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.

"What price, democracy?" The Case for Early Day Motions

I am pretty tolerant when it comes to MPs and their problems. For example, I think many MPs had a pretty raw deal when the Daily Telegraph ran its campaign on parliamentary expenses, the obvious aim being to promote the paper’s circulation and its advertising revenue. And some of the MPs for whom I had the most sympathy included those whose objectives I disliked intensely. However, more on that another time…

The reason I mention it now is because there are other aspects of MPs’ work which frankly make me almost go ballistic. One is receiving letters from MPs (or copies of letters from MPs to constituents) saying why they refuse to sign Early Day Motions: “…they are very costly and they quote figures amounting to anything from £100,000 per EDM to over a £1,000,000 for the whole year… EDMs are not debated… the system is abused and some EDMs are ludicrous...”

These replies are coming from new MPs who, in fact, often show very little understanding of the processes of Parliament and how to use them.

In forty years, I have never known of anybody asking an MP to table an EDM who imagined it would be debated. Parliament’s own website makes this clear, and explains some aspects of using them:

“EDMs are used for reasons such as publicising the views of individual MPs, drawing attention to specific events or campaigns, and demonstrating the extent of Parliamentary support for a particular cause or point of view…. although there is very little prospect of EDMs being debated, many attract a great deal of public interest and frequently receive media coverage.”

Moreover, the parliamentary website gives a clear indication of the cost of EDMs which bear no relation to the exorbitant figures quoted by MPs. Under ‘Frequently Asked Questions: Business’ it states:

What is the average cost of an Early Day Motion (EDM)?

£290 (estimated figure for 2005-06).

The unavoidable fact is that EDMs are one of the few ways in which back-benchers can openly and affectively criticise what is happening in Parliament, and ensure that it is on the public record. This, on some occasions, can be displeasing to Ministers and to the Government itself. Hence our present problems and difficulties with a number of new Conservative MPs, who have been persuaded by Whips to refuse to sign all EDMs, generally quoting the cost.

One must ask “What price democracy… £290…??”

However, the MPs invariably write very friendly letters, assuring us that they will write to the Minister on behalf of the correspondent asking him/her to explain!

Frankly, most letters to Ministers and the replies are pretty useless. They not only keep any given issue “under wraps” (away from public scrutiny), but they also keep the MPs’ views and intentions out of sight of constituents. In any case, usually the response is written by a Civil Servant whose very duty it is to defend the status quo and the Minister! Moreover, on the subject of costs – think of the tens of thousands it must cost to have civil servants writing fatuous replies to provide smoke screens!

What About Parliamentary Questions?

Shortly after the last General election, I had the idea of returning to a tactic we used some years ago to good effect.

A number of MPs, of different parties, were asked to put their names into the ballot to table Parliamentary Questions (PQs) to the Secretary of State For Health (Andrew Lansley, see right) on the policy of distributing the morning after pill to under-age girls – which has seen such an increase in Sexually Transmitted Infections among adolescents. Other MPs were prepared to be in the House when Question Time came, so that we could have a meaningful debate with relevant facts and figures recorded in Hansard.

However, we fell at the first fence – not one of our MPs had their names pulled out of the ballot!

And it is through the Ballot that most other procedures are open to back-bench MPs… Private Members’ Bills… Oral PQs… Adjournment Debates… Westminster Hall debates… Ten-Minute Rule Bills… Almost the only exceptions are Early Day Motions and Written PQs. The latter can be very useful – but  they are not open to debate, and neither do they have the impact of EDMs which can be used to educate parliamentary colleagues on any given issue, as well  as informing public discourse.

As Parliament’s own website makes clear, many EDMs attract a great deal of public interest and frequently receive media coverage. One example concerned the occasion when the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) first published his Guidelines for people involved in a friend/relative’s assisted suicide. Quite clearly, the Guidelines changed (de facto) the law. Immediately after publication, the Rt. Hon. Ann Widdecombe (then, still in Parliament – see below), tabled an EDM which resulted in front-page banner headlines supported by other leaders of the All-Party Parliamentary Pro-Life Group (APPPLG) such as Jim Dobbin (see left). It accused the DPP of seeking to undermine the sovereignty of Parliament, and launched the All-Party Group’s campaign – and that resulted in the DPP back-peddling somewhat (although not entirely). No letter of protest to a Minister, or even to the Prime Minister, would have had such a result.

