"A Gigantic Slaughterhouse ..."

Two giants bestriding the scientific world stand out in my memories of the 80s and 90s when we were fighting the legalisation of the use of the human embryo as a guinea pig. They are the late Professors Jérôme Lejeune and Erwin Chargaff. How right their predictions were on the brutalisation of society’s attitudes towards the tiniest human (the human embryo) can be seen from the data published as a result of Parliamentary Questions tabled by Lord David Alton (see pg. 131) in the Lords before the summer recess.

The replies show that since 1991 when the Human Fertilisation & Embryology Act came into force, 3,144,386 embryos have been created in UK laboratories. A total of 1,455,832 embryos were discarded in the course of treatment. 101,605 were given for research in destructive experiments. 764,311 were frozen for later use. And I am quite sure that is only the tip of the iceberg.

So far as the creation and destruction of human embryos are concerned, any that are deemed to be under par in anyway are simply thrown away without being recorded. During the same period from 1991 to 2010 only 94,090 embryos have been successfully implanted into women resulting in live births, demonstrating that at least 32 embryos are created for every one live baby born. The answers also exposed that 155 ‘admixed’ embryos (animal/human) have been produced, in the last three years since the 2008 Human Fertilisation Embryology Act came into force. This legalised the creation of a variety of hybrids, including an animal egg fertilised by a human sperm; ‘cybrids’, in which a human nucleus is implanted into an animal cell; and ‘chimeras’, in which human cells are mixed with animal embryos. The story made front page banner headlines in the Daily Mail – but it was no surprise to pro-lifers – like David Alton – who fought against both the 1990 and 2007 Acts when they were debated in Parliament. As long ago as 1987, it was predicted by the Scientific Advisory Committee to the All-Party Parliamentary Pro-Life Group (APPPLG).

Professor Erwin Chargaff, an Austrian Jew who escaped the Nazi tyranny, predicted what would happen if we adopted the recommendations of the Warnock Committee on Human Fertilisation & Embryology... using words which make the headline for this blog. Chargaff was described in the Guardian’s obituary as “one of the giants of the world of biochemistry”. He was without doubt one of the foremost scientists of the twentieth century. I first heard of him when I received a telephone call from Professor Jérôme Lejeune from Paris stressing I should contact him. Jérôme Lejeune had first gained international fame in 1958 when he discovered that the Trisomy 21 genetic defect was responsible for Down’s syndrome, the first-ever genetic disease to be identified. He went on to make many further discoveries. He also was a world name – and I am proud to say that I had known him for many years.

When in the ‘eighties we formed the Scientific Advisory Committee to the All Party Parliamentary Pro-Life Group he was one of the first people we invited and he accepted without hesitation. Their first task was to combat the Human Fertilisation & Embryology Report (1984), in reality a pathetic document which abounded in baseless claims and promises – but held overwhelming influence. Professor Lejeune had telephoned to tell me of a paper he had just read by Erwin Chargaff which completely opposed the use of IVF and the use of the human embryo as a  guinea pig. “You must ask him to join us”, I was told, “I regard him as one of the greatest biochemists ever. They cannot ignore him”. 

“They”, of course, were the public and international politicians. Chargaff was best known for his work in genetics, involving research into the chemical composition of DNA. His discoveries provided the groundwork for the greatest discovery of 20th-century biology – formulating the model of DNA, showing how genetic inheritance could pass from one generation to the next. It was for this that Francis Crick and James Watson won the Nobel Prize.

To this day, there is considerable controversy as to why Chargaff  was not included in the award (a fact noted in the Guardian obituary). In just the same way, Lejeune – often described as the “father of genetics” – was also denied the Nobel Prize. However, both men were far too open about the brutality developing in science and medicine and the arrogance of many scientists ever to have been considered by the Nobel Prize Committee. From the 1950s onwards, Chargaff had become increasingly outspoken about the manner in which molecular biology was “running riot and doing things that could never be justified”.

He believed that it was dangerous when “humans believe that the world is a machine, even assuming that humans can have full knowledge of its workings”. He warned that “the technology of genetic engineering poses a greater threat to the world than the advent of nuclear technology. An irreversible attack on the biosphere is something so unheard of, so unthinkable to previous generations, that I only wish that mine had not been guilty of it”. Lejeune’s views were also completely opposed  to the scientific elite of the day. Many of his dearest and closest friends were among his Down’s Syndrome patients and their families. The idea that abortion provided an answer to Down’s Syndrome was anathema to him as was the idea of using human embryos as guinea pigs to find a treatment.

At the time we first contacted him, Erwin Chargaff was Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry at Columbia University and I was able to track down his telephone number in New York. He was then in his early ‘eighties and had just recovered from a serious illness. He would do anything to help us he told me but in coming to London he needed his wife to come with him as he was still too weak after his illness to travel alone. I will always remember his words: “I have seen it all before, my dear”. He and his wife, Vera, were small physically. Yet, they struck us all as giants in their determination to defend the human embryo. He was an Austrian Jew and had emigrated from his homeland to America at the onset of the Nazi era. His work in biochemistry won him many international awards, including the Pasteur Medal (1949) and the National Medal of Science (1974).

For all their achievements both Chargaff and Lejeune were men of great humility. Professor Lejeune was a devout Catholic – but I have no idea about the beliefs of Professor Chargaff: I know he was of Jewish origin but whether he practiced or came to any other faith I cannot say. However, I do know that both men stood in awe of the wonder of human life which they regarded as a great mystery. They also regarded embryos as much their brothers and sisters as the rest of us. The fact that the embryo was so tiny inspired greater awe in them rather than diminishing their respect and care. That the embryonic Einstein (no bigger than a dot) contained every attribute  necessary to make his achievements they both found overwhelming.

In comparison, when Crick and Watson won the Nobel Prize for describing DNA one would have thought they were responsible for its creation rather than unraveling part of  a great mystery. Another Nobel Prize Winner, Dr. Robert G. Edwards, the doctor who developed the in-vitro fertilisation (IVF) technique, was equally arrogant as well as being very crude. Rather than evolving the technology to enable the sperm to fertilise an ovum outside the body he behaved as though he had actually created and invented life itself. Like Crick and Watson, he made it clear he could see nothing wrong in pouring embryos down the sink, aborting babies on whatever ground – and if there might be anything wrong with them – well, get rid of them and start again. In developing the procedure he practiced using his own sperm to fertilise ova and then poured the products away.

