ProLife Alliance seeking truth and transparency about abortion.
June 2
Unfortunately a video-link from Gibraltar with our witness Dr Vincent Argent, scheduled for the morning of Day 3, was not possible due to technical difficulties at the Court, and so he was not able to be questioned on his statement in defence of open access to abortion statistics.
Dr Argent approached the ProLife Alliance asking to give evidence on our behalf, notwithstanding his background in abortion which includes a brief period as Medical Director for bpas. He is in favour of full disclosure per se but also as an essential vehicle for better medical research into issues associated with pregnancy and fetal disability.
One has to ask, ‘If doctors such as Prof Campbell and Dr Argent are prepared to stand up in open Court and discuss abortion calmly, and both argue in favour of full disclosure of statistical information, and both are giving evidence on behalf of an organisation which is openly opposed to abortion, why is the Department of Health, far from being neutral, so determined that this information should be withheld?’
The ProLife Alliance, represented by Josephine Quintavalle, gave evidence on Tuesday. In the face of more scaremongering from a DH armed with random newspaper cuttings about isolated incidents of violence from anti-abortion individuals (including naturally the tragic murder of Dr Tiller), she asked why they had not included information about the tireless good work done by pro-life groups internationally in supporting women facing crisis pregnancies or trauma after abortion.
She also reminded those present that abortion is an illegal action if it does not conform to the exemption clauses of the Abortion Act, and that it is therefore unlike any other medical procedure. She stressed that abortion figures are a record of the termination of the lives of babies, not a record of the doctors who performed them, or even of the mothers who underwent them. It is surely a right for the public to know exactly why these lives were sacrificed.
The decision to change the method of reporting abortion statistics, as we well know, is a knee-jerk reaction to the Jepson Case, in which a doctor who had performed an abortion post-24 weeks for cleft palate self-identified following an absolutely legitimate police inquiry into the legality of said abortion.
Abortion statistics per se do not identify doctors or women, and it would be an impossible needle in a haystack exercise to unravel who had performed any particular abortion or those who had undergone them by any in-depth perusal of abortion statistics. Curiously no evidence of how this superhuman search could be achieved has been offered by the DH during the Tribunal Hearing.
The ProLife Alliance, in evidence, repeatedly noted that anybody in the UK wishing to get information on where abortions are being performed has simply to log on to the internet. A five-minute search will provide as much detail as one could wish for. In fact there is a sense of competition between the major abortion providers in the United Kingdom as to who offers the best deal. One provider even alludes to the quality of the sandwiches on offer.
June 3
The final day was left to the various parties to argue their case, which was more about the legal ramifications of data protection in conflict with freedom of information than about abortion itself. Anybody interested in more detail is welcome to contact us directly.
Some of the evidence was so secret that the ProLife Alliance was not even permitted to be in Court to hear it, and other evidence was either heavily redacted (blacked out) or given reluctantly only on formal guarantee that the ProLife Alliance would not reveal it to the public.
Witnesses who appeared over these last four days were:
Geoff Dessent DH
Further Spokesperson DH
Frank Nolan Office of National Statistics
Stuart Campbell FRCOG
(Vincent Argent) FRCOG not heard for technical reasons
Jane Fisher Antenatal Results & Choices
Natalie Tomecki on behalf DH
Vivienne Nathanson BMA
……………………………………………………………………………….
Long ago when the ProLife Alliance was fighting another freedom battle in relation to freedom of speech, trying to have its uncensored election broadcast shown on BBC TV, Cardinal Basil Hume wisely remarked, ‘If abortion is so horrifying that we cannot look at it, should we be doing it?’
The secrecy and censorship continues. If healthcare professionals are unwilling to stand in an open Court to defend the practice of abortion in the United Kingdom, if the Department of Health thinks it appropriate to withhold accurate statistics, is it because there is so much to hide?
7 million abortions since 1967. We need to know the truth.
June 8th, 2009 at 9:40 am
The principles that you quote in your last two paragraphs are also particularly relevant when considering the question of advertising abortion facilities on television/radio. We pray that this will not be permitted, but if it should be then the film showing an actual abortion should also be allowed. If the worst comes to the worst, I hope that the ProLife Alliance aided by other pro-life groups, will again endeavour to have this film showed. The pro-abortion lobby cannot have their cake and eat it.