Research published this week in the Canadian Medical Association Journal suggests that Canadians from Indian, Chinese, Vietnamese, Filipino and Korean backgrounds are deliberately aborting their daughters due to a preference for male children. 

Skewed sex ratios have also been found amongst Indian communities in the UK, as highlighted in a 2007 study by  S Dubuc and D Coleman.

The ProLife Alliance is shocked that women living in Canada and the UK, and no doubt other countries are still at the mercy of ancient customs which run completely counter to equality of opportunity, to the point where they are even expected to kill their own children. 

The Guttmacher Institute and the World Health Organisation (WHO) have published a study in the Lancet linking increasing global numbers of unsafe abortions to countries where abortion is illegal. As the Guttmacher Institute states that one of its five aims is to allow people to “exercise the right to choose safe, legal abortion”, these conclusions come as no surprise.
 
It should be observed that legalising abortion does not lead to safe outcomes for women.  There is no shortage of documented evidence to this effect.  In fact the opposite is true.  Countries such as Chile, Poland and Ireland have extremely low maternal mortality rates.  In Poland most abortions were banned in 1993.  Subsequently, both Poland’s abortion rate and the maternal mortality rate declined, and declined rapidly.  Ireland, according to the World Health Organisation 2005 maternal mortality report, has the lowest maternal mortality rate in the world.

In fact the Lancet report notes that India, where an estimated 6.5 million or 15% of global abortions occur, has liberal abortion laws, and yet an estimated two thirds of abortions there are deemed unsafe by WHO.  In Cambodia abortion is legal upon request in the first trimester, and yet over 50% of abortions are believed to be ‘unsafe’.

According to the report, the regions with the highest rate of abortion are Eastern Europe and Russia, where Communist regimes introduced liberal abortion laws decades ago.  South East Asia is the region with the second highest rate of abortion, and most of this is accounted for by Vietnam, which has very liberal abortion laws, and where there are financial penalties for parents having more than two children.  It should be noted that Marie Stopes International, a UK based organisation, is involved in abortions in Vietnam, Cambodia and India. 

Acknowledging the incidence of unsafe abortions in countries with legal abortion, the report states:
“A liberal abortion law alone does not ensure the safety of abortions”, and claims that other “necessary” steps include the dissemination of knowledge about the law to women and those who might abort them, the willingness of health professionals to carry out abortions, and other factors, including “government commitment to provide the resources needed to ensure access to abortion services, including in remote areas.”
 
The Guttmacher report correctly links poor maternal outcomes with poverty.  We would suggest that the money that they request for abortions would be better spent on initiatives which help women and their families out of poverty, and on providing better maternity care for women, of a kind known to make childbirth safer.
 
It should be added that many of the statistics that the report uses are estimates, as countries where abortion is illegal do not keep records unless complications cause admission to hospital.  Additionally, only 57 of the 84 countries which they deem to have “liberal abortion laws” collect statistics about the procedures done.  Consequently, the statistics given are affected by the assumptions of the researchers about how many women have abortions.  The reasons for having unintended pregnancies are therefore also likely to be guesswork.

Whatever the true number, the ProLife Alliance believes that every one of the abortions mentioned in this report is a tragedy. Women need real, effective aid which respects both their own lives and the lives of their babies. 

Women are not informed of the risks to their mental and physical health except in the blandest terms.  They are not made aware of the considerable body of research which demonstrates these risks.  They are not made aware of the development of their own baby.  They are not given details of support available to them should they choose to have their baby.

As the ProLife Alliance has repeatedly said, women need to know the reality of abortion BEFORE the event, rather than discovering to their horror what really happened afterwards when there is no chance of turning back the clock. 

In Texas pro-lifers have carried out a successful campaign to ensure that women have the right to know.  One aspect of their campaign is a demand that women should be given the chance to see what their baby looks like – which may include an ultrasound scan prior to the abortion.  A scan provides real, live and incontrovertible evidence and gives the ‘products of conception’ a chance to be seen for what it really is, a small and very vulnerable child.  Surely women have a right to this knowledge rather than making a decision blindly?  This particular ‘woman’s right’ has met with extreme resistance from the pro-choice lobby who have appealed repeatedly against it.  For details see link. 

In their decision the appeals court observed that it is ‘obvious’ that the ‘disclosures of a sonogram, the fetal heartbeat, and their medical descriptions are the epitome of truthful, non-misleading information.’ They added that denying the woman up-to-date information ‘is more of an abuse to her ability to decide than providing the information.’