The Scientific Advisory Committee to the APPPLG were convinced that the prestigious journal, Nature, would not ignore a paper on the possible dangers and consequences of IVF and the use of the human embryo as a guinea pig, written by Erwin Chargaff. They were right. His paper, Engineering a Molecular Nightmare, was published May 21st, 1987. We used it very widely and every MP received a copy of a booklet published by the APPPLG, Upholding Human Dignity: Ethical Alternatives to Human Embryo Research to which the three contributors were Professor Lejeune, Professor Chargaff and Dr. John McLean (an English doctor of standing).

Professor Chargaff’s contribution was the reproduction of his paper from Nature – a quite deliberate act, planned from the beginning. It meant that the crude elements dominating the lobby wanting the human embryo as a guinea pig, could not, in effect, attack a journal of such eminence. Otherwise, there is no doubt that they would have been abused in every possible measure – regardless of what Lejeune and Chargaff had achieved throughout their lives. Nonetheless, they were ignored by a majority in Parliament who listened instead to the buffooneries of Robert Edwards, and the late Professor Ann McLaren who invented the term “pre-embryo” to bamboozle the public into believing that up to fourteen days the human embryo could not qualify as a member of the human family.

In his paper, Chargaff pointed out that the giant strides science had made in modern times were “composed of an infinity of tiny steps”. He expressed concern regarding unknown consequences of the process of  in-vitro fertilisation on the embryo: “In the normal conception the female egg is confronted with a very large number of viable spermatozoa”, he wrote. “FertilisatIon could then appear as a purely random event, or, alternatively, it could be looked upon as a process in which the egg selects the sperm cell with which to fuse. This is not a metaphysical quibble, though it may be an as yet unanswerable question...”

Whether it is an unanswerable question we have no idea. The powers that be have never bothered to do any long-term investigations. Although we know that the incidence of disability is higher in IVF babies, no research has ever been conducted to find out what other consequences there might be: it could be generations before we find out anything. “Helping a few couples condemned to childlessness towards getting a child may strike the obstetrical cytologist as such a laudable step”, he wrote, “but we can see the beginning of human husbandry, of industrial breeding factories.  ... Who can deny the scientific interest attaching to the production of chimaeras, to the study of human embryonic growth in an animal uterus? ... What I see coming is a gigantic slaughterhouse, a molecular Auschwitz, in which valuable enzymes, hormones and so on will be extracted instead of gold teeth.”

However, as the very reason the scientific world wanted to get its hands on embryonic human beings was to cannibalise them, their claims as to the miracle cures they would perform became more and more extravagant in order to blind the public. Newspapers and politicians lapped up their stories without ever checking the facts. Even today, the scientists involved in embryo production make exactly the same promises: their work will find cures for the incurable. Yet, in the last 23 years, the relentless and destructive experiments on human embryos have produced not one treatment or cure of any disease. Neither has the equally destructive work in producing human embryos for stem cells. There have been around 75 treatments developed as a result of stem cell work.

In every case – without exception – real progress has been achieved through the use of adult stem cells;  stem cells developed from adult skin or other  tissue or from umbilical cord blood – all of which can be done without any controversy or any form of abusive treatment of human life. The latest revelations have come almost at exactly the same time as a committee of scientists warned of “a nightmare ‘Planet of the Apes’ scenario”, in which work on human-animal creations goes too far.

Last year, more than one million experiments were carried out on genetically modified animals – mostly mice and fish carrying human DNA. As a result, the Academy of Medical Scientists set up a review to examine the growing number of any such experiments in which scientists add human genes or tissue to animals. Their Report called for a new body of experts within the Home Office to monitor the experiments. The Report’s co-author is Professor Martin Bobrow, a medical geneticist at Cambridge University, who said: “Society needs to set rules before scientists begin experiments that the public would find unacceptable. We are trying to get this out in the open before anything has happened.” Martin Bobrow has served for many years on various committees of the Medical Research Council and from the late ‘eighties was certainly among those who opposed Lejeune and Chargaff. He opposed all their attempts to prevent scientists from using the human embryo as a guinea pig. He is quite definitely in the ‘liberal’ camp. For him to call “Halt!” – I find somewhat frightening, and cannot help wondering just what has alerted him and his friends on the Academy of Medical Scientists.

Moreover, the statement in their report that most of the experiments raise no ethical or legal concerns reminds me somewhat of George Bernard Shaw’s quotation: “The one thing you learn from experience is that you do not learn from experience.” However, so far as the pro-life movement is concerned we should rather keep in mind Abraham Lincoln’s summary:  “You can fool all of the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time – but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time”. Today, each of us has a duty. We have to collect the evidence David Alton has given us through his parliamentary questions. We have to present it to our MPs – and we have to deliberately present any further evidence to them. We also have to bring to their attention the warnings from Professor Bobrow and his committee of liberals.

We know that we will not convince everybody – but in the ultimate we should at least try to convince a majority of  our MPs if only on the grounds of  the millions of pounds being wasted on so-called research in the present economic climate. Perhaps respect for human life will come later and bring with it love for our embryonic brothers and sisters.

Just How Big A Discrepancy Is There In The “Official Figures” For Complications Following Abortion...?

The British Pregnancy Advisory Service and Marie Stopes International are not the only groups in this country who seem to ignore the facts regarding possible sequelae following abortion. The Department of Health and the Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists are even worse, considering they have a duty to protect the health of the nation including women.

Nonetheless, it is not all bad news – as we can see from the Abortion Statistics for 2010. Thankfully, these indicate that an increasing number of young gynaecologists continue to refuse to perform abortions. This is very encouraging.

It began at around the Millennium when the Young Doctors Division of the BMA revolted. They were led by a young atheist and they put forward a Motion at the BMA Annual Conference requiring that hospitals should respect the conscience clause in the Abortion Act. The common situation at that time was that consultant gynaecologists would agree to abortions virtually on demand – and then require their juniors to carry out the operations! Our young atheist doctor had witnessed all too often the pressure brought to bear on colleagues with a conscientious objection to abortions being forced to do them; if they refused their careers in obstetrics and gynaecology ended.

However, the Motion at the BMA Annual Conference was passed with a huge majority. As a result, BMA officers who were anything but pro-life were compelled to demand that the Department of Health (DoH) should circulate all NHS hospitals telling them that they had to implement the conscience clause in the Abortion Act. Consultants either had to carry out the abortions themselves or make alternative arrangements.