One of the Most Successful EDMs of all Time

To be truthful, Margaret Thatcher was never my favourite politician. However, whatever her failings may have been, she was far better than some of those who have followed her. For one thing, she had an enormous respect for Parliamentary Democracy. When she was Prime Minister, I know for a fact that she would bring EDMs which she thought to be important, to the attention of her Government Ministers.

In addition, she tabled what must have been one of the most successful EDMs of all time when she was Leader of the Conservatives opposing James Callaghan’s government. Her EDM simply said that the House had lost confidence in the Government, and called for it to resign. Virtually every Conservative MP, as well as some MPs of other Parties, signed the Motion. The EDM received tremendous publicity and Margaret Thatcher (confident of her support) took the next step. She tabled a Formal Motion of ‘No Confidence’ which was debated. James Callaghan lost the vote, and his Government had to resign, leading to the General Election of 1979 which Margaret Thatcher won with an overwhelming majority.

Some MPs may dislike Margaret Thatcher – but most have a respect for her. The fact that she recognised EDMs as a major plank in Parliamentary Democracy may make some of them at least think again. As has been discussed, ask MPs who quote the costs when they refuse to sign EDMs – “What price democracy?” And how much do they think it costs the nation to have civil servants writing replies to MPs letters to obscure the facts?

Below is EDM 1622 – which does not present the Department of Health or its Minister in a particularly favourable light. Bearing in mind that members of the Government or shadow Government usually do not sign EDMs, write to your MPs and urge them to give their signatures in support. Even if your MPs are Ministers or Shadow Ministers, please send them the Motion to draw their attention to the facts – which to say the least – are disreputable:

EDM 1622: CONSULTATION ON THE CARE OF WOMEN CONSIDERING INDUCED ABORTION

Date tabled: 17/03/2011

Primary sponsor: Dobbin, Jim.

Co-Sponsors: Benton, Joe; Coffey, Therese; Field, Frank; Glindon, Mary; Leigh, Edward

Total number of signatures: 24
Amess, David; Benton, Joe; Bruce, Fiona; Campbell, Ronnie; Coffey, Therese; Cunningham, Tony; Dobbin, Jim; Dodds, Nigel; Donaldson, Jeffrey; Dorries, Nadine; Durkan, Mark; Evans, Jonathan; Field, Frank; Glindon, Mary; Hamilton, Fabian; Leigh, Edward; Long, Naomi; Murphy, Paul; Pugh, John; Ritchie, Margaret; Rosindell, Andrew; Swayne, Desmond; Vickers, Martin; Walter, Robert.

“… 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 Biggest Euthanasia Lobby in Britain – The BBC

When the news broke on Sunday (15.5.11) regarding the Swiss suicide referendum, nobody should have been surprised by the BBC response. As always, it supported assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia. 

The story broke on the 6:00pm news – there were three interviews all backing death, 4 radio clips backing death, one against, 4 local radio items all favouring death, two listener comments backing death, one Swiss comment favouring life.

The Campaigners heard so far were Margo Macdonald (pro-assisted suicide), Peter Saunders (pro-life), 3 from Dignity in Dying, 1 from EXIT, 1 from the Society for Old Age Rational Suicide. All three organisations are pro-assisted dying and voluntary euthanasia.

Any suggestion the BBC is running a campaign… is of course without merit and a wicked invention by pro-lifers... or so we have been told for years and years!  Recently, however, we had thought we were at last making some impact.

Thanks to members and supporters of RTL bombarding the BBC with letters and complaints, regarding the propaganda film of Terry Pratchett accompanying a 71-year-old Motor Neurone Disease patient to the Dignitas clinic in Switzerland, and showing him committing suicide, the broadcasters actually have included an editorial on their website “explaining” their decisions.

