
Comments on this blog? Email them to [email protected]
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Join SPUC's Facebook group
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy
A blog launched on the 41st anniversary of the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC), the first pro-life organisation in the world, established on 11 January 1967. I wrote this blog in my role as SPUC's chief executive, commenting on pro-life news, reflecting on pro-life issues and promoting SPUC's work. I retired from my post on 31st August 2021 and will therefore be adding no further posts.
"The 12th session of the Human Rights Council in Geneva is currently considering a draft resolution on HIV/AIDS. This resolution contains many good proposals but has also generated considerable debate and controversy.Comments on this blog? Email them to [email protected]
"There have been sustained attempts by Brazil, the US, Canada and the European Union to retain references in the draft resolution to the 'UN International Guidelines on HIV/AIDS and Human Rights'. Whilst the 12 guidelines in themselves are uncontroversial, they have been inserted into a very controversial document containing an explanatory text and commentary.
"The international community rejected this document during the 2001 special session on HIV/AIDS, because the commentary
"The current draft resolution seeks to reference the document in a way that separates the 12 basic guidelines from the commentary and explanatory text. This approach was used previously in a resolution on violence against women in the 2005 Human Rights Commission. There is, however, strong opposition to this. Many countries wish to return to the 2001 solution where all references to the document were removed from the outcome document.
- seeks to overturn all laws that limit sexual activity, including laws against 'adultery, sodomy, fornication, and commercial sexual encounters' i.e. prostitution
- calls for nations to legalize homosexual marriage
- seeks to impose explicit sexual and homosexual education on children, as well as other public information programmes that (according to the explanatory text) should 'not be inappropriately subject to censorship or other broadcasting standards'
- seeks to impose 'penalties on anyone who vilifies people who engage in same-sex relationships'. Although it is unclear what 'vilification' means in this context, and what 'penalties' would be sought, there is concern that religious leaders may be held criminally liable for upholding the biblical teaching that homosexual acts are sinful. Islamic countries consider the document to be offensive.
"The draft resolution was initiated by Brazil which has made it clear that they wish to retain the references but also wish to have a consensus text. Egypt on the other hand has warned that if the references remain they will not join consensus and will push for a vote on the text when it comes before the plenary later this week. The Holy See would also prefer that the references to the guidelines are deleted."
"I am not afraid to vote No to Lisbon, said Dana Rosemary Scallon today. The people must know the truth, that the guarantees are worthless and that the EU will have primacy over Ireland's Constitution. Lisbon is not about tidying up the democratic process - it is about tying up the democratic process.Ireland For Life has also just issued a statement making similar points to those made by Dana.
"As former French president Valery Giscard d'Estaing stated, when he welcomed the Lisbon Treaty wording: 'Public opinion will be led - without knowing it - to adopt the policies we would never present to them directly. All the earlier proposals will be in the new text - but will be hidden or disguised in some way.'
"I cannot be bought. I have always told the truth about what I saw happening in Europe, especially when it threatened our Constitution and our democratic rights as citizens of Ireland. I have no axe to grind, I am not seeking political office and as I don't run a budget airline I don't have to tread carefully and change my mind for the sake of a few euros.
"During my time in office from 1999-2004, the building of an EU Constitution and the move towards an EU Superstate was clearly set out. I stated this publicly many times and urged our political leaders and public representatives to uphold our Irish Constitution - they all refused to do so.
"A simple name change will not change the fact that adopting the Lisbon Treaty will undermine our sovereignty and political independence and profoundly weaken Ireland's position in Europe and is the path to a European Constitution, having primacy over Ireland's Constitution.
"Former Irish Taoiseach, Dr Garett Fitzgerald also stated on June 30, 2007, that proposed changes to the Constitutional Treaty 'had no practical effect. They have simply been designed to enable certain heads of government to sell to their people the idea of ratification by parliamentary action rather than by referendum.' Chancellor Merkel of Germany and Jose Zapatero, Prime minister of Spain confirmed that 'The substance of the constitution is preserved' and that 'not a single substantial point' of the constitutional Treaty has been let go. Even former Taoiseach Bertie Ahern noted that there had been 'no dramatic change to the substance of what had been agreed in 2004'.
"We have already rejected this Lisbon Treaty and in response our political leaders apologised to Brussels.
"The Lisbon Treaty will give the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights primacy and a legally binding status. The fact is that in the case of conflict between the rights contained in the EU Charter and those rights contained in our Irish constitution, the Lisbon Treaty will give the final say to the EU Court of Justice over our Irish Supreme Court.
"Voting NO will protect Ireland's Constitution in matters such as the definition and protection of the family; Children's rights; Parent's rights; the protection of life and the child embryo; the right to a fair trial; the right to strike etc. Any so-called 'guarantees' and protection of our Irish Constitutional position on these points are not part of the Lisbon Treaty, they therefore have no legal weight what-so-ever and cannot be relied upon. They are, as we have been told many times, worthless.