This resulted in NHS-funded abortions being carried out in the private sector (or Independent Sector as classified by the DoH). It was followed by a gradual increase of young men and women entering obstetrics and gynaecology who had a conscientious objection to abortion. It also led to an increase in NHS-funded abortions being carried out by the BPAS and Marie Stopes Clinics. In the year 2000, only 29% of NHS abortions were done in Independent Clinics. By 2005, this had increased to 44% and in 2010, it had gone up to 59%. Only 37% were being done in NHS hospitals.

Tragically, this is not good news for the unborn baby: s/he can still be killed on demand. However, it is otherwise good news in that gradually we have very much more caring doctors serving our women and their babies. Muslim women – I am glad to say – are far more forthright in demanding to be cared for by a doctor of their own faith or by a Christian. The ones who are very slow in coming forward are the Christians. We should do everything we can to encourage Christian women (and others who are pro-life) to demand that they and their babies should be cared for by doctors who do not do abortions. This is possible under NHS Patients’ Rights.

Come to that, I know a considerable number of agnostic women who would not want to be manhandled by some gynaecologist who has just killed a few infants – albeit that they were unborn. You don’t have to be a believer to object.

Moreover, it is not all that easy for Marie Stopes and BPAS to hire doctors to operate their surgical programmes. That is why they are so keen on medical abortions such as RU486.

Marie Stopes’ witnesses actually had the nerve to complain to one Parliamentary Select Committee about the refusal of young doctors to do abortions and the problems it created. It also explains the drive at European and world-level to get Motions passed denying the right of nurses and doctors to conscientious objections in being involved in abortions.

One can also see quite clearly why we are faced with the drive to have abortions carried out in General Practitioners’ surgeries on the approval of only one doctor. And they are not sticking at doctors being in charge. They are playing safe and trying to get the law changed so that nurses can carry out the medical abortion procedure.

The claim that they are doing this for the sake of speed and the care of women is utter bunkum. Even the inadequate figures provided in the NHS abortion statistics show that medical abortions are more dangerous than surgical abortions. The NHS claims that total complications from abortions in 2010 amounted to 287 with 122 from surgical abortions and 165 from medical abortions. This, despite the fact, that only 43% (81,512) are medical procedures  as compared with 57% (108,062) of surgical cases.

Moreover, this is by no means the least of the DoH sins against women. In “Abortion Statistics for 2010”, at the bottom of the page showing complication rates by procedure and gestation, there is a footnote telling us “complications include: haemorrhage, uterine perforation and/or sepsis and are those reported up to the time of discharge from the place of termination”.

This is ludicrous. To my mind it amounts to criminal negligence in view of the fact that an increasing number of patients are discharged on the day of termination and a majority of others remain in the hospital/clinic for only two or three days at the most.

The Abortion Act requires notification forms (which includes complications) to be returned within seven days of the abortion taking place. However, when the law first came into force patients stayed in hospital for at least two or three days. Even then, responsible gynaecologists thought this was far too short a period to allow for the discovery of complications.

Quite often infections are not evident for days or even a week or more after termination; haemorrhages may not occur until a week or so (one doctor told me that a patient was admitted to his hospital haemorrhaging a full month after she had been aborted in a “charity clinic”).  Only last week, a woman contacted me saying that she was finally admitted to hospital for corrective surgery six months after her abortion in an “independent place” and, again, two months later for a further minor procedure.

Uterine perforation may consist of only a tiny “track” (like a “pin prick”) which does not become evident for some time – and may not be discovered until the woman’s womb ruptures during a further pregnancy. This also applies to weakening of the cervix which may not become evident until in a further pregnancy it is found that the neck of the womb is unable to contain the pregnancy to full term.

Furthermore, although all hospitals are supposed to check for Chlamydia in abortion patients, only 84% report having “offered” it to patients. The spread of Chlamydia in the body caused by abortion can result in horrendous complications leaving a woman infertile and suffering intense pain at periods throughout her life unless she has a complete hysterectomy. (I have known personally several women who were so afflicted. One of the girls to whom I was very close had started on a series of affairs following sexual abuse by her father from the age of 7).

When I look at the so-called number of complications following abortions I cannot help but recall that when the House of Lords Select Committee on the Assisted Dying For the Terminally Ill Bill visited Oregon they were informed repeatedly by medical witnesses that with more than 200 assisted suicide deaths there had been no complications. Professor The Lord McColl of Dulwich (Professor of Surgery, Guy’s Hospital, London) commented that if any surgeon or physician had said he did 200 procedures without any complications he would know there was something amiss.

“We come here and I am told there are no complications. There is something strange going on here.” [House of Lord Select Committee on the Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill {HL}.Volume II: Evidence. Apr 4, 2005. p.334, Q.956.]

Looking at the DoH Abortion Statistics for 2010 the figures show a total of 287 complications from 189,574 abortions. That makes one complication for every 660 procedures, well over three times the number queried by Professor Lord McColl.

I reckon there is something even stranger going on in our neck of the woods, with the DoH and the rest of the pro-abortion lobby. However, it is no good us thinking that we will leave the protesting to the women who have suffered. Every one of us can do something. At the least we should protest to our MPs (and in letters to newspapers) about the total lack of care shown by the DoH in reporting only complications resulting from abortion up to the time of discharge from the place of termination. And I think we can also safely query – without looking foolish – just how many complications are overlooked at the time of discharge!

As I have already said, it is criminal negligence. No wonder they can claim such a low rate of complications.

Why Did 'Tibet Truth' Have To Blow The Whistle On Marie Stopes International?

So we come to the work of Marie Stopes International (MSI).

One of the most horrifying things to me is that MSI receives a grant from the Department of International Development (British tax payers’ money) for their overseas programme. Despite parliamentary questions in the Lords and the Commons, as well as Motions tabled by MPs and Peers in both Houses, nobody has ever denied (least of all, Marie Stopes) that the money from the British Taxpayer enables them to operate in China where the Government policy allows couples only one child. It is a policy which is imposed ruthlessly to the point that women are dragged from their homes to be forcibly aborted... and the men forcibly sterilised.

On the contrary, MSI arranged for a Parliamentary delegation of MPs and Peers to visit their work in China to show how well British Government money was being spent!

