Briefing. Here's the video.
From CFNews: After media coverage and numerous protests for removing a pro-life video report critical of a Planned Parenthood advertisement, the video-sharing site YouTube.com has apologized and restored the video to its site.
In its apology, YouTube blamed the video's removal on a 'technical malfunction.'
The video in question criticized Planned Parenthood's 'Mile High' advertisement that used an airplane setting to encourage recreational sex and contraceptive use. The American Life League (ALL) video displayed clips of the risqué advertisement, which is also posted on YouTube.
On Monday morning, the ALL received an e-mail from YouTube saying their video had been removed. 'After being flagged by members of the YouTube community and reviewed by YouTube staff, the video below has been removed due to its inappropriate nature,' the e-mail said.
Michael Hichborn, the director of media relations for ALL, told Catholic News Agency that more than 64 news sources and weblogs covered the banning, including Yahoo News, EWTN, News Busters, and the Inside Catholic blog.
'Once word got out that YouTube had allowed the Planned Parenthood ads our report was based on to remain on their site, while at the same time censoring our report, a flurry of e-mails, blog posts, and complaints from the pro-life community pressured YouTube into reversing their decision,' said Jim Sedlak, vice president of American Life League.Three days after the video was banned, the American Life League received a second e-mail that read:
'This email is to inform you that a video was recently removed from your account due to a technical malfunction. The issue has since been remedied and we appologize[sic] for any inconvenience or distress this may have caused. The following video(s) have been reinstated and your account has not been penalized.'
According to the YouTube user guide, flagged videos are not automatically taken down by the web site. 'If we remove your video after reviewing it, you can assume that we removed it purposefully, and you should take our warning notification seriously,' it reads.
Sedlak welcomed YouTube's restoration of the video to the site, saying, 'We are pleased that YouTube has reversed their decision to remove our video. Our ALL News Report was neither objectionable nor inappropriate. While it is unfortunate that YouTube chose this tactic in the first place, it is encouraging to note that they corrected their poor decision in a timely fashion.' [CNA]
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
YouTube backs down on anti-life censorship
CAFOD 'role model' dissents from Church teaching
From CFNews:CAFOD has recruited Dermot O'Leary, 'celebrity' presenter of the Big Brother television show, to front their drive to raise money for its development projects around the world. In a newspaper interview O'Leary has made it clear that his allegiance to the teaching of the Catholic Church was 'not unquestioning'. He lives in North London with his girl-friend and cheerfully admits to using contraceptives. CAFOD, the Catholic Agency for Overseas Development, is the official overseas development and relief agency of the Catholic Church in England and Wales.
Tories wake up to anti-family tax bias
Briefing: a pity the Conservatives didn't do anything about this when they were in power: except to run down the Married Person's Tax Allowance. It is worth noting also that the 'choice' Thersa May wants to give to mothers is not enough: as well as the tax system, it is a culture which gives little respect to family life which forces mothers back to work. The traditional family needs to be promoted, not just permitted.
From CFNews: In a wide-ranging analysis of the position of women in British society, the Tories said the Government had set up the tax and benefits system to limit parents' choices about when and if they go back to work. The 'Women in the World Today' report suggests that each full-time parent saves the state £29,000 a year in services, but points out that the tax system makes no allowance for families where a parent chooses to stay at home to care for a child.
It also says that by failing to crack down on discrimination in the workplace, ministers have allowed a situation where mothers who take time out of their careers to care for children experience reduced future earnings.
The report says: 'Labour's approach has been to try to get parents back to full-time work, and in doing so, those parents who want to care for their children often feel discriminated against and penalised for making the choice that suits them.'
Just one in 10 women of working age is staying at home full-time, according to official figures.
About 13.4 million women of all ages - the highest number recorded - have jobs, more than 55 per cent of them full-time.
Theresa May, the shadow minister for women, who launched the report, said a Conservative government would give mothers more choice. 'Women shouldn't be thought of as a single monolithic bloc but as 30 million individuals who should be given a real choice over their own lives,' she said.
The study also found that many working mothers find themselves unable to spend as much time at home with young children as they might like to.
Some 66 per cent of mothers take less maternity leave than the 26 weeks they are entitled to, the report said. Mrs May said the report's finding that women are still paid an average of 17 per cent less than men in similar jobs reflected badly on Labour and some big employers.
In particular, she criticised Sir Alan Sugar, the Amstrad boss and the star of BBC television's The Apprentice.
