Repeat abortion statistics

Abortion trauma

Young woman with cancer who gave birth despite warnings from her doctor

How surprising that under the presidency of Barack Obama, noted supporter of abortion, there should be such positive acknowledgment of the humanity of the unborn child.
 

This is a terrible story and when linked to the history of forced abortions under the Chinese aggressive one-child policy, we are rightly aghast at such unethical behaviour. 

But how clear is our conscience?  What exactly do we know about the disposal or use of fetal tissue after induced abortion in the UK? It is hopefully not being used for cosmetic purposes, but is nevertheless finding its way legally from the abortion clinic to the research laboratory.

Such research is ‘regulated’ using the Human Tissue Act, although not very adequately it would appear if we read the statement of Anne Milton, Under-secretary of State for Health, in Hansard (26 July 2010 : Column 828W):

'The Human Tissue Act 2004 requires that the storage of human tissue for research, and other "scheduled purposes" is licensed. The regulator responsible for licensing is the Human Tissue Authority (HTA). However, the HTA does not have a category of "fetal tissue bank" and so could not give reliable figures for fetal tissue banks in operation. It has published a series of Codes of Practice on key activities involving human tissue, including consent (Code of Practice 1) and research (Code of Practice 9).'

Our horror is of course justifiable, and we hope this appalling trade will be stopped. 

But no matter what happens to the remains of aborted babies, it will never be as horrifying as what happens to them when they are living in the womb. Abortion as we know always ends their tiny lives.

What we have seen, however, from a US Government hugely in favour of population control, is an extremely embarrassing situation for prominent US politicians such as Hilary Clinton and even President Obama himself, whose support for abortion is no secret.    

Attorney Chen Guang Cheng had been captive in his own home after spending years in prison for his outspoken opposition to forced abortion and sterilisation in his country, but he has continued to monitor and expose to the world the brutal campaigns and victimization of thousands of Chinese citizens to further the Government's anti-life ideology.

The victimisation of Chen Guang Cheng, and his extraordinary heroism,  has placed not just the likes of Hilary Clinton in an embarrassing spotlight, but also many of our own UK journalists (even newspapers!) who are so idealistically committed to so-called abortion rights.  And Marie Stopes International?  It would be interesting to hear from them and their funders, who include the UK Government.

Even Amnesty International, fighting abuse of  human rights on the world stage , has completely glossed over the pro-life background of Chen Guang Cheng.

However, most will view this as a positive development.  Doctors may actually be reluctant to perform abortions because they wish to heal people, not to kill.  Is it any wonder that very few doctors will perform late abortions, at a gestational age when the babies are so recognisably human?

Abortion clinics across the country have been exposed, both by a Daily Telegraph sting and by the Care Quality Commission, as falsifying paperwork.  There is also significant under-reporting of abortions, so that it is no longer possible to even believe the figures in the official statistics.

For doctors with guilty secrets, extended scrutiny may seem like a witch-hunt.  But it is very heartening to note that other doctors are becoming increasingly reluctant to take part in abortion.  They have a legal right to conscientiously object, and thankfully more and more are doing so.

Baroness Knight says:

I was elected to Parliament in 1966.  The following year, a young MP from Scotland introduced a Bill to legalise abortion.  In my constituency there is a famous hospital – the Queen Elizabeth, which is a part of the University of Birmingham.  Shortly after the Bill came into being, the Chief Gynaecologist and the Chief Psychiatrist from that hospital wrote to ask me for a joint interview, which of course I was happy to arrange.

They began by asking me how I intended to vote on this Bill; I said I really did not know much about the subject.  For the next hour and a half they talked, each drawing widely on the experience they had gained in a life-time of professional care.  They expressed their fears of what Parliament was about to do, and while they fully understood the reasons put forward for the Bill – a lot was being said about the horrors of back street abortions and the problems faced by those who had become pregnant without wishing to be – they had so many warnings, and, in the time over which they spoke to me, I became a dedicated opponent of what was proposed.

This did not endear me to my colleagues.  The Speaker rebuked me for being ‘emotional’ when I described precisely how an unborn child was literally torn to death in the course of being aborted, and said, quite truthfully, that it is illegal to treat any animal like that; for I knew from my doctor advisers that even an unborn child feels pain.  There were so many points on which (taking their specialist advice) I warned the House:  That although the Bill’s promoters swore it would never lead to abortion on demand, in fact, it would.  That abortions would eventually be done because the sex of the coming child was not what the mother wanted, or because the child might be defective in some way.  That abortion would be regarded as a means of contraception.  That it would lead to irresponsibility.  That there would be women who would suffer serious psychiatric problems after an abortion.  That millions of children, who could easily have been found happy adoptive homes would never even have a life at all.  I was reviled for stating these things, and I was the only woman MP who voted against the Bill.

Today, I earnestly wish that I had been wrong – yet every one of my warnings has come true.  I hope those who still fight for the smallest, the most helpless and the most innocent of all live creatures today, will not give up.  I know the Abortion law will remain on the Statute Book, but I weep for the six or seven million babies whom the Act has already denied a life, and for the women to whom they would have been born.

