Cameron and co continue to finance the culture of death around the world

financiers of the global abortion lobby

SPUC has previously drawn attention to the huge sums of money given to global abortion groups by the British government, normally through the government's Department for International Development (DFID). International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA), Marie Stopes International (MSI) and IPAS are among the most devastating organisations promoting abortion throughout the world, in large part funded by the governments of the developed world, especially the UK, which is also home to the headquarters of IPPF and MSI.

Below is the parliamentary record (Hansard) of some questions recently asked by David Amess MP, precisely about British government funding of global pro-abortion organisations. The record is  below, and will give you some idea of just how much our government in the UK is funding the killing of innocent unborn children throughout the world, not just in the UK. The key figures are in red and underlined.

Mr Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what funding her Department plans to give to the International Planned Parenthood Federation for (a) abortion, (b) family planning and (c) other reproductive health services in the next 12 months; what assessment she has made of the value for money of previous such expenditure since June 2010; and if she will make a statement.

Lynne Featherstone: DFID will provide up to £8.6 million to International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) in 2013-14 through a Programme Partnership Arrangement (PPA) to deliver high priority, safe family planning and reproductive health services for vulnerable women and girls. The Department for International Development (DFID) does not classify spending under the categories requested. All Programme Partnership Arrangements (PPAs) are expected to demonstrate value for money and our assessments to date show that the cost-effectiveness of International Planned Parenthood Federation is high.

Mr Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what funding her Department plans to give to Marie Stopes International for (a) abortion, (b) family planning and (c) other reproductive health services in the next 12 months; what assessment she has made of the value for money of such expenditure since June 2010; and if she will make a statement.

Lynne Featherstone: Marie Stopes International (MSI) will receive up to £4.35 million through a Programme Partnership Arrangement (PPA) for the period 2013-14. The Department for International Development (DFID) does not classify spending under the categories requested. All Programme Partnership Arrangements (PPAs) are expected to demonstrate value for money. An independent review has recently concluded that MSI show outstanding commitment to maximising cost-effectiveness and have been using funds in exceptionally cost-effective ways.

Jim Sheridan: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will consider increasing the Official Development Assistance to population and reproductive health

Lynne Featherstone: The health and rights of girls and women are front and centre of Britain's development programme. That is why the Prime Minister hosted the London Summit on Family Planning last July—to galvanize the global community to support transformational change for women and girls. The summit's goal was to provide voluntary family planning information, services and supplies to an additional 120 million women and girls in 69 of the poorest countries by 2020.

The UK committed £516 million ($800 million) over eight years towards the summit goal. This is part of the UK's broader commitment to double investment in family planning from an average of £90 million per year since 2010, to £180 million per year for the next eight years.

The UK's Muskoka Commitment, made at the G8 summit in 2010, is focused on saving the lives of women in pregnancy and childbirth, of newborn babies and on enabling couples to access modern methods of family planning. To support this the UK has significantly increased overall aid for reproductive, maternal and child health programming from around £490 million in 2008-09 to £860 million in 2011-12, a 75% increase over the period and above the commitment we made at the Muskoka summit.

Mr Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what recent reports she has received on the uses of funding provided by her Department to the Government of the Philippines; whether any restrictions are placed on the use of such funding; and if she will make a statement;

(2) what proportion of aid provided by her Department to the Philippines was spent on reproductive health in each of the last five years; and how much her Department has allocated for such purposes in each of the next two years;

(3) whether she has received any reports of the use of funding provided by her Department to lobby the Government of the Philippines to change its laws on reproductive health; and if she will make a statement.

Lynne Featherstone: The Department for International Development (DFID) does not have a bilateral programme with the Philippines and is not providing direct assistance for health to the Government of the Philippines. DFID supports a multi-donor, global programme hosted by the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) to improve reproductive health and reduce recourse to unsafe abortion, and a number of non-governmental organisations working on reproductive health issues in the Philippines have received funding from this global IPPF programme. DFID receives regular reports on the programme from IPPF.

DFID provides broader assistance to the Philippines through its attributable contributions to multilateral organisations. This can be viewed on the Statistics on International Development on the DFID website. Due to the nature of the multilateral contributions it is not possible to confirm what proportion of the funding should be attributed to health.

Mr Amess: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much funding was provided by her Department to (a) the United Nations Population Fund, (b) the International Planned Parenthood Federation and (c) Marie Stopes International for expenditure in the Philippines (i) in total and (ii) on reproductive health issues in each of the last two years; and if she will make a statement.

Lynne Featherstone: The Department for International Development (DFID) provides United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) with £20 million of core funding each year.

DFID provided £8.6 million to the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF) in 2011-12 and £9 million in 2010-11 through a Programme Partnership Arrangement (PPA) grant.

DFID provided £4.35 million to Marie Stopes International (MSI) in 2011-12 through a PPA. MSI also received a £79,296 grant through the Civil Society Challenge Fund (CSCF) in 2010-11. DFID's funding to MSI is not earmarked for specific programmes. It is not possible to state what proportion of DFID funding to MSI was used in total or specifically on reproductive health issues in the Philippines in each of the last two years.

Marie Stopes: The other side of the story

The controversial 2008 postage stamp

Back in 2008 Royal Mail caused controversy by honouring birth control pioneer Marie Stopes with a postage stamp, thus placing her alongside the many great national figures who have received this honour in the past. Those who defended the decision lauded her as a pioneer of women’s rights who, in the words of Marie Stopes International, ‘did more to emancipate working class women in 1920s’ Britain than any of her contemporaries.’ This is certainly the commonly held view of Marie Stopes, but is it an accurate representation?

Marie Carmichael Stopes was born on 15th October 1880. She studied botany and geology at University College London and was awarded a doctorate in palaeobotany in 1904 from the University of Munich. She lectured at University College London and then at the University of Manchester. She married in March 1911 and filed for divorce on 11 May 1913 claiming that her marriage had never been consumated. Around this time she began writing a book on Married Love.