Suffering from Amnesia...?

The item is written by BBC Programmes Editor, Charlotte Moore (see right), who shows a picture of Mr Pratchett (looking so smug that he could almost float away on the brim of his hat) and tells us:

“… it's not something that we'd ever take the decision to show lightly. Not only did we have to work closely with all of our contributors' families to make sure that the issue was handled as sensitively as possible, but we worked closely with our editorial policy team to make sure that all aspects of the documentary were in line with BBC Editorial Policy guidelines”.

Either Ms Moore suffers from amnesia or else she has presumed that the rest of us do. Peter Saunders, Chief Executive of the CMF, has drawn everybody’s attention to the bias of the BBC, with the following: “… This programme will be the fifth produced by the BBC in just three years, presented by a pro-euthanasia campaigner or sympathiser, which has been specifically designed to portray taking one’s own life in a positive light.”

The other programmes included a BBC Panorama documentary, ‘I’ll Die When I Choose’ in which Margo Macdonald MSP (see left) was given the floor to explain and promote her “End of Life Assistance (Scotland) Bill” just before it was first tabled. It was shown no less than four times between December 8 - 14, 2008. Despite the BBC continuing its campaign for the next two years, Scottish MPs, thankfully, did their homework and Ms Macdonald suffered a huge defeat when her Bill was thrown out by a vote of 85 to 16. That, however, did not stop the BBC. On the day it happened (November 2010) I was listening to BBC Five Live when an almost hysterical woman interviewer pleaded: “Margo, whatever happened?”

Miss Macdonald had the nerve to complain that the MSPs had voted against her because they were worried about the next election – which took place only on May 5th… six months later.

However, long before 2008, the BBC fed the public a constant diet of pro-euthanasia programmes and news items covering the deaths of Reg Crew, Diane Pretty, John Close and others whose cases were used to promote assisted suicide. At the time of the Diane Pretty case in 2003, I telephoned the BBC to ask if they would interview Mrs Pam Vack (see right), an RTL member who (like Diane Pretty) had Motor Neurone Disease and was willing to speak on a programme. The immediate response of the BBC researcher was to snap at me:  

             

             “Is she a Catholic?”

             “She is not”, I said. “But what has that to do with it?”

Apart from taking our telephone numbers – neither Pam nor RTL heard another word.

The next BBC propaganda essay (after the Margo Macdonald programme) was ‘A Short Stay in Switzerland’ (January 2009). This was a 90 minute docudrama starring Julie Walters for whom the BBC publicity department carried out a huge campaign promoting her views on the benefits of euthanasia. The programme told the story of Bath GP Anne Turner who went with her children to commit suicide at Dignitas in January 2006. It was screened seven times between the 25th January 2009 and 27th January 2010. BBC health correspondent Fergus Walsh, who accompanied Dr Turner on her final journey, actually played himself in the film. How impartial was that!

Moreover, it was not the first programme about Dr Turner. When she originally went to Switzerland in January 2006 to commit suicide, she was accompanied by Fergus Walsh and a full BBC crew who filmed the whole event, including sipping champagne with her three children before she drank her cocktail of barbiturates. It was evidently intended to appear sophisticated and care free. However, Mick Hume (by no means a pro-life supporter) described it in the Times as “A grisly theatre of death” (27.01.2006).

Both David and Jonathan Dimbleby are well known for their anti-life views, so it came as no surprise that the BBC selected Terry Pratchett to give the 34^th Richard Dimbleby Lecture, “Shaking Hands With Death”, when he claimed the right to be provided with assisted suicide because he had been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease. 

