C-FAM's worst five events of 2013

C-FAM (the Catholic and Family Human Rights Institute) exists to defend life and family at international institutions and to publicise the debate.

Its vision is to preserve international law by discrediting socially radical policies at the United Nations and other international institutions.

An essential part of C-FAM’s work is each week to publish the Friday Fax, prepared by C-FAM staff members who attend UN meetings and conferences as well as closely reading numerous UN documents.

The Friday Fax, now in its fourteenth year of uninterrupted publication, is read by over 400,000  subscribers and readers around the world.

Friday Fax has just published its ‘bottom five’, the global abortion lobby’s greatest victories of 2013.

These will be of interest to everyone with an interest in how pro-abortion factions are working at the highest international level to promote abortion throughout the world with the assistance of national governments and global corporate leaders.

I have included the links which provide further background information:

C-FAM’s Bottom Five; The Worst Events of 2013

1.  Women Deliver

Abortion groups highly anticipate this global conference on women’s health. This year it featured clandestine abortionists, late term abortionists and pro-infanticide philosopher Peter Singer in a program that equated women’s health with contraception and abortion, but ignored some of the most basic needs of women. C-FAM staff attended Women Deliver exposing efforts to make abortion available where it is illegal using misoprostol, a drug that — even advocates admit — is more effective as an abortifacient than its stated purpose of stopping hemorrhaging. Melinda Gates was at the conference to promote the Gates Foundation family planning initiative, which supposedly had nothing to do with abortion. C-FAM has analyzed the premises of these policies.

2. Abortion Groups Keep Population Control on the UN Agenda

As nations perform a 20-year review of population policies that include family planning and abortion, the agency in charge of the review has put abortion groups at the helm. They want countries to spend more money on policies that have an overall effect of reducing populations. Governments spent $60 billion last year on population policies that originated at the 1994 Cairo Conference on Population and Development. Recipients of that money include the United Nations Population Fund, International Planned Parenthood Federation, Marie Stopes International, Ipas, and groups that promote abortion, contraception and sterilization as a panacea for the world’s problems.

3. France and the UK Enact Homosexual Marriage Laws

President Francois Hollande imposed homosexual marriage on France by seeking to silence opponents and rushing to a vote on the law. But the French people staged monumental demonstrations, bringing over 1 million people to the streets of Paris. Families with children, elderly men and women, and youth were beaten, tear gassed, and jailed – actions for which France was scolded by the Council of Europe and at the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva. This was not so for the Brits. In the United Kingdom marriage defenders were barely able to muster a whimper as their parliament voted on marriage for homosexuals. 

4. UNICEF Claims Children Have Right to Confidential Abortion

The UN children’s agency (UNICEF) called on countries to recognize a right of children to confidential sexual and reproductive health services and information. They followed the lead of UN “experts” that monitor the Convention on the Rights of the Child. They say children must have confidential access to “safe abortion” and the morning after pill among other things. Though countries may ignore experts, they must pay attention to UN agencies and programs because they provide money and other forms of aid. Unfortunately, UNICEF has joined the ranks of those who hold sexual autonomy as the highest human rights norm.

5. UN Committee Says Abortion is a Right in Situations of War

The global abortion lobby’s latest effort is to manufacture a right to abortion for women who are victims of rape in situations of war. They were at UN headquarters during the annual Commission on the Status of Women in the Spring and again in the Summer to lobby the UN Security Council, albeit without success. The UN committee that monitors the UN’s women’s treaty gave abortion groups a lifeline when it issued a recommendation that abortion is a right in situations of conflict. The committee’s opinions have no real authority, but abortion groups and UN staff will tout them as authoritative to pressure governments to change their laws.

Stefano Gennarini writes for C-FAM. This article first appeared in the Friday Fax, an internet report published weekly by C-FAM (Catholic Family & Human Rights Institute), a New York and Washington DC-based research institute. This article appears with permission.

Kiwi cricketer Ross Taylor on verge of breaking two more records

Kiwi cricketer Ross Taylor could make history today as he takes the field for the final day of the third test against West Indies.

The Black Caps bowled out the West Indies for 103 in their second innings in Hamilton yesterday and now just need 116 further runs to complete a 2-0 series win. They are currently 6 without loss.

Yesterday Taylor completed his third consecutive Test century making 131 to lead the Black Caps to 349 all out.

In so doing he became the first New Zealand batsman to score a century in all three Tests of a three Test series (217, 129 and 131).

Taylor is now just 20 runs short of breaking the New Zealand record of most runs in a three match series, which was achieved by Andrew Jones when he scored 513 against Sri Lanka in 1990/91.

