Women Deliver Conference 2013: do women have a right to kill but no right to conceive?

Peter Singer: supports infanticide

The 2013 Women Deliver took place in Kuala Lumpur from 28th-30th May. It was attended by representatives of many organisations at the forefront of the culture of death, including the United Nations Population Fund, the International Planned Parenthood Federation, Marie Stopes International, the Ford Foundation, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the US administration of Barack Obama.

One of the speakers was infanticide advocate Peter Singer who suggested that rising population might make it necessary to forcibly prevent families from having children. (See here for consideration of the origins of the over-population myth.)

‘It is possible of course’ Singer told the conference ‘that we give women reproductive choices, that we meet the unmet need for contraception but that we find that the number of children that women choose to have is still such that population continues to rise in a way that causes environmental problems.’ He also suggested that it was “appropriate to consider whether women’s reproductive rights are 'fundamental' and unalterable or whether… there can be imaginable circumstances in which you may be justified in overriding them.” In other words, if abortion and contraception fail to reduce human population growth it would, in Singer’s view, be morally acceptable to forcibly prevent men and women from having children. The reality however is that population growth is already on the verge of collapsing in many parts of the world, with all the economic and social dangers which that entails, precisely because of the widespread legitimisation of abortion and contraception.

Kavita Ramdas, an Indian representative of the Ford Foundation, made similar points arguing that “you can force women to have less children [sic], you can force people to consume less”. Reversing the racism often shown by the population control movement she asserted that the United States and Europe ‘are truly putting an unsustainable load on the planet for all of us’ and suggested that ‘if Americans consume more than Africans, they should be forced into a one child policy’.

I wonder how the delegates attending the conference would have responded if a speaker had suggested that the so-called 'right' to abortion had to be overriden to deal with declining population growth? The right to kill seems to be unchallengeable but a woman's right to truly control her own fertility by conceiving children within the self-giving supportive union of marriage can be overriden to suit the political agenda of ideologues such as Singer and Ramdas.

These calls were addressed to representatives of the UN, national governments, and some of the largest NGOs in the world. The forces arrayed against the family, and especially against it’s most vulnerable member, the unborn child, are very powerful, very wealthy and very determined.

SPUC needs your help to fight back today.

- Join SPUC
- Donate to SPUC
- Support SPUC’s campaigns

Yet another SPUC activist leads the way with 40 Days for Life

This year the first Welsh 40 Days for Life campaign was launched in Cardiff city, by a young woman called Rhoslyn Thomas, amongst others, who has been a longstanding activist of SPUC and a 2012 intern. Another SPUC activist, Kelechi, has also been proactive in setting up a 40 Days for Life in her hometown in Nigeria, and supporting the 40 Days for Live vigil in Milton Keynes. 

40 Days for Life Milton Keynes, with Andy (R), founder David Bereit (L) and Kelechi (L, centre)

 A little while ago Rhoslyn posted some good news on Facebook about a child spared death at the hands of an abortionist. Here is a fuller version below:

This year, we ran our very first 40 Days For Life campaign in Cardiff on St. Mary's Street. The abortion clinic is unmarked and, for the most part, unknown. It is a busy street with lots of shops, night clubs, cafes and restaurants and offices. Indeed, the clinic itself is above a restaurant and the building is shared with a number of offices. We were a few weeks in when we were approached one day by a young man who calmly asked us what we were doing. We replied that we were praying for an end to abortion, but specifically praying for everyone who entered that clinic, that they would choose life. He told us that his girlfriend was inside the clinic, discussing and planning her abortion.

He told us that she had aborted a previous baby and that they also had other children but that they were living in temporary accommodation and were being pressured by social services to abort the baby that his girlfriend was currently carrying though they wanted their baby. When I heard him say this, I was saddened but not very surprised.

Again and again we are told that this is a woman's 'right to choose', yet it seems to me that few women do choose. Yes, some do, but many do not. More often than not, there seems to be some source of coercion. As the suffragette, Mattie Brinkerhoff, wrote in 1869, "When a man steals to satisfy hunger, we may safely conclude that there is something wrong in society - so when a woman destroys the life of her unborn child, it is an evidence that either by education or circumstances she has been greatly wronged" We told him that we knew of an organisation in London, the Good Counsel Network, who could help him. I told him what I knew to be the truth: if he phoned them and asked them for help, there is no way they would turn him down.

