Abortion: Cardinal throws down gauntlet to PM
Jul 09, 2007
Cardinal Keith O'Brien has called on Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, to take a moral lead and order an urgent review of Britain's abortion laws.
(The Scotsman, July 6, 2007) In an exclusive article for The Scotsman, the leader of the Catholic Church in Scotland praised Mr Brown for his stand on poverty in the third world and called on him to take that same respect for life into a "another sphere - the defence of life as yet unborn".
It is another attempt by the cardinal to put the issue at the forefront of political debate. He caused controversy earlier this year when he said the equivalent of two Dunblane massacres a day were being carried out, thanks to Britain's abortion laws.
His latest call comes amid a growing clamour from campaigners on both sides of the debate for the abortion laws to be looked at again by Westminster.
The pro-choice lobby wishes easier access to abortions while maintaining the upper limit of 24 weeks, while the pro-life lobby wants to see the time limit reduced and tighter control on abortions for what it describes as a "lifestyle choice".
In his article, Cardinal O'Brien challenged Mr Brown to do what his predecessor, Tony Blair, did not do, and reduce the time limit on abortions. He said that in a private meeting with Mr Blair, the former Prime Minister conceded there was a strong argument for a time-limit reduction. He said: "Sadly, he failed to act, allowing an opportunity to pass. I hope our new Prime Minister will not do the same."
The Cardinal, Archbishop of St Andrews and Edinburgh, described Mr Brown as a "man of principle and deeply-held moral convictions" for his work as chancellor in reducing third-world debt. But he claimed such work was hypocritical if it did not extend to helping the unborn.
"Our compassion towards the newborn and starving child in Darfur or Eritrea is surely hypocritical and hollow if we wantonly ignore the needs of their unborn counterparts in Dunfermline or Edinburgh who, through abortion, face the end of their short lives just as certainly as if they were born into poverty and malnutrition on the other side of the globe," he said.
New figures released in May showed that 13,081 abortions were carried out in Scotland in 2006, compared with 12,603 the year before - the fourth consecutive increase. The figures also revealed that abortions among those aged under 16 rose to 362 in 2006, from 341 the year before and 309 in 2004.
Alex Salmond, the First Minister, has said he may set up an independent commission to examine the application of the abortion law in Scotland, but this would have no power as it remains a reserved matter.
Cardinal O'Brien sparked controversy a month ago when, during a sermon to mark the 40th anniversary of the passing of the Abortion Act, he hinted that Catholic politicians should not take holy communion if they voted for abortion. He later compared abortion figures with the Dunblane massacre when he said "we kill the equivalent of a classroom full of school children every day".
The cardinal said: "I believe the time has come for wide-ranging and open debate in this country about abortion. It should not be dominated by our political elites or medical professionals, by religious leaders or pressure groups, but should be open to all."
Nadine Dorries, the Tory MP whose private member's bill to cut the upper time limit from 24 to 21 weeks was defeated in the Commons last year, said public opinion now supported a change. "Why should a child born prematurely at 21 weeks be given every opportunity to live while, in a neighbouring ward, it is terminated. Life can be viable above 21 weeks and so should be protected," she said.
But Tim Street, director of the Family Planning Association Scotland, said he found the cardinal's continual butting into the political process "exasperating". "He should stick to his own constituency. Politicians deal with the law; most politicians are not Catholics. This is an issue between women and their medical professionals," he said.
The British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), which provided many of the 214,000 abortions carried out in Britain last year, also favours a review of the current legislation, but for entirely different reasons.
Ann Furedi, its chief executive, said: "We believe the current abortion law is out of date and in need of modernisation. The medical and social landscape was very different in 1967 when the Abortion Act was framed. ."
The BMA in Scotland said: "In the first three months, abortion should be available on the same basis of informed consent as other treatments, and therefore should no longer need two doctors' signatures."
Downing Street refused to comment last night.
STATUS QUO
The British Medical Association would like to see the current level of 24 weeks retained on the grounds that almost 75 per cent of all foetuses at this stage or under are unable to survive, despite the latest developments in pre-natal care.
