By continuing to browse our site, you are consenting to the use of cookies. Click here for more information on the cookies we use.

Hide

Defending life from the moment of conception

FacebookTwitterInstagramYouTube
Join

SPUC presents buffer zone petition to Home Secretary

12 October 2017


SPUC staff with the petition in front of the home office.

Pro-life vigils offer a lifeline to women in crisis.

SPUC have today sent a petition to the Home Secretary, asking her to reject calls to make it illegal for peaceful pavement counsellors to offer pro-life alternatives near abortion clinics.

The petition was signed by over 8000 people in SPUC's campaign opposing buffer zones. It states that "pro-life pavement counsellors stand near abortion clinics and offer women free help, without coercion, to avoid abortion. It is currently lawful to do this provided there is no obstruction or harassment. The privately run clinics want to make it illegal to offer women help near their premises. These clinics receive around £600 for each abortion they perform."

ASBOs in Ealing

The petition was presented following a decision on Tuesday by Ealing Council which could see a ban on people conducting prayer vigils near premises where abortions are carried out.

The London borough is thought to be planning to use Public Space Protection Orders (PSPOs), which replaced ASBOs, and give councils the power to take action against what they perceive as anti-social behaviour. PSPOs are usually taken against those drinking or drug-taking in public. The vote followed complaints made by the aggressively pro-abortion group Sister Supporter, which complained about the peaceful and trouble-free vigils which have held for more than 23 years by the pro-life Good Counsel Network and other groups.

Saving children's lives

In a press release, Dr Anthony McCarthy of SPUC said: "We know through the witness of many women who have come to us that there are children today who owe their very lives to the courage of these volunteers, standing out in all weathers and sometimes facing abuse from members of the public or even from officials."

On the situation in Ealing, he said: "It is those offering a lifeline to women in crisis who need protection from those pushing abortion, not vice versa. For a local authority to consider categorising pro-life people offering help with drunks and drug addicts is almost beyond comprehension." 

Add your comment
Comments (2)
  • Simon Nicholls

    13 October 2017, 5:49pm

    For the benefit of women and their babies I think it should be written into the law that expectant mothers receive prolife counselling prior to applying for an abortion..and even then there should be at least a two week "cooling off" period from the time of booking an abortion.

    Your comment has been submitted and is currently awaiting approval
  • KEVIN RILEY

    21 October 2017, 8:09pm

    THE TOLERANCE OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY BY NHS (TAXPAYER) FUNDED INDIVIDUALS AND ORGANISATIONS.

    FACT - Virtually all the 200,000 tax payer funded abortions carried out each year, including the 130,000 carried out “on behalf of the NHS” by two “Charities” (one of whom – BPAS - relies for it’s very existence on the money it receives from the NHS) are in fact conclusive evidence of criminal activities, as they do not comply with the requirements of the Abortion Act 1967 as interpreted by what is known as the “Purposive” approach. used by the Courts when asked to rule on the correct interpretation of words and phrases in Acts of Parliament..
    FACT These criminal offences being committed, not only by the Doctors and others involved in the abortion itself, but also by the Chief Executives and Senior Managers by whom they are employed.
    FACT For reasons that will not stand up to informed scrutiny, the criminal law relating to the above is not being enforced by the Director of Public Prosecutions who is responsible to Parliament for ensuring compliance with the criminal law.

    FACT (i) The only way the above can be resolved is by way of an application to the High Court for a Judicial interpretation of the phrase “two doctors acting in good faith” and the other requirements of the Abortion Act 1967.

    (ii) The above to including those relating to the mental health of the pregnant woman, the reality that the Government has acted unlawfully in granting BPAS and Marie Stopes consent to run abortion clinics in NHS Doctors surgeries and the fact that the Department of Health’s “Revised Guidance” to abortion provid-ers, issued in 2013, is itself unlawful.