The ProLife Alliance would strongly urge that women wanting abortions should not be deprived of information on risks, on their baby’s development and on help available to have the child.  This should not be made in any way a ‘box to tick’ – just another part of the abortion paperwork.  Instead, the ProLife Alliance wants to see this information given to any woman wanting an abortion by any doctor she consults, pro-life or otherwise, as a matter of good medical practice and basic humanity.  Women need at least a chance to change their minds before going through with a ‘procedure’ which ends a human life, and which many women bitterly regret. 

Rebecca Gomperts, founder of rogue abortion provider Women on Waves, is once again in the news for an initiative that puts women’s lives at risk. Her organisation is most notorious for providing abortions to women from countries where abortion is illegal in international waters, providing no aftercare. Following a court case in her native Netherlands, Women on Waves were legally obliged to cease this work in 2009. Ms Gomperts continues to provide abortions without follow-up care. She offers a web-based service for women from countries where abortion is not permitted, posting abortifacient drugs to them in blank envelopes.  

The latest incident saw her posting information on Facebook on how women can induce self-abortions at up to 9 weeks pregnancy using a pill, Cytotec, designed to treat stomach ulcers. Initially Facebook removed this information for being in violation of the site’s Statement of Rights and Responsibilities, however, following protests from pro-choice activists the information has been re-posted.

Gomperts’ recommendation puts women at grave risk. The active chemical in Cytotec is misoprostol, which is also administered by clinics to induce abortions. No large studies have established a protocol for the use of misoprostol alone for inducing abortions. Side effects can include profound diarrhoea leading to severe dehydration, sedation and tremors. Further, the efficacy when used for abortions can be as low as only working two thirds of the time, meaning that any surviving unborn children could face disability. Several reports in the literature associate the use of misoprostol during the first trimester of pregnancy with skull defects, cranial nerve palsies, facial malformations, and limb defects.

Facebook were right to initially remove this information. It is a great shame that Facebook has backtracked under pressure from pro-choice activists and is now sharing information that endangers women and makes Facebook complicit in the death and disabling of unborn children. 

These family planning organisations claim that their brand of reproductive healthcare is the only solution to the unacceptably high rates of maternal death in the Third World.  Theirs is a very paternalistic and short-sighted solution to people who need real lasting help.  In most poor agricultural communities, manpower is essential and families rely on having children to help them.  In the next generation, in the absence of the security of pension schemes, those children in turn will look after their elderly parents.

The real cause of the high rates of maternal death is not the birth of children.  It is poverty, lack of clean water, hunger and malnutrition and their impact when women are pregnant.  Their babies are similarly affected, causing a high infant mortality.  How can these be solved by abortion?  As always, abortion is a quick fix, not a solution.

By contrast, a small social venture called AYZH is working in India to find positive ways to help poor women to improve their lives particularly in health and livelihood.  AYZH develops products which are then produced and distributed locally.  One such product is a Clean Birth Kit which costs only US$2.  Their other product is a water filter. 

The ProLife Alliance praises AYZH for their wonderful work.  This is an excellent way to help women in India and hopefully in other countries once the scheme has been developed further.  Women deserve better than abortion.

Norma was homeless at the time of her pregnancy and therefore in a desperate situation. She says that she didn’t understand what she was being asked to do. Given that Norma was only 21 years old when she became pregnant and was not from an educated background, this is hardly surprising. When the Roe v Wade judgement was made, and the reality of what she had been involved in hit her, she attempted suicide. Since 1980 she has repeatedly spoken out in favour of the right to life.

The Times article attempts to portray Norma McCorvey as ignorant and attention seeking. We believe she should be praised for being prepared to stand up and be counted – it is great that she is willing to be attention seeking in a good cause! She wants a quiet life, yet is trying to make amends for the Pandora’s Box which was opened as a result of that fateful court case in 1973.

Women who are pregnant in crisis situations such as homelessness, as Norma was, should be helped in practical terms, not provided with a quick fix which is the death her their children and the physical and emotional trauma of abortion.

The ProLife Alliance congratulates Norma McCorvey for her bravery when those who claim to be on the side of women’s rights denigrate her for her stand in favour of life.