In 1915 she met American eugenicist and birth controller Margaret Sanger and sought her advice about her treatment of contraception in the book. The book remained unpublished until 1918 because she was unable find a willing publisher. In the same year she married Humphrey Hugh Roe, a supporter of birth control, and published a birth control manual entitled Wise Parenthood: a Book for Married People. She followed this with a pamphlet which targeted the poor called Letter to Working Mothers on how to have healthy children and avoid weakening pregnancies. This was distributed free of charge to ensure that her birth control message, not alluded to directly in the title, reached as many people as possible.

In 1920 Stopes took a new step and opened Britain's first birth control clinic. Later that same year she founded the Society for Constructive Birth Control and Racial Progress. From now on she would increasingly dedicate her life to birth control and eugenics.

Eugenic profiling

Stopes was a committed supporter of eugenics which was defined by eugenicist Francis Galton as 'the study of all agencies under human control which can improve or impair the racial quality of future generations’. She desired the creation of 'a new and irradiated race' of human beings freed from the 'defects' suffered by previous generations, maintaining that 'the only hope for the race is the conscious elimination of all diseased and overcrowded lives before their conception.'

In her 1920 book Radiant Motherhood Stopes condemned a society that 'allows the diseased, the racially negligent, the thriftless, the careless, the feeble-minded, the very lowest and worst members of the community, to produce innumerable tens of thousands of stunted, warped, and inferior infants.' She demanded the 'sterilisation of those totally unfit for parenthood be made an immediate possibility, indeed made compulsory.'

Stopes applied her eugenics principles to her own family and was furious when her son Harry married a women with an eye condition, expressing horror that her grandchildren might inherit the same defect. She wrote ‘Mary has an inherited physical defect and morally should never bear children’. By marrying her he had betrayed his parents and made ‘a mock of our life's work for eugenic breeding and the race.’ When she died she left Harry only a few small items in her will. It is worth noting however that even her crusade for birth control was not her main priority; in 1925 she wrote that she was ‘out for a much greater thing than birth-control. I am out to smash the tradition of organised Christianity.’ She wrote to Henry Ford asking for ‘a million or two’ to help her in the ‘very biggest fight in history’ against ‘the reactionary forces’ of the Catholic Church.

In August 1939 Marie Stopes sent a volume of her poetry to Adolf Hitler with the following letter:

Dear Herr Hitler,

Love is the greatest thing in the world: so will you accept from me these [poems] that you may allow the young people of your nation to have them?

The young must learn love from the particular 'till they are wise enough for the universal.

I hope too that you yourself may find something to enjoy in the book.

Once war broke out however she supported the British war effort, adding ‘Prussians’ to the list of those for whom she had a pronounced distaste. A verse from 1942 suggests something of her attitude to race and religion:

Catholics, Prussians,

The Jews and the Russians,

All are a curse,

Or something worse.

Her son, desiring to free her from the taint of supporting the Nazis, argued that she had sent the poems to Hitler not because she supported him but because in her 'megalomania' she thought that she could singlehandedly prevent the war. It is certainly true that Stopes suffered from illusions of grandeur. In 1920 she dictated the following message to the Anglican Bishops:

“My Lords, I speak to you in the name of God. You are his priests. I am his prophet. I speak to you of the mysteries of man and woman.”

Marie Stopes (1880 - 1958)

Perhaps more harmful in the long term was her practice of prescribing contraceptives and giving medical advice despite having no medical qualifications whatsoever. She was willing to experiment on the poor. She tried to persuade a doctor, Norman Hoare, to fit a contraceptive device called the ‘gold pin’. When he refused because he had previously seen that this device could cause abortion and infections she urged him to experiment with it anyway; ‘take on two or three cases, which you should watch carefully, and if these yielded unsatisfactory results we would then drop it’[1] ‘I teach doctors’ she once proclaimed.[2] It is generally argued, based on her statements and actions on the subject, that Marie Stopes was opposed to abortion. Whether this is substantially true or not she was prepared to experiment with a contraceptive method with potential abortifacient effects.[3]

Marie Stopes dedicated her life to preventing the conception of human beings that she considered to be of inferior worth. She was prepared to advocate compulsory sterilisation and dangerous experiments on women in pursuit of that end. By the time of her death in 1958 the birth control ideology was well established and the legalisation of abortion at hand. In 1975 Marie Stopes International was founded to advance her legacy. She herself may not have been an advocate of abortion but this organisation, which is proud to bear her name and build on her achievements, certainly is. Today it has 629 clinics across 40 countries all of which are dedicated to the prevention and elimination of human life.

The Good Counsel Network hold a daily vigil outside Marie Stopes' original birth control clinic, on Whitfield Street in central London, which is now an abortion clinic operated by Marie Stopes International.

If you would like to join the vigil please see here for more information.

---

[1] Ann Farmer, Prophets and Priests: The Hidden Face of the Birth Control Movement, p47

[2] Ibid, p45

[3] According to Ann Farmer there were cases where Stopes referred women for abortion, Prophets and Priests, p52

"We had a whole plan to sell abortion, and it was called sex education" (Part 2)

In part 1 we heard ex-abortion facility owner Carol Everett's talk about sex education, and how it's used to sell abortion. So it's not surprising that abortionists here in the UK also care deeply about sex education. A few examples:

• BPAS and Marie Stopes have close links with groups such as Brook, Education for Choice (now a Brook project), and the Family Planning Association (fpa), each intimately involved in sex education, and provision or referral for contraceptives and abortion. 
• Marie Stopes International has a site aimed directly at children and teens from 11-15 years old. Telling an 11 yr old about sex, showing them detailed images of male and female genitalia, going into detail about a variety of sexual acts a person may do alone or with others, how to get contraception and appointments for abortion consultations, would quite rightly get a person arrested. Why are Marie Stopes allowed to do this through their website? 
• Earlier this year BPAS, the Calthrope abortion facility, and Brook, were amongst the invited speakers at a sex education conference aimed at teenagers. 
• Groups like Brook, fpa, and Abortion Rights are keen to be invited into secondary schools and universities to give talks. 
• Groups like Marie Stopes International  are a regular feature of university fresher's fairs. 
• Both Marie Stopes and BPAS expected to sit on the coalition government's Sexual Health Forum (only Marie Stopes does). 
• Such groups are supportive of legislative attempts to make sex education a compulsory requirement in schools. 
• The founder of the Birmingham Pregnancy Advisory Service (later BPAS) and Calthrope abortion facility, Dr. Martin Cole, was notorious for his explicit sex education film, which was so graphic that it was banned by 1971. Cole made a career as a "sexologist" and remains the registered owner of the Calthrope abortion facility, which was revealed to be involved with the sex-selective abortion Telegraph newspaper investigation. 