Sir Alan told The Daily Telegraph last week that employment rules barring employers from asking job applicants if they plan to get married and have children resulted in some companies rejecting female applicants out of hand.
'It's about time people like Alan Sugar stopped taking an outdated view of women in the workplace, stopped talking about why employing women is such a problem for business and started talking about why employing women is good for business,' Mrs May said.
Part of the Tories' proposed solution to the workplace gender gap is compulsory pay audits for companies which lose sex discrimination cases.
The Tories launched their study as an independent report from London University's Institute of Education found that working class parents and single mothers effectively face 'coercion' to get back into work.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Petition for a free vote on the hybrids bill
Action: please sign the petition.
From an email: There is a petition to request the Prime Minister to allow a free vote on this Bill. Scandalously, the Government are imposing a 3-line whip, thus trying to pressure MPs into voting with the party rather than with their own conscience. They did the same in the House of Lords, where the Bill was passed at 3rd reading b y a sizeable but maybe not all willing majority. It has always been the tradition in the House to allow a free vote on matters of morals and ethics. This Government are determined that their proposal will go through, against all reason, against all moral views and against
every decent principle.
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
New Christian legal advice centres
Update: the Thomas More Legal Centre now has a website.
Briefing 12/12/07: we recently reported on a new Anglican/Catholic collaboration setting up the 'Thomas More Legal Centre' here, although this does not appear to have a website and unfortunately shares its name with a much better known US organisation. Now the Lawyers' Christian Fellowship has spawned its own organisation, The Christian Legal Centre. The arrival of these organisations, specifically to fight Christianophobic laws, shows the extent to which Christians have their backs to the wall. It is a pity that the Catholic Bishops have not provided funds for an organisation specifically for Catholic concerns.
From Christian Concern for Our Nation: We would like to announce the formation of a new organisation called the Christian Legal Centre. Following Andrea Williams’ involvement in a number of high profile Christian Interest Litigation cases, a decision has been made to form an organisation to enable legal and litigation support for these cases to be more effectively focused. The Christian Legal Centre is separate from the Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship, which will continue with its remit of public policy briefing as a Christian charity representing a large number of Christian lawyers.
The Christian Legal Centre will act as an information portal and assist
individuals to instruct Christian lawyers in cases where they feel they are
unable to live in accordance with their faith and are facing discrimination and
unlawful hindrance as a result. The Centre will also take on cases to defend
Christian principles, truth, sanctity of life and freedom.
Andrea Williams is the Director of the new organisation and will also continue
in her role as Director of Public Policy for The Lawyers' Christian Fellowship.
The Christian Legal Centre has its own dedicated website, which will be kept up
to date with all the information about current and past cases.
Friday, February 08, 2008
Threat posed by redefining marriage
Briefing.
From the Iona Institute, Ireland: On Wednesday January 30 The Iona Institute hosted a talk on the implications of assisted reproductive techniques such as IVF, and the phenomenon of same-sex parenting, for society’s overall view of parenthood. In particular the talk dealt with how these phenomena are making it more difficult for society to assert that children have a right to a mother and father, or even need a mother and father.
The speaker was Elizabeth Marquardt who is the author of a recent paper called ‘The Revolution in Parenthood: the emerging clash between adult rights and children’s rights’.
Elizabeth’s talk can be downloaded here.
Thursday, February 07, 2008
Hybrids bills passes in the Lords, goes back to the Commons
Action: please support the rallies mentioned a few posts ago, and lobby MPs.
From SPUC: The House of Lords approved the Human Fertilisation and Embryology bill without accepting any substantial restraining amendments. An attempt by Baroness Williams of Crosby to ensure that embryos could only be used for research when no alternative exists was rejected. The Lords failed to divide on the bill, giving it an unopposed third reading. The bill will now go to the House of Commons. [SPUC director's blog, 4 February, and Official Report, 4 February] SPUC will campaign to expose the evils contained in the bill and urge people to lobby their MPs to vote against it. [SPUC, 4 February] In response to concerns expressed during the debate, the government has introduced amendments that would require clinics to tell parents of the importance of telling children if they were conceived using donor gametes. The requirement to consider the child's need for a father is expected to be removed.
Shroud of Turin: carbon dating inconclusive
Briefing
From CFNews: The techniques used in 1988 by three separate teams of scientists to date the Shroud of Turin to the middle ages, may have been inconclusive, a radiocarbon dating expert at Oxford University has told the BBC. According to the Church official in charge of the Shroud, Christopher Bronk Ramsey, director of Oxford's Radiocarbon Accelerator, whose specialty is the use of radiocarbon dating in archaeological research, told the BBC that radiocarbon dating techniques have developed since 1988, and that the Shroud's long history of travel, exposure to the elements and handling could have skewed the results.
