Saturday, 6 October 2012

Abortion limit stories dismissed as hype by UK's main pro-life group SPUC

The UK's largest and oldest pro-life group, the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) has dismissed recent newspaper stories about ministerial support for reducing abortion time-limits as "journalistic hype".

SPUC was responding to recent stories in The Times and The Telegraph newspapers in which ministers were asked whether they support reducing time-limits for abortion.

Anthony Ozimic, SPUC communications manager, told the media earlier today:
"These stories are in reality media-generated hype. There is no 'news' in these stories. The voting records of Jeremy Hunt, Maria Miller and Theresa May on abortion time-limits, over four years ago, are public knowledge. The Telegraph supports reducing abortion time-limits while The Times is strongly against any abortion restrictions, and between them they are generating some heat but little light on the real politics of abortion. There is some scare-mongering by pro-abortion figures, and some groundless hope for success by Nadine Dorries MP, whose amendments in 2008 were clearly defeated.

There is a large pro-abortion majority in Parliament which will ensure that any time-limiting amendments are rejected while using the opportunity to push for pro-abortion amendments. The real political debate about abortion in the UK should focus - as it does elsewhere in the world - on the right to life of all unborn children and on the way governments bankroll abortion access at home and abroad."

See SPUC's release of last Thursday (4 October 2012) Fresh perspective, not time-limit debate, needed on abortion, says pro-life group SPUC

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Friday, 5 October 2012

Must-read pro-life news-stories, Fri 5 Oct

Top story:

Fresh perspective, not time-limit debate, needed on abortion
A fresh perspective, not a debate about time-limits, is needed on abortion, says SPUC. SPUC was responding to comments to The Telegraph newspaper by Maria Miller, the new women's minister, in support of a reduction in the 24-week upper time-limit on social abortions.  Anthony Ozimic, SPUC's communications manager, commented: "Mrs Miller should instead be pushing for the government to stop its multi-million pound funding arrangements with the abortion industry, and to block broadcast advertising for abortion businesses." [SPUC, 4 October]

Other stories:

Abortion
Euthanasia
Population
Sexual ethics
General
Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Advance notice of SPUC website down-time on Mon 8 Oct

On Monday (8 Oct) the SPUC website www.spuc.org.uk will be offline or not visible from 10am until at least 12 noon (UK time) as it moves to a new server. Please accept my apologies for any inconvenience this may cause. Information about pro-life issues and SPUC can be found during that period on this blog or at:
Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Thursday, 4 October 2012

Fresh perspective, not time-limit debate, needed on abortion

Maria Miller
SPUC has responded to comments to The Telegraph newspaper by Maria Miller, the new women's minister, in support of a reduction in the 24-week upper time-limit on social abortions. Anthony Ozimic, SPUC's communications manager, told the media earlier today:
"Every few years the tired, old refrain to reduce the upper time-limit for social abortions is heard. These calls have either gotten nowhere or, as in 1990, been counter-productive. There is no realistic prospect of any such amendments being passed by the current Parliament, any more than in 2008 when Nadine Dorries's amendments were defeated by large margins.

Opening up the Abortion Act on the floor of Parliament will provide an opportunity for the large pro-abortion majority in Parliament to push for radical amendments to make abortion law even worse. The pro-abortion lobby will argue that early abortions are better than late abortions, and therefore that women need easier access to abortion. Such amendments have the support of David Cameron and many other frontbenchers from all the main parties.

We need a fresh perspective on what can be done to save unborn children. Mrs Miller should instead be pushing for the government to stop its multi-million pound funding arrangements with the abortion industry, and to block broadcast advertising for abortion businesses. The government should also stop funding the promotion of abortion in developing countries and promoting access to abortion for children in school."
Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Tuesday, 2 October 2012

How Abortion Rights lost the argument about illegal abortion figures

Abortion Rights stunt
Abortion Rights is the UK pro-abortion group formed by the merger of the National Abortion Campaign (NAC) and the Abortion Law Reform Association (ALRA), and is supported by the trades union movement. Yesterday Abortion Rights tweeted:
"There are 600-800 illegal abortions every day in Morocco. Support legalisation here: http://bit.ly/REHm9g"
Anthony Ozimic, SPUC's communications manager, tweeted back and here is the record of the conversation:
Anthony: "More fake figures from [the] abortion lobby, famous for such fakery. UK: pop. 60m, 600 legal abortions daily. Islamic Morocco: pop. 32m"

Abortion Rights: "Fakery? Don't make me laugh. Anti-choice groups have zero credibility when it comes to facts or medical accuracy."