They would (not might) help them with anything they needed: money, clothes, prams, food, counselling, accommodation. He seemed glad to know this and we were hopeful that he would phone, though he declined our offer to use our phones on the spot. So, after he and his girlfriend left, all we could do was pray and pray.

Being a former intern at SPUC and having parents who have volunteered and worked for SPUC for many years, we had quite a network of people to call on for prayers! We had people up and down the country praying for this couple and many offers of a home and help for them from total strangers! I was sorry that I didn't ask for a telephone number from the couple but I felt that it was so important, at a time when they were being pressured from all sides, not to add to this pressure and to leave them in God's hands. I kept asking the people at Good Counsel over the following weeks if they had phoned or not.

Sadly, they had not but I didn't give up on them because I know that no prayer goes unanswered. 40 Days For Life ended on the 24th March this year. By then, we still hadn't heard but we didn't forget about that couple. We all slipped back into normal life until one day about a week ago I got an e-mail from a member of the vigil's 'core team' saying that they had some good news...the couple had phoned Good Counsel and they are keeping the baby!

To say this was the best news I had heard all year was an understatement! I was so thankful that we had been there so that we met that young man and gave him that little card. It was such a little thing but it saved a life! In fact, it not only saved the baby, but it saved their mother and father from another abortion and the repercussions of extinguishing that life.

I think that few reading this blog could imagine just how many people screamed and shouted at us saying that we were "intimidating women" by standing outside a building where human beings are killed and peacefully praying. I am glad that we were there and we will be back for another 40 days, so that when the next couple comes up to us needing support and love, we will be there.

Rhoslyn (L) with 40 Days for Life founders Shawn and David. Also pictured is Ann Howard, a former SPUC intern

Pro-abortion protesters oppose the prayer vigil in Cardiff

40 Days for Life vigil supporters praying

A baby is born, thanks to a young woman who talks the talk and more importantly, walks the walk

I received this email (below) from a friend, Kelechi. She has been a regular volunteer with SPUC in our London office, has attended several of our conferences and training days, including the conference on international development, maternal health, and abortion.

Through SPUC, Kelechi came into contact with 40 Days for Life (we went to the fundraising banquet in Westminster a few years ago). We also provided Kelechi with advice and some materials (foetal model set, leaflets etc). Since then Kelechi has been a regular member of the 40 Days for Life in Milton Keynes (an initiative that involves a public prayer vigil outside an abortion facility, prayer and fasting, and community outreach). She also went over to her home town of Abuja, Nigeria, in January. She spoke at several churches and halls, leading to the founding of the pro-life group "Save the Unborn Babies" Nigeria. She also helped to establish a 40 Days for Life campaign in Nigeria. As a result at least 6 babies have been spared abortion. In fact, Kelechi has made and will continue to make trips back to Nigeria to ensure Save Unborn Babies develops and keeps up its lifesaving and educational work. On top of all this Kelechi works full-time as a business studies lecturer at a college of further education.

In my opinion, Kelechi is a excellent example of a motivated young woman who has put her pro-life conviction into effective action - outward facing, bringing the message to wider society, not being stuck in a cycle of jumping from talk to talk, conference to conference - talking the talk but doing little else. We are honoured to be able to work with her.

Dear SPUC Family,

Please rejoice with us at Save The Unborn Babies Pro-Life Initiative Nigeria, as our first saved baby was delivered on Friday, 31st May at about 1:25 am. Mum and baby are doing very well, and we are pleased to affirm that it is through your kind support that this baby boy has been saved from the abortion her mother had intended for him.

This baby may not have been here today if you did not give me the opportunity to work with SPUC as a volunteer while receiving pro-life training, nor join 40 Days for Life at Milton Keynes and other pro-life activities in Luton Good Counsel. Thank you also for your kind support with educational materials and encouragement towards my visit to Nigeria for pro-life work.

In December when I visited Nigeria, this new mum (then pregnant) had made some money deposit for an abortion and was in search of the balance to undergo the procedure. After I spoke in Church, she met me crying as she unfolded her ordeal, telling how her fiance kicked her out of the house despite her pregnancy. We encouraged her to keep her baby while supporting with her ante-natal bills. A member also offered her an accommodation. On Friday, 30th May, the young lady called me with the good news that she has put to bed. All glory be to God.