Even worse, MSI gave the red carpet treatment to Ms. Li Bin (see left), the Minister of China’s National Population and Family Planning Commission, when they invited her to this country as a Guest of Honour in April 2010. An Early Day Motion (EDM) tabled in the Commons by Labour MP, Jim Dobbin, drew attention to the visit (noting that MSI claimed to disapprove of force and to discourage it). The MPs called for Government grants to be withdrawn from the group and stated:

“… the one-child policy has caused untold suffering and misery to millions, including forced abortions and sterilisation with imprisonment for those fighting against the law... notes... a 20-day campaign in April in Puning County, where 9,559 adults were required for compulsory sterilisation with doctors working 20 hours a day to achieve the numbers... (and) some 1,300 people were confined by force because their relatives refused to submit to the surgery...”

A number of lawyers and civil rights workers have been imprisoned for seeking to defend women from compulsory abortion. In Shandong Province, in eastern China, Chen Guangcheng (see right), a blind legal expert who had spoken out against local abuses of population control policies was imprisoned for four years and three months. His lawyers complained that local officials had barred important defence witnesses as well as members of his family from the trial. When he finally emerged from prison he was kept under house arrest where he remains. Throughout the whole of his ordeal he and his wife have been subjected to violence from police and guards as is anybody who tries to visit him.

Ms. Li Bin’s red-carpet visit to Britain occurred at about the time Marie Stopes achieved huge publicity for its advertising campaign on prime time television deliberately aimed to reach the young (including under-age children). Yet, As the EDM noted, they were strangely and totally silent about their Honoured Guest. None of us would have known about the visit but for Tibet Truth, a human rights organisation protesting about the barbarities inflicted on the people of China and Tibet. You can read their report here. Moreover, MSI still remained silent – albeit that the bloodiness and cruelty of the Chinese policy might have seemed just a bit over the top even for Mrs. Marie Stopes (see left), their founder.

She was a dreadful woman. She was a racist and elitist. Marie Stopes and Margaret Sanger (see below, who set up International Planned Parenthood) loathed blacks, browns, Jews, Gypsies, the Irish, to name a few. Anglo-Saxons were, of course, acceptable... but only so long as they were not poor. They – that is the poor – were apt to be described as feckless, and it was made abundantly clear that everything possible should be done to stop them from breeding. 

Dear old Marie and Margaret actually visualised sort-of-benign concentration camps where all those groups (as mentioned above) they considered undesirable could be harboured if they insisted upon having children. Not surprisingly, they were both great admirers of Hitler and actually visited Germany to meet him and to show that they were great supporters of his fan club.

Like Hitler, they were both up to their eyes in eugenics and were utterly self-righteous about the elimination of the disabled – both before and after birth – with no questions allowed, let alone asked!

I am not suggesting that to-day Marie Stopes International workers drag women from their homes in China to forcibly abort them. Nonetheless they act in accordance with the Chinese Government’s Family Planning Programme to ensure couples do not have more than one child – unless of course they are among the elite in the Communist Party (“all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others”). I have no doubt whatsoever that Marie Stopes workers are very polite about it. Nonetheless it is coercive abortion and sterilisation to ensure that couples do not have more than one child.

One thing we do not know is to what extent Marie Stopes is involved in Gendercide in China (or come to that in India) where there is a huge demand to destroy girl babies. In both countries there is no state old-age-pension and traditionally boys stay with their parents when they marry bringing their brides home. Thus parents are assured of being cared for in old age. If they wish to ensure that they do not die of starvation, couples (having to contend with the One-Child Policy) do all they can to have a boy. Girls are aborted, abandoned or put to death at birth. If they survived, by tradition, they would simply go to the home of the husband’s parents where they would be expected to care for them as they became more frail. It is not simply because the Chinese (and Hindu-Indians) are besotted with the idea of having boys – as we claim in the West. It is for the sake of survival that parents opt for boy children.

However the destruction of women will be disastrous for the future of the Chinese nation – which would be in keeping with the ideas of racists and elitists. In my young days, the Chinese were referred to as the “yellow peril” and exaggerated propaganda of couples “breeding” was continually peddled, terrifying some people. The fact is that the men now outnumber women by about 37 million. According to a paper in the British Medical Journal (add link) the overall sex ratio for China is 126 boys for every 100 girls. Nine provinces have ratios of 160 boys for every 100 girls.

In a speech to the House of Lords (June 9, 2010) on the issue, Lord David Alton of Liverpool said:

“The Economist described this as ‘Gendercide’. This gender imbalance is a major force driving sexual trafficking of women and girls in Asia.”

There is no hope of the Chinese building up their society for at least the next few generations or so. At the risk of being accused of regarding women as breeding machines, we have to face reality: you can have a hundred men – but if you have only one woman you will have only one baby each year. You need women to have babies – and if you have destroyed your women, you will have no babies to replace the generation.

Moreover, you would think that those who really care about women would consider the multiplicity of effects the Chinese one-child policy is having on individuals, quite apart from sex trafficking. It is a widely known fact (accepted by most people, excepting the pro-abortion lobby) that women who have had abortions are at a higher risk of self harm and committing suicide. To be subjected to coercive or even forced abortion must be absolutely devastating for the women involved. Suicides in China are extremely high and, according to the World Health Organisation (WHO), China is the only country in the world where the rate of women committing suicide is higher than the rate for men. Wikipedia states when discussing the subject that:

“Suicide in the People's Republic of China is unique among countries of the world in that more women than men commit suicide each year: according to official government statistics, in 1999 the rate per 100,000 people was 13.0 for men and 14.8 for women... According to official government statistics the male rate (13.0 per 100,000 men per year) is lower than in many other countries, including some Western countries...”

The most recent World Health Organisation suicide table (giving the latest year available for different states as of 2009) gives the same rates for China per 100,000: 13.0 for men and 14.8 for women. Still the only country in the world with more women than men committing suicide.  The figures work out at approximately 500 women a day who end their lives.

As David Alton stated:

“This extraordinary suicide rate may well be related to the campaign of forced sterilisation and compulsory abortion.”

But nobody – least of all BPAS and MSI – seems minded to check.

BPAS and Marie Stopes: The Reality Behind the Rhetoric

Today,  and over the next few posts, let’s take a look at the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) and Marie Stopes International (MSI). We can begin with a brief consideration of their claims regarding the ‘counselling’ services they provide, and those of Pro-Life organisations.