The BBC interview, that has yet to be broadcast, was discussed by Msgr. Giuseppe Ghiberti, president of the diocesan commission for the Shroud of Turin, at a conference in Novara Italy. Msgr. Ghiberti speculated that the Shroud's long history, including travels from Palestine to Europe, damage by fire in the 16th century, and much handling over the centuries could have influenced the outcome of the tests.
In 1988, three groups of scientists made an attempt to use radio-carbon dating techniques to determine the age of the Shroud, concluding that the linen cloth could only date to the middle ages and not to the first century near east. According to the 1988 studies, the Shroud, venerated for centuries by Catholics as the burial cloth of Christ, could only have been a hoax or the product of some unknown natural process. The highly publicized study was published in 1988 in the scientific journal Nature. That conclusion, however, has not halted the debate over the origin of the Shroud, although Church officials have declined to allow the fragile cloth to be so closely examined since then. In 2005 a second analysis indicated that the cloth sample used by the 1988 teams had been taken from a part of the Shroud that was not part of the original cloth. The interview with Dr. Ramsey will be broadcast by the BBC on Easter Saturday.
Infanticide on the NHS
Briefing.
From CFNews: A new report shows that 66 babies were born alive on one year alone after abortions done with public money under the NHS's health care system. The babies were routinely left to die after their premature birth and some survived for as long as 10 hours afterwards. According to the report, the babies were in the latter stages of pregnancy and were aborted not with a standard surgical abortion procedure. Instead, the NHS says women were given drugs to soften their cervix and had labour induced to birth the child so prematurely that there is no way to provide enough care for the child to live. After birth, the babies received no medical care or attention, the report indicated.
According to the Evening Standard, the babies in these abortions mostly involved unborn children who suffered from severe physical or mental disabilities, some of which may have been life-threatening. However, the newspaper said the report showed some of the babies had very minor issues such as a club foot or cleft palate that could easily be repaired with surgery after birth.
ASA rules against 'Gay aim: abolish the family'
Briefing.
From CFNews:
Philip Whealy, a representative of the Christian Congress for Traditional Values (CCTV) has been interviewed this week both on BBC News 24 and on the BBC Asian Network and 119 Sky Digital, talking about the CCTV's poster campaign which carried the words, 'Gay Aim: Abolish the Family'. Many CCTV members exercised their legal right to peaceful protests in January and March 2007 outside Parliament when both Houses were voting on the Sexual Orientation Regulations. At the second rally the CCTV displayed a mobile bill board on a vehicle driving around London stating, 'Gay Aim: Abolish the Family', and showing a picture of a man, woman and two children. One person raised an ASA complaint against the CCTV. The CCTV fought for its right to use this poster and the rights of all people to have freedom of expression in a democratic society. The ASA found the CCTV to be in breach of its Code. Nevertheless, the CCTV continue to campaign for traditional family values. The following quote, they remind us, is taken directly from the London Gay Liberation Front Manifesto
'The long-term goal of the London Gay Liberation Front, which inevitably brings us into fundamental conflict with the institutionalised sexism of this society, is to rid society of the gender-role system which is at the root of our oppression. This can only be achieved by the abolition of the family as the unit in which children are brought up. We intend to work for the replacement of the family unit, with its rigid gender-role pattern, by new organic units such as the commune, where the development of children becomes the shared responsibility of a larger group of people who live together.'
Don't be misled by government reassurances that the SORs will not cover the curriculum, says the CCTV. One of the primary GLF campaign aims was 'that sex education in schools stop being exclusively heterosexual'. The Manifesto also criticises schools for ignoring homosexuality in education and criticised the sex education of the 70s as being 'little more than an extension of Christian morality'. Unless critical exemptions for schools and people of faith are included in the SORs, there is no doubt that we will soon see this legislation being used as a tool to force homosexuality onto our children in the classroom'. [Christian Congress for Traditional Values]
Tuesday, February 05, 2008
Hybrids bill: Rally
Action! Please support these rallies (the first is tomorrow) to stop this grotesque bill.