I must thank you all at SPUC for your encouragement and support to embark on this mission which has helped save this baby boy from forced death. Many thanks to Andy Burton's 40 Days for Life, Milton Keynes and Luton Good Counsel for their inspiration. It is incident like this, that give us fulfilment and encouragement to keep on doing the work.
God bless you all.
Kind regards,
For: Save The Unborn Babies Pro-life, Nigeria
Kelechi Anyaghara

First baby born, and sleeping well by the looks of it

Kelechi (3rd from left) at the SPUC maternal health conference with speakers and SPUC staff

Kelechi with 40 Days for Life founders at the London banquet

Young adults hold a public pro-life display

Kelechi speaking to a local group, telling them about pro-life work

Kelechi gave a training session to a group of recent graduates

Missionaries to society

On the 25 May 2012 The Daily Telegraph reported that the Home Secretary Teresa May said "homosexuals will be missionaries to the wider society and make it stronger." She made this comment in relation to government plans to legalise same-sex marriage. 

In the same vein pro-abortion voices say they defend abortion because they take motherhood so seriously. Similarly, self-described pro-choice advocates present abortion as a means of exercising free choice and ensuring women's equality. 

What we have is a moral inversion - bad is called good. That which causes harm is called enhancing. 

What our society continually and urgently needs is for pro-lifers, those who believe in the dignity of the human person from conception, and the institution of heterosexual marriage as best for children born and unborn, to be missionaries to the wider society, and make it stronger. We can and should go to talks and conferences, read articles, and learn the arguments, but if we do not take the message to others we are not being effective. We end up creating a pro-life cottage industry where we talk to ourselves about what we already know and agree upon.

Pope Francis, in 2005 whilst still a cardinal in Argentina, gave a sermon to a group of pro-lifers. His sermon included the following message. Although it will have obvious relevance for Christians, especially Catholics, it's useful for us all in appreciating the spirit we need in order to be missionaries to the wider society:

But it is a road that is full of wolves, and perhaps for that reason they might bring us to the courts, perhaps, for that reason, for caring for life they might kill us.  We should think about the Christian martyrs.  They killed them for preaching this Gospel of life, this Gospel that Jesus brought.  But Jesus gives us the strength.  Go forth!  Don't be fools, remember, a Christian doesn't have the luxury of being foolish, I'm not going to repeat, an idiot, a fool, he can't give himself the luxury.  He has to be clever, he has to be astute, to carry this out.

Society, unborn children and their parents, need you to be a missionary right where you live - whether village, town or city. Taking the pro-life message to the public - leafleting, table displays, prayer vigils, pro-life chains, walks of witness, supporting pro-life pregnancy centres, writing letters to local and national press, calling into radio shows, objecting to BPAS and Marie Stopes abortion adverts in pub and club toilets etc etc - not only brings the message to a wider audience, but also strengthens our resolve to be actively pro-life.

Fr (Blessed) Miguel Pro, Mexican martyr 1927

White Rose movement - student resistance to Nazi atrocities

Greensboro Woolworth restaurant sit-ins 1960

Pakistani politician Shahbaz Bhatti murdered for opposing oppressive sharia laws

Pro-life street display table

Large pro-life prayer vigil

Pro-life display table at a local council festival


SPUC's Anthony Ozimic explaining the nature of marriage on national television

 Young adults March for marriage in Paris

Pro-life tour with the Olympic torch

Post-abortive mothers public witness

Email your name, address, and number of pro-life leaflets you want: danielblackman@spuc.org.uk

The Life and Crimes of Margaret Sanger Part V: Birth Control and Abortion

Margaret Sanger in her later years

Margaret Sanger’s most concrete legacy is surely the International Planned Parenthood Federation which consists of 150 affiliated organisations working in 172 countries. Together they form the largest organisation in the world dedicated to the promotion of contraception and abortion.

Margaret Sanger’s name is therefore inextricably associated with abortion, yet during her lifetime the practice was illegal in most American states and in almost every country in the world. It will be of interest then to consider Sanger’s views on abortion and ask why the birth control organisations she led were to become the major abortion providers wherever abortion was legalised, and the major advocates for its legalisation in those nations where it was not. 