For a start, BPAS should change its name. It does not ‘advise’ on pregnancy any more than the Mafia advises on “how to grow old gracefully”. It tells you how to get an abortion and where – largely directing you to the nearest BPAS or other abortion related service and almost nowhere else. Moreover, they tell you that their advice is non-directional, at the same time leaving out half the story – all the uncomfortable bits that might put women off the abortion.

They claim that pro-life counsellors lie about any possible sequelae following abortion, including psychological and physical, such as damage to the cervix leading to prematurity in a subsequent pregnancy, infection resulting in infertility, scarring of the lining of the womb which can cause subsequent prematurity, and the possible long-term increased risk of breast cancer. There is an abundance of evidence – but all is denied by pro-abortion groups such as BPAS and Marie Stopes International.

Both organisations also put forward the dream-scene that they do not encourage abortion. They put forward the facts, they say, so that women can make their choice... what is “right for them”!

Among others, I called Margaret Cuthill, who runs ARCH (Abortion Recovery Care and Helpline) to get an update on girls who call them for help and support following an abortion. Margaret has quite a personal history. She had two abortions and understands how women feel when faced with an unplanned pregnancy they definitely do not want... and what they experience after an abortion. She also understands how they feel after giving birth to a baby who was “unplanned”.

Her second abortion involved twins – when they killed one and accidentally left the other, a little girl, whom she named Pamela. It was when she saw the scan of Pamela that Margaret rejected the offer of another abortion to clear up the “problem”. It was also then that she fully realised exactly what abortion involved; “it” was not a “blob” (or some equivalent) as counsellors assured her and as they still assure women today.

Pamela (see right, on her Wedding Day, with Margaret) was most definitely an “abortion survivor”. She and Margaret had to face many difficulties and together they worked to overcome the abortion trauma from which they both suffered.

It is a well-known fact that the death of a twin, even in early pregnancy – whether from natural causes or by abortion – can have a devastating effect on the survivor. It can cause serious psychological problems including unresolved grieving. There is also a 20 per cent increase in the risk of cerebral palsy. For more information on this issue, see The Psychology of Twinship by Ricardo Ainslie – (preferably 1st edition – University of Nebraska Pres: Lincoln and London; 1985 or 2nd edition Northvale, New Jersey, U.S.A. Jason Aronson Inc.; 1997). See also The Lone Twin: Understanding Twin Bereavement and Loss by Joan Woodward (Free Association Books LTD; 1998), The Grief Recovery Handbook: The Action Program for Moving Beyond Death Divorce, and Other Losses by John W. James and Russell Friedman (Harper Paperbacks; 1998), “Lonesome Crowd: Loss of a Twin”, Chapter 9 from Entwined Lives: Twins and What They Tell Us About Human Behavior  by Dr. Nancy Segal (Plume; 2000), and Living Without Your Twin by Betty Jean Case (Tibbutt Publishing Company, Inc, Portland, OR; 2001).

Margaret has been counselling girls suffering from post abortion problems for over twenty years now. When I asked about the latest image of their counselling put forward by BPAS and MSI, she subsequently wrote to me saying, “... of the women who come to ARCH for one-to-one counselling or those who phone the helpline for support, ALL say they did not receive any explorative counselling to identify their problems... to go into their personal emotional history... why they wanted an abortion... information on other options available to them than abortion...”  as well as the many other aspects which should be discussed.

She wrote further: “Very recently I spoke to a woman on the ARCH Helpline who had been ‘counselled’ over the phone. She said they asked brief questions, the first being can you cope? She said ‘no’ and they then spoke about the abortion, what methods she could have and what would be the quickest. Of course it was the medical abortion, so from telephone call to abortion it was only a matter of days and she couldn’t believe it was over... and then questioned herself, ‘What have I done?’”

Yet, BPAS claims: “… the charity does not exist to encourage abortion as LIFE encourages motherhood; BPAS exists to promote and enable a women’s choice. It’s all a matter of providing the information, and the space, to allow her to make the decision that is right for her at this time.”

How they must wish we all suffered from amnesia! 

I can assure you that when BPAS was launched they made it abundantly clear that their aim was to promote the availability of abortion to girls. It was unlawful (as it is still) for clinics to advertise to the public – so BPAS was set up “as a charity counselling service” to fill the gap. If abortion clinics had been able to advertise to the public, there would have been no need for BPAS – and very soon BPAS set up their own clinics so they could do the abortions for women who came.

Moreover, if today we offered prizes to girls for their stories, I do not think my front door would be broken down by girls or students clutching babies to their bosoms (or with good-sized bumps in front) to tell us how they had gone ahead with the pregnancy, taken their GCSE or degree, all because the counsellors from BPAS or Marie Stopes had told them how to arrange  for special tutorials or how to obtain grants... or housing... or which pregnancy advisory services (I mean real pregnancy advisory services) would provide the best layette. (Wouldn’t it be just too lovely to see BPAS referring girls to the Cardinal Winning Initiative so they could be guaranteed help and support!)

Instead they deride pro-life counselling services (no matter how impartial) claiming – as they have about LIFE – that “they tell lurid stories, show terrifying films about abortion” which is quite incorrect. As I have said before, LIFE in fact provides quality Relationship and Sexual Education, in addition to its work supplying BAPC-accredited non-directional counselling for women in crisis pregnancy and post-abortion, amongst a host of other services.

However, what BPAS and MSI most certainly do not do is to explain to girls – even if they ask about the development of the human foetus – the simple straightforward biological facts. And from my own experience (and from the experience of the many other people I know helping women through their distress after an abortion – sometimes many years afterwards) the fact which causes them the greatest grief is recognising the humanity of the infant they had aborted. Sometimes the realisation strikes them when they are expecting another child, sometimes it develops after seeing pictures, sometimes it is when they are unable to conceive or carry another child to term, sometimes there is simply no knowing what causes them to think of the child they felt they could not keep.

LIFE, BPAS and How a Tragic Few Becomes a Devastating Number

They will not let it go... that is, the opponents of the LIFE appointment to the Department of Health’s Independent Advisory Group on Sexual Health and HIV.

The National Union of Students has circulated amongst its members the draft of a suggested letter to Anne Milton MP, the Government Minister responsible, in which they claim that LIFE “offers no sexual health services” (untrue – LIFE provides quality Relationship and Sexual Education, in addition to its work supplying BAPC-accredited non-directional counselling for women in crisis pregnancy and post-abortion, amongst a host of other services) and that the message promoted by LIFE is “far from evidence based”... an echo of the claim made by Mrs. Ann Furedi (see below), Chief Executive of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS).