SPUC's campaign to protect children from destructive anti-life sex education is of paramount importance. It's about safeguarding children and restoring the rights of parents as the primary educators of their children. To paraphrase the saying of a wise man "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." Campaigning for the recognition and upholding of the fundamental right to life from conception is absolutely essential, but we cannot reasonably expect that alone to end abortion. As long as there is a perceived need for abortion, abortion will remain. The perceived need is in part the justification for not eradicating abortion altogether from society at the level of legislation and public opinion. So, addressing the perceived need by tackling corrupting sex education, tackling contraceptive sex and extra-marital sex, reinstating parents as the primary educators in their children's lives, and offering a correct education in human love and sexuality, must continue to constitute a integral part of the pro-life movement.

Ambulance called to Marie Stopes Abortion centre South London

Abortion is not safe - it kills an innocent child, and can cause physical and psychological harm to the mother.  There is also an argument to be made about the adverse effects that abortion has upon abortionists and those who work in abortion facilities. Sometimes physical complications to the mother can result in the need for hospitalisation. Sometimes mothers die, even when abortion is considered "safe and legal" in countries with good health systems. The most recent Department of Health abortion statistics report 279 registered abortion-related complications. However, the actual number is likely to be much higher - mothers may have a complication related to their abortion later on but not disclose that they had an abortion, or the complication arises after a certain amount of time so that the complication is not recorded as abortion-related. Obtaining records from the Care Quality Commission on reported complications from abortion is slightly easier but still tricky when it comes to BPAS and Marie Stopes International, but getting the same information for private and NHS hospitals is difficult, hence we can reasonably argue that the actual number is higher than 279.

A few months ago the Good Counsel Network reported on the number of ambulances called to Marie Stopes Abortion centre in Ealing. In less than 8 weeks ambulances had to be called on 5 separate occasions. If the ambulances were indeed called because of abortion-related complications, imagine what it must be like to have complications, have paramedics called, be taken to hospital, and have even more people know that you were having an abortion. Having an abortion is not generally something women want to shout about, for obvious reasons.

A few days ago a contact in South London sent me photos of an ambulance called to the Marie Stopes centre in Brixton, south London, in April. The photos are below. This blog has already reported on MSI Brixton when a former employee turned whistleblower claimed MSI Brixton was operating a system of financial incentives for hitting targets. In 2010 MSI in the UK made headlines for offering free abortions as part of its job perks package for staff.

Please note that none of the photos include the mother at all - no one wants to expose or shame mothers having abortions. If the ambulance was called because of an abortion complication, which is very probable, these photos are yet more evidence about the harm abortion does to unborn children and their mothers. My contact tells that an MSI receptionist came to meet the ambulance paramedics, and was holding a white form. The ambulance stretcher was taken into the MSI centre. It is important to document these incidences, because they do not make it into the mainstream press, and the public just aren't aware that this sort of thing happens. Our culture still has the impression that abortion is a simple and safe procedure without consequences.

Ambulance arriving

Two paramedics and the MSI receptionist (right) with what looks like a white form in her hand

Paramedics unload the stretcher

The ambulance was left unattended as both paramedics and the MSI receptionist went into the bulding with the medic bag and stretcher

Department for International Development in bed with the porn industry

My last post drew attention to the Department for International Development (DFID) and its latest project to promote abortion and contraception in the developing world, via its buddies Marie Stopes International (MSI) and International Projects Assistance Services (Ipas). The project is called Preventing Maternal Deaths from Unwanted Pregnancy (PMDUP). Reading through the business plan revealed the following: 

The PMDUP CEO Coordination Group:

This will be led by MSI, and include the CEOs of Ipas and DKT. The CEO Coordination Group will:

• Oversee the efficient management of the programme by ensuring that strong supervisory and management systems are in place as well as reviewing yearly and six-monthly reports.
• Ensure appropriate engagement with the evaluation team.
• Provide leadership for good functioning of the partnership by inspiring and requiring programme innovation, communications and results, strong synergies and economies of scale and VFM.
• Provide oversight to ensure that technical quality is monitored and standards adhered to.
• Serve as a senior communications channel within the consortium and externally for dissemination of learning and evidence-based practices.

This is just another example of what has already been pointed out: the very wealthy and very large abortion organisations are running the show for themselves, obviously using our taxes to fund their ideology against the poor and the unborn. There is something else to note - the involvement of DKT International (named after D. K. Tyagi, who saturated India with contraception during the sixties using mass media).

Tim Black and Philip Harvey (pictured left) met at the University of North Carolina, when the two were pursuing post-graduate studies in family planning. Black and Harvey shared a common ideology, and quickly became best friends. Their first joint venture in the sexual revolution was a mail-order condom business - illegal at the time. Black went on to found MSI, which proudly stated at a 2007 conference "we do illegal abortions all over the world". One of the 5 appointed trustees of MSI is a man named Philip Harvey - Black giving his best bud a pat on the back. Harvey went on to found Population Services International (PSI) - abortion and contraceptive devices being its reason for being. Harvey abandoned PSI soon after founding it, for pastures new.

Harvey went on to found and continues as CEO of Adam & Eve, rated America’s biggest mail-order and online retailer of condoms,  pornographic films, and 18,000 other items of porn paraphernalia – with annual sales of $100 million dollars. 25% - that’s $25 million dollars - goes towards Harvey’s other business called DKT International, the same DKT that will sit on the British government's PMDUP coordination group. What does DKT do? Here are some facts from from their website:

• In 2011 DKT sold over a half-billion condoms, almost 70 million cycles of oral contraceptives, 12 million injectable contraceptives, 800,000 IUDs, over 10 million misoprostol pills, and 800,000 medical abortion packs, as well as emergency contraception, hormonal implants, and manual vacuum aspiration kits
• In Mozambique, Ethiopia, and India, DKT is making manual vacuum aspiration kits and chemical abortion drugs increasingly available to rural and hard-to-reach consumers.  
• DKT was the first organisation in India to run adverts on national television about medical abortion. You can see these advertisements on YouTube
• More than 40,000 midwives have been trained in IUD and implant insertion and removal in Indonesia
• In the Philippines and Ethiopia, DKT provides an estimated 50 percent of all modern family planning methods
• DKT is the largest private provider of contraceptives and family planning services in the developing world...