Signed Jill Knight, March 2012

The colloquium between these two experts, Dr Priscilla Coleman who is Professor of Human Development and Family Studies at Bowling Green State University in Ohio, and Dr Patricia Casey who is Professor of Psychiatry at University College Dublin, was well attended by an audience comprised of medical academics and practitioners, together with many others involved in various aspects of crisis pregnancy and abortion, from both sides of the debate.

The attendance was much larger than expected and we apologise sincerely to those who had to stand.

We thank very sincerely the politicians who hosted the event, the Rt Hon Jeffrey Donaldson and Mr Stewart Jackson, and the many others who interrupted an extremely busy day in both Houses, in order to register their support, or did so by email.  We were pleased to greet in person Mrs Nadine Dorries, Mr Ian Paisley and Mr David Amess.

The ProLife Alliance extends thanks to colleagues from other pro-life groups who helped in the planning of the meeting, particularly Mrs Bernie Smyth from Precious Life NI, who brought personal good wishes from members of the DUP.  Christian Concern provided considerable practical help and advice.

A special thank you to Dr Peter Saunders, CEO of the Christian Medical Fellowship, who chaired the event with his usual gracious and competent expertise.

We acknowledge with particular gratitude the continued support and gracious presence at the meeting of Baroness Masham.  

In conclusion Baroness Knight addressed those present with a very moving message of encouragement, recollecting the 45 plus years she has been in Parliament, during which time she has spoken out fearlessly against the 1967 Abortion Act and its tragic aftermath.   We will shortly publish a reflection from her but in the meantime her message to those present on Tuesday was to ‘Hold firm and never give up.’

Professor Coleman will be in the McAuley Postgraduate Centre, Mater University Hospital, Dublin on Friday 9th March 4-6pm to give a further presentation.  This event is CME/CPD accredited.   

If anybody wishes to obtain the Powerpoint presentation from the meeting please get in touch with the ProLife Alliance.  Considerable material coordinated by Prof Coleman and others can be obtained on the WeCare website.  

The ProLife Alliance has always argued that sex-selection abortions under our current lax abortion practice would not be difficult to obtain, particularly in the first trimester, but this is conclusive evidence verified by powerful video footage. 

It is well known that vast majority of abortions (some 98%) are performed under Clause C in the Abortion Act for the mental health of the women, and there is of course no duty to record the sex of the aborted babies, so it has always been impossible to identify specific cases of social sex selective abortion.   Now we have the evidence and at last the true nature of the abortion industry in the United Kingdom is being exposed.

We are very pleased that the Health Secretary, Andrew Lansley, is taking this issue so seriously. News has just come in that the head of the Care Quality Commission, responsible for monitoring practices in abortion clinics, has resigned. Dr Sivarama, the Manchester obstetrician in the video, claims to be the only individual healthcare provider approved by the Care Quality Commission and the Department of Health to perform medical abortions at under nine weeks.

The reality about abortion in the UK is that it is virtually on demand and much as we are horrified about the nature of sex selective abortions, we should acknowledge the fact that every abortion takes the life of a baby, whether boy or girl.  In Sweden where abortion is on demand up to 18 weeks, they had to acknowledge that they could not legally prevent abortions of this nature.  If any reason is good enough to permit abortion, why not then for the wrong sex?

For further comment please contact 020 7581 6939 or email info@prolife.org.uk

The purpose of Right to Know legislation is to enable women to make an informed choice.  It is generally accepted medical practice for patients to be fully informed of medical procedures.  How much more important it is that women have this right when the procedures involved are completely irreversible and will cause the death of her unborn child.  

In January, the  state of Texas made a change to their legislation so that women seeking an abortion should be offered the chance to see a scan of their unborn baby beforehand. 

Texas is well-known (along with Ohio) as having an overtly pro-life approach to abortion and the requirement to provide ultrasound is the latest addition to their legislation.

The Daily Telegraph headline gives the misleading impression that Texas is ‘forcing’ women to see the scan.  In fact the legislation places an obligation on the doctor performing the abortion to obtain informed consent.  There is no obligation for anybody asking for abortion to view the ultrasound but they must listen to the doctor’s verbal explanation unless they are covered by one of the 3 exemption clauses (rape, underage, or fetal abnormality).  If not within these categories, women are expected to listen but do not have to look.   

One could argue cogently that Texas is treating abortion like any other medical procedure.  The medical professional always has a duty to fully inform the patient of what is being done.  Under any other circumstances this requirement would not be considered unusual, in fact it would be considered an ethical obligation.  The duty to provide ultrasound will seem invasive for those who defend abortion as a right but from our pro-life perspective we would say it is appropriate that patients know as much about abortion as they would about any other operation.  

It is an opportunity also to give the second patient (the developing baby) a chance to be in the picture.  The ProLife Alliance is often approached by women who regret their abortions and express the wish that they had known more about fetal development before rushing into the abortion clinic.   

We need to remind the UK public that legally abortion is not a right in the UK.  It remains illegal to kill the unborn child unless certain requirements are met.  In Texas they have simply added a further requirement.