    CONCLUSION. – In the interests of maintaining compliance with the Rule of law there is therefore now an urgent need for an application to be made to the High Court

    a) for a Judicial (and thereby authoritative) definition of the words "two Doctors acting in good faith" in the Abortion Act 1967 “ and the provisions relating to the
    mental health of the pregnant woman, and the reality that the Government has acted unlawfully in granting BPAS and Marie Stopes consent to run abortion clinics in NHS Doctors surgeries

    b) to challenge the legitimacy of the Government’s consent (given to BPAS and Marie Stopes) to operate abortion Clinics in over forty five NHS “General Practice” Surgeries –by a legally incorrect interpretation of the section in the Abortion Act relating to this issue – see Appendix A for details.

    c(i) to challenge the failure of the regulatory authorities, to take action regarding the known reality that the vast majority of 200,000 plus abortions taking place each year paid for by the NHS, are being supposedly legitimised on the now known to be invalid (since 2012) “effect on mental health" ground –

    (ii) The above as a result of the investigation carried out by the Royal Academy of Medical Colleges on behalf of the Royal College of Psychiatrists in 2012, which established that there was “as much risk of a pregnant woman developing mental health problems from having an abortion as there was if that abortion did not take place”.

    (iii) Yet despite being fully aware of the above the Department of Health
    continued to pay (literally) hundreds of millions of tax payers money each year to it’s abortion contractors for abortions which the Department of Health knew were
    unlawful.

    (iv) The above unlawful practice has, since 2013, been continued by the now “free from democratic control and independent” NHS Trusts, who are now
    individually responsible for the provision of abortion services in the areas for which they are responsible..

    d)to challenge the unilateral opinion of the Director of Public Prosecutions not to prosecute any Doctor for non-compliance with the requirements of the Abortion Act 1967 (even where sufficient evidence is available of non-compliance as in the gender specific abortion case and the ongoing use of blank pre-signed abortion au-thorisation certificates) solely because of the unilateral opinion of the DPP that to
    prosecute "would not be in the public interest".

    e) to challenge the ongoing failure of the Government to comply with it’s
    constitutional law obligations to ensure compliance with the Rule of Law by either referring the difficulties of interpretation (first identified by the Director of Public Prosecutions in 2013) either to the Courts or to Parliament.

    f) To challenge the legitimacy of the so called “New Guidance” relating to abor-tions issued by the Department of Health in 2013 see Appendix D

    THE “PURPOSIVE” METHOD OF AUTHORITATIVELY INTERPRET-ING THE MEANING OF WORDS AND PHRASES IN AN ACT OF PAR-LIAMENT USED BY THE COURTS.

    BACKGROUND>

    In 2013 the then Director of Public Prosecutions stated that

    a) the seventy or so Doctors identified at the time for contravening the re-quirements of the Abortion Act 1967 by having routinely and unlawfully signed “piles” of “blank” abortion authorisation certificates, , and

    b) the two Doctors identified as being prepared to falsify the reasons for an abortion to facilitate, known to be unlawful, “ gender specific abortions,

    “could not be prosecuted” because the DPP felt that it would “not be possible” to convince a criminal court “beyond a reasonable doubt” what Parliament “meant” by the phrase “two doctors acting in good faith” as contained in the Abortion Act 1967.

    The result of the above statement by the DPP is that for the last FOUR years (dur-ing which period over 800.000 tax payer funded abortions have taken place) , Doctors employed in abortion clinics (and the Chief Executives by whom they are employed and who must take ultimate responsibility for how their employees be-have) have known that they can effectively ignore the restrictions contained in the Abortion Act 1967 because, in the unlikely event of their failure to do so being un-covered (see below) - the DPP would not prosecute them in any event.

    Given the reality of the above, the only “legal” way the difficulty identified by the DPP of determining “what Parliament meant” as described above, can be re-solved, is not by relying on the opinion of the Chief Executive of BPAS or the Department of Health or any other individual or organisation, but only by ei-ther referring the issue of interpretation to the Courts or to Parliament itself.

    What cannot lawfully be done is for any Government to allow the stated inability of the Director of Public prosecutions to enforce the criminal law relating to abortions as contained in the Offences Against the Persons Act as amended by the Abortion Act 1967 to continue.

    Unfortunately the above is exactly what has happened for the last four years.

    THE URGENT NEED FOR ACTION TO BE TAKEN.

    The “difficulty” as to “interpretation” of the phrase "two doctors acting in good faith" was first mentioned by the Director of Public Prosecutions (the “DPP”) in September 2013 (it apparently was not a difficulty for the preceding forty seven years) and only affects (if at all) the ability of the Director of Public Prosecutions to enforce the criminal law relating to abortions and does not limit in any way the ability of the now independent NHS Trusts to impose any conditions of em-ployment that they may wish on their abortion contractors (BPAS and Marie Stopes)- .“provided they are no less onerous than the requirements of the Abortion Act 1967 itself.”