From Lord Alton (hat-tip to Carmelite Spirituality)
Other rallies;
* Liverpool: The Liner Hotel, Lord Nelson Street:- Tuesday12th February, 7.30pm
* Coventry: Coventry Cathedral:- Wednesday 13th February,7.30pm
* Widnes: The Foundry, Lugsdale Road:- Monday 18th February,7.30pm
* Cardiff: The City Temple, Cowbridge Road East:- Tuesday 4th March, 7.30pm
For further information tel. 01925 220999 or 0203 1760032 or email: gill@epiphany.org.uk or ian.lucas@appplg.co.uk It would be good to see big audiences and hopefully many other smaller meetings will be organised in the wake of these. It's vital that the public learn what is at stake in this Bill. Post cards are now available to send to MPs. Please e-mail Ian Lucas, who will be pleased to send them to you for local distribution. A power point presentation explaining the Bill is also attached and this may be used at local meetings or to forward to others.
Sunday, February 03, 2008
Family & Youth Concern vs. Polly Toynbee on Sex Ed
Briefing. See also 'Catholic mom of 10' here and here.
From CFNews: In a recent article in support of compulsory sex education in all UK schools. Guardian columnist Polly Toynbee launched an attack on Family and Youth Concern (FYC). [Polly Toynbee. Sex education works, so why is it not compulsory. Guardian. 4 December 2007].. She had evidently been irked by the press interest in FYC's report 'Waking Up to the Morning-After Pill', which had been the front-page story at the previous day's Daily Mail and had also received prominent coverage in other national and regional newspapers. In view of the factual inaccuracies contained in her article, FYC asked the Guardian to publish a correction. In reply the newspaper offered them the opportunity to write a comment piece in response to Polly Tornbee. A shortened and edited version of the following article by FYC's director. Norman Wells was printed in the Guardian on 7 December.'[Norman Wells, Don't believe the contraception industry: sex education doesn't work. Guardian. 7 December 2007]
According to Polly Toynbee, the small reduction we have seen in teenage conception rates 'may be partly due to easier emergency contraception from local pharmacies'. However, the fact remains that there is no evidence in the world to support her hypothesis. International studies have consistently shown that increased access to the 'morning-after pill' has reduced neither abortion nor unintended pregnancy rates.
Our own study (Norman Wells and Helena Hayward, Waking Up to the Morning-After Pill) which Polly dismisses as 'a spurious story' and 'evidence-proven nonsense', reveals that 84 per cent of Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) have policies permitting the pharmacy supply of the emergency pill to girls under the age of 16. and over half are prepared under some circumstances to insist on such provision as a condition of granting a pharmacy licence. Yet not a single PCT was able to cite any evidence that the confidential provision of the morning-after pill in pharmacies has contributed to a reduction in under-l6 conception rates. If Polly has any evidence that has hitherto eluded all 152 PCTs in England. I am sure they will be only too pleased to hear from her.
Counter-intuitive?
This may sound counter-intuitive. After all, if the 'morning-after pill' works at all, it stands to reason that it does prevent at least some unwanted pregnancies from developing and thus prevents at least some abortions. However. there is also evidence that the ready availability of contraception results in some young people becoming sexually active who would not otherwise have done so.
For almost a year following Victoria Gillick's Court Appeal victory in 1984, under-16s were unable to obtain contraception without parental consent. The sex education establishment and contraceptive industry protested that teenage pregnancy rates would rocket. But they didn't. While under-I6 attendances at family planning clinics went down by a third, teenage conception rates remained the same, suggesting that the restriction on contraceptives provision to under-16s led to a reduction in underage sex activity.
'Children's reproductive health rights'
But not everybody regards less teenage sexual activity as a positive outcome. Some are wedded to the notion of 'children's reproductive health rights' - a euphemism for the 'right' of children to engage in unlawful sexual intercourse, with confidential access to contraception and abortion. Polly Toynbee herself is dismissive of any attempt to discourage teenage sex and even goes so far as to say that, 'It is good news... that more pregnant teenagers are opting for abortions'. Bearing in mind the trauma experienced by many women for months and years after an abortion, this is hardly a cause for celebration.
Polly refers to Ofsted's criticisms of much sex education in its 'Time for Change'? report. This same report asserted that. 'School nurses can... provide a valuable service, particularly in terms of providing emergency hormonal contraception and advising on other forts of contraception.' The basis for the claim? Not that it reduces teenage pregnancy and abortion rates, but 'pupils said they appreciated it'. It does not bode well for children when the body responsible for improving standards in schools cannot tell the difference between what children say they value and what is truly valuable.
