Phenomena such as the one-child policy adopted in China and surreptitious sex-selective abortion in India and the Middle East are largely responsible for the skewed sex ratios now presenting themselves in these countries.

The ProLife Alliance has long been aware of the abuses occurring in some of these countries in relation to female babies. We particularly note an observation made in The Economist about the unprecedented rate of suicide in Chinese rural woman aged 15-34, the commonest form of death amongst this demographic. Journalist Xinran Xue attributes this anomaly to the psychological impact that abortion and infanticide are having on these women, unable to cope with the trauma of killing their daughters. This analysis is borne out by a significant body of research, which exposes the devastating psychological effects which abortion can inflict.

A spokesperson for the ProLife Alliance said:

“We are grateful to The Economist for highlighting the massive problems facing many Asian countries due to abortion. As well as destroying the lives of over 100 million baby girls, the psychological trauma of abortion is also destroying the lives of their mothers. In addition the wider societal impact of condemning a large body of young men to a future without a wife and without a family is only beginning to be understood.  How groups purporting to uphold women’s rights can continue to promote abortion in the face of such evidence is beyond belief. The only viable solution to these nightmare problems is a blanket ban on abortion.”

NOTE TO EDITORS

The article can be found online here:

http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15636231

Phenomena such as the one-child policy adopted in China and surreptitious sex-selective abortion in India and the Middle East are largely responsible for the skewed sex ratios now presenting themselves in these countries.

The ProLife Alliance has long been aware of the abuses occurring in some of these countries in relation to female babies. We particularly note an observation made in The Economist about the unprecedented rate of suicide in Chinese rural woman aged 15-34, the commonest form of death amongst this demographic. Journalist Xinran Xue attributes this anomaly to the psychological impact that abortion and infanticide are having on these women, unable to cope with the trauma of killing their daughters. This analysis is borne out by a significant body of research, which exposes the devastating psychological effects which abortion can inflict.

A spokesperson for the ProLife Alliance said:

“We are grateful to The Economist for highlighting the massive problems facing many Asian countries due to abortion. As well as destroying the lives of over 100 million baby girls, the psychological trauma of abortion is also destroying the lives of their mothers. In addition the wider societal impact of condemning a large body of young men to a future without a wife and without a family is only beginning to be understood.  How groups purporting to uphold women’s rights can continue to promote abortion in the face of such evidence is beyond belief. The only viable solution to these nightmare problems is a blanket ban on abortion.”

NOTE TO EDITORS

The article can be found online here:

http://www.economist.com/world/international/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15636231

During a consultation in March 2009, BCAP was proposing to include a rule in their advertising code about post-conception advice services which would in effect allow abortion clinics to advertise their services on television.

There was a very strong backlash against these proposals by prolife groups, not least the ProLife Alliance, who quickly collected over 3,000 signatures in protest.

Camilla Bertenshaw of the ProLife Alliance said:

‘We are encouraged by BCAP’s statement to date, and it is clear that the ProLife Alliance has made its voice heard.  Campaigning against these measures has certainly been effective and we thank all our supporters who took the time to make their opinions known.

‘BCAP state that the regulatory position for the moment in relationship to post-conception advice will remain unchanged.  We must not, however, feel complacent but must continue to campaign so that the BCAP’s current position remains unaltered.’

During a consultation in March 2009, BCAP was proposing to include a rule in their advertising code about post-conception advice services which would in effect allow abortion clinics to advertise their services on television.

There was a very strong backlash against these proposals by prolife groups, not least the ProLife Alliance, who quickly collected over 3,000 signatures in protest.

Camilla Bertenshaw of the ProLife Alliance said:

‘We are encouraged by BCAP’s statement to date, and it is clear that the ProLife Alliance has made its voice heard.  Campaigning against these measures has certainly been effective and we thank all our supporters who took the time to make their opinions known.

‘BCAP state that the regulatory position for the moment in relationship to post-conception advice will remain unchanged.  We must not, however, feel complacent but must continue to campaign so that the BCAP’s current position remains unaltered.’