In an article on Spiked Online, she told us that she is not opposed to the LIFE appointment on the grounds that they take an absolute stand against abortion. She is opposed to their appointment because – she claims – it:

“… alters the consensus that discussion on policy should be informed by scientific fact and medical evidence… My objection to Life is not that it stands by a particular set of views and values, but that it is seemingly casual as to the clinical evidence on which these views are based. To borrow from former MP Dr Evan Harris, ‘Life representatives are entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts’.”

And neither are Mrs. Furedi or the said Dr. Evan Harris (former MP)! Mrs. Furedi continues:

“… I accept that Life can argue that the morning-after pill is immoral; but I cannot accept that the group should have a platform to argue, as it does, that emergency contraception damages women’s health (it doesn’t) or that it is a method of abortion (it isn’t – crucially it doesn’t work if you are pregnant!). Similarly I can accept that Life believes that abortion is wrong; but not that the Department of Health should indulge the group’s poorly substantiated fantasy that it causes breast cancer, infertility and post-abortion psychosis.”

In putting forward her contentions, Mrs. Furedi, it seems, simply moves the goal posts or ignores the evidence.

Her claim that emergency contraception (the Morning After Pill) does not cause abortions is based on the fantasy that pregnancy begins only with implantation of the embryo in the womb. That is clearly incorrect. When women use pregnancy tests that check for the presence of Early Pregnancy Factor (EPF) – note that term – using an enzyme assay, this is done within 48 hours of fertilisation. Implantation  occurs about a week or up to 10 days later. As Carlson states:

“Human pregnancy begins with the fusion of an egg and a sperm... the fertilised egg, now properly called an embryo, must make its way into the uterus, where it sinks into the uterine lining (implantation) to be nourished by the mother.” (Bruce M. Carlson, Human Embryology and Developmental Biology, St. Louis, MO: Mosby, 1994, pg. 3, emphasis added)

The fact is that pregnancy begins at the beginning, with the fertilisation of the ovum. If there were no embryo there would be no implantation to enable the continuation of pregnancy!

When researching on known possible risk factors connected with the morning-after pill, my friend Josephine Quintavalle – of the Pro-Life Alliance and CORE – sent me two patient information leaflets, one from Bayer Australia. Although Bayer refers to Levonelle as “emergency contraception”, they actually let the cat out of the bag in the same leaflet. They warn that a woman should not take Levonelle:

“…[if] you have previously had unprotected intercourse more than 72 hours earlier in the same menstrual cycle, as you may already be pregnant.” (emphasis added)

There is no suggestion there that pregnancy does not begin until implantation of the embryo. Perhaps they should let Mrs. Furedi know!

Moreover, we know that from the first moment the embryo is alive by the very fact that it can die or be killed… as with the mother taking the morning-after pill. We know that s/he is human; s/he can be attributed to no other species than homo sapiens. We are killing a conceived human being.

Moreover, we know that from the first moment the embryo is alive by the very fact that it can die or be killed… as with the mother taking the morning-after pill. We know that s/he is human; s/he can be attributed to no other species than homo sapiens. We are killing a conceived human being.

Germaine Greer (right) wrote of the manner in which women are being deceived in The Whole Woman:

“These days, contraception is abortion because... pills cannot be shown to prevent sperm fertilising an ovum. Whether you feel the creation and wastage of so many embryos is an important issue or not, you must see that the cynical deception of women by selling abortifacients as if they were contraceptives is incompatible with the respect due to women as human beings.” (Greer G., The Whole Woman, London: Doubleday, 1999, pp. 92-93.)

As most people are fully aware, Miss Greer is certainly not Pro-Life. On the other hand, she is straightforward and very much more intelligent than most Guardian writers and readers and those in the pro-abortion lobby. In any case, standard textbooks on embryology affirm that:

“… human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilisation (conception).” (Essentials of Human Embryology, Keith L Moore, Blackwell/Decker 1988, cf. Basic Human Embryology, Williams PL, Wendell-Smith CP, pg. 36, Pittman 2nd edition, reprint 1978; The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, Keith L Moore MSC, 1976, Update, 19th March 1997, pg. 417)

Now we come to Mrs. Furedi’s claim about the safety of the morning-after pill. Here, I will begin by citing Sir Liam Donaldson. In 2003, he wrote as the Chief Medical Officer for England & Wales to all physicians in the country, warning that the Morning After Pill dramatically increased the chances of ectopic pregnancy, a life threatening condition. He also ordered the drug’s manufacturers to change the wording of patient information leaflets to make it clearer that there is a risk of ectopic pregnancy. Similarly, the current Bayer information leaflet warns:

“If Levonelle-1 does not work, you could be pregnant. Your doctor will order a pregnancy test. If stomach pain is severe you should see your doctor immediately as on rare occasions a tubal pregnancy could occur.”

Bayer, in fact, does not deny it – any more than they deny that in rare cases taking the “Morning After Pill” can also cause depression, anxiety symptoms, insomnia, libido disorders, and irritability (as well as more commonly nausea, vomiting, dizziness, tiredness and stomach pain).

We also have to tackle head-on Mrs. Furedi’s claims regarding the safety of abortion – although I note that she does not refer to the possibility of damage to the cervix resulting in subsequent pregnancies ending in miscarriage and foetal mortality. (Maybe she feels this does not count!)

If we examine the United Nations Yearbooks for the last decade or so we will see that after Poland changed its abortions laws in the nineties (to a general ban) there was a considerable drop in foetal deaths. Foetal Deaths fell to 5.6 per 1000 live births in 1996, 4.9 in 1999, 3.8 in 2004, and 3.4 in 2008. In comparison, the figures for the United Kingdom were 4.1 in 1996, 5.3 in 1999, 5.5 in 2004 – after which there are no figures for the United Kingdom included in the UN Demographic Year Book for 2008. We have to wonder why the UK with all our advanced technology has failed to report the incidence of foetal deaths for publication in the UN Demographic Yearbook!

Recently I discovered an article written by the late Charles Francis QC in which he wrote:

“Although the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology is loath to publish any material suggesting abortion elevates the pre-term labour risk, an e-mail by its editor-in-chief, Professor Philip Steer, to a colleague let the cat out of the bag when his e-mail inadvertently reached the public domain. He wrote that ‘the link between TOP [termination of pregnancy] and pre-term labour... none of us dispute, the evidence is already overwhelming’. Many British gynaecologists would have performed abortions or referred patients for abortions without any warning of this risk. In these circumstances, one can understand the reluctance of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) to publicly admit this risk.”