In a heavily biased article in the Guardian (18/7/11) Dr Strickland says her findings are worrying in the light of increasing demand for abortion. She also notes that the majority of those who object on conscience grounds are Muslim.

The ProLife Alliance would like to remind Dr Strickland that the vast majority (96.96%) of abortions are carried out for so-called mental health reasons, which is a catch-all term for ‘social reasons’. It is hardly surprising that this will be abhorrent to many people, including doctors of whatever religious belief system.

The Department of Health is quoted as saying that “patients’ clinical needs always come first and it is unlawful to discriminate on the grounds of religion or belief.” As the Department of Health is responsible for producing statistics on abortion, they should be aware that it is rare for there to be a clinical need for abortion. Also, as it is unlawful to discriminate on the grounds of religion or belief, surely this should include the religion or beliefs of doctors, including Muslim doctors, who are particularly singled out in Dr Strickland’s comments.

From their comments, both Dr Strickland and the Department of Health appear to be under the impression that abortion is ‘subject to demand’ rather than regulation under the Abortion Act. The fact that abortion rates are increasing is a cause for concern, not that the next generation of doctors is less willing to condone them. Abortion, which ends the lives of around 200,000 unborn children each year in England and Wales, should never be treated as a consumer product.

The ProLife Alliance upholds the right to freedom of conscience for all involved in abortion, whether on religious or humanitarian grounds. It is worth noting that freedom of conscience is taken into account in the political field, where abortion is subject to a free vote. This is a major disparity which should be remedied.

A spokesman for the ProLife Alliance says “we are delighted that our future doctors are far more aware than the previous generation of the true nature of abortion, and more inclined to act accordingly. This is a real sign of hope for the future.”

The majority of Poles are pro-life. In addition to the fact that most Poles are Catholic, abortion is associated with their communist past and is unpopular with the majority of people.

Yet last week, on the heels of a 600,000 signature petition including obstetricians, gynaecologists, lawyers and journalists among its signatories, Poland’s government voted to tighten their abortion laws further by an overwhelming vote of 254 – 151 with 11 abstentions. Those organisations who have made this possible freely admit that to do so, they had acted very quietly in order to bypass the Western media and English language press and avoid foreign powers pouring money into the country to oppose their popular efforts.

The battle is not finished however, as the abortion ban must be approved by the Polish Senate and President Bronisław Komorowsk (who has expressed his reluctance to sign). The next stage is due in early September. Polish pro-life campaigners have stated that they will ensure that abortion is a major election issue in the autumn elections.

The ProLife Alliance congratulates the people and government of Poland for their brave stance in the face of EU strong arm tactics. Poles have a right to feel very proud of their strong advocacy for both women and their unborn children.

In spite of the huge number who objected, BCAP has launched a new consultation dated 27.6.11 proposing to liberalise the rules for advertising post-conception services. The changes are:

- Removing the television rule preventing commercial services offering personal advice from advertising.

PLA says: This will have the effect of increasing the number of pregnancy advice services which will be allowed to advertise.

- Removing the radio rule permitting advertising only by those Family Planning Centres with local authority or NHS approval.

PLA says: As with the first change, this will open up advertising to a wider number of pro-choice organisations.

- Introducing a new rule applying to both television and radio requiring medical and health advice services to provide suitable credentials before being able to advertise.

PLA says: How likely is it that pro-life organisations will be accredited?

- Introducing a new rule to require services offering post-conception advice on pregnancy that do not directly refer women for a termination to make that fact clear in their advertisements.

PLA says: This is obviously directed at pro-life organisations who do not refer for abortion but offer serious pro-life alternatives and support to women

We urge you to submit to this consultation and register your complaints.

China’s policy has the support of both UK and US government funding, via their overseas family planning policies, often euphemistically termed ‘Reproductive Health’ strategies. David Cameron recently responded to a letter from the ProLife Alliance saying that the British Government does not support China’s One Child Policy. What he neglected to add was that UK tax payers’ money is paid to Marie Stopes International who are heavily involved in the massacre and indescribable suffering.

The ProLife Alliance urges you to click on the link to this international petition and pass it on to as many people as possible, including those who are in favour of ‘a woman’s right to choose’ reminding them that the women of China have no choice.

We hope you will also pass on two videos. The first is footage from Al Jazeera focussing on an individual Chinese family’s story. The other shows how one US woman works tirelessly to bring this horror to an end. Reggie Littlejohn is an example to us all.