They are supported by the British Pregnancy Advisory Service who argue a change in the law would affect only the most vulnerable of women, such as teenagers, who might not recognise the signs of pregnancy until very late.
It would also affect those women who, at their 20 week scan, discover there is an abnormality. The decision to retain the 24 week limit is supported by Lord Steel, who introduced the Abortion Act in 1967.
ON DEMAND
AT THE moment a women requires consent from two doctors who agree that an abortion is in her best medical interest before she can proceed. This can cause delays up to seven weeks in some parts of the country.
Last week, the British Medical Association voted that this should be reduced to just one doctor, for pregnancies within the first trimester, which constitutes 90 per cent of all abortions, in an effort to reduce such delays.
There is support among other medical professionals to allow midwives or nurses to carry out abortions, however this motion failed to garner enough support and the current belief among the BMA is that the practice should be carried out by doctors.
CHANGE LIMIT
CURRENT legislation permits abortions up to 24 weeks, but in severe cases or if the mother's life is in danger, there can be abortion up to birth.
The move to reduce the time limit to 21 weeks is as a result of the advancement in perinatal care which means 26 per cent of infants can survive outside the womb at that point.
Campaigners argue the upper limit should be the point at which a foetus can survive after birth.
There have also been efforts by pro-life campaigners to introduce a bill into parliament that would require women to wait a week prior to a planned termination to allow them to change their minds. However, the attempt was soundly defeated.
OUTRIGHT BAN
If the Catholic Church, which believes that life begins at conception, was to hold sway then abortion would be banned entirely.
Britain would revert to the years before 1967 when those who wished to have a termination had to endure back-street abortions or, if they were sufficiently affluent, find a private doctor willing to break the law.
Under a ban, women would have to travel abroad or attempt to obtain the abortion drug, RU486, over the internet, as in Ireland today, where abortion remains illegal.
There is very little public support for a total ban on abortion.
Even polls among Catholics find support for the current provisions.
How Prime Minister has voted on contentious issue
THE issue of abortion raised its head early in the political career of Gordon Brown who, in line with Labour's policy of pro-choice, then voted repeatedly to support it. In 1988, David Alton, then a Liverpool MP, tabled a Private Members' Bill to reduce the upper time limit from 28 weeks to 18 weeks and Mr Brown voted, on four occasions, to support the existing limit.
Two years later, the Conservative government agreed to table amendments relating to abortion as part of its Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. As a result, a large number of pro-life and pro-choice amendments came before the house. During the course of 1990 Mr Brown voted a further 12 times, including three times for abortion up to birth in the case of medical emergencies and severe disability; twice for abortion on demand in early pregnancy and once to extend the abortion act to Northern Ireland. Between 1990 and October 2006 there were no votes on abortion law in Parliament.
While Tony Blair publicly proclaimed his Christianity and so drew criticism from pro-life groups for voting for abortion, which many Christian groups oppose, Mr Brown has never discussed his religious beliefs, despite being the son of a minister and a regular church attendee, and so avoided similar flak.
O'Brien's statement to The Scotsman
A MONTH has passed since I preached a sermon at St Mary's Cathedral in Edinburgh in which I criticised our country's abortion legislation. I have never had a greater response to any sermon or been so inundated with letters, e-mails and telephone calls offering support and thanks for my words.
Messages of goodwill have arrived from as far afield as New Zealand and the Philippines and from across Europe. Leaders of other Churches have indicated their support, as have many medical professionals. It is as if a dam has burst its banks and a great wave of compassion for the unborn has been released.
A surgeon wrote saying: "I am very pleased to see someone of your influence speaking out about the sorry state of this country whereby thousands of unborn healthy children are destroyed by the NHS and its abortion agencies, and most politicians seem totally unconcerned or ambivalent." He went on: "I feel powerless to halt the carnage and there is nothing more heartbreaking than seeing little arms and legs being sucked down a glass tube and binned for the sake of someone's lifestyle." Little wonder that the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists recently highlighted the "growing problem of trainees opting out of training in the termination of pregnancy". This may be one of many symptoms of a society slowly awakening to the brutal reality of what it means to destroy a sizeable portion of the next generation.