Sex education - an ideological battlefield
"Abstinence teaching doesn't work'. Polly asserts, while sex education 'taught well' can serve as the panacea for any number of social ills. But this all begs the question as to what it means for sex education to 'work' and to be 'taught well'.
The organisations demanding compulsory sex education in all schools share a strong hostility towards teaching children the positive benefits of saving sex for marriage. Yet this is a message they desperately need to hear. Separating sex from marriage has not only led to high rates of teenage pregnancy, sexually transmitted infections and abortions, but it is also a major contributory factor in divorce and family breakdown and all the human misery and adverse social consequences that flow from it. Young people desperately need to hear that there is a better way.
Sex education has become an ideological battlefield on which war is being waged for the hearts and minds of children. For this reason it is vital to resist attempts to impose a state-approved approach. Schools must remain accountable to parents who bear the primary responsibility for the care and nurture of their children, and parents must retain the freedom to withdraw their children from sex education lessons that they believe will do more harm
than good. [FYC]
Ranjith criticises communion in the hand
Briefing. It seems obvious to many that communion on the tongue from the priest better reflects the Catholic belief in the divinity of Our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. Not everyone agrees; Archbishop Ranjith's comments invite reflection.
From CFNews: The secretary of the Congregation for Divine Worship has called for reconsideration of the practice of Communion in the hand. In the preface to a new Italian-language book on the Eucharist, written by a bishop from Kazakhstan and released in January by the Vatican's official publishing house, Archbishop Albert Malcolm Ranjith Patabendige Don suggests that the reception of Communion in the hand has contributed to a general sense of 'carelessness' about the Eucharist, as well as some flagrant abuses. The archbishop makes his remarks in the preface to Dominus Est, by Bishop Athanasisus Schneider.
The practice of receiving Communion in the hand was not mandated by Vatican II, nor was it introduced in response to calls from the laity, Archbishop Ranjith writes. Instead, he argues, an established practice of piety-- receiving the Eucharist kneeling, on the tongue-- was changed 'improperly and hurriedly,' and became widespread even before it was formally approved by the Vatican. In light of a widespread lack of reverence for the Eucharist, the archbishop suggests that it is 'high time to review' the policy. While he does not condemn the practice of Communion in the hand, the Vatican official praises Bishop Schneider for arguing in favour of the older practice, saying that it helps to foster a proper sense of reverence and piety.
Friday, February 01, 2008
Northern Irish midwives promote illegal abortions
Briefing.
From SPUC: Pro-life campaigners in Northern Ireland have accused the spokeswoman for the Royal College of Midwives there of using her position to advocate the illegal killing of unborn children and especially children with disabilities. The Guardian reported midwives in the province feared prosecution. Mrs Betty Gibson, chairwoman of SPUC Northern Ireland, said: "The law in Northern Ireland is perfectly clear. Abortion is only permitted when the mother's life is in danger. Aborting children because they are disabled is illegal. Four years ago, Breedagh Hughes [the college's spokeswoman], spoke publicly about taking part in abortions she knew to be unlawful. Her open defiance of the law is actually inviting the authorities to bring a prosecution. However, her real fear seems to be that the unlawful abortion of disabled children may become impossible in Northern Ireland."
'Mum' and Dad' to be banned in school
Action: lobby Ed Balls: ed@edballs.com. At Stonewall's request, schools are being asked to undermine children's assumptions about the naturalness and normality of traditional family life. Regular readers will remember that this has already happened in the NHS.
From the Daily Star: "MUM AND DAD" are set to be banned from classrooms under barmy rules to stamp out gay bullying. Teachers have been told not to use the "gender specific" words to pupils.
Schools are also advised to stop telling little boys to "be a man" or that they are behaving like "a bunch of girls". Instead primary school teachers are being urged to use the word "parents" in an effort to boost children's awareness of same-sex couples.
And secondary schools are being told to teach kids between 11 and 14 about civil partnerships and gay adoption rights. Schools Secretary Ed Balls yesterday launched the guidelines, which were put together by gay rights group Stonewall.
The rules commissioned by the Department for Children, Schools and Families aim to help teach children aged between four and seven that some of their pals may have two mums or two dads.
In a section on how to chat about parents the document asks: "Do you talk about `parents' instead of assuming all pupils have a `mum and dad'? "Schools should make efforts to talk inclusively about same-sex parents, for example, to avoid assuming all pupils will have a `mum and dad'.