    In addition to the above, none of the regulatory authorities, including the Police, the DOH and the CQC have accepted any responsibility for checking whether or not abortion providers (including BPAS and Marie Stopes) are complying with the criminal law relating to abortions (an abortion which does not comply with the requirements of the Abortion Act 1967 still represents conclusive evidence of the commission of a serious criminal offence under the Offences Against the Persons Act)


    THE PURPOSIVE APPROACH TO THE INTERPRETATION OF WORDS AND PHRASES IN ACTS OF PARLIAMENT

    In fact, identifying what Parliament “meant” by the use of the phrase “two doc-tors acting in good faith” (and any other words or phrases contained in the Abor-tion Act 1967) can easily be achieved (with the certainty required by the DPP) by the application of what is known as the “Purposive Approach” to the interpreta-tion of words and phrases used in any Act of Parliament including the Abortion Act 1967.

    The “law” relating to the above Applications is quite straightforward - see Twin-ing v. Myers (1982) and in particular Pepper (Inspector of Taxes) v.Harts (1993), Knowles v. Liverpool City Council (1993) , Three Rivers District Council v. Bank of England (1996) and Jones v. Tower Boot Co.( 1997).

    The above cases confirmed that the Judiciary when asked to provide a ruling on “what Parliament meant” by words and phrases used in an Act of Parliament, will focus on “what Parliament intended” as at the date when the statute involved was under consideration by parliament in this instance as at 1967(arguments as to what Parliament may or may not decide if asked to consider the matter a fresh “to-day” will not be relevant consideration in this respect).

    In other words the Court will consider “what was the evil that Parliament intended to prevent” when deciding on the wording under consideration in 1967 and, cru-cially, will consider this against the circumstances that existed “at the time the wording was under consideration by Parliament” in 1967 and the reasons put forward at that time for the identified relaxation in the criminal law involved.

    It is entirely unlawful to attempt to interpret the words and phrases used in an Act of Parliament with regard to the situation that may or may not exist today (as the Chief Executive of the largest single abortion contractor employed by the De-partment of Health to carry out abortions - at cost to the taxpayer of over thirty million pounds each year continually attempts to do).

    The above “method of interpretation” would only be relevant if the issue was be-ing considered “afresh” by Parliament “today“.

    If this individual or any other individual or organisation (“charitable” or other-wise, wishes the legality or otherwise of an abortion to be determined in the way this individual wishes (namely free from any legal or ethical restraints) the only lawful way for this to be achieved is by the matter being placed before Parliament by way of Primary Legislation to reflect this desired position.

    THE NONE CONTROVERSIAL NATURE OF THIS “DECLARATORY” STATUTORY INTERPRETATION APPLICATION
    The above “declaratory” application would be submitted “in order to assist the Director of Public Prosecutions in enforcing the Rule of Law” as contained in the Offences Against the Persons Act.

    The above being the statute under which the DPP prosecutes an individual or in-dividuals who have been identified as carrying out and/or fascilating or otherwise assisting, the carrying out of an abortion “without complying with the require-ments of the Abortion Act 1967”.

    Crucially this “Statutory Interpretation Application” cannot be legitimately at-tacked by the well-publicised pro-abortion lobby.

    The above led by an individual whose on-going employment effectively depends on the willingness of the now “independent and free from democratic control” NHS Trusts, to continue to pay the organisation which this individual heads, on average, four times more, per abortion, than it would cost the NHS /taxpayer than if that abortion were carried out directly by the NHS(Source = Financial data ob-tained from the financial returns submitted by this organisation to the Charity Commissioners and the data on the website of the Department of Health.)

    This claimed “charitable” organisation carried out over 130,000 abortions in the last financial year alone at a cost to the NHS of over 50 million pounds.

    In addition to the above the individual heading this organisation is on record as stating that abortion should be seen and accepted as a “life style choice” and with no limits or on other constraints – including the ability to carry out abortions up and beyond the usual gestation period (nine months) and for any reason or none..

    The above clearly being not what Parliament intended when agreeing to the terms in which the Abortion Act is expressed.