Sanger was in favour of abortion from an early stage in her career despite her reluctantance to support it publicly. In her 1920 book Women and the New Race she claimed that throughout history societies have feared overpopulation and therefore practiced abortion and infanticide. Accordingly she argued that only the widespread availability of artificial birth control could bring an end to such 'horrors'. Sanger gives examples of women who have been ‘forced’ into abortion because they could not afford any more children. She used the natural abhorrence of abortion to try to overcome the equally natural abhorrence of contraception. If she was sincere in her profession that abortion was something to be regretted she was nonetheless prepared to support it. In her book Family Limitation she stated baldly that ‘no one can doubt that there are times when an abortion is justifiable.’ According to Angela Franks there is evidence that her Birth Control Clinical Research Bureau referred at least seventy-five women for abortions.[1] Indeed Sanger’s criticisms of abortion seem to focus on the danger abortion procedures pose to the health of the mother rather than on the rights of the unborn child.

One of the major questions Sanger poses in Women and New Race is ‘Contraceptives or Abortion—which shall it be?’ Sanger’s commitment to radical sexual liberation, which admits no possibility of sexual abstinence or self-restraint, combined with her conviction that overpopulation is the cause of poverty, renders her unable to accept the possibility of any other solutions to the problems that she raises. This refusal to acknowledge that rational human beings can exercise self-control in sexual matters is very prevalent today. Young people are taught to consider themselves as subject to uncontrollable desires which will result either in ‘unwanted pregnancy’ or sexually transmitted diseases unless they allow themselves to be subjected to a variety of contraceptive methods.  Modern sex education therefore strips from young people any sense of self-respect or true understanding of their sexuality.

Ann Furedi, Chief Executive of BPAS (British Pregnancy Advisory Service), has argued that we must either view abortion as a ‘problem’ or we must ‘allow people their moments of intimacy, we allow them to enjoy sex, and we allow them to make use of abortion as a back-up to contraception.’[2] In other words, as no limit can reasonably be placed on the pursuit of sexual pleasure (because the right to such pleasure is so fundamental and the desire for it so overwhelming) it is permissible to destroy the ‘unwanted’ results of such actions, even though they be unique and innocent human beings.

If we have learnt anything in this series of posts about Margaret Sanger it is surely that the origins of abortion lie in an erroneous ideology of sexual liberation which separates sexual pleasure from the procreative and unitive ends of the sexual act. Once this isolation of pleasure has taken place then it becomes ‘necessary’ for birth control to be used to allow for the maximum pursuit of this pleasure. The failure of birth control to prevent all ‘unwanted pregnancy’ then renders abortion equally ‘necessary’.  This is why the birth control movement was brought forth by the movement for ‘sexual liberation’ and why it has seamlessly developed into the abortion industry that we confront today.

Only by working tirelessly to restore a true understanding of human sexuality can the pro-life movement ensure that all human life will once more be loved, protected and welcomed.

You may be interested in reading the other posts in this series:

The Life and Crimes of Margaret Sanger: Part I

The Life and Crimes of Margaret Sanger II: From Marx to Malthus

The Life and Crimes of Margaret Sanger III: Eugenics and Birth Control

The Life and Crimes of Margaret Sanger IV: Eugenics and Race

---

[1] Angela Franks, Margaret Sanger’s Eugenic Legacy: The Control of Female Fertility, p11

[2] Ann Furedi, ‘Why rising abortion rates are not a problem?’, Spiked Online, (31/3/2008)

Amnesty International Part IV: International Law

Part IV: Amnesty International, Abortion and International Law

“Amnesty International bases its policies on international law, which is silent on the point of when life begins.”

This is one of the central arguments used by Amnesty International in their attempt to portray their ideological commitment to abortion as a reasoned and moderate approach to a difficult moral question.

In reality, Amnesty International’s position here is not correct. The United Nations Convention of the Rights of the Child (1959), which since 1990 has been a binding treaty in international law, clearly states:

“The child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth.” This is a clear statement that, according to international law, life begins before birth. 