...All in large part funded by the pornographic business Harvey has run since 1971, and now DKT will help manage the British government's campaign against families, mothers, and unborn children in poor countries throughout the world. Put simply, DFID are in bed with porn barons and death peddlers.

"Stop harassing women"? Study examines impact of pro-life activity outside abortion premises

Those who criticise pro-life groups for holding public acts of witness outside abortion facilities will often claim that these vigils harass, scare, and intimidate mothers who enter and leave abortion facilities. This criticism comes from abortion "charities" like BPAS, Marie Stopes International, university and local feminist groups, mainstream media, and individuals on Twitter, Facebook, and blogs.

Groups criticised by those supporting abortion include 40 Days for Life, the Good Counsel Network, the Helpers of God's Precious Infants, Abort67, and SPUC coordinated annual pro-life chains. This list is not intended as a SPUC endorsement of the groups listed, rather to recognise the groups who are very often criticised. Occasionally an anonymous anecdote or a quote is presented as evidence that pro-lifers are there to harass mothers outside of abortion facilities. 

However, rarely if ever is something more substantial cited, such as a study that attempts to seriously consider the experiences of mothers and pro-life vigils outside of abortion facilities. There are a few studies that are not well known.

The most recent study is by Diana Greene Foster et al, "Effect of abortion protesters on women's emotional response to abortion", Contraception 87 (2013) 81-87. Here is the abstract which briefly summarises the study:

Abstract
Background: Little is known about women's experiences with and reactions to protesters and how protesters affect women's emotional responses to abortion.
Study Design: We interviewed 956 women seeking abortion between 2008 and 2010 at 30 US abortion care facilities and informants from 27 of these facilities.
Results: Most facilities reported a regular protester presence; one third identified protesters as aggressive towards patients. Nearly half (46%) of women interviewed saw protesters; of those, 25% reported being a little upset, and 16% reported being quite a lot or extremelyy upset. Women who had difficulty deciding to abort had higher odds of reporting being upset by protesters. In multivariable models, exposure to protesters was not associated with differences in emotions 1 week after the abortion. Conclusion: Protesters do upset some women seeking abortion services. However, exposure to protesters does not seem to have an effect on women's emotions about the abortion 1 week later.

This study notes that "although researchers and advocates have reason to believe that abortion protesters affect women's experience of abortion, little research has comprehensively documented women's experience of protester interactions". It is useful in some ways, but first let's list a few of the problems.

First, the researchers label pro-life vigils as "protests" and the people as "protesters". This is unhelpful, because in our society the word "protest" summons up images of shouting crowds marching through the street, conflict with police, arrests, aggression and so on. The use of the word "protester" can also be a biasing factor in the design of the study. Questions asked to abortion staff and mothers using the word protester can influence the way the participant views the question and affects the answer given, even to the point of giving the sort of answer they think the researchers expect to hear.

Second, the different types of pro-life vigil are labelled as passive (praying quietly at a distance), aggressive (shouting at women, attempting to hand out literature), or mixed (both passive and aggressive). It seems like a stretch of the imagination to label handing out a leaflet as an aggressive act. Is it possible that there have been times when someone who is part of a vigil shouts? Yes, peoples feelings can run high and saying something back to a passer-by who just swore at you might feel justified at the time, particularly if the person has little or no experience of how to behave at appropriately at a vigil. This is why groups like 40 Days for Life and Good Counsel Network insist that vigil participants sign a statement of peace - a short code of conduct participants should follow. Often passers-by will shout abusive comments at pro-lifers. Sometimes, but less often, banners, placards, and displays are kicked, broken and stolen by passers-by. A mother walking into an abortion facility may well mistake a passer-by and an pro-lifer having an altercation as aimed at her in someway.

Third, the study cites the American Psychological Association (APA) task force report on mental health and abortion report 2008 and the 2011 Munk-Olsen study on induced abortion and risk of mental disorder. These studies are cited to support the paper's claim that the vast majority of women report positive emotional outcomes after their abortion, and poor mental health after abortion due to poor mental health before the abortion. However, these claims and the studies used to support them cannot be taken at face value. The American Association of Pro-Life Obstetricians and Gynaecologists published an extensive critique of the APA report in September 2008. Professor David Fergusson, atheist and self-described "pro-choicer" and one of the international leading experts on abortion and mental health, criticised the APA 2008 report in August of that year.

The APA report, in fact, does draw a very strong and dogmatic conclusion that cannot be defended on the basis of evidence since this evidence is lacking by the admission of the report. As I stated to the APA committee in my review [of an earlier draft], the only scientifically defensible position to take is that the evidence in the area is inconsistent and contested. Under these conditions the only scientifically defensible conclusion is to recognise the uncertainty in the evidence and propose better research and greater investments in this area. What the Committee has, in effect, said is that until there is compelling evidence to the contrary, people should act as though abortion has no harmful effects. This is not a defensible position in a situation in which there is evidence pointing in the direction of harmful effects. In this respect, the response of the APA committee to this situation appears to follow the type of logic used by the Tobacco industry to defend cigarettes: since, in our opinion, there is no conclusive evidence of harm then the product may be treated as safe. A better logic is that used by the critics of the industry: since there is suggestive evidence of harmful effects it behooves us to err on the side of caution and commission more and better research before drawing strong conclusions. History showed which side had the better arguments.

What I also think the APA committee has failed to recognise is the size of the research investment needed to pin these issues down thoroughly. The tobacco example is a clear one: there have been literally tens of thousands of studies in this area (I have in fact published over 10 papers on tobacco related topics). This amount of research is needed in an area in which there are strongly divided opinions and deeply rooted agendas. The moral of all of this is very simple: In science drawing strong conclusions on the basis of weak evidence is bad practice. The APA report on abortion and mental health falls into this error.

