News, 4 April 2002
John Howard, the Australian prime minister, has disappointed pro-lifers
by writing to the premiers of all Australia's states and territories to
propose the authorisation of destructive stem cell research on surplus
in vitro fertilisation (IVF) embryos. Ahead of tomorrow's meeting to
decide on a national policy, Mr Howard urged the premiers to support a
comprehensive ban on human cloning but to authorise strictly regulated
research on surplus IVF embryos. He said that all members of his
coalition government, including ministers, would be allowed a free
conscience vote on the proposals. Mr Howard claimed to be against
abortion, but continued: "The central ethical issue here is that I have
been personally unable to find a huge moral distinction between
allowing the human embryo to succumb as a result of its exposure to
room temperature, and ending it through research." [
Sydney Morning Herald and
The Age, 4 April]
SPUC has praised a speech given by the United States representative at
this week's United Nations Commission meeting on population and
development in New York. Mr Sichan Siv, the US ambassador to the UN
Economic and Social Council, condemned the term "reproductive health
services" because it could be interpreted as promoting the legalisation
or expansion of legal abortion, and insisted that the promotion of
sexual abstinence was the most effective way of ensuring adolescent
health and preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS. Peter Smith, the chief
administrative officer for SPUC at the United Nations, said: "The new
US administration is finally showing its true colours. The speech by
Ambassador Siv captured the essence of President Bush's policy on
population and related issues. In the last eight years of attending UN
conferences, I have never heard a speech so good." In contrast,
delegates from European Union countries spoke strongly in favour of the
pro-abortion United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). [SPUC, 4 April;
LifeSite, 3 April]
It is reported that the terminally ill woman whose intention to kill
herself has aroused a debate on euthanasia in Australia [see
news digest for 26 March]
may reconsider her decision after successful pain relief treatment.
Nancy Crick, a 70-year-old with bowel cancer, was admitted to the
palliative care ward of a hospital two days ago and given morphine. In
her diary, published on her own website, she writes: "So far this has
helped me a lot with the pain control and I'm pleased with the way
things are going." [
The Age, 4 April]
Pro-lifers in Nebraska are taking legal action against Planned
Parenthood, the largest abortion provider in the USA, for its policy of
writing open prescriptions for the abortifacient morning-after pill.
Planned Parenthood announced last month that it was providing blank
prescriptions for the morning-after pill which women could fill in when
they needed it, but Bob Blank, president of Nebraskans United for Life,
claims that this is "nothing less than making the morning-after pill
equivalent to a non-prescription drug". Mr Blank has asked the attorney
general to determine whether the practice is legal and, in response,
the Nebraska Health and Human Services System has been asked to
investigate. [
Omaha World-Herald, 29 March]
New research has suggested that high levels of certain chemicals found
in British indoor swimming pools may be harming unborn babies. A report
published in the Occupational and Environmental Medicine journal by Dr
Mark Nieuwenhuijsen of London's Imperial College of Science, Technology
and Medicine warns that trihalomethanes, which are formed when chlorine
in swimming pools reacts with organic matter such as skin cells or body
care products, could be linked to miscarriages and developmental
anomalies in unborn children. He called for levels of chlorine to be
reduced. A spokesman for the British Swimming Pool Federation said that
the findings demonstrated "the importance of pre-swim showering which
simply cannot be overemphasised". [
Sky News and London
Evening Standard, 4 April]
To subscribe to SPUC's email information services, please visit www.spuc.org.uk/em-signup. The reliability of the news herein is dependent on that of the cited sources, which are paraphrased rather than quoted. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the society. © Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, 2012