    If the acceptability of abortion is to be the same as the acceptability of contracep-tion namely as a “life style choice” under the criminal law (as this individual has stated should be the position) this can only lawfully be achieved by parliament it-self passing Primary Legislation to that effect.

    It cannot lawfully be allowed to occur merely as a result of the tax payer funded Regulatory Authorities (including the Police, the Director of Public Prosecutions and the Department of Health as employer) “turning a blind eye” to what is still (under the criminal law as it currently exits) in fact the routine commission of se-rious criminal offences under the Offences Against the Persons Act.

    Unfortunately the above situation is exactly what is occurring at the present time.

    Kevin S. Riley Solicitor 20 October 2017

    SCHEDULE OF APPENDICES. See attached



    SCHEDULE OF APPENDICES

    APPENDIX A -ABORTION CLINICS BEING OPERATED UNLAWFULLY IN OVER FORTY FIVE NHS DOCTOR’S SURGERIES.

    APPENDIX B- UNLAWFUL GENDER SPECIFIC ABORTIONS

    APPENDIX C –ONGOING USE OF UNLAWFUL PRE SIGNED BLANK ABORTION AUTHORISATION CERTIFCATES.

    APPENDIX D THE UNLAWFUL BEHAVIOUR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.

    APPENDIX E THE FAILURE OF NHS TRUSTS TO HAVE ANY PROCEDURES IN PLACE TO VERIFY COMPLIANCE WITH THEIR OWN ABORTION PROVISION CONTRACTUAL REQUIREMENTS.































    APPENDIX A ABORTION CLINICS BEING UNLAWFULLY OPERATED IN OVER FORTY FIVE NHS DOCTOR’S SURGERIES.

    It is clear, using the “Purposive” method of interpretation , that Parliament did not intend that the provision contained in the Abortion Act 1967 that allowed “with the consent of the Secretary of State for Health” the carrying out of an abortion by a Doctor in that Doctors Surgery “in an emergency”, should be applied to Abor-tion Clinics being run in Doctors Surgeries by organisations such as BPAS and Marie Stopes..

    Yet despite the above legal reality, the current Government has unlawfully given consent to over forty five such clinics being opened in GP’s surgeries, - including one on York University Campus and is unlawfully continuing to grant such con-sents.

    So far as the abortion clinic being run in the NHS Doctor’s surgery on York Uni-versity campus is concerned, the Department of Health stated that this particular abortion clinic “only offered advice about abortions” but , once again, the De-partment of Health have based this statement, not on any independent verifica-tion of this fact but merely relying (as is the usual practice of the Department of Health) , on what the Department has been told by BPAS and other abortion providers about the legitimacy of their “activities”..

    In fact all of these forty five abortion clinics are unlawful – yet the
    regulatory authorities responsible for enforcing the Rule of Law in this respect, are doing nothing about this reality and the now “independent” NHS Trusts in whose
    areas these unlawful Clinics operate, are still using tax payers money to pay BPAS and Marie Stopes for the abortions they carry out on their behalf at these unlawful clinics.

    APPENDIX B- UNLAWFUL GENDER SPECIFIC ABORTIONS

    , Using the “purposive” method of interpreting “what Parliament meant“ , the le-gal reality is clear in respect of the above, namely that the Courts will readily de-termine that an abortion on this ground would be contrary to the intentions of Parliament when Parliament approved the wording of the Abortion Act 1967 and therefore making clear that an abortion carried out on these grounds would in fact be conclusive evidence of the commission of a serious criminal offence under the Offences Against the Persons Act.

    The above criminal offence committed, not only by the medical staff directly in-volved in the abortion itself, but also by the Chief Executive or other Senior Man-ager by whom they are employed

    APPENDIX C –ONGOING USE OF UNLAWFUL PRE SIGNED BLANK ABORTION AUTHORISATION CERTIFCATES.

    The Care Quality Commission recently confirmed to the Government, to the
    Department of Health and NHS England, that the above unlawful practice (identi-fied as such in 2012 by the then Secretary of State for Health) , was still being “routinely used in abortion clinics operated by BPAS and Marie Stopes”.

    Yet none of the responsible regulatory authority, including the Police and the DPP, are
    taking any action in respect of this unlawful activity – all funded by the tax payer.

    APPENDIX D THE UNLAWFUL BEHAVIOUR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.