Whilst finding repugnant the actions of ‘Angie the Anti-Theist’, as she likes to call herself, in publicising her abortion in this manner, the ProLife Alliance is nevertheless not in favour of censorship of her internet presence, providing no laws have been contravened.

A Spokesman for the ProLife Alliance said;

“The manner in which Angie spoke of her unborn child during the abortion, calling it “layers of cells”, “a carcass” and “a parasite” is inaccurate as well as distasteful. Such terms deny basic biological facts.  Even from the earliest stages of pregnancy the developing baby is a human being, and conception is recognised as the beginning of life. It is not a random collection of cells.

We do not feel that the use of such phrases are simply part of the ‘healing process’ as Angie tries to argue, but they seem to be a deliberate attempt to upset pro-lifers and their values.  It does seem that she has tried to make provocative statements and deliberately offend those with pro-life views.

She is also dismissive of the emotional impact of abortion, when it is acknowledged that particularly those who suffer from psychiatric illness are likely to feel worse rather than healed after an abortion.

Whatever Angie’s motivation, given the objectionable and aggressive way she presents her arguments, we feel that her blog is more likely to win support for the pro-life and not the pro-abortion lobby.

It is impossible not to feel deeply saddened by her totally dismissive attitude to the termination of the life of her second child.”

Simon Hopkins from the ProLife Alliance commented:

“In reply to the consultation process the ProLife Alliance submitted a response outlining its belief that any form of guidance in effect legitimises assisted suicide, a crime under the Suicide Act 1961, in certain circumstances. Our opinion has not changed with the publication of the final policy, however we do recognise that Mr Starmer was dealt a difficult hand with the Law Lords’ decision that the law needed clarification, and recognise that some of the more egregious aspects of the interim policy were removed. Specific factors against prosecution, such as that the victim was disabled, suffered from a terminal illness, or had previously attempted suicide, were removed following public pressure.

“However we regret that not all the factors against prosecution were removed. The only conceivable reason why someone would want to know what factors there are against prosecuting a crime is because they were interested in committing that crime.  The status quo was that the DPP had discretion over whether to prosecute or not and we believe that this acted as an adequate deterrent while taking into consideration individual cases. By listing factors against prosecution he is in effect creating a check-list for potential malefactors to consider before breaking the law.

“However even were we to accept the rationale of publishing factors against prosecution, there are still serious concerns. The focus on the motive of compassion as a factor against prosecution is fundamentally flawed as motives can be mixed or unverifiable. Definitions of ‘only minor encouragement or assistance’ will vary from person to person and can be subjective.

“While we welcome the DPP’s statement that ‘nothing in this policy can be taken to amount to an assurance that a person will be immune from prosecution’, and his assurance that the police will continue to investigate all cases of encouraging or assisting suicide, we believe these guidelines still represent a grave risk to the lives of the vulnerable. We do not believe the DPP should have been invited to produce guidelines in the first place and will continue to  hold the CPS to account in its handling of cases of assisted suicide.”

The policy lists sixteen ‘public interest factors’ in favour of prosecution, and six against. The six factors against prosecution are:

• The victim had reached a voluntary, clear, settled and informed decision to commit suicide.
• The suspect was wholly motivated by compassion.
• The actions of the suspect, although sufficient to come within the definition of the crime, were of only minor encouragement or assistance.
• The suspect had sought to dissuade the victim from taking the course of action which resulted in his or her suicide.
• The actions of the suspect may be characterised as reluctant encouragement or assistance in the face of a determined wish on the part of the victim to commit suicide.
• The suspect reported the victim’s suicide to the police and fully assisted them in their enquiries into the circumstances of the suicide or the attempt and his or her part in providing encouragement or assistance.

The figures from the Office of National Statistics show that 40,000 or 40 in 1,000 teenage girls become pregnant in Britain every year, and shows that the government’s target of halving under-18s pregnancies by 2012 cannot be met.

The ProLife Alliance says “The incidence of teenage pregnancies in Britain is far too high, and it is even more shocking that half of pregnancies in under-18s end in abortion.