A small number of those who wrote to me and responded publicly to my comments objected to my language and criticised me for entering the political sphere. The language I used was strong, I reminded my listeners that in Scotland "we kill the equivalent of a classroom full of school children every day". I did so not because I wished to be sensational and certainly not because I wished to offend. I did so because it is true.
Likewise, I did enter into a debate, which has, wrongly in my view, come to be viewed as political. Abortion is neither political nor medical, though clearly it has implications in these spheres. It is about morality and the destruction of human life. It is not something our political parties tend to campaign or give manifesto commitments on, it is rightly deemed a matter of conscience and MP's have a free vote. Parliamentary debates therefore comprise 645 individuals expressing personal views informed by faith, conscience, experience, or a combination of these. Sadly, few, if any of our MPs have training in ethics, moral philosophy or theology. Similarly, our medical professionals tend to have very little training in these areas, yet, surprisingly, perhaps our media tend always and instantly to medicalise or politicise this profoundly moral question.
Accordingly, the "abortion debate" in the UK rarely involves any actual discussion about the realities of abortion! 'Red herrings' and diversionary tactics keep us from proper consideration of the value of each and every human life. As Cardinal Pell of Australia recently said: "Serious anti-lifers and publicity seekers have been trying to shoot the messenger while they work to bury the message." That has largely been the tactic used by many in response to me.
Although abortion statistics are regularly published, they have little or no effect. Familiarity has bred contempt. It is a contempt, which must be challenged. I believe the time has come for a wide ranging and open debate in this country about abortion. It should not be dominated by our political elites or medical professionals, by religious leaders or pressure groups, but should be open to all. Perhaps the saddest letter I received recently was from an elderly lady in Edinburgh, who wrote: "I was so happy you are fighting abortion. I had an abortion in 1979. It was so easy to get the abortion with my history of depression and poor health. There was no-one there to talk to at length. Please use the people who have lost a baby to counsel those who think of abortion." We must urgently consider what help we can give to those contemplating abortion as well as those who have endured it, and ask why a conspiracy of silence prevents their sad and wounded voices from ever being heard. We should also ask why no public funding is given to agencies which support women through a crisis pregnancy while large sums are provided to agencies who help women end one.
No debate, however, would be complete without a review of the existing law. In recent weeks Alex Salmond has expressed a willingness to consider an independent commission looking at the application of abortion law in Scotland. Last year I met Tony Blair and urged him to consider a UK-wide review. He appeared willing and conceded there was a strong argument for a time limit reduction. Sadly, he failed to act, allowing an opportunity to pass. I hope our new Prime Minister will not do the same. Gordon Brown is a man of principle and deeply held moral convictions. Our views on Trident may differ, but, like me, he has seen the suffering caused by poverty and malnutrition in many developing countries and has sought to persuade the decision makers of the developed world in forums like the G8 gatherings to respond to the desperate need of our fellow human beings.
In doing so he appeals to their desire to save and protect human life - the most noble motivation of all. I know he will continue to advocate the cause of life in that area, and I commend him for doing so. Additionally, however, I hope he will consider joining with me in support of human life in another sphere - the defence of life as yet unborn. In the case of life in the womb it is unarguable that, from conception onwards, human life has begun. What exists in the womb is not "a potential human being", but rather "a human being with potential". With that reality in mind our compassion towards the newborn and starving child in Darfur or Eritrea is surely hypocritical and hollow if we wantonly ignore the needs of their unborn counterparts in Dunfermline or Edinburgh who, through abortion, face the end of their short lives just as certainly as if they were born into poverty and malnutrition on the other side of the globe.
Yet isn't compassion for our fellow human beings indivisible? Doesn't it apply to all or to none? And doesn't our failure to apply it equitably leave us guilty of expediency, hypocrisy - even sinful negligence?
Abortion: Cardinal throws down gauntlet to PM