letter for the Feast of the Holy Family this weekend from Archbishop Vincent Nichols, the archbishop of Westminster.

The Westminster diocese website announces: "Catholics are urged to speak up for marriage as the heart of the family in a Pastoral Letter from the Most Rev Vincent Nichols, Archbishop of Westminster to his diocese ... The Pastoral Letter will be read out during Masses at the 214 Catholic churches in the Diocese of Westminster over 29/30 December 2012, the Feast of the Holy Family."

The archbishop says:

My brothers and sisters in Jesus Christ

Today's Feast is a moment in which to rejoice again in the vitality and importance of the family. Indeed this is a time in which to speak up for marriage, between a husband and wife, as the heart of the family.

Of course there are many different circumstances to family life. Events reshape the family lives of many people. We are right to express our admiration for those who work so hard to maintain family stability in difficulty and isolation. Support and loving care for them can make all the difference.

But none of this takes away the importance of having a clear vision of marriage and family, based on human nature itself. This vision of the family is rooted in the faithful love of a man and a woman, publicly expressed and accepted in marriage, responsible for the birth of the next generation and out of love working for the care and upbringing of their children. This is the vocation of marriage and parenthood, rooted in a natural bond, blessed by God and a sure sacrament in the life of the Church.

The first reading of our Mass today, from the Book of Ecclesiasticus, bears witness to the ancient roots of this vision. Written in the second century before Christ, it emphasises the sense of right and wrong that lies at the heart of marriage and family life. It speaks of the honour that is to exist between all the members of a family and across the generations. Along with honour, the author speaks of rights, respect, obedience, support and kindness which are needed if family life is to be stable and fruitful. It values the wisdom of the elderly and recognises the sacrifices necessary to love and care for them as they become frail and live with suffering. Its references to ‘The Lord’ who seeks our obedience shows that these values are not of our choosing. Rather they have an objective character, coming to us from God, or, in other words, written into our very nature and there for us to heed.

The Gospel we have heard recognises that family life will be full of testing times. Indeed for the Holy Family these three days were full of awful anxiety. Only through her thoughtful pondering did Mary come to understand God's purposes which were not at all the same as her initial expectations. Just as the Holy Spirit had brought about the conception of Jesus within her, so too that same Holy Spirit had to lead Mary to understand and follow God's ways. The journey by which we come to understand the purpose of God in our human nature and in our lives is also frequently difficult. There is often a journey to make from what I might think is God’s plan for me, to what God really wants. And on this journey the Church and her teaching is a sure guide, not least in the patterns of our relationships.

As we turn to the lovely reading from the First Letter of St John, we learn again that the love at the heart of family life has its origins in God. As we strive to live a life of love we are indeed ‘already children of God’. And what is more, a great promise is given to us too. As this God-given love comes to its fulfilment, ‘we shall become like him because we shall see him as he really is’. This is the promise of heaven that steadies us on our journey on earth. Of course we have to ‘fear the Lord and walk in his ways’, as the Psalmist said. But when we try to do so as best we can, then ‘we need not be afraid in God's presence’. Rather we can look forward, with a blessed hope, to the coming of our Saviour, both at the hour of our death and at the moment of final judgement.

Today I ask for every family the blessing of God that you may be steadfast in your love and loyalty for each other, overcoming life's difficulties with a firm and trusting faith and great perseverance. I pray too for our country that we will maintain the importance of marriage between a man and a woman as the heart of family life and, while always retaining proper and due respect for all, resist the proposed redefining of marriage with all its likely consequences particularly in schools and in how children are taught about the true nature of marriage.

At this time, we look to our Members of Parliament to defend, not change, the bond of man and woman in marriage as the essential element of the vision of the family. I urge everyone who cares about upholding the meaning of marriage in civil law to make their views known to their Members of Parliament, clearly, calmly and forcefully. Please do so as soon as possible. [My emphasis]

I ask you to keep me in your prayers on this day, that as a diocese we may be a family that is loving and supportive of one another in our life in the Lord. Amen

Yours devotedly

+ Vincent Nichols
Archbishop of Westminster

Thank you, Archbishop. Your leadership in defending marriage and our families at this time is critical and invaluable.

(Marriage as an institution protects children, both born and unborn. Statistics show that unborn children are much safer within marriage than outside marriage. For more information on the full grounds of SPUC's opposition to same-sex marriage, see SPUC's position paper and background paper.  Please do everything you can to support SPUC's Britain-wide lobby of Members of Parliament on marriage.)
 
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

One of the most moving blogposts you will ever visit, the story of baby John Paul

I want to draw my visitors' attention to four important blogposts recently published by my pro-life colleague, Pat Buckley, of European Life Network.