The 29-year-old is also just seven runs shy of breaking the record for the most runs by a New Zealander in a calendar year - which was accomplished by John Reid when he scored 871 in 1965. But Reid's tally though took three Tests and eight innings more than Taylor.

Taylor, who yesterday scored his 11th Test ton, is averaging an incredible 246.5 for this series and 72 for 2013 with one innings almost certainly to come. So a series average of 250 is not beyond the realms of possibility.

His total runs for the year also put him fourth in the international rankings behind only Michael Clarke, Ian Bell and David Warner. But he has achieved this in just 16 innings, at least six fewer than any of these three.

Taylor has now scored over 4,000 runs in tests including eleven hundreds and has a test average of 46.52. He also has eight hundreds in ODIs and 16 in first class matches.  

He also has a test bowling average of 24 (!), but has actually bowled only 16 overs in total, taking 2 for 48 overall.

Let’s hope he reaches these new milestones today.

New Zealand cricket badly needs something to crow about despite our great ability to look on the bright side.

No pressure Ross!

Luteru Ross Poutoa Lote Taylor (his full name) was born in Lower Hutt, Wellington, in 1984 and is also only the second Kiwi international cricketer of Samoan descent. 

My top 25 blog posts of 2013

When I write a blog post I usually have no idea just how much (or how little) interest it will attract.

I am often surprised and especially by my top post of 2013 which has attracted almost 160,000 views and is still going strong.

During the year I posted 210 articles in total (including this one). 

Two of the top five (1, 5) are testimonies while the other three (2, 3, 4) deal with apologetics issues and were deliberately written to attract atheists.

Whilst I write more on abortion and euthanasia than anything else these topics generally attract fewer views unless they deal with extreme cases (6, 8, 11, 19, 20).

Blogs with the names of well-known people in the title (5, 7, 8, 10, 13, 15, 18) tend to draw a crowd but in fact eleven of my top 25, but only one of the top ten, deal with homosexuality in one way or another (10, 12, 13, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21, 22, 23, 25).

Here are the top 25 ranked by the number of page views.

1. Do you know what happened to the girl in this iconic Pulitzer prize-winning photo from the Vietnam War? (159,088 views)

Testimony which went viral on Facebook in the US and South East Asia

2. Ten things we can learn from the slaughter of the Amorites in the Old Testament (12,572)

Retweeted by Richard Dawkins bringing thousands of his loyal followers

3. Twelve good arguments atheists advance against Christianity (12,492)

Attracted thousands of atheists looking for arguments to defend their position

4. Why Christians may eat shellfish but may not have sex outside marriage (8,341)

A favourite question from the new atheists

5. Springbok rugby hero Joost van der Westhuizen, dying from motor neurone disease, speaks of his Christian faith (7,477)

Christian testimonies of famous people always create interest

6. Defending the ‘indefensible’? Twenty reasons to think twice about aborting a baby with anencephaly (4,905)

Led to a BBC interview and attracted many wonderful testimonies from mothers of affected children

7. Margaret Thatcher recognises the wisdom and goodness of Jesus Christ (4,828)

A little-known moving letter from the former PM to a small child

8. Stephen Hawking is a great scientist but his advice on decriminalising assisted suicide should be given short shrift (4,624)

Celebrities are used to endorse legalisation

9. Why many British evangelicals are not that bothered with ethics (4,554)

An excerpt from my Christian Institute autumn lecture

10. Steve Chalke affirms same sex partnerships (4,362)

Steve Chalke’s disclosure of his views in Christianity magazine

11. Doctor who killed seven new-born babies by cutting their spinal cords with scissors may face death penalty (4,078)

The grisly tale of Gosnell

12. Man in active homosexual relationship who wants to become priest takes bishop to human rights tribunal for ‘discrimination’ (3,879)

The archbishop of New Zealand attacked by one of his own flock

13. The Archbishop’s speech on gay marriage – needless concessions and a lost opportunity (3,768)

Justin Welby fails to deliver in the House of Lords over same sex marriage

14. Twenty good arguments for Christianity (3,650)

Some basic defences put succinctly

15. Would giving royal assent to the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill place the queen in breach of her coronation oath? (3,446)

But she signed it anyway!