"When schools discuss marriage they may also discuss civil partnership and adoption rights for gay people." The crackdown also states that gay insults should be treated with the same "zero tolerance" as racist slurs. Guidelines also urge teachers to stop children using the word "gay" as a slang insult. It cites examples including "those trainers are so gay". Minister Mr Balls said: "Every school should have a clear policy on
tackling all forms of bullying, including homophobic bullying."
Private Members Bill to tighten up film classification
Action: please support the campaign by lobbying your MP.
Julian Brazier (Con) is a senior backbencher and a Catholic.
From CFNews: In a letter, mediawatch-uk writes to us : ''A very important Private Members' Bill has been introduced in Parliament by Julian Brazier MP (Canterbury), which aims to make the British Board of Film Classification more accountable to Parliament. For some time the BBFC has been classifying films with unacceptable levels of brutal violence, obscene language and some very explicit sexual conduct and nobody can do anything about it. mediawatch-uk believes that Mr Brazier's proposals are long overdue and we are supporting his efforts. Mr Brazier has specifically asked mediawatch-uk members to help him by writing letters to their Members of Parliament, or contacting www.writetothom.com, urging them to support his BBFC (Accountability to Parliament and Appeals) Bill which will be given a Second Reading on Friday 29 February 2008
Needless to say if we do not do all we can to support Mr Brazier we will only have ourselves to blame if the Board continues to classify ever-worsening material.
The British Board of Film Classification was set up in 1912 by the film industry and it assesses film content and rates the suitability of films for age appropriate viewing. It is currently funded by the industry through the fees payable to classify films. Since the 1960s the Board has adopted a progressively lenient approach. For example, this month the film 'How She Move', which includes 'strong language and soft drug use' was classified 12A! The Board's decisions have wide ramifications because not only do they set standards for the cinema they also set standards for television too. The main TV channels show around 3,000 films a year and now there are a number of satellite and cable channels dedicated to showing the latest movies.
We have said for a very long time that the Board is a law unto itself and should be accountable to Parliament. Mr Brazier's Bill will go some way to achieving this and we hope his Bill will lead to a regime of classification that is more responsible, promoting greater respect and civility in our society. Keith Vaz MP, Anne Widdecombe MP, Jim Dobbin MP and John Gummer MP among others are supporting the Bill. More information can be found at: http://services.parliament.uk/bills However, it should be understood that Private Members' Bills are vulnerable and do not always become law unless they are very well supported by other MPs. We would be very grateful indeed for donations towards this campaign, costing around £2,000. Website here
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Abortion and breast cancer: evidence of a link
Briefing. The article says "Pregnancy causes breast cells to grow and divide. An abortion interrupts this process, leaving large number of undifferentiated cells which are especially susceptible to cancer." It is interesting to note also the well-established negative link between breast cancer and breast-feeding (ie breast feeding makes cancer less likely).
From CFNews: Patrick Carroll's Research and the ABC Link Debate, by Colin Mason
Rates of breast cancer are skyrocketing in countries which have legalized abortion. But this suggestion--that abortion causes breast cancer--causes radical feminists, who are otherwise greatly concerned about breast cancer--to go into spasms of denial. This is why it is vitally important to the pro-life cause that the ABC link be investigated rationally, documented carefully, and presented convincingly. British statistician Patrick Carroll, who is Director of Research at Britain's Pension and Population Research Institute, has done just that in his new study, "Assessing the Damage," which was just published on October 25th of this year.
Some years ago, Carroll recognized that the U.K., because of the all-pervasive British Medical System and the public funding of abortions, has some of the most complete data on abortion, breast cancer, and other illnesses available anywhere. He used this data, which spans the 40 years since the legalization of abortion in 1967, to see if it showed any connection between abortion and suiicide, mental illness, and breast cancer in each of the U.K.'s four regions: England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. He also looked at other medical sequalae of abortion, such as the level of mental illness and subsequent suicide rates.
According to official figures, the modal age for abortions in England is 20,
while the modal age for live births is 30. Women are marrying later, if at
all, and the proportion of pregnancies among unmarried women continues to
grow. Many of these women seek abortions. Of the 180,000 abortion in 2006,
100,000 were performed on women who had no prior abortions, while 80,000
were performed on women who have at least one prior abortion.
Carroll's study shows, as one might suspect, that mental illness is more
common following first-time abortion. As the number of first-time abortions
grows, so has antidepressant use. Thirty-one million prescriptions were
written in England in 2006, a nearly 10 million increase over the
21.3million written in 2001.