Philip Steer is Emeritus Professor of Obstetrics & Gynaecology at Imperial College and is Consultant obstetrician at the Chelsea & Westminster Hospital. He has been Editor-in-Chief of the British Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology (BJOG) since 2005. Among his clinical interests are high-risk pregnancy and recurrent mid-trimester loss. (He has co-edited High Risk Pregnancy: Management Options). It is interesting that under his editorship in September 2009, the BJOG carried a major paper by P.S. Shah et al on Induced termination of pregnancy and low birthweight and pre-term birth: a systematic review and meta-analyses. In the Background to the paper it states:

“… first or even second trimester induced termination of pregnancy (I-TOP) are often considered minor and benign procedures: however, some studies report significant consequences to childbearing potentials and possibilities of LBW (Low Birthweight) and  PT (Pre-term) births…”

The paper also refers to “overt or covert infection [infection can lead to subsequent sterility]… scarred tissue that may increase the probability of faulty placental implantation and subsequent placenta previa”.

Using data from 37 prior published studies, P.S. Shah reported:

•  One induced abortion increases the risk for Pre-Term Birth (<37 weeks) in a subsequent pregnancy by 36% (RR 1.36).

•  Two or more induced abortions increases that risk by 93% (RR 1.93 – nearly double).

•  One induced abortion increases the risk of Low Birth Weight (<5_pounds) by 35% and more than one induced abortion increases that risk to 72%.

Low-birthweight babies are at increased risk of serious health problems as newborns, lasting disabilities and even death. One example of possible disability is increased risk of cerebral palsy – or do we not count that as so important?

Now we come to Mrs. Furedi’s claims regarding “poorly substantiated fantasy that (abortion) causes breast cancer, infertility and post-abortion psychosis”.

I would be the first to admit that there is some controversy regarding possible links between abortion and breast cancer. We also have to remember that a risk is just that, and not a certainty. Nonetheless there is a mountain of evidence showing possible links between abortion and increased risks of breast cancer – which is after all a devastating disease. The Breast Cancer Prevention Institute provides annotations for any number of peer reviewed papers on the subject. At the latest count, 27 out of 33 worldwide studies have independently linked abortion with breast cancer. With only six studies claiming no link as compared with 27 providing evidence indicating that there is a risk one would think that women should at least be least be accorded the dignity of being told the consensus worldwide and let them make their own decisions.

The Breast Cancer Prevention Institute was founded by Joel Brind PhD (right), who is Professor of Biology and Endocrinology at Baruch College of the City University of NY, where he has been teaching since 1986. His research on the connections between reproductive hormones and human disease has included breast cancer since 1982. In 1996, he published a peer-reviewed research paper on the subject, Induced Abortion as an Independent Risk Factor for Breast Cancer: A Comprehensive Review and Meta-Analysis, which he wrote in collaboration with colleagues at the Pennsylvania State College of Medicine. It appeared in the October, 1996 issue of the Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, published by the British Medical Association and the basic scientific facts into it in possible causes of breast cancer are as sound today as they were then. Joel Brind makes no secret of the fact that he is Pro-Life.  Notwithstanding, his research is and always has been absolutely meticulous and cannot be ignored.

We also have to look at the whole problem from the point of view of the UK medical profession. There has been a phenomenal increase in the rates of breast cancer during the past few decades and if our gynaecologists now admitted the possibility of any such risk would they open themselves to being sued by their patients?

Increasingly, I think that ideology comes before medicine and care for the patient. There has also been a phenomenal increase in infertility and – although we have to take into account the decision of an increasing number of women to leave childbearing until later in life and the possible side effects of long- term use of the oral contraceptive – there is little doubt that abortion can result in infertility.

Just as demeaning to the dignity of women is the refusal even to consider that abortion can cause devastating trauma in some cases. For many years we have known that abortion increases the risk of suicide and self-harm in women. An epidemiological study (Injury deaths, suicides and homicides  associated with pregnancy, Finland 1987–2000, Gissler et al, European Journal of Public Health (2005), 15:459-463), was conducted by Finland’s National Research and Development Centre for Welfare and Health. The comprehensive three-year study of the entire population of women in Finland found that, compared to women who have not been pregnant in the prior year, deaths from suicide, accidents and homicide are 248% higher in the year following an abortion. The study also found that a majority of the extra deaths among women who had abortions were due to suicide. The suicide rate among women who had abortions was six times higher than that of women who had given birth in the prior year and double that of women who had miscarriages. The researchers looked at data between 1987 and 2000 on all deaths among women of reproductive age (15 to 49).

It is also important to look at the work of international authority Professor David Fergusson (right), who runs the Christchurch Health & Development Study, at the University of Otago in New Zealand. Their work (Abortion in young women and subsequent mental health, Fergusson DM et al, Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry (2006) 47(1): 16-24; Abortion among young women and subsequent life outcomes, Fergusson DM et al,  Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health 39(1): 6-12; Abortion and mental health disorders: evidence from a 30-year longitudinal study, Fergusson DM et al, British Journal of Psychiatry (2008) 193: 444-451; Reactions to abortion and subsequent mental health, Fergusson et al, British Journal of Psychiatry (2009) 195: 420-426) covers data gathered on pregnancy of a birth cohort of over 500 women studied to the age of 30. Professor Fergusson is quite openly in favour of a woman’s right to choose abortion and was at first surprised by the evidence his study uncovered. When he was attacked (as was inevitable by the pro-abortion lobby), he insisted that although he still supports a woman’s right to choose – equally the woman has a right to know what she is choosing. The 2008 research paper indicated that women who had abortions were three times more likely to develop a drug or alcohol addiction and had an overall rate of mental disorder that was about 30% higher than others in the study. In this study, Professor Fergusson and his fellow researchers reported:

“This evidence clearly poses a challenge to the use of psychiatric reasons to justify abortion. There is nothing in this study that would suggest that the termination of pregnancy was associated with lower risks of mental health problems than birth.”