16. ‘Accepting Evangelicals’ – the new ‘evangelicals’ who back same sex marriage (3,362)

Disclosed Steve Chalke’s support for same sex marriage

17. Rosaria Butterfield – fascinating new autobiography of a lesbian English professor who finds Christian faith (3,236)

The testimony which provoked outrage amongst the politically correct

18. What causes homosexuality Peter Tatchell? Well it depends on which view is most politically convenient at the time (3,219)

The gay rights leaders see-sawing views exposed

19. Eight facts most people don’t know about the physical and psychological consequences of abortion for women (3,213)

Little known facts that shock

20. US House of Representatives vote for 20 week abortion limit raises the issue again for the UK (2,973)

A big issue on both sides of the Atlantic

21. Gay partnerships – how far should we go in tolerating ‘evangelicals’ who endorse them? (2,969)

Controversial within the church

22. Huge opposition mounts against gay marriage (2,675)

But it wasn’t enough!

23. Anal cancer rise in gay men prompts calls for vaccinations (2,479)

The disease that dare not speak its name

24. Parents should be informed about the impact of Down’s Syndrome on families (2,419)

Amazing little known facts that surprise

25. Professor Michael King applies double standard to evidence on homosexual change therapies (2,288)

The man behind the RCPsych’s opposition to change therapies

Send a gift this Christmas that will really transform lives in the developing world

Do you feel you are just going through the motions this Christmas spending money on unneeded gifts?

Some friends told me recently that they had given each of their children a £50 allowance to buy Christmas gifts for people living in developing countries.

Their kids had grasped the opportunity with both hands, putting careful thought into their purchases, and even adding some of their own savings in an effort to make a real difference in the lives of those they were seeking to help.

The idea of 'buying a goat for Christmas' is not new but it is amazing to see the huge variety of other gifts that are now available on line. And for not much outlay at all. 

Here are just a fraction of the gifts on offer.

On the Christian Aid you can buy a chicken for £9, a goat for £19, a group of ducklings for £25, a month’s food for a refugee family for £25, a sheep for £55 and a herd of goats for £76.

Samaritan's Purse is offering a mosquito net for £5, four chickens for £12, a kitchen garden and tools for £15 and two piglets for £31.

From CBM £15 will provide sight-saving vitamin A for 50 children, £26 will provide enough Mectizan tablets to help 40 families for an entire year - stopping the progression of River Blindness (Onchocerciasis) and freeing them from the associated, debilitating symptoms. £24 will pay for cataract surgery for an adult.

World Vision is offering maize seeds (£9), blankets (£10) and malaria testing kits (£14).

These are just a few of the hundreds of imaginative options on these sites and others like Oxfam and Save the Children.

Why not make someone you have never met feel special this Christmas?

Jesus Christ said, 'Sell your possessions and give to the poor. Provide purses for yourselves that will not wear out, a treasure in heaven that will never fail, where no thief comes near and no moth destroys.' (Luke 12:33)

My Radio Four Today programme debate on the ‘right to die’ cases before the Supreme Court

You can listen to the interview and read a short report on the BBC website.

Two men seeking assisted suicide are having their arguments heard by the Supreme Court this week in the latest round of their legal battle.

Paul Lamb, 57, was involved in a car accident in 1990, which left him paralysed, save for limited use of his right hand. He is seeking permission for a doctor in the UK to prescribe him lethal drugs so that he can take his own life.

‘Martin’, 48, suffered a brainstem stroke in August 2008, the effects of which are permanent, leaving him virtually unable to move and unable to speak. He can communicate only through small movements of his head and eyes and is totally dependent on others for every aspect of his life.

Because of his physical disabilities, ‘Martin’ is unable to take his own life. He wishes to go to Dignitas to end his life but his wife, although she wants to be there at the end, is unwilling to take part in any of the preparation or planning for her husband’s death.

The Director of Public Prosecutions’ guidelines state that a prosecution is more likely where a ‘professional’ assists a suicide. ‘Martin’ is seeking further clarity from the DPP regarding the likelihood of a doctor or carer assisting his suicide being prosecuted.

Both Lamb and ‘Martin’ are arguing that the current law represents a disproportionate and discriminatory interference with their right to a private and family life under Article 8 of the Human Rights Act, because it does not allow them to end their lives at a time and in a manner of their choosing - with the help of a medical professional.

Over the past 24 hours I have done six media interviews on these cases on behalf of ‘Care Not Killing’– BBC One o’clock news, Channel  5 News,  three BBC regional radio stations and the Radio Four Today programme.

I argued that if the Supreme Court were to accede to either man’s request this would be a far-reaching legal change that would remove legal protection from a large number of vulnerable, elderly, and disabled people.

You can listen to the (brief) Radio Four debate with Raymond Tallis and read a short BBC report on it here. The presenter was Sarah Montague (pictured).