"This is no longer about the politics of right and left, it is about right and wrong. I can no longer stay silent about the wilful betrayal of Ireland's Constitution.
"Just as in Article 12.8 of Ireland's Constitution the President states 'In the presence of Almighty God I do solemnly and sincerely promise and declare that I will maintain the Constitution of Ireland and uphold its laws, that I will fulfil my duties faithfully and conscientiously in accordance with the Constitution...."; Article 9.2 calls upon everyone stating: "Fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the state are fundamental political duties of all citizens".
"People should not be afraid to vote no, proclaim loyalty to the State and fidelity to the nation. Our Constitution should be upheld not diluted for political and personal gain.
"Many decent members of Fianna Fail, Fine Gael, Labour and the Greens know that the parties are not listening to their grass roots. The electorate know in their hearts that the democratic will of the people is being ignored. As a nation we cannot return to the years of the begging bowl. All of Europe is waiting for the Irish people to once again defend, speak up for and protect those who have no voice. Only the people can protect democracy and people must not be afraid to vote NO."
Pictured is Charlemagne, commonly known as the Father of Europe.
- "The ECLJ is particularly concerned about the [report's] underlying promotion of abortion as a means of family planning and population control."
- "The Council of Europe has no authority or competency to promote abortion."
- "[T]he [report is] based upon unsupportable concerns regarding the need for greater population control in developing countries."
- "Promoting abortion violates the core values upon which the Council of Europe was built by greatly offending the protection of human life and dignity, and respect for national sovereignty."
- "International law does not provide a so called 'right' to abortion … Only the right to life is recognized."
- "The European Convention on Human Rights explicitly contains a provision guaranteeing the right to life. The Parliamentary Assembly cannot infer from the Convention that the right to life does not extend to the unborn, and cannot lower the degree of protection afforded by the State to human life."
- "Attacking the legitimacy of any country’s abortion laws is not within the competency of the Council of Europe."
- "The Explanatory Memorandum’s recommendations are premised in large part on unfounded assertions about the need for population control and advance the cause of the neomalthusianism philosophy."
- "[I]improving agricultural technology has allowed food production to more than keep pace with population growth."
- "Indeed, in 1995, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization estimated that by fully employing present agricultural technology, the world could feed 30 to 35 billion people."
- "Malthus’s theories eventually gave rise to the eugenics movement of the late 19th and 20th Centuries that divided human beings into 'superior' and 'inferior' races and called for the segregation or elimination of the 'inferior' races
- "[T]he population control movement has also been used as an instrument of imperialism against less-developed countries."
- "The money to be spent on population control in less developed countries can be better spent on basic health care needs and economic development in those countries."
- "[T]he availability of abortion as a component of population control programs coupled with the widespread availability of technology that allows parents to learn the sex of their unborn child has led to a disproportionate number of abortions of unborn girls."
"The United Nations Human Rights Council reviews periodically the situation on human rights in UN member-states. The council has just released the report of its review of Slovakia. In the review process, one of the recommendations made by the Holy See calls on Slovakia to 'defend the right to life, based on article 15 of the Constitution'. The Slovakian response to this is:Comments on this blog? Email them to [email protected]
'Article 15(1) of the Constitution of the Slovak Republic clearly states that everyone has the right to life and that human life is worth protecting even before birth. In the spirit of these principles, the amendment to the act on healthcare of September 2009 contains details on mandatory instructions given to women preceding the written informed consent of the woman, as a precondition for carrying out abortions and introduces the obligation to advise on other alternatives. The law also provides women who want to give up their newborn child with the possibility of anonymous birth, as well as the possibility to place a newborn in a publicly accessible incubator- a so-called baby hatch.'"
"To deny these is not a judgment of the soul, but a recognition of the scandal and its effects."His comments follow the public Catholic funeral for Edward Kennedy, the pro-abortion American senator.
"[W]ith greatly sinful acts about fundamental questions like abortion and marriage, [a politician's] repentance must also be public. Anyone who grasps the gravity of what [such a politician] has done will understand the need to make it public."Not only has Tony Blair refused to repudiate his anti-life and anti-family political record, since being received into the Catholic Church, he has extended it with open attacks on Catholic teaching on sexual ethics.
First of all, the consistent canonical discipline permits the administering of the Sacrament of Holy Communion only to those who are properly disposed externally, and forbids it to those who are not so disposed, prescinding from the question of their internal disposition, which cannot be known with certainty.Comments on this blog? Email them to [email protected]
Secondly, the discipline is required by the invisible bond of communion which unites us to God and to one another. The person who obstinately remains in public and grievous sin is appropriately presumed by the Church to lack the interior bond of communion, the state of grace, required to approach worthily the reception of the Holy Eucharist.