Furthermore, Professor Priscilla Coleman, another international expert and one of the most published academics on abortion and mental health, has listed six considerable criticisms of the Munk-Olsen study, and points out that data from this study, despite evident problems,

does indicate increased rates of particular diagnoses at specific points in the first year. Relative risk for psychiatric visits involving neurotic, stress-related, or somatoform disorders was 47% and 37% higher post-abortion compared to pre-abortion at 2 and 3 months respectively.  In addition, psychiatric contact for personality or behavioral disorders was 56%, 45%, 31%, and 55% higher at 3, 4-6, 7-9, and 10-12 months respectively.

Having briefly covered the obvious problems with this study, there are also useful points from the perspective of those who carry out public pro-life work outside abortion facilities.

First the Foster et al study cites the Cozzarelli and Major 2000 study which examined the experience of mothers who had interacted with pro-lifers outside of three different abortion facilities in New York. This study has many of the problems mentioned above. However, Foster et al conclude from this study that for some women "negative effects of protester interaction did not extend beyond the short term." In both the Foster, and Cozzarelli and Major studies, it seems the mother's thoughts and feelings about the abortion influence how she perceives pro-lifers outside of an abortion facility.

Second, this study found the following:

"Among women who saw, heard or were stopped by protesters, 48% said that the protesters did not upset them at all, 25% said they were a little bit upset, 12% reported being moderately upset, 9% reported being quite a bit upset, and 7% were extremely upset"

"women who reported more difficulty making the decision to have the abortion reported being more upset than women reporting less difficult"

"Among the 712 women in the study who received an abortion and replied to both the emotions and protester questions, we found no association between emotions about the abortion — regret, relief, guilt, happiness, sadness or anger — and the level of exposure to protesters."

"the presence and intensity of the protester interaction had no effect on women's emotional response to their abortion (relief, regret, anger, happiness, sadness or guilt) 1 week after the abortion"

Third, this study notes that if pro-lifers deterred some mothers from entering an abortion facility they would not appear in this study. Some mothers would have had an interaction with pro-lifers and decided not to have an abortion. These mothers are therefore not recorded. If they were included we'd be looking at mothers who could describe their experience with pro-lifers as good and positive. From pro-lifers they have received moral and emotional support, perhaps a place to stay, financial help, advice and so on. Perhaps a mother going to an abortion facility didn't want to have the abortion in the first place and just needed a word of encouragement, even some sort of sign that would reassure them. It's possible that a pro-life counsellor outside an abortion facility will be the first person not to tell them that they must have an abortion. The researchers could have gone to pro-life pregnancy centres and homes and conducted the same interviews with mothers who had some sort of positive interaction with pro-lifers outside an abortion facility and asked them to answer the questionnaire.

Several pro-life groups provid moral and practical assistance to parents in need. Some make pro-life vigils part of their work, others don't. One pro-life pregnancy centre in the South, Good Counsel Network, does a good job of recording the number of mothers whom they meet on the doorstep of a BPAS or Marie Stopes International abortion facility, but get the help they need and give birth. Last year this pro-life centre recorded 95 such mothers they supported through the rest of their pregnancy. However, there are also many more who prefer not to stay in touch - they had the short term support they needed, sometimes their difficult circumstances change for the better, a boyfriend has a change of heart, and off they go. Sometimes mothers will lose touch and it remains unclear what happens after. The experience of mothers who have a positive experience should be heard and not dismissed by pro-abortion advocates because these mothers, and the support of pro-lifers, do not fit into the distortions they insist on spreading.

The British government thinks a manual vacuum aspirator in the hands of an abortionist counts as development aid for mothers

SPUC recently held a very successful conference in London on the topic of abortion and maternal health in the developing world. You can read a full report with photos on the SPUC website. SPUC also has a briefing on these issues, and the texts of the presentations will be available shortly.

One of the key issues looked at was the funding given for promoting and doing abortions in the developing world. The Department for International Development (DFID) gives hundreds of millions to organisations like International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), Marie Stopes International (MSI) and  International Projects Assistance Services (Ipas) who specialise in killing unborn children. This funding usually takes the form of a  Partnership Programme Arrangement (PPA) which lasts several years, but funding for individual and country-specific programmes can also be given under initiatives like the Civil Society Challenge Fund (CSCF).

The latest project launched by DFID is called Preventing Maternal Deaths from Unwanted Pregnancy (PMDUP). DFID will give £67 million pounds over 5 years from July 2011 to June 2016 via MSI and Ipas, to carry out and promote abortion and contraception in 14 countries: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India, Myanmar, Pakistan, DRC, Ethiopia, Ghana, Malawi, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. In its Business Plan (2011 – 2015) DFID committed ‘to embed in every relevant bilateral programme specific plans to take forward the promotion of choice for women over whether and when they have children’ - i.e. DFID will make sure abortion and contraception are part and parcel of any funding and aid they offer, as far as possible. 

Reading through the PMDUP business plan reveals that MSI and Ipas will be responsible for collecting the programme data, and Options - the consultancy firm wholly owned by MSI - will provide consultancy for the PMDUP programme and be linked to the impact evaluation. Options will also be involved in providing evidence to shape PMDUP implementation strategy. Not only is DFID leading the way in killing unborn children in the developing world, they are getting the abortion organisations to collect the programme data for the programmes they themselves will be carrying out, provide consultancy to DFID, and influence the impact evaluation of the programme they have been asked to do.

To use an analogy, it's a bit like a firm making landmines being given tens of millions to make and plant landmines in the developing world, and allowing that same firm making the landmines to collect data on the impact of landmines, advise the government on the safety and effectiveness of their programme to promote landmines, and then allowing the firm to evaluate themselves. The mind boggles. 

Some charts are provided in the business plan about "growth forecast" for the PMDUP programme. The 2 charts below detail the hoped for number of women having abortions and receiving contraceptive devices by MSI and Ipas. The second chart details the future increase in the number of MSI and Ipas facilities conducting abortions - usually using misoprostol or manual vacuum aspirators. 