Because of the death overnight of actor Peter O’Toole, our 0830 slot was bumped to 0855 leaving less than five minutes to deal with these very complex issues.

This was a matter beyond the presenters’ control and both Sarah Montague and Evan Davies said afterward that they had wanted to move the debate onto the concerning developments in other European countries that have changed the law to allow euthanasia or assisted suicide. They regretted that there was not time for this.

It is however noteworthy that the Belgian senate has in the last week voted to legalise euthanasia for children with terminal illnesses. The Belgian lower house is expected to offer not opposition to this when it considers it in the spring of 2014.

It is widely acknowledged that euthanasia is out of control in Belgium: a 500% increase in cases in ten years; one third involuntary; half not reported; euthanasia for blindness, anorexia, depression and a botched sex change operation; organ transplant euthanasia; and plans to extend euthanasia to children and people with dementia. 

One commentator has said that Belgium has 'leaped head-first off a moral cliff'.

Call it incremental extension, mission creep or slippery slope - whatever - it is strongly in evidence in Belgium.

With these two court cases proceeding and two bills due to be debated in British parliaments next year we should heed the loud warnings coming from across the English Channel. 

The 750 convicted criminals who are allowed to go on practising medicine are just a drop in the bucket

I was interested to read last month in the Daily Telegraph that more than 750 GPs, surgeons and other doctors had kept their jobs despite being found guilty of criminal offences.  

Of the convictions, 184 were for dangerous driving, 330 for drink-driving and four for driving under the influence of drugs.

But other convictions included perjury, forgery, fraud, making threats to kill and violent disorder, including rioting. Also included were one doctor who took indecent photographs of a child, two with convictions for possessing child pornography, two for trafficking drugs and three for grievous bodily harm.

There were 31 offences of assault, three of possessing dangerous weapons, seven for soliciting prostitutes, a dozen for domestic violence, and two of child cruelty or neglect.

The report predictably led to protest by patient advocacy groups. Why was it, they asked, that doctors were able to keep their jobs after criminal convictions when other professionals weren’t?

But what about doctors who habitually break the law without being investigated or prosecuted, let alone convicted?

In this connection I was interested to see another Telegraph article in which the journalist related a conversation she had had with a friend who was a GP.

The doctor had deliberately falsified an HSA1 abortion authorisation form saying that the patient qualified under ‘ground C’ - mental health - when she most clearly did not.

When the patient, a student, challenged her she explained that there were no other options to tick to grant her an abortion and that the reasons given on the form were the only legal grounds for abortion (as established by the 1967 Abortion Act).

This not surprisingly left the girl mystified and the GP feeling profoundly uneasy. She had clearly been breaking the law for some time but had never been challenged about it before.       

                                                

Ground C reads as follows:

‘The pregnancy has NOT exceeded its 24th week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman.’

In practice 98% of all abortions in Britain (about 196,000 per year) are authorised under Ground C and 99.96% of these are under mental health rather than physical health.

But in fact, according to a major review carried out by the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges in 2011, there is no evidence that the risk to mental health of continuing a pregnancy is ever greater than the risk of having an abortion.

So  in other words these abortions are technically illegal. Furthermore doctors who knowingly or wilfully putting their signatures to an HSA1 form in the way described are actually committing a form of perjury (I explain this is much more detail here).

Under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 abortion is still a criminal offence carrying a custodial life sentence, like murder. All the Abortion Act did was to make abortion legal under certain restricted circumstances.

Under the Perjury Act 1911 falsifying an HSA1 form is a criminal offence which carries a custodial sentence of up to two years, or a fine, or both.

What happens in practice is that both illegal abortion and related perjury occur on an industrial scale in Britain.

But the police, prosecutors, the courts, parliament and the medical profession do nothing about it.

Parliament, police and the courts have always deferred to doctors in this matter. There has been only one conviction for illegal abortion since 1967 in almost eight million cases and none, as far as I know, for perjury.

As a result, close to eight million preborn babies have had their lives taken by doctors illegally.  

As well as being illegal in probably 98% of cases in Britain, abortion is also contrary to the Hippocratic Oath and was described by the British Medical Association in 1947 as ‘the greatest crime’.

But now doctors are its authorisers and facilitators.

On 23 February 2012 the Chief Medical Officer wrote to all abortion providers advising them about the importance of upholding the law on abortion.

Last week, in answer to a parliamentary question from David Burrowes MP, Health Minister Daniel Poulter said that between 23 February 2012 and 31 December 2012 there were 153,335 abortions performed where the grounds involved a risk to the woman's mental health (notice that the health minister has used wording which is nowhere found in the Act itself).