This interpretation of international law is confirmed by the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966) which forbids the carrying out of the death penalty on pregnant women i.e the Covenant recognises that the unborn child is an innocent human being who cannot legitimately be put to death for the crime of the mother.

In promoting the decriminalisation of abortion Amnesty International are acting contrary to the very principles of international human rights legislation that they profess to uphold.

Conclusions

The letter that we have been considering is sent by Amnesty International to those potential donors who have expressed opposition to their current position on abortion. They seek to hide their ideological commitment to abortion behind a facade of moderation and a misuse of scientific and legal arguments.

In fact Amnesty International’s position as stated in the letter

-          Is contrary to all accepted scientific evidence

-          Is contrary to the foundational principles of international law

-          Is inconsistent with the real nature of Amnesty’s advocacy of abortion on the ground 

This letter contains nothing that should convince anyone who upholds the value and dignity of human life to resume support of a ‘human rights’ organisation that cannot even uphold the most basic of those rights, namely, the right to life itself.

Amnesty International Parts II & III: Is abortion moral?

Part II: Amnesty International and the morality of abortion 

We saw above that Amnesty International, when corresponding with prospective donors who are pro-life, seem to downplay their ideological commitment to abortion.

Is it for similar motives that in their letter to lost supporters they claim that they do not ‘take a position on whether or not abortion is right or wrong’?

This is a very surprising statement in light of the statements contained both in this letter and on their website which suggest that they regard abortion as morally legitimate. I quote a selection below:

“therapeutic abortion is a matter of common sense and humanity.”[1]

“The denial of abortion… [is] a form of cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment.”[2]

“It is appalling that the Nicaraguan authorities... reject these recommendations to work for a change in law [i.e to permit abortion]. Yet again it’s missed another opportunity to right this terrible wrong [i.e the prohibition of abortion is a moral wrong].”[3]

It is quite clear from even a cursory examination of Amnesty International's materials that they speak and act as if abortion is not only morally acceptable but that its provision is a moral duty. So why do they tell pro-lifers that they do not ‘take a position on whether or not abortion is right or wrong’?

Part III: Amnesty International and the development of human life

In the letter under examination Amnesty International claims that it “takes no position as to when life begins.”

This statement places Amnesty International in opposition to the universally recognised and scientifically verified fact that the human embryo is, from the moment of conception, a living being. There are no grounds for asserting that an embryo is not alive. This is acknowledged by leading advocates of abortion whose justification of the practice revolves not around the question of when life begins but rather around debates on the nature of personhood. Consider for example the words of Ann Furedi, the Chief Executive of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service; ‘I think we can accept the embryo is a human life of sorts. For me the question is: "When does human life really begin to matter?"’[4]  

Why then does Amnesty International resort to such an absurd statement, which is the biological equivalent of claiming that the earth is flat or that the moon is made out of cheese?

The two statements discussed above, namely, that Amnesty International has no position ‘as to when life begins’ or ‘on whether or not abortion is right or wrong’ must be considered in conjunction with each other.

The use of these statements allows them to retreat to the ideology of ‘choice’ when faced with the reality of abortion by their former pro-life supporters. They can argue that as they don’t know the answers to these questions they simply support the right of women to choose for themselves. However this runs contrary to the sound reasoning that we generally employ in our decisions on moral questions.

For example, imagine that a demolition team are contracted to destroy a condemned block of flats. However the flats have in recent months often been inhabited by squatters and a concern is raised on the morning of the demolition that there might still be people inside. Would we consider it morally licit for them to go ahead anyway on the grounds that they were doubtful as to whether any human beings would be killed? Or would we consider them to be guilty of a callous disregard for human life?

If Amnesty International, in defiance of all the scientific evidence, are still not able to reach certain knowledge that life begins at conception then opposing abortion would be the only logical moral position that they could take for as long as they were doubtful about the humanity of the unborn child. To act otherwise would be to knowingly and willingly take the risk of advocating for the killing of an innocent human being. This is, in fact, exactly what Amnesty International do.

---

[1] From a document produced by the Pan-American Health Organisation and used by Amnesty International to support their position in ‘The Total Abortion Ban in Nicaragua’, Amnesty International (London, 2009)

[2] http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=20375

[3] http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=18809

[4] http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/commentators/ann-furedi-a-womans-right-to-choose-is-also-her-right-to-be-human-1021691.html

Amnesty International Part I: Is Abortion a human right?