For MSI 2,866,880 mothers are expected to undergo an abortion or post-abortion "care", and for Ipas the figure is 519,535. It's very probable that Options or MSI and Ipas themselves came up with these figures, considering how much of a free rein they have been given by DFID.

The term "post abortion care" (PAC) is deceptive. PAC is part and parcel of the abortion promotion agenda of organisations like IPPF, WHO, DFID, MSI, and Ipas who in 1993 together with IPPF founded the PAC Consortium. In 2007 pro-lifers and religious leaders rejected proposals by the Guatemalan Ministry of Health to introduce post-abortion care into public health, citing the reason that such measures are tactics to further the abortion agenda.

One of the uses of PAC is getting the abortion drug misoprostol into countries for post-abortion and incomplete abortion "services", as seen from the PAC Consortium misoprostol resources pages of their website. The devastating effect of misoprostol on a developing country has already been presented by Dr. Susan Yoshihara, following the 2010 Women Deliver Conference. Several years ago the World Health Organisation changed its policy to include misoprostol on its list of essential medicines. This move was supported by radical pro-abortion organisations such as Gynuity and MSI. This is noted by the pro-abortion Center for Reproductive Rights, and used as another prong to further abortion and avoid maternal morbidity and mortality.

PAC is a cover for introducing abortion into countries where it is illegal or highly restricted, as noted by Dr. Ideh at the SPUC maternal mortality conference. We have also seen this recently in the case of Rwanda. The radically pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute produced a study citing the lack of post-abortion care as a reason for abortion-related morbidity and lack of family planning, always discussed and offered following an abortion, as reasons for liberalising Rwanda's law on abortion. Guttmacher is supporting the lobbying efforts of Rwanda's IPPF affiliate in the country. PAC is a useful cover, as it allows abortion organisations to train people, from doctors to community health workers, to conduct abortions using MVA and misoprostol, and promote contraceptive devices, better know as post-abortion family planning. It also reinforces the canard of safe v unsafe abortion by claming that abortion is safe where post-abortion care for complications is easily available. PAC is part of a strategy which seeks to normalise abortion at the level of public opinion and medical consensus, and persuade legislators that a country's abortion laws need to be changed in favour of abortion.

What this chart above sets out is the increased number of abortion and contraception facilities that MSI and Ipas hope to establish by 2016. The total for MSI is 2563 and 1024 for Ipas.

These are desperate times for mothers, babies, and families in the developing world, where our taxes are being used to kill unborn children and harm the health of mothers. Money is being diverted away from the real causes of maternal morbidity and mortality, and instead being used to serve the ideological agenda of DFID and its partners IPPF, MSI, and Ipas. We now live in a world where the manual vacuum aspirator in the hands of an abortionist counts as aid to developing countries. 

"international aid for the poor"

Hitler's Struggle for Eugenics: Part I

Hitler’s Mein Kampf is one of the most notorious works of the twentieth century. It is generally recognised as being the blueprint for the atrocities committed by the Nazi regime between 1933 and 1945. It is however rarely seen in its correct context as a piece of eugenic literature in the same tradition as Marie Stopes’ Radiant Motherhood, H.G Wells’ A Modern Utopia and Margaret Sanger’s The Pivot of Civilisation. In this series of posts I wish to focus attention on the eugenic principles which not only inform the whole work but which are in fact its ultimate foundation.

The inspiration behind Mein Kampf was Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection. Hitler saw races and nations as governed by the law of ‘the survival of the fittest’. Weak races deserved to be outcompeted and subjected to the will of stronger races. This sense of perpetual competition surely informs the title of the book, ‘Mein Kampf’, which means ‘My Struggle.’ Hitler begins his account by outlining how his own life began as a struggle against the overbearing will of his father. Hitler’s attempt to pursue a career as an artist ended in failure and with Hitler eking out a living, homeless, on the streets of Vienna. He was saved from being a victim of natural selection himself by the outbreak of the First World War which provided him with a cause to fight for. The defeat of Germany in November 1918 was a shattering emotional blow and Hitler, like many of his contempories, found solace in the view that Germany had not really been defeated on the battlefield but had rather been betrayed by politicians at home. In the immediate aftermath of defeat Germany was racked by revolution and counter-revolution as Communist uprisings took place across the nation. Hitler was present in Munich during the Bolshevik revolution of 1919 and for him it was a moment of political awakening. He became involved in an extreme fringe of German political life which merged a desire for radical social change with extreme nationalism, often with overt assertions of racial superiority. Anti-Jewish feeling was common among such groups because of the prominent Jewish involvement in the left-wing revolutionary movement as well as older associations of Jews with wealth and capital. The National Socialist ideology, which combined hostility to Communists and Jews with the Darwinian theory of evolution, was appealing to many because it provided a supposedly scientific justification for strong actions to restore German power and punish internal and external enemies.

Hitler’s belief in German superiority had its origins in his Austrian childhood which was marked by assertions by German Austrians of their identity in the multi-ethnic Austro-Hungarian Empire. He had however at one time considered himself hostile to anti-Semitism and in one remarkable passage he describes his earlier disgust at anti-Jewish rhetoric and his horror at the possibility of violence against the Jews. In Mein Kampf  he explains that his views changed after discovering the prominent role of Jews in the Social Democratic movement, which he detested, and their role in socialist and Marxist movements in general as well as in immoral industries such as prostitution. These feelings hardened during the post-war revolutionary period because many of the revolutionary leaders were Jewish. These reasons however are not sufficient to account for the full horror of the persecution and genocide unleashed under the Third Reich. The Nazi regime did not seek out Jews who were political opponents but rather all people of Jewish ancestry whatever their religious beliefs, political views, or social status. This was the result of Hitler’s conviction that the Jewish people were racially different, sub-human, and along with other groups such as Roma and Sinti gypsies in need of extermination. Hitler was not the creator of this ideology; he was simply a student of the international eugenics movement. 

To be continued...

Learn more about the founders of 'scientific racism':

- Sir Francis Galton

- H.G. Wells

- Marie Stopes

- Margaret Sanger

- Ernst Haeckel, Alfred Ploetz, Eugen Fischer and Ernst Rudin

Help fight eugenics today:

- Join SPUC

- Donate to SPUC

- Learn more about our campaigns

Women Deliver Conference 2013: do women have a right to kill but no right to conceive?