Even the Royal College of Psychiatrists has admitted that there is so much evidence suggesting an increase in the risk of psychological problems following abortion, that women should be given counselling before they make a decision. As Fergusson (et al) concludes:

“... there is now growing evidence for two major conclusions about abortion and mental health. First, exposure to abortion is an adverse life event which is associated with a modest increase in risks of mental health problems. Second, the mental health risks associated with abortion may be larger, and certainly are not smaller, than the mental health risks associated with unwanted pregnancies that come to term.” (Fergusson et al, reply to Rowlands and Guthrie on Abortion and mental health, in The British Journal of Psychiatry (2009), 195: 84)

The actual figures of psychological sequelae quoted by Fergusson et al are 1.5% to 5.5%. That may seem very much a minority to BPAS  and Marie Stopes workers. However, with 180,000-plus abortions p.a., in reality it amounts at the very least to around 2,700 women psychologically damaged annually... year in and year out! Having listened on the telephone or sat opposite a considerable number of women telling their abortion stories, I find the human cost absolutely devastating.

Elsewhere (see Fergusson's editorial, Abortion and mental health, in Psychiatric Bulletin (2008), 32 (9): 322), Professor Fergusson comments have challenged pro-abortion advocates by stating the simple truth that there has been no study in the world to show that abortion can cure any psychological problem or illness. Certainly, the pro-abortion lobby in this country has never produced any such evidence. Yet, the latest publication of Abortion Statistics for England & Wales (2010) shows of 196,109 abortions 99.96% of Ground C-only terminations (representing 185,291 of all abortions) were performed because of risk to the woman’s mental health. That is frightening when one considers the number of them who are now at risk of possible mental disorders.

Mrs. Furedi’s loquacity on “fact based science”, which she usually follows by talking absolute tosh – could be funny were it not for the BPAS counsellors. One presumes that they must follow the example of their Chief Executive when counselling girls on abortion... assuring them that it is all absolutely safe. In view of the available evidence there is no way this can be described as “impartial”, the Department of Health should most certainly delete them from its published list of “recognised pregnancy advisory services”.

In the meantime, they obviously made a wise decision in excluding BPAS from the Independent Advisory Group on Sexual Health and HIV – which now includes LIFE. We should all make a point of congratulating Anne Milton MP (above), the Government Minister responsible.

The Bigotry of the Abortion Lobby

The Guardian headline said it all:

Anti-abortion group drafted in as sexual health adviser to Government 

Coalition appoints pro-abstinence charity LIFE to key sexual health forum while omitting British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS)”

The story related to the appointment of LIFE to the Department of Health’s Independent Advisory Group on Sexual Health and HIV.

Within a very short time there were rising 800 comments the great majority of them backing the Guardian and BPAS. You could see that many of the contributors were almost foaming at the mouth.

I decided to add my “pen’orth” and send in a comment. I wrote:

‘Reading the story (with its slant) and wading through the comments confirms my long- held view that the Guardian and its readers are made up of the biggest bigots in history’. “Agree with all we say or shut up and get out!”’

However, the next day, (Thursday May 26) the Guardian had a change of heart, and Deborah Orr, a pro-abortion feminist (there are Pro-Life Feminists), wrote a column urging that feminists should not “try to stifle debates about abortion”.

Sadly, however, she blotted her copy-book by claiming:

“LIFE will never win the argument, because it is anti-choice. Logic is on the pro-choice side, let alone practicality. A long history of desperation, squalor and tragedy illustrates how dangerous it is to deny women access to simple medical procedures that offer us control of our lives, our bodies and the planning of our family.”

Obviously, she just repeated the usual pro-abortion mantra without doing her homework.  For years, the pro-abortion lobby has got away with blatant lies about the threat of so-called back- street abortions (a very high number of which – before the Abortion Act – were carried out in private clinics which are still operating today on the “front streets”). Invariably they refer to “coat-hanger abortions” – although I have yet to discover a woman so stupid as not to recognise how dangerous such a procedure would be!

The anti-life lobby use this technique to frighten people about what could happen if the abortion law were changed. The late Dr. Bernard Nathanson (see right), who originally led the pro-abortion movement in the USA and later became pro-life, exposed their tactics. In this country, you only have to check the mortality figures to see they are talking absolute nonsense.

However, when it comes to abortion, contraception and euthanasia, the Guardian, like the BBC, rarely allow research and the facts get in the way of a nice frightening claim! For example, on March 21, 2007 the Guardian carried an item on abortion in Poland (where strong abortion restrictions were put in place in 1993). The article claimed:

“illegal abortion… is thriving… Polish NGOs (Non-Government Organisations) estimate some 200,000 women are having back street abortions every year”.

That is by no means the only time that the Guardian has made such claims. However, one only has to examine the official Health figures to show they are talking nonsense. With illegal acts, there are no official figures to prove whether any such claims are right or wrong. Nonetheless, there are other ways of measuring the truth:

Hospital admissions for incomplete abortion or miscarriage is one way.

Maternal deaths is another.

It is easy enough to check the figures in the Council of Europe Demographic Year Book. From this you can see that in Poland the number of miscarriages dropped from 46,970 in 1994 to 41,381 in 2003. There is no way there would be such a drop if women were having back- street abortions.

One can also see that deaths due to pregnancy and child-birth dropped from 36 in 1994, to 23 in 2003. This hardly suggests a huge increase of 200,000 in illegal abortions.

I am well aware that the pro-abortion lobby will claim that Polish doctors will register back-street abortion deaths under some other category. However, yet again, one needs only to check on total deaths in women in their main child-bearing years (15-49) to see that this is utterly untrue. The Poles, God bless them, do bury their dead! If back street abortion deaths were reported under other categories, there would still be an increase in total reported deaths in women in their main child-bearing years from 1994 – 2003 and onwards.

You will find (just as I found when checking on back street abortion deaths in England and Wales) that the facts do not substantiate the claims. In fact, they make their claims without a scrap of evidence.

Moreover, there are two other countries which show the nonsense of pro-abortion claims:  

Some years ago, Chile changed its legislation, outlawing all abortions and giving the unborn child equal protection with his/her mother. The result? Chile now has the lowest maternal mortality rate of any country in South America (see pg. 25) – with the result that other countries in that region of the world are now considering laws to follow their example.

The Republic of Ireland is another country which makes the anti-life lobby froth at the mouth. Like Chile – they have an absolute law against abortion... zero tolerance for destruction of the unborn child. And they have the lowest maternal mortality rate in the world (see pg. 24). The maternal death rate in Ireland is 1 per 100,000 compared with 8 per 100,000 for the United Kingdom (see pg. 27)... with all our liberal laws!

It seems that the kind of medicine which inspires protection for the unborn child also inspires greater protection for the mother.