The French-based Jérôme Lejeune Foundation (JLF), whose founder identified the genetic basis to Downs with a view to developing a better quality of life for his treasured patients, is asking every pro-life group in Europe to join a petition in opposition to this anti-life claim.  We must ensure that any such case is soundly defeated in the ECHR.  

The ProLife Alliance believes that the conception, development and birth of every baby is to be celebrated, and that human life in the womb must never be treated as a consumer product, to be rejected if not considered good enough. 

Please, like us, support JLF in their work and sign on to the petition when it goes up on their website later this week.  

And we suggest again that you watch and circulate this link where a young boy sings for his sister who has Downs.

It is more than time for an extensive inquiry into the practice of abortion in the United Kingdom, not just focusing on private clinics subcontracted by the NHS, but equally importantly the NHS itself, given that abortions post-24 weeks can only be performed by the NHS.

Recent horrifying research revealed very significant under-reporting of such late abortions, showing sometimes double the figures as recorded in the official Department of Health Abortion Statistics, and the research included harrowing descriptions of babies who had survived the abortions and survived for some hours after, as they were left to die.  This is an aspect of abortion which demands the most transparent levels of investigation.

As does the equally horrifying practice of late abortions taking place in two different countries, starting with feticide in the United Kingdom and the final stage of evacuation occurring in the country of the foreign nationals' origin.  This is not scare-mongering, but accurate information which was revealed following a Freedom of Information inquiry from the ProLife Alliance.  It was disclosed that over a recent 4-yr period 14 Italian Nationals had availed themselves of this protocol.  Such abortions will have been initiated with feticide taking place in NHS premises. It is extremely doubtful that such practice conforms even minimally with the UK Abortion Act. 

We congratulate Andrew Lansley on this very important first step to tighten up on widespread abuse of the Abortion Act.  

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

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.

Whilst we never backed the amendments, the considered and reasoned response from Health Minister Anne Milton has come as a consequence of the questions that have arisen from the debate. The debate has reinforced public opinion that there are too many abortions and that action needs to be taken to make sure that fewer women have crisis pregnancies. We look forward to engaging with the Government consultation on pregnancy counselling to look at the facts and produce evidence-based policy. We would encourage as many people as possible to contribute to this process. 

Olivia Darby

0207 5816939

Within the current debate, on all sides, counselling, as a term, has been bandied around but not defined. When counselling is being debated, what is its nature, purpose or content and how is it accredited?

The ProLife Alliance has always believed that anybody involved in abortion provision or referral should be delivering accurate information on the psychological and medical risks associated with abortion

The current debate has not differentiated between the legal requirement to provide women seeking an abortion with medical information about the risks associated with abortion and more formal counselling. There is a clear difference between counselling and the provision of information.

Further, whilst abortion providers say they should be able to provide and do provide counselling, there has in the past been a tendency for pro abortion organisations to dismiss the need for such support. There have been many reports of conveyor-belt style abortion centres where women are rushed through an abortion without feeling that they have been enabled to make a fully informed or calmly considered choice. We believe that all women should be informed about alternatives to abortion, and that anybody, whether pro-life or pro-choice, should be properly equipped to discuss these alternatives.

It is unclear how the current amendments, which we believe have been proposed with the right intentions, would work in practice. For example, who would be responsible for ensuring that information provided to women was objective and accurate? We are concerned that these amendments will not achieve the aim of providing appropriate counselling to women.

The ProLife Alliance maintains its total opposition to terminating the life of the unborn child and is convinced that women and their families deserve better than abortion. We pin genuine hopes on the forthcoming Government consultation on abortion which we hope will unravel many of the current misunderstandings.

Should you wish for any of these ideas to be elaborated upon, please do not hesitate in contacting us.

Olivia Darby 0207 581 6939

Two nurses have recently used equalities legislation to ensure that they would not be discriminated against for refusing to be complicit in abortions. The Christian nurses were moved to a clinic where they were required to administer two drugs (Mifepristone and Misoprostol)  to pregnant women. When the pair learned that these drugs were causing which cause “early medical abortion” and that consequently they were participating in abortions they objected but clinic managers instructed them to continue with the work, contravening their freedom of conscience rights. 

The nurses made enquiries, and following clarification from the Thomas More Legal Centre, who wrote to the hospital where they worked, they were told that they would no longer have to administer the abortifacient drugs but would have to continue working in the clinic.

Neil Addison, their lawyer, intervened again, writing to the hospital noting that the nurses would still be “morally complicit in abortion” and did not want to work in the clinic in any capacity. The hospital changed its stance and move the nurses to another department.

Section 4 of the 1967 Abortion Act, already states that nurses have the right to conscientious objection to involvement in an abortion, but here the use of equality laws should protect the courageous nurses from further discrimination which could affect their future careers.

Mr.  Addison stated that the Equality Act protected their ability to take this position, without reference to their religious beliefs, as the sanctity of life is a protected philosophical belief. This means that any pro-life medical professional’s rights to conscientious objection should be protected, regardless of their religious background.   

​Full story here

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.