Most importantly, however, his study clarifies why there has been a radical
upswing in the incidence of British breast cancer since the legalization of
abortion. Rates of breast cancer have risen by an incredible 80 per cent
since the late seventies.
Carroll begins by noting that upper class women are more likely to
develop breast cancer and more likely to have abortions. "The social
gradient for female breast cancer is unlike that of other cancers with upper
class women having a higher rate of incidence than those from lower social
classes," Carroll writes. "As in other countries this is termed a negative
or reverse social gradient for female breast cancer . . British official
publications report on the social gradient but do not explain it in terms of
known risk factors."
This reverse social gradient for breast cancer is far too steep to be
explained by the fact that upper-class women are having children later in
life, when the risk for breast cancer is more severe. Rather, Carroll
explains, "upper class and upwardly mobile women are more likely to choose
abortion when they are pregnant and this helps to explain this otherwise
inexplicable social gradient. Upper class women tend to postpone
childbearing and have a later age at first birth. Abortions before full-term
pregnancies are the more carcinogenic nulliparous [first-time] abortions."
The results? After a judicious parsing of the data, Carroll concludes:
"Breast cancer can be considered a long term sequel to abortion."
Although the causes of breast cancer are not completely understood, it is
commonly accepted that hormonal changes play a large role. Pregnancy causes
breast cells to grow and divide. An abortion interrupts this process,
leaving large number of undifferentiated cells which are especially
susceptible to cancer.
The media in the U.K., not surprisingly, have not been kind to Carroll's
study and the British medical establishment has yet to comment. What can
they say, after all? The data on abortions and breast cancer come from the
government itself, and are not subject to "recall bias," or any of the other
shortcomings that normally afflict survey data. The argument is clear and
convincing.
While Carroll ends by calling for further study, he also makes it clear that
he thinks the facts speak for themselves. "The correlation [between breast
cancer and abortion] is much higher than for other known risk factors such
as Childlessness, Age at First Birth and Fertility," he says. He goes on to
point out that "Modelling using abortion and birth rates as explanatory
variables has been used to make forecasts for eight countries for the future
incidence of female breast cancer."
When you can not only explain the past, but offer predictions of the future,
you are in possession of a very powerful theory indeed. We have long been
convinced at PRI that the abortion breast cancer link is fact. Carroll's
work should help convince all those who are not blinded by the ideology of
choice.
*Colin Mason is the Director for Media Production at PRI.
Friday, January 25, 2008
Last chance to stop hybrid embryos
Action: please lobby the Lords
From SPUC: The last chance for the House of Lords to stop the Human Fertilisation and
Embryology bill is currently scheduled for Monday 4 February. Peers will
be debating the use of human embryos in experiments. The Bill seeks, among
other things, to:
* extend the creation of embryonic children in the laboratory ('test-tube
babies')
* allow embryonic children to be abused and killed for a wider range of
research purposes
* permit the creation of human-animal hybrid embryos.
Over recent weeks, the Government and supporters of embryo research have
blocked all substantial efforts to lessen the evils of the Bill during its
passage through the Lords. Although it is unlikely that pro-life Lords will
defeat the Bill, a strong vote against it now will help and encourage MPs
to oppose the Bill when it goes to the House of Commons - probably in
mid-February. Many people wrote to the Lords in November asking them to
oppose the bill at second reading - this had great impact and helped
encourage pro-life peers in their opposition to the bill.
Please write to one or more Lords as soon as possible, urging them to move
for a vote against the Bill. You can contact peers from our page of
parliamentarians' email addresses:http://www.spuc.org.uk/lobbying/email/
You are free to write to any Lord(s) you wish. Please write to one or more
- as many as you can. The most important thing is to contact them soon, and
to urge them to vote against the bill at third reading.