In 2007 the ‘human-rights’ organisation Amnesty International adopted a pro-abortion stance, proclaiming on the 14^th June that:

“Amnesty International today firmly stood by the rights of women and girls to be free from threat, force or coercion as they exercise their sexual and reproductive rights.”[1]

There was an immediate outcry among pro-life supporters of the group, such as the Rt Rev. Michael Evans, Bishop of East Anglia, who resigned his membership after thirty-one years of active involvement in the organisation.

Amnesty International is clearly anxious to try and regain lost support. SPUC has been forwarded a letter sent to one our supporters which expresses Amnesty’s desire to “allow us to open up communication channels with you once again” and seeks to allay their concerns about their abortion policy. This letter, under the name of Imran Uppal of the Supporter Care Team of Amnesty International UK, seems to be a standard response which is sent to former supporters who have expressed opposition to their policy.

In this post I will examine both this letter and the general consistency of their policy.

Part I: Does Amnesty International consider abortion to be a human right?

In the first paragraph of the letter Mr Uppal states:

“Our policies in this area do not seek to promote abortion as a human right.”

In making this statement they seek to persuade potential supporters that in donating to Amnesty International they will not be supporting a ‘pro-abortion’ organisation that is as firmly committed to promoting abortion as it is other ‘human rights.’ 

However this position is contradicted within the very same document in the following statement:

“The purpose of the policy (adopted in 2007) in this area of rights is to make a difference in the lives of women and girls who have suffered egregious human rights violations, or are at risk of such violations, and who are deeply affected by their lack of access to appropriate sexual and reproductive information and services, and by their criminalisation for the crime of abortion.”

It  goes on to say that their policy on abortion was 

“incorporated into the broader sexual and reproductive rights policy in April 2007”

Amnesty International ‘calls on states’ to:

-          Provide women and men with full information on sexual and reproductive health

-          Repeal laws criminalizing abortion

And also to

-          Ensure access to abortion services to any woman who becomes pregnant as the result of rape, sexual assault or incest, or where a pregnancy poses a risk to a woman's life or a grave risk to her health.

In other words AI demands:

-          The right to information about how to get an abortion

-          The right to legal abortion

-          The right to ensured access to abortion in a wide range of circumstances

Commenting on a recent case in Argentina Guadalupe Marengo, the Deputy Americas Programme Director, stated that:
  
“The Argentinian authorities must... respect this woman’s right to a safe and legal abortion.”[2]

Kate Allen, the director of Amnesty International UK, has said:

“Amnesty International believes that any denial of safe, legal abortion in rape cases constitutes a violation of human rights.”[3]

In a document they produced on the prohibition of abortion in Nicaragua they state:

“Amnesty International believes that where women’s access to safe and legal abortion services and information is restricted, their fundamental human rights may be at grave risk.”[4]

If this is the case then Amnesty International has to explain why they continue to tell prospective pro-life donors that:

“Our policies in this area to do not seek to promote abortion as a human right.”

---

[1] http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=17378

[2] http://www.amnesty.org/en/news/argentina-abortion-delays-rape-survivor-amount-torture-2012-10-12

[3] http://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=18681

[4] ‘The Total Abortion Ban in Nicaragua’, Amnesty International (London, 2009)

The Life and Crimes of Margaret Sanger: Part I

Margaret Sanger (1879-1966)

In this series we have followed the development of eugenic theory and practice from its birth in Darwinism and Malthusianism, its emergence as an influential movement through advocates such as Francis Galton and H. G. Wells and the devastating consequences of the implementation of these ideas by birth controllers such as Marie Stopes. Now we have reached the point where we must consider a woman whose contribution to the movement has been one of the most considerable. She was the organising genius of what was to become, in her lifetime, one of the largest and most powerful organisations committed to the destruction of human life that the world has ever seen, the International Planned Parenthood Federation. We must now consider Margaret Sanger’s campaign for birth control, abortion and eugenics.

