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

A Ku Klux Klan rally (1922) 
Margaret Sanger addressed a KKK group in 1926

In 1939 the Birth Control Federation of America launched a new initiative called the ‘Negro Project’ to spread the ideology and practice of birth control among African Americans.

One of Margaret Sanger’s chief allies was Clarence Gamble, of the Proctor & Gamble dynasty, who was an ardent eugenicist and advocate of forced sterilisation. In a letter to Gamble she wrote:   

“It seems to me from my experience where I have been in North Carolina, Georgia, Tennessee and Texas, that while the colored Negroes have great respect for white doctors they can get closer to their own members and more or less lay their cards on the table which means their ignorance, superstitions and doubts... The ministers [sic] work is also important and also he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation as to our ideals and the goal we hope to reach. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population and the minister is the man to straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members.”

This has often been seen as evidence that Sanger wished to eliminate the black race through eugenic birth control. However the truth is probably more complicated. There is no compelling evidence that Sanger was necessarily motivated by racism. As we have seen in previous posts, it was the physically and mentally disabled that she most desired to eliminate through contraception, segregation and sterilisation.  However it is not surprising that her work was open to such interpretations as throughout her career she was happy to collaborate with white supremacists at home and Nazis abroad.

Sanger appointed Lothrop Stoddard, author of The Rising Tide of Color Against White Supremacy, as a member of the board of directors of the American Birth Control League. Stoddard believed that the growth of non-white populations was putting western civilisation at risk. The book was based in large part on the racial theories of Madison Grant, whose book The Passing of the Great Race, was described by Adolf Hitler as his ‘Bible.’ At the Nuremberg Trials a defence lawyer for Karl Brandt, Hitler’s personal physician and head of the Nazi euthanasia programme, used Grant’s book to help prove that the many of the ideas and practices implemented by the Nazis originated in the United States of America.

There were many connections between Sanger’s circle and the Nazi regime in Germany. Her friend Harry Laughlin drafted the model sterilisation law that was largely adopted by the Third Reich and he praised the Nazi regime during the 1930s. The Rockefeller Foundation supported both Sanger and Nazi eugenic programmes. Advocates of Nazi eugenics played a leading role in the international birth control movement, speaking at international conferences such as the 1927 Geneva conference which was organised by Sanger and was attended by future Nazis Edwin Baur and Eugen Fischer. Sanger's conference helped inspire the founding of the International Union for the Scientific Study of Population. The 1935 IUSSP conference was held in Berlin where American eugenicist Clarence G. Campbell toasted "that great leader, Adolf Hitler."

Hans Harmsen - worked with both Hitler and Sanger

The American Birth Control League changed its name to The Planned Parenthood Federation of America after the United States entered the Second World War in 1942 in order to hide from its former association with Nazi policies. However despite the change of name there were continuing links between Nazis and the modern eugenic and abortion movements. Hans Harmsen, a leading German eugenicist who took part in the implementation of the Nazi forced sterilisation programme in East Frisia, was head of the German affiliate of the International Planned Parenthood Federation during Sanger’s presidency. In fact, he remained in the latter office as late as 1984.

Racist attitudes, or indifference to such attitudes, have always been commonplace within the abortion and birth control movement. Beatrice Blair, a leading abortion advocate, accepted money to build an abortion facility in a black area of Rochester, New York fully aware that ‘many people, in their minds, made the connection, well, we’re going to keep the blacks down.’[1] In Chicago Lonny Myers accepted the support of racist donors arguing ‘any cause has strange bedfellows.’[2] In a 2008 sting operation a Planned Parenthood clinic showed itself willing to accept donations specifically intended to be used to kill black infants and earlier this year abortionist Ashutosh Virmani spoke of killing ‘ugly black babies’ who nobody would want to adopt.[3] The eugenic nature of Britain’s abortion laws is seen by the distinction in law between disabled and non-disabled infants. The latter may be aborted up to 24 weeks but the former at any time up till birth. 90% of all those conceived with Down’s Syndrome are killed in their mother’s wombs. It is clear then that much of the movement is still motivated by eugenic principles. Hitler’s ‘Aryan race’, Stopes’ ‘irradiated race’ or Sanger’s ‘racial efficiency’ are all manifestations of the desire of the eugenicist to force the human race, no matter by what cruel or destructive means, to conform to their own ideal of perfection.

