3 Whitacre Mews, Stannary Street
London, SE11 4AB, United Kingdom
Telephone: (020) 7091 7091
Fax: (020) 7820 3131
Email: information@spuc.org.uk
Pro-Life Times: November 2000
UK's human cloning shame
The Prime Minister has personally underlined the government's determination to press ahead in Parliament to allow unethical medical research on cloned human embryos, a policy condemned by a resolution of the European Parliament in September.Replying to Lord Alton's challenge to the Government's policy (in correspondence released to the Pro-Life Times), Tony Blair said: "The Government does not consider that the limited extension to the purposes for which embryos can be used in research, proposed in the Report of the Chief Medical Officer's Expert Group, will lead to the birth of cloned babies".
However, in a survey of leading medical scientists published in the Independent most thought that allowing such experiments would mean that the birth of cloned babies (so-called 'reproductive' cloning) is inevitable. Those interviewed included Professor Robert Winston and Professor Richard Dawkins.
Moreover, in a stinging resolution condemning the UK government policy, the European Parliament repeated its calls of previous years (1997 and 1998) "to enact binding legislation prohibiting all research into any kind of human cloning within its territory and providing for criminal penalties for any breach" both for so-called 'therapeutic' and so-called 'reproductive' cloning.
The European resolution called on the UK government "to review its position on human embryo cloning" and specifically condemned the government's "linguistic sleight of hand to erode the moral significance of human cloning".
In addition, Cardinal Winning of Glasgow and Archbishop Nichols of Birmingham have made statements condemning the production of human embryos by cloning for the sole purpose of medical experimentation. Archbishop Nichols called it "a grave abuse of human life in its most vulnerable form" and urged people to contact their MP to make their position clear.
Responding to the Prime Minister, Lord Alton concluded with an impassioned appeal: "The issues at stake are as momentous as the 1967 decision to allow abortion and the 1990 decision to allow destructive experiments on human embryos. Together they have led to the elimination of seven million human lives. Do you really want to add - quite unnecessarily - to that number?"
Life begins at 60
Like many other adult education students, Christine Skiffington of Bolton, Greater Manchester, is working hard on her intermediate French course.There's nothing too unusual in that, except that six years ago she was in a coma, following a brain haemorrhage. She didn't show any sign of consciousness at all, and could not communicate. Doctors still cannot say why Christine, who turned 60 this year, came out of the coma. After extensive rehabilitation she has made a full recovery and has passed her advanced driving test.
Concern for patients in coma and those in a so-called "permanent vegetative state" (PVS) were heightened by last month's High Court ruling that two more PVS patients could be left to die of thirst and starvation despite the new Human Rights Act which came into force last month.
Comment: best of times, worst of times
We live in the best of times, yet also the worst of times. Today, as never before, we witness attempts throughout the world to safeguard human rights. Yet the fundamental human right--the right to life--is being systematically denied precisely by those who claim to be promoting human rights.The United Nations was established to foster a new world order after the Second World War and its 1948 Declaration of Human Rights affirmed that "everyone has the right to life." However, as reported below, the UN is today a major force in promoting anti-life policies throughout the world.
Britain's new Human Rights Act had a potential for good, but in its first major test the ruling was made that "the right to life" did not apply to severely disabled people in conditions like PVS who could be starved to death.
Now Northern Ireland is preparing a Bill of Rights, with submissions presented urging the Human Rights Commission to include protection for the unborn (see story below), but will any Bill of Rights be worth the paper it is written on if it grants women a "right" to abortions?
The sole criterion for granting human rights should be one's humanity. Christine Skiffington (described above) was not expected to recover from a coma and doctors would have withdrawn food and fluids thereby causing her death, had her husband not refused consent. The story shows that doctors are not infallible and recoveries can be made--but this is not the most important point of the story. The key point is that no-one can ever "give up" on another human being and push them into death. As a human being, Christine Skiffington had a right to life--irrespective of whether she recovered from the coma.
If the notion of human rights is to mean anything, it must apply to all people especially the most vulnerable. If we give up on them, the notion of human rights counts for nothing.