Margaret Sanger was born Margaret Higgins on 14^th September 1879 to a large New York family; her father was interested in atheism and radical politics. In 1902 Margaret Higgins married an architect named William Sanger who was heavily involved in left-wing politics. She soon joined the Socialist Party and embraced the most extreme ideas of the radical movement. Her assertions of ‘sexual freedom’ and consequent acts of adultery destroyed her marriage; she left her husband in 1913 and they were formally divorced in 1921. In 1914 she began publishing her own newspaper called The Woman Rebel which adopted the slogan ‘No Gods, no Masters’. In one article she proclaimed that ‘rebel women claim the following rights: the right to be lazy, the right to be an unmarried mother, the right to destroy.’ Sanger soon faced prosecution for sending lewd and indecent articles by mail. She left her children in the care of friends and moved to London. While in London she formed a close relationship with Havelock Ellis, whose study of homosexuality (which encompassed ‘inter-generational’ sexual relations) suggested that it was a normal expression of sexuality rather than a disorder, as it had always formally been understood.[1] Ellis was an early member of the Fabian Society and served as Vice-President of the Eugenics Education Society and as President of the Galton Institute. He introduced Sanger to Rosicrucianisim, an esoteric cult, which introduces its initiates to ‘secret wisdom’. Sanger’s fascination with the occult extended to attempting to communicate with spirits.[2] Her frequent trips to London over the succeeding decades became opportunities to begin and renew acquaintanceships, and adulterous relationships, with like minded dissidents, including H.G. Wells whose advocacy of eugenics we have previously discussed.

In October 1915 Margaret Sanger returned to America to face the charges that had been brought against her. In a brilliantly organised speaking campaign she was able to gain much media support for her cause. She opened her first birth control clinic in New York, choosing an area with a large immigrant population. Two weeks later she was arrested and sentenced to thirty days imprisonment for distributing 'obscene' materials and for 'prescribing dangerous medical procedures.' Shortly after her release she launched The Birth Control Review in order to try to change public opinion and win more support for her cause. In 1922 she contracted a civil marriage with a millionaire named James Noah H. Slee. She demanded a pre-nuptial agreement which in effect gave her permission to continue her adulterous practices. Sanger was always able to find wealthy backers, in the future she was to receive financial support from funds such as the Ford,  Mellon and Rockefeller Foundations. Now, in the early 1920s and with access to Noah Slee’s fortune, Sanger was well positioned to make her dreams a reality.

We may conclude our account of Sanger's early life by noting that, while she has a reputation today as a respectable pioneer of birth control, she was in fact a political extremist who, with her involvement with the occult and flagrant transgression of moral norms, aimed at the subversion of the society in which she lived. We will see in succeeding posts that many aspects of her life and work have been hidden and ignored by those who wish to portray her as 'mainstream'. The abortion industry has always wanted to portray itself as a mainstream medical service. In fact, by pursuing the barbaric slaughter of innocent human life, it is taking Sanger's radical subversion to its logical termination, namely, the destruction of that most fundamental of human values, love and respect for human life. 

---

[1] The precise nature of the relationship between Ellis and Sanger is difficult to determine.

[2] Sanger’s involvement with the Rosicrucians and with the occult is well documented in her own personal papers. See for example the references in Woman of Valour: Margaret Sanger and the Birth Control Movement in America, p524

SPUC hosts Maternal Health Conference

On 20 March, Bristol Students for Life’s outgoing President, Eve Farren, and outgoing Publicity Officer, Rhoslyn Thomas, attended the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children’s (SPUC) Maternal Health conference in Oxford Street, central London. BSFL (Bristol Students For Life) attended hoping to learn more about the challenges that mothers and babies face in countries around the world, where these challenges are most common and what is being done to tackle them: Eve and Rhoslyn were not disappointed. The conference was well attended: a range of people including medical professionals, bioethicists, religious figures, students from other universities and concerned members of the general pro-life community were there and the conference featured an excellent line-up of speakers. 

The first speaker was to be the much loved and respected pro-life Feminist and supporter of BSFL, Fiorella Nash. Unfortunately, Mrs Nash was unwell that day and could not attend, but her excellent talk was read out nevertheless. Mrs Nash spoke of her experience of superb maternal healthcare in the UK, which literally saved her life, as well as that of her son who was delivered by caesarean section following a lengthy obstructed labour. She lamented the poor and often non-existent level of maternal healthcare which is present in many countries, a reprehensible state of affairs given that all the equipment and knowledge already exists to prevent maternal deaths. Staff at a hospital in Sierra Leone, she said, for want of a footbridge during the rainy season, were unable to help as they watched women die on the other side of the river. An argument often used by pro-abortion groups is that if only there was more abortion, there would be fewer maternal deaths. Mrs Nash, however, pointed out that Ireland an d Malta, where abortion is illegal, are two of the safest countries in the world for a woman to give birth. A coincidence? 