Peter Singer: supports infanticide

The 2013 Women Deliver took place in Kuala Lumpur from 28th-30th May. It was attended by representatives of many organisations at the forefront of the culture of death, including the United Nations Population Fund, the International Planned Parenthood Federation, Marie Stopes International, the Ford Foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the US administration of Barack Obama.

One of the speakers was infanticide advocate Peter Singer who suggested that rising population might make it necessary to forcibly prevent families from having children. (See here for consideration of the origins of the over-population myth.)

‘It is possible of course’ Singer told the conference ‘that we give women reproductive choices, that we meet the unmet need for contraception but that we find that the number of children that women choose to have is still such that population continues to rise in a way that causes environmental problems.’ He also suggested that it was “appropriate to consider whether women’s reproductive rights are 'fundamental' and unalterable or whether… there can be imaginable circumstances in which you may be justified in overriding them.” In other words, if abortion and contraception fail to reduce human population growth it would, in Singer’s view, be morally acceptable to forcibly prevent men and women from having children. The reality however is that population growth is already on the verge of collapsing in many parts of the world, with all the economic and social dangers which that entails, precisely because of the widespread legitimisation of abortion and contraception.

Kavita Ramdas, an Indian representative of the Ford Foundation, made similar points arguing that “you can force women to have less children [sic], you can force people to consume less”. Reversing the racism often shown by the population control movement she asserted that the United States and Europe ‘are truly putting an unsustainable load on the planet for all of us’ and suggested that ‘if Americans consume more than Africans, they should be forced into a one child policy’.

I wonder how the delegates attending the conference would have responded if a speaker had suggested that the so-called 'right' to abortion had to be overriden to deal with declining population growth? The right to kill seems to be unchallengeable but a woman's right to truly control her own fertility by conceiving children within the self-giving supportive union of marriage can be overriden to suit the political agenda of ideologues such as Singer and Ramdas.

These calls were addressed to representatives of the UN, national governments, and some of the largest NGOs in the world. The forces arrayed against the family, and especially against it’s most vulnerable member, the unborn child, are very powerful, very wealthy and very determined.

SPUC needs your help to fight back today.

- Join SPUC
- Donate to SPUC
- Support SPUC’s campaigns

Undercover at a pro-abortion meeting: Part 1

On 22 September 2011 myself and Paul Smeaton attended the ‘Voice for Choice’ meeting hosted by Voice for Choice, a coalition of abortion advocates and providers. Voice for Choice includes: Abortion Rights, Alliance for Choice NI, Antenatal Results and Choices (ARC), BPAS (British Pregnancy Advisory Service), Brook, Doctors for a Woman’s Choice on Abortion, Education for Choice (recently saved from extinction), fpa, Marie Stopes International, Pro-Choice Forum, and Reproductive Health Matters. These are most of the leading anti-life groups in the UK.

The aims of Voice for Choice include: 

• Abortion to be available solely at the request of the pregnant woman within existing legal time limits 
• Abortion services are subject to the same statutory regulations as other medical services 
• Suitably trained nurse practitioners to be allowed to provide early medical and surgical abortions, in both the NHS and non-NHS sector 
• The law in Northern Ireland be brought into line with the rest of the UK
• Current legal abortion rights are to be defended 

This event was described as a 'public meeting' and so I had expected a reasonably large crowd. In total there were no more than about forty five people, including the speakers. Most attendees were older women, and clearly people already working in the abortion industry in one way or another. This 'public' meeting had more of the feel of a closed, private meeting and in reality this was little more than the abortion lobby speaking about and to itself. It was advertised through pro-abortion channels, and when I arrived there wasn't a single poster or notice directing people to the right venue. For a coalition that seems intent on the ‘de-medicalisation’ of the killing of unborn children, it came across as rather contradictory to host a meeting at The Medical Society of London.

The abortion lobby have good reason for wanting to keep these sorts of meetings as small, internal affairs. It is in these sorts of environments in which their true face and their radical anti-life agenda is revealed.

Ann Furedi, CEO of BPAS opened the meeting with a few words about Voice for Choice, and introduced the speakers. Furedi spoke about Dr. Carlos Morin whom she claims is facing 309 years in jail. Dr. Morin has been under police investigation since 2007 over his abortion practices. BPAS were sending women seeking abortions in the UK over to Dr. Morin in Spain. BPAS was subsequently investigated by the Department of Health for such practices, including serious concerns over their call centre.

Guardian journalist Libby Brooks chaired the meeting, with Dr. Patricia Lohr speaking first. 

Dr. Lohr is an American and current medical director of BPAS. Lohr spoke about her personal experience of being a medical student and how during that time she became convinced that abortion is “self-evidently moral”. Lohr explained that she came to the conclusion that she could only be truly pro-choice by committing to performing abortions.

It was chilling to hear her speak, and to sit in the same room as her. What does one say or do when faced with an abortionist proclaiming their pride at aborting babies? Lohr explained that she was not only convinced of the moral goodness of abortion, but that she found performing abortions “extremely gratifying”.

But what kind of person thinks that performing abortions is gratifying; that one’s fortunate to provide them and that abortion is a good thing? Here, as a brief reminder, is a description of a suction abortion, the most common type of abortion procedure in Britain, representing 52% of the 189,574 abortions which took place in 2010 under the Abortion Act in England and Wales:

“The cervix (the neck of the womb) must be stretched open to allow the surgeon to insert a plastic tube into the womb. Sharp-edged openings near the tip of the tube help to dismember the baby so the parts are small enough to be sucked out. The surgeon then uses the suction tube to evacuate the placenta from the womb. The remains of the baby are deposited in a jar for disposal.” 

To be continued...

Forthcoming pro-life events you need to be at!