Your help is needed
Last month we commemorated the 33rd anniversary of the 1967 Abortion Act under which more than 5,500,000 babies have been killed. We are faced with various dangers and your help is urgently needed:- The government has undertaken to call on Parliament to allow unethical experiments on human embryos created by cloning
- The government may be recommending to Parliament that all UK chemists should provide morning-after pills, which can cause an early abortion, prescription-free
- Making Decisions, the government's white paper, contains legislative proposals to let medical attorneys force doctors to withdraw or withhold assisted food and fluids from patients who are not dying.
Your action and your prayers are vital at this critical moment in history. If you have never helped the pro-life movement before please help us now by writing to your Member of Parliament.
Please contact me directly at Action now, Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, 5/6 St Matthew Street, Westminster, London, SW1P 2JT, telephone (020) 7222 5845, fax (020) 7222 0630, email spucsmeaton@cwcom.net.
"OK to be a virgin"?
Minister's muddled policy masks anti-life campaign
The government's drive to promote virginity is a front for pro-abortion policies, including the promotion of the morning-after pill, says the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC).Katherine Hampton, student division coordinator of SPUC, told the Pro-Life Times that the government was undermining its own pro-chastity position with its campaign to give teenagers easier access to the morning-after pill and to abortion services.
"Persuading teenagers to say 'no' to casual sex can help reduce teen pregnancies and abortion, but Tony Blair and health minister Yvette Cooper are behaving like wolves in sheep's clothing," Mrs Hampton said.
The government's strategy to counter teen pregnancy was presented by the Prime Minister last year and it is being implemented by Ms Cooper. It calls for wider access to the morning-after pill and for pregnant teenagers to be given information about abortion services. The £60 million budget which includes the "It's OK to be a virgin" campaign will be mainly spent on recruiting teen pregnancy advisers in every local education authority in the country.
"The press has failed to see the sinister aspect of this move, with its echoes of China's network of 'family planning' officials who enforce their country's brutal one-child policy, including abortion" Mrs Hampton said.
- Ministers will soon decide whether to ask MPs to approve a statutory instrument to let high-street pharmacists sell morning-after pills without prescription. Pilot schemes have been running in some parts of the country. SPUC is urging supporters to write to their MPs.
The new Battle of Britain
Sixty years ago an heroic generation of young men won the Battle of Britain against the evil of Nazism. Now the youth of today are being challenged to fight a new evil.SPUC has launched a pro-life essay prize in memory of Robin McNair, a distinguished Second World War RAF fighter-pilot and pro-life activist.
The Robin McNair Prize is jointly sponsored by the SPUC Educational Research Trust and the family of the late Squadron Leader McNair.
The closing date is 31 January 2001, with cash prizes awarded at the Houses of Parliament next summer.
Judges include Rt Hon John Gummer, MP forSuffolk Coastal and former secretary of state for the environment, Mr Jonathan Evans, MEP for Wales, and the Marchioness of Salisbury.
Entrants are asked to write a 1,000 to 1,500 word essay on one of the following subjects:
- Robin McNair believed fighting for justice for unborn children was as important as fighting for justice in the Second World War. Do you agree?
- Every unborn child has a right to life. Discuss.
- Some people say that a woman's right to choose to have an abortion over-rides her unborn baby's right to life. Discuss.