    The DOH unlawfully used the DPP’s stated “difficulty” (which the DPP first iden-tified in 2013) relating to being able to convince a criminal Court “beyond a rea-sonable doubt” what Parliament “meant” by the phrase “two doctor’s acting in good faith” as the legally incorrect basis for informing all their then abortion con-tractors (including BPAS and Marie Stopes) on the 23rd May 2013 that

    a) the previously held (for over forty seven years) requirement of the DOH (as em-ployer) that “no abortion should take place” without the pregnant woman con-cerned “first being seen and examined by a Doctor” is “now cancelled” and

    b) that the DOH (and now the now free from democratic control and independent NHS Trusts) will pay for all abortions “even if the pregnant woman concerned” has never “been seen and examined” by a Doctor, nor even actually spoken to by a Doctor with the professional; “medical “ diagnosis required by the Abortion Act 1967 being undertaken by “a Counsellor, a Nurse or a Midwife“.

    Again, using the “purposive” method of determining what Parliament “meant” by the phrase “two Doctors acting in good faith” it is perfectly clear that the above “amended procedure” was most definitely not what Parliament meant to take place when Parliament decided to insert this phrase in the Abortion Act 1967.

    Given not least the very small number of abortions that Parliament were told would result from the Act (less than a hundred each ear) Parliament expected that that a decision “whether or not to accede to a request for an abortion” would be taken by NHS “GP” Doctors at their “surgeries” as part of their day to day work.

    The concept of an organisation being created whose only activity was to carry out abortions would not even have been imagined by Parliament given the reality of the above.

    The above “guidance” issued by the Department of Health was (and still is)
    therefore patently unlawful as it goes directly against the evidence that is readily available to determine “what Parliament meant” (to use the wording used by the DPP) by the phrase “two Doctors acting in good faith” .

    The above evidence readily available (but seemingly ignored by both the DPP and the Department of Health ) , via,

    a)Lord (David) Steel (who was responsible for taking the Abortion Act through it’s various stages in the House of Commons ) who has recently confirmed that “it was always assumed” by MPs, when the phrase “two doctors acting in good faith” in particular and other sections in the Act in general, were being considered, that the pregnant women seeking an abortion would be personally “seen and exam-ined” by at least one of the two doctors referred to in the Abortion Act in their GP Surgeries as part of their day to day responsibilities in their GP Surgeries , .

    b)by a reading of Hansard (the authoritative record of proceedings in the UK par-liament) covering the same period - which conclusively confirms the above.

    c)The application of what is known as the purposive approach to the interpreta-tion of words and phrases used in Acts of parliament.

    Therefore , in issuing this “New Guidance” the individuals responsible at the De-partment of Health could themselves be guilty of the serious criminal offence of “aiding and abetting” the commission of a serious criminal offence.

    Despite the reality for the above the now independent and free from democratic NHS Trusts that now employ BPAS and Marie Stopes as contractors to carry out abortions on their behalf, have adopted the above unlawful “guidance”.

    APPENDIX E THE FAILURE OF NHS TRUSTS TO HAVE ANY PROCEDURES IN PLACE TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THEIR OWN ABORTION PROVISION CONTRACTUAL REQUIREMENTS.

    In addition to the failure of the DPP to ensure compliance with the criminal law, there is also the appalling reality that none of the now “free from democratic con-trol” NHS Trusts that employ BPAS and Marie Stopes, to carry out over 130,000 abortions every year on their behalf at a cost to the NHS of over thirty million pounds each year (and increasing) have a proper “monitoring of compliance” procedure in place to ensure compliance with their own conditions/requirements and merely are merely content to rely on what their contractors themselves tell them about compliance.

    The above in addition to the failure of the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Care Quality Commission in abortion clinics – whether run directly by the now “free from democratic control” and “independent” NHS Trusts or “on their behalf” by BPAS and Marie Stopes.

    AUTHOR - Kevin S. Riley Solicitor.

    QUALIFICATIONS - In addition to being a fully qualified Solicitor, the author also obtained a Post Graduate Diploma in Management Studies awarded by the Council for National Academic Awards, and also qualified as a Graduate Member of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development. He is also a qualified lecturer in Law and Business Studies including HR issues.

    Your comment has been submitted and is currently awaiting approval

Share this article




Donate to save lives