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.

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.

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.

Fiona Beveridge writes:

Kate Smurthwaite, a pro-choice comedian, wrote a ‘Comment is Free’ piece in the Guardian last weekend about the Information Tribunal’s ruling on the disclosure of abortion statistics. This was in reaction to the unsuccessful attempt by the Department of Health on the 20 April 2011 to overturn the earlier ruling in favour of the ProLife Alliance, who had originally requested this statistical information no less than six years ago in 2005. How arduous is the road to truth!

Ms Smurthwaite’s piece contains a number of factual inaccuracies, in addition to her brushing under the carpet major issues of democracy and human rights. She seems to be somewhat unaware of principal ProLife Alliance activities over the past decade, whilst attributing to us other prolife initiatives (foetal models circulated in Parliament, witnessing outside abortion clinics, operating help lines), none of which is actually the responsibility of the ProLife Alliance. We do not wish to take credit for the work of other prolife groups.

What the ProLife Alliance has done for more than a decade, however, is to defend robustly freedom of speech – a democratic freedom which normally elicits flag-waving enthusiasm from the Guardian newspaper (most recently Wikileaks comes to mind).

When fielding candidates at the General Election in 1997, some will remember that the ProLife Alliance fought a protracted legal battle against the BBC and its censorship of abortion images in our planned election broadcast. The accurate depiction of abortion, a procedure which takes place some 200,000 times a year in the United Kingdom, was censored on grounds of taste and decency. We argued successfully – at least in the Court of Appeal – that showing images of abortion was fundamental to our political message that abortion is unacceptable in a civilised society. The broadcasters, in imposing censorship, were in fact ironically illustrating our point: if something is too terrible to look at, should we be tolerating it?

Following our successful Court of Appeal ruling, the BBC appealed to the House of Lords, who sadly ruled in favour of the BBC’s censorship.

But back to the current case.

In subtitling her piece ‘the decision to publish individual figures on late terminations will needlessly expose vulnerable women to public scrutiny’ Ms Smurthwaite seems to imply that the aim of the ProLife Alliance’s battle for transparency over the abortion statistics is to identify individuals. This is an absurd accusation. It is neither the aim, nor even a likely consequence, as has been reiterated throughout the various court hearings. Individual identities can be totally protected at the same time as precise statistics about abortion (i.e. numbers, gestational age of the baby, and reasons for abortion) are made available for public scrutiny. How can a proper democratic debate be conducted in the absence of these basic facts?

The ProLife Alliance takes a compassionate, non-judgmental attitude to any woman facing a crisis pregnancy or the aftermath of abortion. We want women to have every possible support to help them continue with the pregnancy, and we want the best medical care and support for babies with disabilities and their families.

We do not believe it is in anyone’s interest for the reality of abortion to be hidden from public view. Women considering abortion have the right to information, including on the gestational age of the baby, the reality of the abortion procedure, and alternative support and help available. And society has an absolute duty to provide support for the weakest members of society – which includes providing support for anyone affected by disability or those caring for someone with a disability.

Most importantly, we have a duty to uphold the human rights of those with disability from the very beginning of human life. This means that the discriminatory practice of aborting a child on the grounds of disability – potentially legal even up to the moment of birth – should not be allowed to continue. It is not a coincidence that disability rights campaigners supported the legal inquiry taken forward by the Rev Joanna Jepson over the baby who was aborted post-24 weeks on the grounds that he/she had a cleft palate. Anyone who genuinely supports equality rights should join the ProLife Alliance and disability campaigners in opposing abortion for disability.

The political left in the United Kingdom is almost automatically associated with endorsement of human rights. What about the right to life of disabled people and the public right to freedom of information on the practice of abortion? These are the questions Ms Smurthwaite should be addressing in her Guardian article, rather than scaremongering about the ProLife Alliance.

On Monday 18 April the legal battle continues in the High Court, as the Department of Health (DoH) challenges a ruling in October 2009 from the Information Tribunal (IT) in favour of the request of the ProLife Alliance (PLA) to the Information Commissioner (IC) for full disclosure of statistical information covering the provision of late abortions.

When attention was drawn to the original cleft palate case there was huge public outrage in the United Kingdom and not just from the pro-life movement. A relatively simple surgical intervention can repair this defect and many plastic surgeons currently offer their services free to children with cleft palates living in developing countries.

Subsequent to the publicity around the UK cleft palate case, a decision was taken by the DoH in 2003 to no longer reveal detailed information about the provision of abortion in the United Kingdom, where figures fell below 10 cases. They argued that where the number of cases was low, there was a risk of identification of the women involved.

The PLA considered this an unjust and unreasonable response and one contrary to Freedom of Information legislation. It initiated a series of requests and formal applications to reverse the new policy adopted by the DoH.

Abortion statistics do not identify individual patients, and with 200,000 abortions occurring annually in the United Kingdom it would be impossible to identify any single abortion even if there was only one incident of a particular kind recorded. The public however has a right to know exactly what is happening under our current Abortion Law, not least those who like ourselves are engaged in legitimate lobbying against abortion.

A summary of the legal dispute to date follows:

2003
Following cleft palate case the DoH significantly reduced the information available for abortions performed under ground E, which relates to abortion for disability.

2005
Feb: FOI request from PLA asking for full disclosure of 2003 stats.
April: Substantive reply from DoH denying request.
May: Application by PLA for internal review of DoH decision.