News in brief
- Brussels--Two companies, Stem Cell Services (Australia) and Biotransplant (USA), have withdrawn their joint application for a patent which would include the cloning of mixed species embryos drawn from pigs and humans after they were exposed by Greenpeace Germany. Greenpeace has called for the scrapping of the European Union Patent Directive because it allows patents on life. (EWTN)
- Paris--Roman Catholic Bishop Olivier de Berranger, of St Denis, near Paris, has branded as scandalous the French government's plans to up the legal time-limit for abortions from 10 to 12 weeks and to allow minors to obtain abortions without their parents' permission. The proposal, presented by Martine Aubry, the employment and solidarity minister, a socialist, would allow minors to get an abortion accompanied by an adult of their choice. Parliament is expected to approve the proposal. (Zenit)
- Pontypridd--Students at the University of Glamorgan will get to decide if Dot Cotton, a character in EastEnders, is guilty of murder, as part of a new approach to the study of British criminal law. Part of the law foundation course will involve studying the BBC soap opera in which Dot was involved in the euthanasia of Ethel Skinner, her terminally ill friend. (BBC Online)
- Glasgow--A junior doctor has claimed that he was turned down for a job at a hospital in Glasgow, because he refused to have anything to do with training which involved abortions. North Glasgow Universities Hospitals Trust has launched an investigation into the claim by Dr Everett Julyan that the hospital told him his answers to questions on abortion caused his application to be unsuccessful. (The Guardian)
What goes on behind the scenes at the UN?
The British public is most aware of the United Nations as an intermediary in disputes between countries. However, anyone concerned about the sanctity of life, marriage and the family should know what goes on behind the scenes at the UN.Tim Montgomerie, chairman of the Conservative Christian Fellowship and adviser on religious matters to William Hague MP, recently visited the UN in New York to observe the culmination of Beijing + 5, a conference on women's issues. The Pro-Life Times asked him about how the UN's social policies were formed.
Who are the main players at the United Nations?
Most of the individual countries act as part of organised blocs. The European Union is an important group already but developed countries like Japan, USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand (JUSCANZ) have also grouped together in order to have a louder voice. So-called developing countries are also trying to act in more coordinated ways. Their bloc is known as G77. The bloc system protects the G77 countries from being bullied, but it also means that some countries hide behind the consensus of the bloc they are in.Around the fringes of every UN meeting are lots of non-governmental organisations (NGOs). NGOs--sometimes funded by governments--try to advise and lobby individual countries and blocs about issues up for discussion. They can play an important role because countries' delegates are not always well-informed about issues. Two of the main NGO groupings are the pro-life organisations and the radical feminists.
Why is the United Nations interested in women's issues?
Since the end of the cold war the UN has been in search of a peacetime role and one of the areas it has chosen to address is the needs of women. It is commonly agreed that women throughout the world suffer from economic and educational poverty more than men and so it is an appropriate issue for a body like the UN to discuss. However, the radical feminists have hijacked the agenda for their own ends.What policies are they trying to promote?
The feminists have largely persuaded groups like the EU and JUSCANZ that reproductive health issues need to be included in a wider agenda for women. This means promoting abortion and other measures aimed at curbing population growth. This is often done against the wishes of developing countries whose religious and cultural beliefs support the culture of life.How do these policies get through?
The larger delegations use a variety of tactics to push policies through. The EU and JUSCANZ blocs can dominate the agenda simply because of the size of their delegations. Pro-life, pro-family countries such as Poland with perhaps just one or two representatives cannot resist insertions of anti-life language if a number of so-called contact groups, which have the power to agree UN policy, are run at exactly the same times. A single delegate cannot be in two meetings at once.These groups will start, end and reconvene at unpredictable times and in ways designed to exclude those outside the charmed circle. Sometimes sessions last so long that only those countries with large negotiating teams, able to work in relays, can keep an eye on everything. If the Polish or Nicaraguan representative, for example, leaves the room for a few minutes they may return to find that unhelpful language has been agreed in their absence and they cannot remove it. Another disgraceful tactic is for translation services to be withdrawn giving huge advantage to the English-speaking delegations.
Which countries are affected by these policies?
Developing countries. The imposition of these pro-abortion policies is a new form of imperialism.Do these policies have any legal force?
Not yet, but the UN is always looking for new powers. Wealthy countries can pressurise those dependent on aid to implement UN policies.What is the Vatican's status at the UN?
The Vatican only has observer status but it has significant influence as it promotes sanctity of life issues and the family. It gives moral courage to many small powerless countries. Some feminist NGOs want to exclude the Vatican from the UN. However, because the Vatican receives no money from UN agencies or individual governments, it cannot be bullied financially--something, sadly, that does happen to some poor developing nations.What is the British government's position?