So it appears that the CMO’s letter has made not a blind bit of difference.

I wonder what will happen now? 

I suspect, if the last 45 years is any indication, the answer will be ‘not much’.

There is no one more innocent, more vulnerable and killed in greater numbers in Britain than the preborn baby. That this is done largely illegally and that no one with power does anything to stop it is one of the greatest scandals and travesties of justice of our time.

It also makes doctors the largest group of unapprehended criminals in the state.  

The 750 doctors who are allowed to go on practising despite having criminal convictions are a drop in the bucket in comparison. 

English and Welsh women are eight times more likely to abort a baby with Down’s syndrome than Irish women

If you have Down’s syndrome and your mother lives in Ireland then your chances of making it to birth are considerably greater than if you have the misfortune to be conceived in England or Wales.

English and Welsh women are 7.6 times more likely than Irish women to have an abortion for a baby with Down’s Syndrome, 6 times more likely to have an abortion for Edward’s syndrome and 4 times more likely to have one for Patau’s syndrome.

Furthermore the Irish birth rate for Down’s syndrome babies is about twice that for England and Wales.

The way these figures are derived is explained below. The calculations are not simple as many babies with all these conditions are not diagnosed until after birth.

Some of the most common congenital abnormalities accounting for abortions in England and Wales are ‘trisomies’, in which there are three copies of one particular chromosome rather than two.

The most common trisomies are Down's syndrome (trisomy 21), Edwards’ syndrome (18) and Patau syndrome (13). People with DS now have an average life expectancy of between 50 and 60 but those with ES and PS will all die in early childhood.

The National Down Syndrome Cytogenetic Register (NDSCR) was set up on 1 January 1989 and holds anonymous data from all clinical cytogenetic laboratories in England and Wales of cases of DS, ES and PS diagnosed before or after birth.

Its 2011 annual report was published in February 2013 and is available here. 

It shows that in 2011 there were 931 abortions for Down’s syndrome, 370 for Edward’s syndrome and 139 for Patau’s syndrome.

In the same year there were an estimated 725 babies born with Down’s syndrome accounting for approximately 1 in 1,000 live births.

How do these numbers compare with Ireland where abortion for fetal disability is currently illegal?

We know from Department of Health Statistics that 4,149 women with Irish addresses had abortions in Britain in 2011 as against 189,000 abortions that year involving women from England and Wales.

Just under 4.6 million lived in the Republic of Ireland in 2011 as against 56 million in England and Wales. So if Irish women were having abortions at the same rate as English and Scottish women there would be not 4,149 a year but over 15,500 (there were 723,913 births in England and Wales in 2011 and 74,377 in Ireland).

But what about babies with trisomy 13, 18 or 21?

According to the Department of Health Ground E abortions (those for fetal abnormality) for the years 2007 to 2011 were 27, 29, 42, 68 and 51 respectively – a total of 217.

Of this 217, the totals for DS, ES and PS were 48, 24 and 17 – or an average of 10, 5 and 3 per year respectively. 

Now for argument’s sake let’s assume the following:

1. Babies with DS, ES and PS are conceived with same frequency in Ireland, England and Wales (not unreasonable unless mothers are much older and therefore risk higher in England).

2. Babies with DS, ES and PS are diagnosed with the same frequency in Ireland, England and Wales (reasonable given the similar technology).

3. No abortions for any of these conditions take place in Ireland (as it is illegal).

4. All abortions on Irish babies with these conditions take place in England and Wales (as this is their nearest legal port of call).

5. The Department of Health statistics for abortions on babies with DS, ES and PS are accurate (although see comparison with NDSCR figures here).

If abortions on Irish babies with DS, ES and OS were occurring at the same rates as English and Welsh babies with these conditions we would expect not 10, 5 and 3 abortions per year (for DS, ES and PS) but rather 76, 30 and 11 (figures obtained by multiplying E/W figures of 931, 370 and 139 above by 4.6 and dividing by 56 to correct for population).

In other words English and Welsh women are 7.6 times more likely than Irish women to have an abortion for a baby with Down’s Syndrome, 6 times more likely to have an abortion for Edward’s syndrome and 4 times more likely to have one for Patau’s syndrome.

There are currently 60,000 people living with Down’s syndrome in England and Wales and 5,000 in Ireland – roughly similar if we correct for population size.

But whereas 120 babies are born with Down’s syndrome in Ireland every year the equivalent figure for England and Wales is 725 – about half the corrected Irish birth numbers of 1,460.

Discussion of the results and the derivation of the numbers is most welcome.