In a blogpost today, Pat cites a formidable editorial from the January edition of The Alive newspaper, a free monthly Catholic newspaper distributed throughout Ireland. The editorial warns Enda Kenny, the Irish Taoiseach (Prime Minister):

There is a higher law ... and he is bound by that law. According to that law to deliberately kill an unborn child is evil. And for any government to legally permit such killing is profoundly evil ... reference (by Mr Kenny) to "abortion on demand" looks like an attempt by Mr Kenny to soften up people to accept "limited" abortion, that is, that the law would allow the killing of a limited number of unborn children. Whether or not such a law would lead to "abortion on demand" is not the point.If it permitted the intentional killing of just one unborn child it would not be a law but the utter corruption of law ...

Likening Mr Kenny's situation to one of the accused Nazi judges being tried for war crimes in Nuremberg, the editorial concludes:

... Mr Kenny now stands at perhaps the most momentous crisis point not only in his political career but in his personal integrity ...

Pat's second post, published yesterday, draws attention, in full, to an opinion piece in the Irish Independent by Patricia Casey, Professor of Psychiatry at University College Dublin. Her opinion piece is written in the context of Ireland's health minister's statement that

"The legislation will be drafted in accordance with the 20-year-old Supreme Court ruling on the X case, which allows for abortion when a woman's life is in danger - including the threat of suicide."

Professor Casey writes:

" ... I have examined the major textbooks of psychiatry and of perinatal psychiatry and nowhere can I find a list of any psychiatric grounds for abortion. Furthermore, the medical royal colleges, headed by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, carried out a review of the impact of abortion on mental health in 2011 and found that women with a prior psychiatric history were at an increased risk of mental health problems if they did have an abortion ... "

The third blogpost from Pat Buckley to which I draw your attention features "a beautiful yet simple message for Christmas" which speaks for itself:

And the fourth blogpost, in my view one of the most moving you will ever visit, features Cliona Johnson and her family (Cliona is Pat's daughter) and her baby John Paul who suffered from the congenital condition known as anencephaly.

You can watch their incredible story on this short youtube video.

Pat says:

" ... Cliona Johnson describes the devastation she felt in getting the diagnosis and her determination to let her baby, whom she and her husband JP (John Paul) decided to name John Paul, develop and live every minute of the short life he was capable of living ... "

Baby John Paul's story is particularly poignant since, earlier this year, the Irish Times published an article which clearly sought to use the short lives of anecephalic babies and babies with other conditions to justify introducing an abortion law designed to kill them.

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

On Holy Innocents Day, remember the work of Good Counsel Network

It's Holy Innocents Day in the Catholic calendar - a day when Catholics and others turn their minds to the deaths recorded by St. Matthew (2:16 - 18) in the following Gospel passage:

Herod perceiving that he was deluded by the wise men, was exceeding angry; and sending killed all the men children that were in Bethlehem, and in all the borders thereof, from two years old and under, according to the time which he had diligently inquired of the wise men. Then was fulfilled that which was spoken by Jeremias the prophet, saying: A voice in Rama was heard, lamentation and great mourning; Rachel bewailing her children, and would not be comforted, because they are not.

It's a day when our minds naturally turn to the countless millions of unborn children, more children than have ever been killed in the whole of human history, as a result of the policies of our modern King Herods - President Obama, the US president, Tony Blair, the former UK prime minister, David Cameron, the UK's current prime minister, and so many others.

It's also a day when my mind turns to the countless courageous mothers - and fathers - who, sometimes enduring great hardship, withstand social and "moral" pressures to abort their children and, in spite of difficulties and sacrifices, look after them after they are born. I think especially of single parents who might be on their own this Christmas season. I also think of mothers and fathers who have been hurt by an abortion for which they may, or may not, have been partly responsible. I believe that their sufferings, both those who keep their babies and those who don't, can be a kind of bloodless martyrdom - a martyrdom which is providing the foundation of a new culture of life.

Also providing the foundation of a new culture of life are pro-life groups like Good Counsel Network "a life-affirming women’s organisation which offers a free pregnancy test, free advice, medical information, practical help and moral support to women seeking abortion". Good Counsel Network in London often provides help and support to mothers who get in touch with us at SPUC and we know we can always turn to them.

Here's what Stuart McCullough of the Good Counsel Network told me last week:

2012 has been an extremely busy year for the Good Counsel Network.

• We are running a new Intern Programme,
• We ran a “40 Days for Life” 24 hour a day prayer vigil outside one of the London abortuaries (see picture above)
• We continue to have a vigil 5 days a week at that abortuary.
• We’ve seen hundreds of abortion bound-women and many of them have changed their minds and continued their pregnancies, resulting in 95 babies born already this year and more due.