Anthony: "Stop avoiding the q[uestion]. Back up [the] Morocco figures or withdraw. Admit abortion lobby history of faking illegal abortion stats."

Abortion Rights: "What? Don't be ridiculous. Figure comes from [the] petition link."

Anthony: "[The p]etition doesn't cite any studies, just asserts [the] figure. Back it up."

Abortion Rights: "Don't order me to back it up. If you've got a problem with the figures you're welcome to investigate. Till then, get lost."

Anthony: "In other words: you've lost the argument. No wonder you're reduced to silly stunts with coathangers and weird make-up." (Anthony was referring to a Guardian report last week, pictured).

Abortion Rights: "Ha! I won't take lessons in PR from the group that thinks 'gay marriage will increase abortion rate' is a good campaign idea."

Anthony: "We stand by our campaigns. Do you stand by the figures you tweeted for illegal abortions in Morocco?"
No further reply was received from Abortion Rights. Shortly afterwards they (we assume the tweeter was Darinka Aleksic, Abortion Rights' campaigns coordinator, pictured centre) told another pro-lifer on Twitter:
"[I]t was SPUC telling me to 'back it up', that got to me! Wouldn't normally be so irritated."
Well done Anthony for exposing the latest in a long line of cases where the pro-abortion lobby have simply invented illegal abortion figures - see the following blog-posts for more information:
Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Monday, 1 October 2012

Over-40s denied free IVF can now sue NHS

An elderly IVF mother
Top story:

Over-40s denied free IVF can now sue NHS
Women aged over 40 can now sue Britain's National Health Service (NHS) if they are denied IVF treatment, under a new law against age discrimination. Norman Lamb, a newly-appointed health minister, said: "It gives legal force that people have to be treated as individuals, and not written off because of an arbitrary age limit." Mr Lamb also said that such women "would have to show that the upper age limit was not objectively justified" in their case. [Mail, 1 October] Anthony Ozimic of SPUC commented: "It is neither good medicine nor in the best interests of families for natural biological limits to childbearing to be violated by the unnatural process of IVF."

Other stories:

Abortion
Euthanasia
Population
Sexual ethics
General
Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy

Sunday, 30 September 2012

SPUC's Anthony McCarthy debunks the gay lobby's 'bigot' label

Anthony McCarthy, SPUC's education and publications manager, was interviewed earlier this month by Rod Liddle, The Sunday Times columnist, along with Peter Tatchell, the veteran homosexual campaigner and Ed Fordham, the vice-chair of LGBT Liberal Democrats. Do watch the video of the interview, either below at the end of this blog-post or on The Sunday Times website. Here is a transcript of Anthony's excellent comments:
"I think objecting to what Nick Clegg said doesn't equate to bigotry! ... I think his statements about gay marriage, the fact that the Lib Dems coalition government never put in any proposal for gay marriage in their coalition agreement or even in their manifestos, and this is one of the most important changes being proposed ever, makes me rather suspicious of Mr Clegg."

"The proposals for gay marriage completely redefine marriage; they turn it into a genderless institution ... [T]here's no reference to children whatsoever, and also there's no rationale, then, for not privatising marriage, or even having incestuous marriages or having threesomes as we're seeing now in Brazil. All of that foundation which we build around children is actually shattered at the level of law, with this new conception of marriage."

"We're not going to be bullied by people who fling names at us rather than listening to our arguments. Calling people 'bigots' is not an argument, it's not particularly clever and it's rather bullying." Liddle: "... [I]t marks you down as people not to be taken seriously." Anthony McCarthy: "Yes. The other thing, it lumps - and I know that Peter Tatchell does this very often - he tries to draw parallels with racially-mixed marriages and with the opposition to that in some American states some time back ... I do think that (opposition to racially-mixed marriages) is bigotry, without a doubt; but of course those (were) heterosexual marriages. They did nothing to change the nature of marriage, so we are dealing with a completely different kind of argument there. Yet this constant lumping-together, to depict the opponents of (same-sex marriage) as bigots, is a form of thought-control. I hope people can see through it." 

Comments on this blog? Email them to johnsmeaton@spuc.org.uk
Sign up for alerts to new blog-posts and/or for SPUC's other email services
Follow SPUC on Twitter
Like SPUC's Facebook Page
Please support SPUC. Please donate, join, and/or leave a legacy