MPs take aim at Bishop of Lancaster
Update: praise for Bishop O'Donaghue from the Vatican: he groundbreaking education document 'Fit for Mission', produced by the Bishop of Lancaster has received further praise from the Vatican. The document had previously been praised by the Congregation for Clergy. It has now also been singled out by Cardinal Zenon Grocholewski, Prefect of the Congregation for Catholic Education, as a "reliable resource for renewing the vitality of Catholic education in today's society". The cardinal commended Bishop Patrick O'Donoghue on behalf of the congregation for his "initiative and work done to strengthen the values inherent in the Catholic school". Cardinal Grocholewski highlighted the publication's "comprehensive" use of documents from the Holy See to support the Catholic ethos in schools on a diocesan level. The implementation of the Fit for Mission? Schools programme will be developed throughout Lancaster over the course of this year. The diocese's education centre will facilitate and co-ordinate further consultation and implementation of the action plan among primary and secondary schools, and colleges. The consultation will culminate in a diocesan conference in November 2008 to discuss the progress of the initiative over the year. Bishop O'Donoghue, currently on a pastoral visit to India at the invitation of the Syro-Malabar community, said: "I am absolutely delighted with the letter from Cardinal Grocholewski. "It is so encouraging to learn that Fit for Mission? Schools has been commended by the Congregation that has authority over all Catholic schools and colleges throughout the world." He added: "I see it as yet another sign that our efforts at Lancaster are moving in the right direction. "We are honestly trying to make our schools and parishes fit for mission - striving to communicate the Gospel with a freshness and energy to young and old." [Gabriel Communications]
Briefing 07/01/08. This quotation is very interesting:
The Observer quotes MP Barry Sheerman: 'A group of bishops appear to be taking a much firmer line and I think it would be useful to call representatives of the Catholic church in front of the committee to find out what is going on,' he said. 'It seems to me that faith education works all right as long as people are not that serious about their faith. But as soon as there is a more doctrinaire attitude questions have to be asked. It does become worrying when you get a new push from more fundamentalist bishops. This is taxpayers' money after all.'
This is aimed at Bishop O'Donoghue's call for properly Catholic schools. We have explained before the absurdity of the state complaining that Catholic schools use government money: the deal was to make the huge network of Catholic schools free at the point of delivery with government funds to extend free education. The schools are owned by the Church, and the Church continues to subsidise them, and it's a bit late for the state to complain about it.
But the real point here is that Sheerman and his friends want to enforce doctrinaire secularism in all schools before the Muslims get state schools of their own. He is not really worried about Catholic fundamentalists. He's desperate not to distinguish between one religion and another, so he's kicking the Church to ward off Islam.
The whole Observer article is here. More on the very positive reaction to Bishop O'Donoghue's initiative from Fr Finigan here.
EU is anti-family, say European Catholic bishops
Briefing.
From C-Fam: By Maciej Golubiewski
A report just released by the European bishops calls on the European Union (EU) to focus on what they consider to be the real needs of families in Europe and further calls on the EU to respect national marriage laws of the member states. The report by the Commission of the European Bishops’ Conference (COMECE) entitled “Proposal for a Strategy of the European Union for the Support of Couples and Marriage” focuses on two fundamental problems that present “high emotional, social and financial costs to European society:” the continuing increase in divorce rates and the difficulty faced by young Europeans who decide to raise children.
The report says that in the field of matrimonial matters, “[national]
diversity has to be respected and family law is and must remain the sole
competence of member states.” The bishops found that some legislative proposals
of the European Commission for increased cross-border legal cooperation come
close to encroaching on the exclusive right of member states to make their own
family policy. Moreover, EU policy in the areas of employment, social
protection and poverty reduction ignore the importance of marriage altogether,
they said.
In the area of employment and social protection, the bishops make the case
that “loving and stable couples are a social capital for all Europeans” and are
“founts of mutual trust in society” as well as “the preferable instance for
bringing up children” and charge the EU with ignoring this. They call for EU
assistance in sharing European best practices regarding divorce prevention
programs such as communication training for high-risk couples, especially those
dealing with pressures of dual employment and separation due to increased
geographic mobility.
The bishops also took issue with the EU’s assumption that a dual-income
family is “a new social norm” among European citizens, arguing that some dual
earning households exist primarily for financial constraints. For that reason,
they said, EU should support and not discriminate single-earner families.
Staying at home to care for one’s children is “an important and welcome
contribution to the well-being of all citizens of the European Union,”
according to the report, which cites studies showing family break up as an
important cause of poverty.
As for cross-border legal cooperation in family matters, the bishops warn
that the EU’s legislative proposals exceed EU mandates by recognizing de facto
unions and registered partnerships. This could prematurely “entail common
recognition of such unions in a situation where member states do not provide
recognition for the legal aspects of such unions” and dangerously undermine the
importance of marriage as endowing parents with social and legal
responsibilities which otherwise do not exist, they said.
David Fieldsend, from the Brussels-based CARE Europe, said, “The Bishops’
paper is a timely and well-researched contribution to the debate that is at
last being aired at the EU on family matters. For too long talk of the family
has been taboo while all sorts of fringe agendas were embraced with enthusiasm.
Now the demographic crisis has forced the EU’s leaders to sit up and take
notice.”