We have not however been able to raise sufficient funds to cover our current outgoings. At the moment we have outstanding bills of approximately £10,000. It can be difficult at times to estimate our costs as the support offered to some mothers will be very small, while others will need a lot of help. Earlier this year we met a young woman who was going into an abortion clinic to abort her twins. After a number of long counselling sessions with us it was clear that the reason for the abortion was her family’s reaction to her unmarried situation. As the girl herself said, “If I could actually marry my boyfriend in the next couple of months, I could keep the baby”. At this point we offered to help with some of the finance for her wedding. We kept everything as cheap as we could, her cake was ready-made and purchased at a local supermarket, but all in all we spent in the region of £1,000. This was not an expense that we could easily budget for as until we spoke to her we had no idea what help she would need.

Other problems we assist with include helping with rent for a short time, hiding women who are at risk from families and boyfriends, feeding and housing those without benefits, getting medical advice and care to those who cannot access it, ongoing counselling for those in distress, and for those suffering after abortion – just to name a few things. I would ask you to consider making a regular monthly donation via a standing order if you do not have one already. Be it for £5, £10, 50, or £100 per month it really does make a huge difference to our Life-Saving work. Or you can of course send us a donation however large or small. If someone were to donate £1000 at this time it would be fair to say that the twins mentioned above and other babies like them will live through God’s Grace and their generous donation. I would like to thank you for your continued support of The Good Counsel Network over the last 16 years.
God Bless,
Stuart McCullough

I warmly commend the work of Stuart and Clare McCullough and their team to the visitors to my blog. Write to them at  The Good Counsel Network, PO BOX 46679 LONDON NW9 8ZT or email: info@goodcounselnetwork.freeserve.co.uk

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

Obama's hypocrisy on caring for children defies belief

I am most grateful to the wonderful blogger known to many of his readers as "Bones" for drawing my attention to LifeSite's video: Imagine if Obama were pro-life.

Barack Obama, the most pro-abortion president in US history,  made a speech which moved people throughout the world following the shocking massacre of twenty little schoolchildren and six staff members in Newtown, Connecticut. That incomprehensible tragedy was rightly marked by powerful presidential oratory and expressions of a political determination to stop such tragedies from recurring.

In his speech, Obama says: 

"This is our first task ... caring for our children ... If we don't get that right, we don't get anything right ... "

At this point it really must be said - in view of the countless children being killed right now by Obama's policies, his hypocrisy defies belief.

Few politicians anywhere espouse policies as extreme as Mr Obama’s (although Tony Blair, former UK prime minister, provides tough competition in this respect). In 2001, when as a member of the Illinois State senate, he repeatedly voted against a law requiring medical personnel to give treatment to babies who survived abortion.

In no sense could the survival of a child after an abortion be considered a threat to his or her mother yet Mr Obama believed helping such a baby to live would undermine the legal right to abortion. Explaining his opposition to the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act he said:

"...whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the equal protection clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a – child, a 9-month-old – child that was delivered to term. …

"I mean, it – it would essentially bar abortions, because the equal protection clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this is a child, then this would be an anti-abortion statute...".

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

Papal teaching on artificial birth control is infallible: Fr Thomas Crean O.P.

Dr Pravin Thavasathan has written a fascinating editorial on artificial birth control in the most recent edition of Catholic Medical Quarterly, the journal of the Catholic Medical Association.

Dr Thavasathan provides a brief and helpful historical account of the false teaching and of the plain bad teaching which followed the publication of Pope Paul VI's encylical Humanae Vitae on the regulation of birth which, Dr Thavasathan says ...

" ... ought to be seen as prophetic bcause the Holy Father warned that the widespread use of artificial birth control would lead to a breakdwon in the moral order, the exploitation of women and state mandated population control. All these things have happened. And soon, logically enough, there will be same sex marriage."

Dr Thavasathan also convincingly disposes of the argument that the teaching of Humanae Vitae grew out of the undue influence of an over-emphasis on the procreative good of the marriage act above other goods.

The current issue of the Catholic Medical Quarterly is also graced by an invaluable article by Fr Thomas Crean O.P. entitled "The infallible teaching of Humanae Vitae". In this article he expands on the four conditions that Vatican I laid down for a papal teaching to be infallible:

• The Pope must be exercising his office of ‘shepherd and teacher of all Christians’
• He must be ‘defining a doctrine with his supreme apostolic authority’
• The Pope must be speaking about a matter of faith or morals, and not, for example, giving his opinion about literature or secular history
• He must intend that his teaching be accepted as true by the whole Church

Fr Crean's thesis is credible because, in clear language which can be understood by ordinary lay men and women, he sets out the facts and he provides credible, authoritative sources for those facts.