21st April: Helpers of God's Precious Infants (HGPI) vigil 

HGPI is a Roman Catholic pro-life organisation. The vigil consists of Mass, prayerful procession to the abortion facility, Rosary and hymns, then the return procession. Refreshments are served at the end. The vigil on the 21 April will be held in Essex. Click on the link for full details. http://bit.ly/I9u9QM


22nd April: SPUC run the London Marathon
Veronica Price is a member of SPUC, a mother to 4 children, and a lover of sport. Veronica will be running in the 2012 London Marathon to raise money for SPUC's work in defending unborn children. The London Marathon is a landmark occasion in the sporting calendar, and sees the streets of London filled with runners and wheelchair users ranging from world class to fun-loving amateurs looking to complete an arduous 26.2 mile run, many raising money for charities at the same time. You can read Veronica's story, support her with a donation, and line the streets on the day. http://bit.ly/HDlJYn

27th April: 44th Anniversary of the enactment of the Abortion Act in the UK.  

This is a sad milestone for pro-lifers in the UK. It will be 44th years since the Abortion Act of 1967 came into effect on 27th April 1968. Since then more than 7 million unborn children have been killed at the hands of abortionists. The abortion industry has grown in size and wealth. This day would be a good day to do something pro-life in your family, parish, town or city where you live. If you're religious, it's a special day to pray for an end to abortion. SPUC has launched the 9 Million Children Campaign which could be put into effect on this day. Order the leaflet from SPUC and distribute it in your area.

27th April: Helpers of God's Precious Infants vigil Maidstone
To mark to enactment of the Abortion Act, HGPI will hold a peaceful prayer vigil in Maidstone, Kent. The vigil is being lead by Catholic bishop John Hines. http://bit.ly/IGFbhF

28th April: SPUC Pro-life Chains 

Public act of pro-life witness in towns and cities around the UK. Pro-life campaigners will give silent witness to unborn babies killed in the 44 years since the implementation of the Abortion Act, as well as to the hurt caused to women by abortion.On Saturday 28 April, supporters of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) will form chains, in many towns and cities around the UK, standing at intervals holding placards which bring home the reality of abortion. The event is known as the Pro-life Chains and will be held from 11am till 1pm. Details of practical support for pregnant and post-abortive mothers, fathers, and relatives are available to the general public. Click the link for details of how to organise a pro-life chain in your area. http://bit.ly/I9AP1k 

28th April: HLI Family and Life conference

Hear a line-up of expert speakers from the UK and America, talking about population, family, abortion, and contraception, and why we need to keep building a culture of life. Organised by Family Life International. http://bit.ly/IxW6WX

28th April: LifeSiteNews 15th Anniversary Gala
LifeSiteNews.com has reached an impressive milestone: 15 years serving the pro-life and pro-family cause! To celebrate, they are hosting a Gala celebration on April 28th at the Washington Dulles Hilton Hotel outside of Washington D.C. in Herndon, VA. LifeSite  realise that many will be unable to attend the event due to its geographical location, date, or financial reasons to name a few. But they still want you to be a part of the festivities because they would have nothing to celebrate were it not for the readers and supporters. Please check out their “Virtual” ticket options for how you can still be a part of the celebration. Check out our website: WWW.LSNGALA.COM   http://on.fb.me/HCBAa4

5th-6th May: Catholic Medical Association symposium and AGM

The CMA will be holding its annual symposium and AGM at Hinsley Hall Leeds from 5-6 May. The theme of this year's symposium is "A light shines in the darkness: Catholic perspectives on mental health". This is a useful opportunity for Catholic doctors, nurses, and all health care workers. http://bit.ly/HCvTsy 

19th May-27th July: SPUC Olympic/Paralympic torch pro-life campaign  

SPUC are leading an important pro-life outreach in major cities through which the Olympic torch will travel. Arthur Woood, a member of SPUC, has put together a programme to take the pro-life message to the heart of the Olympic games and into the hearts of the British public. Arthur will be leading an act of pro-life witness in several towns and cities around the country. Pro-lifers will be handing out a specially designed leaflet and holding Olympic torch placards. Contact Aurthur to bring the pro-life message to your area during the Olympic torch tour. http://bit.ly/IiEFrc

14th July: Good Counsel Network sponsored pro-life walk

Get your trainers and Lycra on, adjust your sweatbands, and walk 10 miles for the unborn, from Wandsworth to Wapping. The day begins at 10. If you haven't done a fundraiser event before, this would be a good place to start. Prizes for whoever raises the most money. Everyone gets to relax at the end! Contact Conor Caroll for details. http://on.fb.me/IiGnZB

Mid August- September: SPUC internship programme Summer

The annual SPUC internship programme will begin after the Olympic games this year. There are usually 2-3 places available. The internship Lasts for 7 weeks. To apply please email or post a covering letter and CV to danielblackman@spuc.org.uk. All applications are reviewed, and candidates are invited for an interview. Successful interns will gain experience of in depth research, campaign planning, learning about pro-life concerns at the UK and European political institutions, amongst other things. http://bit.ly/HNoRyg  

Ongoing: Good Counsel Network Internship programme.

GCN have just begun their internship programme. It is based in London, and lasts between 2-3 months. Accommodation provided. GCN can offer a variety of roles, including prayer vigil coordination, counselling services, helping mothers with housing, and fundraising. Contact Conor Caroll for details of how to apply. http://bit.ly/Hu8PHR

Ongoing: Good Counsel Network Daily vigil 

The Good Counsel Network hold a daily prayer vigil outside Marie Stopes International, Whitfield Street, central London. The vigil starts at 9am and runs until 1.30pm, Monday-Friday. There is also weekly pro-life vigil on Wednesdays outside the Bpas Bedford Square, also in Central London. For details about either of these, please contact Conor Carrol. More prayer volunteers are always welcome. info@goodcounselnetwork.freeserve.co.uk or call 020 7723 1740

Ongoing: SPUC 9 Million Children Campaign

SPUC has launched the 9 Million Children Campaign. We estimate that by the fiftieth anniversary of the 1967 Abortion Act coming into effect (27 April 2018) nine million unborn children will have been killed by abortion. By April 2018, we must aim to build a campaign enabling us to deliver nine million leaflets to nine million homes in order to convince the British public that abortion is a tragedy that they must help to bring to an end. Contact SPUC to order the leaflet and start distributing it in your area. The need is urgent.