The propaganda put out by our own British government in support of this agenda is appalling. The politically correct agenda is promoted by glossy, colourful booklets and exhibitions funded by the Foreign Office, Clare Short's Department for International Development and the British Council. References to men and marriage are all in the negative. In a booklet entitled Women's rights as human rights the only reference to marriage is a complaint about forced marriages. There is a picture on the page of two women reflecting the UN lobby's call for same-sex unions. The cover of one booklet shows a picture of a girl with pierced nose, tongue and lip.Any full-time mother who took the time to read this material would be made to feel inadequate. All this is paid for by UK taxpayers.
What are pro-lifers achieving at the UN?
There is tremendous co-operative spirit among pro-lifers from around the world when they meet in the UN buildings. The very presence of the pro-life NGOs has a startling effect. The pro-lifers take no provocative action and they are comparatively few in number, yet the host of opposition NGOs is daunted by them. When the pro-lifers are there, anti-life language gets blocked from policy documents and when the pro-lifers are not there terrible wording gets through.How does the pro-life lobby achieve such impact?
The pro-lifers have two great strengths. The first is prayer. When people are praying in the UN buildings and around the world, the national delegates who uphold the sanctity of life keep their courage in the face of unbelievable opposition. I have witnessed this myself. The second great strength is the array of highly professional skills and experience which individual pro-lifers bring to the arena. Experts are able to produce amendments very quickly for insertion into social policy documents, helping to out-manoeuvre opponents.From the desk of Joanna Bogle
A voice at Waterloo
Struggling with my bike through London recently in the pouring rain, I arrived at Waterloo Station completely drenched. A cheery voice hailed me with some amusement. It was Robert Whelan, recently appointed director of the Family Education Trust. They've just moved into offices near Waterloo. He willingly helped me with my (extremely damp!) cases and we exchanged news briefly before dashing off to catch our respective trains. When I caught a glimpse of my reflection and realised just how bedraggled I looked--hair plastered to my head, water oozing from my shoes--I think it was quite nice of him to walk along with me!The trust is an excellent organisation supporting family life. It's pro-life and stands for the rights of parents and the importance and value of marriage. It produces useful booklets on a variety of topics and speaks up for the family at government level, seeking to challenge the often anti-family message put across in official policies, especially those relating to the young. You can reach them at The Mezzanine, Elizabeth House, 39 York Road, London, SE1 7NQ, telephone: (020) 7401 5480.
Word gets around
I know that the Pro-Life Times is being read across the country because I get letters from all over Britain in response to items raised in this column. It's tremendously heartening to realise that hundreds of volunteers are handing out the paper at their churches in south Wales, in the west country, in the midlands ... I enjoy getting letters from readers--keep them coming, especially if you have items of pro-life, pro-family news to report or topics that need raising. Please write to me at: Pro-Life Times, 5-6 St Matthew Street, London, SW1P 2JT.Vision for Love
Many pro-life families are anxious about the forms of sex education presented to their children in school, but now there's a network that can help. Vision for Love offers practical advice, information and support to parents who want to ensure that their children are given a positive and family-based message about love, marriage and relationships taught with delicacy and with full respect for the child's family privacy and religious beliefs.Contact Vision for Love at 105 Bute Street, Cardiff, CF10 5ND, telephone (029) 2045 2948 or email vfl.editor@talk21.com.
Good listening
If you want to listen to something challenging and worthwhile, contact Human Life International, PO Box 4771, London, SE9 4XA, telephone (020) 8857 9950, and ask for their latest list of tapes. They have a wonderful selection, covering many aspects of the pro-life movement including things like sex eduation, pressure on the young and the power of the media--all issues that need exploring.Stark choice for US voters
The US goes to the polls this month to choose the man who will be president for the next four years, and the voters' choice will be critical for the pro-life cause.According to Dr Jack Willke, a US authority on pro-life affairs, Democrat contender Al Gore is committed to anti-life policies like President Clinton's while Republican George W Bush is pro-life.