2006
April: Review completed upholding decision not to reveal information in question
May: PLA complained formally to the IC

2008
July: PLA complaint upheld by IC
August: DoH appealed against judgment.

2009
29 May-1/3 June: Appeal heard by IT
October: IT ruled in favour of disclosure to PLA
November DoH appealed

2011
April 18/19: Appeal Hearing
Court 73 at 10.30

Before Mr Justice Cranston
Appellant : Department of Health
and
Respondent : Information Commissioner
and
(Additional Party : ProLife Alliance)

The RCOG guidelines referred to in the EDM, as it stands, could result in tremendous damage to women as well as undermining their right to proper care. Please see attached link for the guidelines themeselves.

The ProLife Alliance asks readers to contact their local MP to request that they sign EDM 1622. If your MP says that he or she cannot sign it because of their position, go back and ask whether they agree with it! You can find your local MP on this link.

The text of the EDM is as follows:

That this House notes that the Consultation Committee and Report of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) The Care of Women Requesting Induced Abortion fails in at least four criteria required by the Government Code of Practice; further notes that the Leader of the House has stated that the Government could not interfere because it was a RCOG Consultation Committee and not the responsibility of the Government (17 February 2011, Official Report, column 1145); further notes, however, that in the Answer to Lord Alton of Liverpool, Official Report, House of Lords, column WA425, the Government stated that the Department of Health commissioned and funded the review; further notes with grave concern, therefore, that the committee considering the review allowed only 21 days for consultation instead of at least 12 weeks as required by the Government’s guidelines and that the membership consisted almost entirely of pro-abortion personnel including representatives from the UK’s two main abortion providers, the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) and Marie Stopes International; further notes it was not until a press release from BPAS quoted the guidelines and implied that they had been finalised that it became known to a majority of interested parties that the consultation existed, by which time there were only five days for interested parties to respond; further notes that the present guidelines include a number of claims which peer-reviewed medical literature suggest are inaccurate or misconstrued; and calls on the Government to establish a further consultation with a balanced membership under the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence which will be answerable to Parliament.

The challenge is an attempt to move the country towards do-it-yourself abortion, and must be rigorously opposed. With their proposed change the mother would in effect be taking over a significant part of the current role of the abortion provider.

The acknowledged shortage of doctors prepared to perform surgical abortions is one of the reasons why abortion providers are hyping up the medical alternatives, but more significantly this present initiative is an attempt to chip away at the Abortion Act and trivialise the dramatic reality of abortion.

It is well known that the pro-abortion lobby in the UK wants to see abortion on demand in the first trimester of pregnancy and this attempt to entrust the second stage of medical abortion to the patient, would move that agenda forward dramatically.

The ProLife Alliance opposes abortion because it ends the life of the developing child, but we also have huge concern for the physical and psychological welfare of women and the trauma they may suffer after abortion. To be possibly on your own, taking medicine to end the life of a developing child, is a harrowing experience that can understandably cause huge distress to the mother. There is ample evidence already reflecting the anguish for the women involved in home abortions, particularly when they actually see their tiny unborn child flushed away in the toilet.

There are also serious side-effects to be considered including haemorrhaging, pelvic inflammatory disease, toxic shock syndrome, diarrhoea, nausea and vomiting. Many patients suffer pain or abdominal cramps, which can last for several hours. There have been two deaths in Britain caused by early medical abortion since 1991 when medical abortion was introduced.

How can the BPAS possibly portray itself as pro-woman, when it is prepared to expose women to such risks? Pro-abortion is certainly not pro-woman.

We have campaigned on informed consent issues for many years now. Women must be encouraged to explore alternative options to abortion.

We understand that you will be visiting China in November. Before you go, the ProLife Alliance would like to alert you to the terrible situation regarding forced abortion in China and the involvement of the UK government.

We urge you in particular to withdraw any overseas funding for Marie Stopes International’s programmes which involve abortion provision. The following link implicates MSI in human rights abuses in Tibet and reveals their close links to the Chinese Government family planning officials.

The horrifying reality of forced abortions in China was shown recently on
Al Jazeera in a video which recounts the terrible impact on an individual family and an abortion at 8 months gestation.

The ProLife Alliance notes that an amendment to the European Commission’s annual budget to prevent funding of coercive family planning programmes was voted in this week by a healthy majority of 372 to 279, with 21 abstentions. In addition, amendments to the 2011 budget were passed in order to make funds available for combating forced abortion, sterilisation and even infanticide. We are delighted that 24 UK MEPs voted in favour of the amendment the majority of whom (22) were Tories.

We urge the UK Government to follow the European Commission’s lead and make similar changes to overseas funding policy. It is indefensible to provide funding for such brutal purposes.

Yours sincerely

Rebecca Ng

Secretary, ProLife Alliance

• 89% of those polled support a woman’s right to know the physical, psychological and emotional risks associated with abortion.

• 82% support a legal duty on doctors to provide access to advice and information about alternatives to abortion, such as adoption.

• 78% support a compulsory cooling off period between diagnosis of pregnancy and an abortion to ensure that a mother is sure of her decision.

The survey also demonstrates the huge ignorance of the British. Only 3% got anywhere near the actual numbers of approximately 200,000.

Full details of the survey can be found on the following link.

A spokesperson for the ProLife Alliance says, the pro-abortion lobby likes to consider themselves ‘pro-choice’. We ask how can an informed choice be made without consideration of the true facts of abortion? The final question (should the abortion limit be reduced) drew 61% support. This shows that the British public instinctively know that abortion is not a good decision.