Earlier 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

---

[1] Angela Franks, Margaret Sanger’s Eugenic Legacy: The Control of Female Fertility, p45

[2] Ibid

[3] See http://www.lifenews.com/2008/04/02/state-3078/

and http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/caught-on-video-abortionist-talks-of-the-ugly-black-babies-he-aborts

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)

Yeehaw watch out for "American tactics and American money"

The bastions and luminaries of the abortion lobby in the UK never tire of warning us about the dangers of "American tactics" "American money" "the Americanisation of the abortion debate in the UK" and "links to American anti-choice groups". Indeed, words such as "George W. Bush" "Palin" "Santorum" "conservative" "religious right" "republican" and worst of all "Texas" can induce frenzies and frothing at the mouth amongst the most stalwart defenders of an abortionist's right to vacuum out a child from the womb of his or her mother, and make a tidy sum doing it. I'm surprised we haven't seen flag burnings outside the American embassy and calls for boycotts of hamburger sellers because they harass the obese.  Or maybe not. You see, it's not so much about America and Americans, as it is about the right sort of American. It's about the right sort of company-keeping.

Dr. Patricia Lohr is chief abortionist at Bpas. Dr. Lohr comes from.....comes from.......America! She was recruited in 2007. Dr. Lohr trained as an abortionist in New York and Pittsburgh, both cities in America. The screen shot above comes from the Bpas Spring 2008 newsletter proudly announcing that Bpas has recruited an American to head-up its abortions. To quote Bpas "CEO Ann Furedi, was very keen to recruit someone who would bring a fresh, new approach to our clinical processes; and recruiting a Medical Director from the United States will certainly achieve this aim" - we bet it has, Bpas. I wonder why we don't hear pro-abortion bastions like Abortion Rights and the Guardian bewailing Bpas for importing Americans!?  

This screen shot above, taken from the Bpas research page, shows that in 2009 Lohr et al conducted a survey about disposal of "fetal tissue" - to you and me that's the dead bodies of the unborn that Bpas have killed, but "fetal tissue" just sounds so much more respectable. This survey was lead by Lohr - an American - and funded by the Society for Family Planning....

....Oh no, watch out, the Society for Family Planning is an American organisation! They gave Lohr $12,896 big green American bucks to do her survey. That means Americans have given American bucks to an American to carry out abortion related surveys in the UK. Is Abortion Rights and Education for Choice happy about this? Probably, yes. It's the right sort of American people doing the right sort of thing, so it's fine. Below is the screen shot of the postal address of the Society for Family Planning, with the URL across the top, just in case there was any doubt.

And finally, below is a screen shot taken from Abortion Review, the online publication of Bpas. On Wednesday 7 February 2012 Bpas held a lecture titled "Abortion in the US: popularity, Politics, and Practice" (obviously they are keen to prove their right-sort-of-American-loving-values). Not stopping there, they flew an American, Professor Carol Sanger from Columbia Law School (no relation to Margaret Sanger, the shared surname is just an unhappy coincidence) to give the presentation. Was there an uproar? Did any abortion activists hold a protest? No, because it's the right sort of American saying the right sort of thing, so it's smiles all round. 