It was all great fun… as he envisaged sipping poisoned champagne at his home in the garden. However, it was not very original – rather more a “take” from the Dr Turner programme. Peter Saunders tells us that, nonetheless, “a hand-picked audience in London signalled their approval as he spoke…”

Another example of BBC pro-euthanasia bias occurred when Jonathan Dimbleby had Deborah Annett as a member of the panel on the radio programme, Any Questions (17.3.06). At the time Ms Annetts was CEO of what was then the Voluntary Euthanasia Society (now ‘Dignity In Dying’). On the programme, she regaled the audience with a lurid description of Diane Pretty’s death:

“I'm thinking now of Diane Pretty, who I knew very, very well – she had a horrendous life and horrendous death at the end, and she received really good quality hospice care. The last week that she was in hospice she screamed in pain and agony every day, they could do nothing for her... in the end the only option was to sedate her…”

There was nobody on the programme to challenge Ms Annetts.

Yet, in total contrast, the Medical Director of the Hospice where Mrs Pretty died had described her death as “peaceful and painless”.

In addition, the Motor Neurone Disease Association issued a statement also describing her death as “peaceful and painless” – adding that pain was “not an issue” with the vast majority of MND patients.

When pro-life groups protested to the BBC, we were assured by the producers of “Any Questions” that they had no intention of promoting euthanasia; they had every intention of inviting an officer of equal standing from one of the pro-life groups.

Five years later… we are all still waiting.

February 15th, 2010 saw yet another propaganda assault. On the ‘Inside Out Programme’ on East Midlands, BBC producer, Ray Gosling (see left), “confessed” to smothering, some years before, a gay lover with AIDS. “… [A]fter an exhaustive police investigation into the claim, it turned out to be pure fantasy, but not until after the BBC publicity machinery had blown it up into a massive international news story just prior to the Director of Public Prosecutions reporting on his assisted suicide prosecution criteria.”

In comparison with the five major pro-euthanasia programmes within the last three years, the BBC has made not even one giving the alternative view of end of life treatment. MPs have persistently complained about the BBC bias on any number of issues, particularly those relating to human life and the traditional family. A number of Early Day Motions have referred to specific euthanasia programmes. On one occasion, Greg Dyke, the former BBC Chairman, had the nerve to make bland statements regarding the entire BBC network and calling on us to justify our claims.  This could only have been achieved by monitoring every single programme on every BBC network!  However, the fact remains that if there were a multitude of pro-life programmes amazingly few people from the pro-life network were ever called to speak on them.

The Terry Pratchett programme was obviously planned to coincide with, and promote the publication of, the Report from the so-called Commission on Assisted Dying which Mr Pratchett helped to set up and fund.  The “Commission” which has striven to appear as though it were some kind of official body has already been thoroughly discredited. It is chaired by Lord Falconer who failed in his attempt to get a Bill legalising assisted suicide through the House of Lords.  Quite obviously he is fixedly in favour of the legalisation of assisted death – like every other member of the “Commission”. Yet, despite the known bias, they have striven to present their considerations as “unbiased”. In this they have been unsuccessful, I am thankful to say.

Nonetheless, we can be confident that the BBC euthanasia lobby will do all it can to promote their findings as the work of a learned body rather than the witless twitterings of members and supporters of Dignity in Dying (as I have said previously, formerly the Voluntary Euthanasia Society) of which Mr Pratchett is one of its most redoubtable Patrons.

However, it is not too late to complain to the BBC. You can call them to complain on 03700 100 222.  But, be warned:  it

is a recording service and you are given very little time to give your name, address and message of protest. You can also

write to BBC Complaints, PO Box 1922, Glasgow G2 3WT. You can also go to https://bbc.co.uk/complaints/forms/

In addition, you can write to the new Chairman of the Board of BBC Governors, the Rt Hon Lord Patten of Barnes (see right). He is very straightforward, and I am confident that he will consider the issues fairly. His address is:

Rt Hon Lord Patten of Barnes, Chairman, BBC Trust, Room 14, London Broadcasting House, Portland Place, W1A 1AA.

If nothing else, please make it clear that five programmes in three years blatantly promoting assisted suicide to nought against – is just not on… especially from a publicly funded network which is supposed to be neutral. And that excludes all the other programmes we have listed.