Also speaking at the conference was Dr. Roger Kiska, senior legal counsel of the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF). Dr. Kiska, who works in Vienna, spoke of the legal battle against the establishment of a ‘right’ to abortion in international law. At present, no such right exists and no UN treaty makes abortion an international human right. However, there is increasing pressure from the UN on countries to legalise abortion and to make it a ‘right’, including UN compliance body meetings to decide on ‘punishments’ for those countries who are still in defiance of the pro-abortion position. Steps are being taken by many pro-life legal figures to block these bullying tactics, as can be seen in the San Jose Articles (www.sanjosearticles.com). These articles are an aid in combating the increasingly accepted assertion that abortion is a human right. They state first and foremost that, “[a]s a matter of scientific fact a new human life begins at conception”.  According to their website, “The San Jose articles were created to help governments and civil society promote human rights through a proper understanding of how the right of the unborn child are protected in international law. The articles should be used to counter false assertions, such as the erroneous notion that abortion is a human right”.

The next speaker was Professor Robert Walley, a leading obstetrician. He was given the ultimatum of changing his speciality or leaving the field of medicine altogether during the 1970s following the legalisation of abortion in Great Britain. As Professor Walley pointed out, “Medics must live according to their consciences, which tells them not to perform abortions. Medics are trained to save life not destroy it." 

Professor Walley later went on to found Matercare International which runs a  much-needed programme in Kenya. It brings healthcare to mothers living in rural areas, often hours away from hospitals with nothing but dusty tracks to travel on. He gave a sobering account of the state of maternal healthcare in the countries where Matercare currently works: “In the countries in which I work, one in seven mothers will die due to lack of medical equipment...It is ridiculous to supply women with abortion and condoms when they need access to emergency obstetrical care...Abortion is a sin of commission, but failing to provide mothers with obstetrical care is a sin of omission", he said. "We are here to uphold women's dignity".

After a hearty lunch, the conference heard from Terry Brown, a representative of the Society of St. Vincent de Paul (SVP), a parish based group that works to support women in Sudan amongst other countries through the building of water wells, children’s homes, feeding clinics, medical treatment and many other things. For the SVP and for pro-lifers in general, being pro-life and being pro-woman go hand in hand. 

Last but not least was the fantastic Dr Obielumani Ideh, an obstetrician and researcher from Nigeria. Dr. Ideh expressed her frustration at the poor level of healthcare available to the vast majority of Nigerian women. In fact, the Nigerian Maternal Mortality Rate (MMR) makes up 10.7% of the global MMR of which 33.9% is due to haemorrhage. However, instead of money being pumped into services to help women who are in desperate need of basic equipment, medical staff and – in many cases – just a clean room, abortions are being illegally carried out by international organisations such as IPAS, which has been a presence in Nigeria for 20 years and whose director has been lobbying the president to legalise abortion. IPAS work in Nigeria under the guise that they are providing ‘after abortion care’. How, if IPAS abides by the law, is ‘post-abortion care’ taking place with no abortions? In addition, Dr. Ideh revealed that a department of the British government, the Department For International Development (DFID), has pledged £10 million to IPAS from 2008 to 2015. Dr. Ideh pointed out that this money could go a long way to helping the many women who are in desperate need. It can cost as little as £26 to look after a woman during childbirth in Nigeria, so just £3.4 million could pay for 30,000 patients. At this point, no doubt many in the audience were wondering when the widespread killing of unborn children will end and the rights of women and babies to clean, safe and widely available healthcare will begin. 

The SPUC Maternal Health conference was an indisputable success and set the benchmark for all future maternal health conferences, which BSFL hope SPUC will continue to host. However, finding speakers who are more involved, more passionate and themselves more committed to the improvement of maternal health will be a difficult task indeed! 

This post originally appeared on the Bristol Students For Life blog