So, when abortion campaigners, activists, and journalists start warning us about "Texan cowboy anti-choicers bringing their tactics to sunny England" you might want to politely tell them that their "we're-moderate-reasoned-let's-have-a-dialogue-British-who-want-dialogue-about-dialogue-over-a-cup-of-tea-people-who-are-concerned-about-choice-let's-not-become-polarised-about-this-as-we-continue-to-kill-570-unborn-children-a-day" mantra has worn very thin. You could throw in the fact that Bpas has two American speakers coming over from the U-S-of-A in May to lecture the Brits about abortion (Beverley Winikoff and James Trussell), or the fact that the UK pro-abortion journal Reproductive Health Matters has an American Editor called Marge Berer, or the recent news that American outfit American Students for Choice will be funding abortion work experience for UK med students at Bpas abortion facilities. The pro-abortion pro-death lobby like using smokescreens, but they are easily blown away. 

The Neo-Malthusian League and the origins of the birth control movement

We have previously considered the influence of the ideas of Thomas Robert Malthus on the pro-abortion movement. In this post we will consider the way in which the population control ideology developed after his death.

Charles Bradlaugh (1833-1891)

In 1877 an organisation called the Neo-Malthusian League was founded in the aftermath of the prosecution of Charles Bradlaugh and Annie Besant. Bradlaugh, founder of the National Secular Society, and Besant, a political radical, were prosecuted for republishing a book entitled Fruits of Philosophy, written by an American called Charles Knowlton, which described various methods of birth control. They were found guilty of publishing obscene material but were later acquitted on a legal technicality. The Neo-Malthusian League was founded to campaign for the right to publish information about contraceptive methods without fear of prosecution, and to advocate for the reduction of the birth rate by limitation of family size. It grew in influence under the leadership of three members of the same family, George Drysdale, his brother Charles Robert Drysdale and the latter’s son Charles Vickery Drysdale.

The League argued that war and poverty were caused by overpopulation and that it was therefore essential that the birth rate be reduced. Unlike Malthus, the League advocated artificial birth control as the best means of bringing this about. Celibacy and abstinence were rejected as ‘unhealthy’; sexual pleasure divorced from procreative responsibility was the end they sought. In his book Elements of Social Science, George Drysdale argued that ‘there could not be greater error’ than monogamous marriage.  The ‘laws of nature’ required ‘a variety of objects’ for sexual desire. Many members of the League believed that the poor must be put under pressure to reduce the number of children that they had. Annie Besant said that the first phase of their campaign must aim to ‘stamp with disapproval every married couple who selfishly overcrowd their home, to the injury of the community of which they are a part.’ This is certainly an attitude which prevails in our society today.

By the time the league was dissolved in 1927 many of its aims were well on their way to being met. Numerous influential members of the Labour Party were supporters of the League or of other population control groups such as Marie Stopes’s Society for Constructive Birth Control and Racial Progress. Activists such as these, supported by many Labour MPs, were successful in persuading the Labour Party to adopt a pro-birth control policy in 1926. There was initially some successful resistance from Catholics in the party but soon both the Labour and Conservative parties succumbed to the birth control agenda. From 1930 onwards it was permissible for birth control advice to be given at public health clinics. Birth control ‘clinics’, founded by organisations such as Marie Stopes and the Family Planning Association, began to spread, with the express intention of inducing women from poor backgrounds to use birth control. This was the beginning of a network of ‘clinics’ which now not only seek to prevent new life coming into existence but to destroy it during its earliest and most vulnerable stages. The organisations which now perform thousands of abortions every year are often the very same organisations that began by advocating birth control. 

Further Reading

Ann Farmer, Prophets and Priests: The Hidden Face of the Birth Control Movement,  (London, 2002)

Department for International Development in bed with the porn industry

My last post drew attention to the Department for International Development (DFID) and its latest project to promote abortion and contraception in the developing world, via its buddies Marie Stopes International (MSI) and International Projects Assistance Services (Ipas). The project is called Preventing Maternal Deaths from Unwanted Pregnancy (PMDUP). Reading through the business plan revealed the following: 

The PMDUP CEO Coordination Group:

This will be led by MSI, and include the CEOs of Ipas and DKT. The CEO Coordination Group will:

• Oversee the efficient management of the programme by ensuring that strong supervisory and management systems are in place as well as reviewing yearly and six-monthly reports.
• Ensure appropriate engagement with the evaluation team.
• Provide leadership for good functioning of the partnership by inspiring and requiring programme innovation, communications and results, strong synergies and economies of scale and VFM.
• Provide oversight to ensure that technical quality is monitored and standards adhered to.
• Serve as a senior communications channel within the consortium and externally for dissemination of learning and evidence-based practices.