There is a clear and urgent need to tackle these issues, as reducing the number of teenage pregnancies would lead to a corresponding decrease in the number of abortions in this age group.

The current government strategy is clearly not working and the sex education of teenagers is a priority issue that needs to be reviewed. In the Sex Education Act the government wishes to impose on all schools these counterproductive policies of making contraception and abortion evermore widely available without parental control. We would encourage the government to include increased support for pregnant teenagers in its renewed strategy, so that those finding themselves in a crisis pregnancy situation at such a young age do not feel the need to turn to abortion.

The ProLife Alliance believes in the inalienable right to life of all human beings from conception. As well as abortion infringing the rights of the foetus, it can have hugely detrimental effects on the psychological and emotional wellbeing of these young women.”

“The law – together with the values and standards of our caring professions – supports good care, including palliative care for the most difficult of conditions; and also protects the most vulnerable in our society. For let us be clear: death as an option and an entitlement, via whatever bureaucratic processes a change in the law might devise, would fundamentally change the way we think about mortality.

The risk of pressures – however subtle – on the frail and the vulnerable, who may feel their existences burdensome to others, cannot ever be entirely excluded. And the inevitable erosion of trust in the caring professions – if they were in a position to end life – would be to lose something very precious.”

These comments come on the eve of the publication of the Director of Public Prosecution’s guidelines on assisted suicide. Commenting on the Prime Minister’s statement, Simon Hopkins from the ProLife Alliance said:

“We welcome this timely intervention in the assisted suicide debate by Gordon Brown and fully support his well-thought-out views on the subject. There is a clear cross-party consensus that assisted suicide should not be legalised which has been borne out time and again in votes in both the House of Commons and the House of Lords. However there is now a danger that Parliament’s prerogative to determine the law will be circumvented by imminent guidelines and would advise the DPP to take note of the overwhelming level of informed opinion against assisted suicide as he finalises his policy.”

Camilla Bertenshaw of the ProLife Alliance says,

‘As the facts have been admitted by Ray Gosling this is clearly a case of intentional killing and in no way should be confused with the current debates about assisted suicide.

‘The media continues to report this latest end of life story as a further example of assisted suicide (helping someone to die), when it is clearly by Mr Gosling’s own admission an act deliberately committed by him to end the life of the other person.

This is normally referred to in law as murder.

‘The police have a clear duty to investigate immediately what is potentially a homicide case, and their inquiries should extend to the role of the hospital and the specific doctor mentioned by Mr Gosling when he recounts what he did on the day in question.

‘A further big question has to be raised as to whether the BBC should have contacted the police as soon as they were made aware of Gosling’s confession.’

Today a General Medical Council (GMC) panel determined that Dr Saroj Adlakha’s name be erased from the medical register. The panel found that the Birmingham GP’s fitness to practise was severely impaired because of several instances of severe misconduct centring around the procuring of a late abortion for her daughter knowing that it was illegal under British and Spanish law.

In its statement on the case the GMC pronounced:

“The Panel has expressed its concern regarding two core features of this case – namely, your [Adlakha’s] willingness to provide support, advice and assistance to obtain an abortion which you knew or believed would be unlawful, and multiple instances of deceit, lack of probity and dishonesty. These failings, together with a total lack of demonstrable insight on your part, are so serious as to be incompatible with your continuing to be a registered medical practitioner. All key elements of the public interest – particularly, the maintenance of public confidence in the medical profession and the declaring and upholding of proper standards of behaviour – require that, in all the circumstances of this case, erasure is the only appropriate sanction.”

Commenting on the case for the ProLife Alliance Simon Hopkins said:

“It is clear from the GMC ruling that the sanction of erasure from the medical register was the only possible judgement on a case of such severity. Not only did Dr Adlakha flout the law as she understood it, but in addition her misconduct was repeated, took place over a prolonged period of time, and involved deep subterfuge and dishonesty. The outrage which these incidents have justifiably aroused confirms the medical community’s condemnation of late abortion and will fuel the debate over whether the abortion limit should be further reduced.”