Finally, on the matter of Humanae Vitae's specific teaching on artificial birth control, the current edition of the Catholic Medical Quarterly publishes a letter from St Padre Pio to Pope Paul VI. The edition also has articles on natural family planning by Dr Adrian Treloar, Dr Helen Davies and, on NaProTechnology, by Dr Anne Carus.

For reasons I have frequently presented on this blog, to my own mind it’s quite clear that countless human lives have been destroyed as a result of the rejection of Humanae vitae and its teaching on the wrongfulness of the separation of the unitive significance and procreative significance of the conjugal act, not least through birth control and IVF practices, including amongst Catholics.

According to Archbishop Raymond Burke, the prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura (the "supreme court" of the Catholic Church), Pope Benedict has emphasised in his encyclical Caritas in Veritate that the message of Humanae vitae is fundamental to achieving authentic human development:

"It is instructive to note that Pope Benedict XVI, in his most recent encyclical letter on the Church's social doctrine, makes special reference to Pope Paul VI's Encyclical Letter Humanae vitae, underscoring its importance "for delineating the fully human meaning of the development that the Church proposes" (Caritas in veritate, no. 15). Pope Benedict XVI makes clear that the teaching in Humanae vitae was not simply a matter of "individual morality," declaring: 'Humanae vitae indicates the strong links between life ethics and social ethics, ushering in a new area of magisterial teaching that has gradually been articulated in a series of documents, most recently John Paul II's Encyclical Evangelium vitae' (Caritas in veritate, no. 15).

" ... The respect for the integrity of the conjugal act is essential to the context for the advancement of the culture of life", said Archbishop Burke.

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 abortion plea to Mary Kenny, outgoing Master of the Catholic Writers' Guild

How very disappointing to read Mary Kenny (right), outgoing Master of the Catholic Writers' Guild, commenting on the Irish government's decision to legalize abortion earlier this week as follows:

"In truth, we do not know whether a termination of her pregnancy would have saved Mrs Halappanavar’s life, but there certainly has been pressure – rightly – to clarify the situation legally so that should it arise again, doctors may perform an abortion. And the national conversation about introducing an abortion law in Ireland has been, in my view, thoughtful, compassionate, serious and knowledgeable."

Mary ... especially when I recall past occasions when you've given such good support to the pro-life struggle ... you shock me.

Won't you re-consider your position in the light of the following?

• Pope John Paul II said in Evangelium Vitae(57):

" ... by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, and in communion with the Bishops of the Catholic Church, I confirm that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral. This doctrine, based upon that unwritten law which man, in the light of reason, finds in his own heart (cf. Rom 2:14-15), is reaffirmed by Sacred Scripture, transmitted by the Tradition of the Church and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.

The deliberate decision to deprive an innocent human being of his life is always morally evil and can never be licit either as an end in itself or as a means to a good end. It is in fact a grave act of disobedience to the moral law, and indeed to God himself, the author and guarantor of that law; it contradicts the fundamental virtues of justice and charity."

• James Reilly, Ireland's health minister, has said:

"The legislation will be drafted in accordance with the 20-year-old Supreme Court ruling on the X case, which allows for abortion when a woman's life is in danger - including the threat of suicide."[My emphasis]

• However, there is no evidence that abortion can alleviate suicidal tendencies. In fact there is a mountain of research showing the negative effect abortion has on mental health. Women who undergo abortion are far more likely to take their on lives than those who carry their babies to term.
• Bishop of Kilmore Leo O'Reilly told RTÉ Morning Ireland this week:

"For the very first time in Ireland [the Government's plan] would inevitably lead to the most liberal kind of abortion ... This would be a radical change in the culture of life that we have had here in this country - and let's not make any mistake about it - it would be an irrevocable change, there would not be any going back."

• Enda Kenny, the Irish prime minister, claims that he must legislate in line with the Irish Supreme Court's X-case abortion judgement, but this claim is false. Contrary to what the expert group appears suggests, the ruling of European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in A, B & C v Ireland (2010) only requires the Republic to provide legal clarity, not the legalisation of abortion. There is no right to abortion in the European Convention of Human Rights and the ECtHR recognised Ireland sovereignty over its own abortion laws.
• Enda Kenny, the Irish Prime Minister, has refused Fina Gael TDs a free vote on the government's abortion legislation. 

How, Mary, does the government's position reflect a "national conversation" as you put it which is "thoughtful, compassionate, serious and knowledgeable"? Isn't it rather the case that the Irish government is caving in to the bullying of the international pro-abortion lobby - by, in their turn, bullying Irish parliamentarians into overturning through legislation "the clear pro-life intention of the people of Ireland as expressed in Article 40.3.3 of Ireland's constitution" as Ireland's four archbishops described the outcome of the Irish 1983 abortion referendum?

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