Thirdly, the discipline is not penal but has to do with the safeguarding of the objective and supreme sanctity of the Holy Eucharist and with caring for the faithful who would sin gravely against the Body and Blood of Christ, and for the faithful who would be led into error by such sinful reception of Holy Communion.
Fourthly, the discipline applies to any public conduct which is gravely sinful, that is, which violates the law of God in a serious matter. Certainly, the public support of policies and laws which, in the teaching of the Magisterium, are in grave violation of the natural moral law falls under the discipline.
Fifthly, the discipline requires the minister of Holy Communion to forbid the Sacrament to those who are publicly unworthy. Such action must not be precipitous. The person who sins gravely and publicly must, first, be cautioned not to approach to receive Holy Communion. The memorandum, "Worthiness to Receive Holy Communion", of Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, in its fifth principle, gives the perennial pastoral instruction in the matter. This, in fact, is done effectively in a pastoral conversation with the person, so that the person knows that he is not to approach to receive Holy Communion and, therefore, the distribution of Holy Communion does not become an occasion of conflict. It must also be recalled that "no ecclesiastical authority may dispense the minister of Holy Communion from this obligation in any case, nor may he emanate directives that contradict it" *.
Finally, the discipline must be applied in order to avoid serious scandal, for example, the erroneous acceptance of procured abortion against the constant teaching of the moral law. No matter how often a Bishop or priest repeats the teaching of the Church regarding procured abortion, if he stands by and does nothing to discipline a Catholic who publicly supports legislation permitting the gravest of injustices and, at the same time, presents himself to receive Holy Communion, then his teaching rings hollow. To remain silent is to permit serious confusion regarding a fundamental truth of the moral law. Confusion, of course, is one of the most insidious fruits of scandalous behavior.
*"[…] nessuna autorità ecclesiastica può dispensare in alcun caso da quest'obbligo del ministro della sacra Comunione, né emanare direttive the lo contraddicono." PONTIFICIUM CONSILIUM DE LEGUM TEXTIBUS, "Acta Consilii: I, Dichiarazione", Communicationes 32 (2000) 161; English translation from L'Osservatore Romano, Weekly Edition in English, 12 July 2000, 4.
"The United Nations Human Rights Council reviews periodically the situation on human rights in UN member-states. The council has just released the report of its review of Malta. In the review process, the Maltese government 'reiterate[d] that the right to life is an inherent right of every human being – this includes the unborn child, from its conception. We will retain our existing national legislation on the question of abortion.' Malta also made clear its opinion that 'whether or not to legislate to recognize the relationship between two partners, irrespective of their sex, remains a matter of national competence.'Comments on this blog? Email them to [email protected]
"The Holy See (the government of the Catholic Church) supported Malta within the council by recommending that Malta 'continue its policy in defence of the right to life' and 'continue its policy to protect the family as the natural and fundamental group unit of society based on the stable relationship between a man and a woman.'
"Malta's resolute and courageous stand for life and family values in the face of considerable pressure from pro-abortion and anti-family forces is to be commended. The Holy See is also to be commended for supporting Malta's pro-life and pro-family laws."
"The EU is not supposed to have the power to review the domestic law of member states and this represents a new departure. The European Parliament has today voted to instruct its Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) to review a new law recently passed in Lithuania. The European Parliament has been spurred to this attempt to extend its sphere of influence by the Lithuanian Parliament's move, which has not yet come into force, but which seeks to stop minority sexual groups seeking to influence children.Pat paid tribute to the work of the various groups that had lobbied against the EP motion. MEPs passed the on a roll-call vote by 349 to 218 with 46 abstentions. (57%, 35.5%, 7.5%).
"The FRA is the direct successor of the body which attacked Slovakia for seeking to protect the right of conscientious objection of pro-life doctors and nurses. Since it has such a strong pro-abortion track record, we are concerned that the next target will be one of those countries such as Malta or Ireland, that uphold the right to life of the child before birth.
"What is so deeply disturbing is that, firstly, an unelected Agency is being used to interfere in issues beyond the Parliament's competence, and secondly, that that Agency seems to oppose foundational rights like the right to life of the unborn, freedom of conscience and parental rights.
"On October 2, the Irish republic is being asked to vote again on the Lisbon Treaty. Today's motion is a timely warning which gives powerful ammunition to opponents of Lisbon."