Dr Willke, director of the Life Issues Institute, stressed concerns over the promotion of abortion in the developing world. "A Bush presidency would have very different priorities from a Gore one over the US aid budget and the money it gave to the United Nations. There would be no funding or backing for anti-life programmes," said Dr Willke. "Gore would be just as bad as Clinton," he added.
Mr Bush chose the solidly pro-life Dick Cheney as his running mate while Mr Gore cemented his claim to the pro-abortion vote by choosing Joseph Lieberman.
President Clinton's final volley against the value of human life is his policy on RU-486, the abortion drug. One commentator has described the decision as using the country's Food and Drug Administration to mislead teenage girls about the effects of the drug.
Cathy Brown, director of WhyLife?, said that Danco Laboratories, which makes the abortion pill, and Planned Parenthood were giving teenagers misinformation about RU-486. Danco's website omits the word "abortion" and calls RU-486 the "early option pill."
Ms Brown said: "To the average teen who browses Danco's website, RU-486 looks like a pill that simply ends an unplanned pregnancy, not one that takes a human life."
Protect our unborn babies
Demand for inclusion of unborn children in Northern Ireland bill of rights.
The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children is urging the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission to include protection for the unborn in the bill of rights which the commission is preparing.Mrs Betty Gibson, chairwoman of SPUC Northern Ireland, said: "There's no room for complacency. Liberal abortion is not something that people in Northern Ireland want. Whether Catholic or Protestant, the overwhelming majority here are against it, but the pro-abortion lobby--which is largely based in Britain--won't give up. In SPUC we believe that abortion is the total opposite of human rights. It is essential that the new bill of rights protects everyone's right to life, including the unborn baby."
The society's submission, which was co-authored by Dr John Fleming, the international human rights expert, has been sent to local and national politicians, church and religious leaders, lawyers, doctors and educationalists, as well as to the commission.
Dr Fleming commented: "Since the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, drawn up in the dreadful aftermath of Nazi genocide, the concept that every human being possesses fundamental rights has generally been accepted. Such rights recognise the equality of everyone, and so protect the vulnerable and marginalised.
"These facts are recognised by the Draft Strategic Plan of the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, which refers to consultation with 'the most marginalised and disadvantaged people in Northern Ireland' as well as to the rights of victims, of children, and of persons with disabilities. Our report shows that all of these references can rightly be taken to refer to the unborn."
The commission has extended its deadline for submissions until the end of November, and is expected to make its recommendations to Mr Peter Mandelson, the Northern Ireland secretary, in the new year.
SPUC's submission is on the internet at www.spuc.org.uk/abortion/NIrights.htm.
Painkillers for baby before abortion
Are doctors feeling guilty?
A call for babies to be given anaesthesia before being aborted has been denounced as a sop to medical consciences. Some doctors have questioned whether such anaesthesia would work.The call for foetal painkillers came from Professor Vivette Glover of Queen Charlotte and Chelsea Hospital, London, who is due to chair a conference on foetal pain at the Royal Institution, London, later this month. Professor Glover said: "One cannot be sure, but there is enough evidence to suggest that 17 weeks is the more likely time that a foetus will feel pain. I have heard people ask 'why give the foetus pain relief if it is going to be destroyed?' but we don't say that about animals before we put them down."
Paul Tully, general secretary of SPUC, said: "Concern over foetal pain is a result of guilt about abortion. Should we anaesthetise babies to numb the conscience of doctors, or should we do the just and logical thing and stop the abortions?"
Professor Glover's call was dismissed by Dr Bernard Nathanson, former abortionist and maker of the Silent Scream video. He told the Pro-Life Times that the biochemistry of 17-week-old foetuses made it uncertain that anaesthetic gases would be effective.
In a 1985 paper in the New England Journal of Medicine Dr K Annand stated that foetuses could perceive a basic kind of pain at 12 weeks, and Dr Peter McCullagh, an Australian medical researcher, has pointed out more recently that the unborn child's pain receptors are in place from 10 weeks.