"I think it should not be used as a way of saying, this is bad and we should not be doing this kind of thing. There is an association which we should be aware of, and we should let mothers be aware. I don't want unintended pregnancies to increase."And Professor Philip Steer, editor in chief of BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, the journal in which the study was published, said:
"The most important message is not that this should be used in any way to prevent women having a termination of pregnancy. The effect has to be balanced against the serious effects of forcing women to continue with unwanted pregnancies. Any medical procedure is likely to have side-effects."Dr Shah and Professor Steer unwittingly highlight several key points to be made against abortion:
"In 2006, Slovakia was condemned by the EU institutions because of a freedom of conscience clause in its national legislation.Comments on this blog? Email them to [email protected]
"Today a national law from Lithuania which aims to protecting minors from sexualisation by society is condemned by the EU institutions.
"I consider our meeting to be a manipulation of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. This text is not a legally binding instrument.
"The EU Parliament is ignoring the legitimacy of the national Parliament of a Member State.
"The EU Parliament also requests an Opinion of the Fundamental Rights Agency, but this Agency has no mandate to assess the legal quality of a national law.
"I wonder what the Irish people will think about these procedures in advance of the upcoming referendum on the Lisbon treaty. What else can they think but that soon, Ireland also will be condemned because of its laws to protect the family and life?
"I profoundly regret that the European Parliament does not respect the basic principles of diversity and national culture, and that we question the protection of children and the right of parents to educate them."
“Under the proposed legislation, an advance care directive could include an instruction to refuse life-sustaining treatment (treatment which is intended to sustain or prolong life and that replaces or maintains the operation of vital bodily functions that are incapable of independent operation) … The Commission recommends that a statutory Code of Practice on Advance Care Directives should contain detailed guidance for health care professionals, including the circumstances in which artificial nutrition and hydration (ANH) may be considered to be basic care or, as the case may be, artificial life-sustaining treatment.”As well as advance directives or so-called living wills, the Irish Commission's proposals include powers of attorney over healthcare. In this regard, the Irish Commission's proposals may be even more radical that the pro-euthanasia (English) Mental Capacity Act 2005. Paragraph 3.100 of the Commission's report reads:
"Under the Code of Practice for the English Mental Capacity Act 2005, a person appointed under a lasting (enduring) power of attorney can only consent to or refuse life-sustaining treatment on behalf of the donor where the donor has specifically stated that they want the donor to have this authority. The Commission considers, however, that due to the importance of promoting patient autonomy, the proxy must have the power to refuse life-sustaining medical treatment."Surely the good people of Ireland, many thousands of whom every year work to resist the repeated attempts to undermine its pro-life constitution, will not stand idly by at this attempt to import silent euthanasia? Please write to newspapers and other media outlets in the Irish Republic to:
"The risk as this is rolled out across the country is that elderly people with chronic conditions like Parkinson's or respiratory disorders may be dismissed as dying when they could still live for some time ... Only when death is unavoidable should you start withdrawing treatment."The report confirms what we have long known at SPUC: that there is a policy of silent euthanasia being practised across Britain. Alison Davis of No Less Human shows in a recently published paper, how euthanasia has spread, starting with the 1992 Bland judgment, expanded the 2005 Mental Capacity Act and now implemented through the Liverpool Care Pathway.
"Weeks after a packed Catholic conference in Italy gave Blair an ovation for his words about the universality of Catholicism, the pope's newspaper was equally effusive, calling the convert 'a gentleman, educated, smiley, courteous in a way few know how to be'.I pose the question: Are there subversive elements at work within the Vatican who are intent on appeasing Barack Obama and Tony Blair and their anti-life policies? Imagine if Obama and Blair were committed racists rather than being committed to their anti-life and anti-family policies. Would L'Osservatore Romano afford them such a generous platform? I hope not. But surely this same standard should apply to attacks on the sanctity of human life. As Michel Schooyans, one of the Vatican's leading scholars has pointed out in a masterly analysis, Obama and Blair, with their anti-life, anti-family agenda, are seeking to undermine both law and religion respectively.
"Letting slip the Vatican's possible ambition for Blair, the paper also described him as 'a probable future president of the European Union'.
"With a double page spread at his disposal, Blair served up a mix of anecdotes about his conversion and strong indications of how faith is at the heart of every step he takes."
"We would...be most grateful if, in the light of your reception into the Catholic Church, you would tell us if you now repudiate:The reply I received from Mr Blair's office - in fact, from the Tony Blair Faith Foundation - refused point-blank to answer any of the questions that I had put.
• voting in 1990 for abortion up to birth three times during Parliamentary debates on what became the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990;
• personally endorsing your government’s policy of supplying abortion and birth control drugs and devices to schoolgirls as young as 11 without parental knowledge or consent;
• your government introducing legislation which has led to a law which allows, and in certain circumstances requires, doctors to starve and dehydrate to death vulnerable patients;
• your government’s commitment to the promotion of abortion on demand as a universal fundamental human right.
• personally championing destructive experiments on human embryos."