This is just another example of what has already been pointed out: the very wealthy and very large abortion organisations are running the show for themselves, obviously using our taxes to fund their ideology against the poor and the unborn. There is something else to note - the involvement of DKT International (named after D. K. Tyagi, who saturated India with contraception during the sixties using mass media).

Tim Black and Philip Harvey (pictured left) met at the University of North Carolina, when the two were pursuing post-graduate studies in family planning. Black and Harvey shared a common ideology, and quickly became best friends. Their first joint venture in the sexual revolution was a mail-order condom business - illegal at the time. Black went on to found MSI, which proudly stated at a 2007 conference "we do illegal abortions all over the world". One of the 5 appointed trustees of MSI is a man named Philip Harvey - Black giving his best bud a pat on the back. Harvey went on to found Population Services International (PSI) - abortion and contraceptive devices being its reason for being. Harvey abandoned PSI soon after founding it, for pastures new.

Harvey went on to found and continues as CEO of Adam & Eve, rated America’s biggest mail-order and online retailer of condoms,  pornographic films, and 18,000 other items of porn paraphernalia – with annual sales of $100 million dollars. 25% - that’s $25 million dollars - goes towards Harvey’s other business called DKT International, the same DKT that will sit on the British government's PMDUP coordination group. What does DKT do? Here are some facts from from their website:

• In 2011 DKT sold over a half-billion condoms, almost 70 million cycles of oral contraceptives, 12 million injectable contraceptives, 800,000 IUDs, over 10 million misoprostol pills, and 800,000 medical abortion packs, as well as emergency contraception, hormonal implants, and manual vacuum aspiration kits
• In Mozambique, Ethiopia, and India, DKT is making manual vacuum aspiration kits and chemical abortion drugs increasingly available to rural and hard-to-reach consumers.  
• DKT was the first organisation in India to run adverts on national television about medical abortion. You can see these advertisements on YouTube
• More than 40,000 midwives have been trained in IUD and implant insertion and removal in Indonesia
• In the Philippines and Ethiopia, DKT provides an estimated 50 percent of all modern family planning methods
• DKT is the largest private provider of contraceptives and family planning services in the developing world...

...All in large part funded by the pornographic business Harvey has run since 1971, and now DKT will help manage the British government's campaign against families, mothers, and unborn children in poor countries throughout the world. Put simply, DFID are in bed with porn barons and death peddlers.

The British government thinks a manual vacuum aspirator in the hands of an abortionist counts as development aid for mothers

SPUC recently held a very successful conference in London on the topic of abortion and maternal health in the developing world. You can read a full report with photos on the SPUC website. SPUC also has a briefing on these issues, and the texts of the presentations will be available shortly.

One of the key issues looked at was the funding given for promoting and doing abortions in the developing world. The Department for International Development (DFID) gives hundreds of millions to organisations like International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF), Marie Stopes International (MSI) and  International Projects Assistance Services (Ipas) who specialise in killing unborn children. This funding usually takes the form of a  Partnership Programme Arrangement (PPA) which lasts several years, but funding for individual and country-specific programmes can also be given under initiatives like the Civil Society Challenge Fund (CSCF).

The latest project launched by DFID is called Preventing Maternal Deaths from Unwanted Pregnancy (PMDUP). DFID will give £67 million pounds over 5 years from July 2011 to June 2016 via MSI and Ipas, to carry out and promote abortion and contraception in 14 countries: Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India, Myanmar, Pakistan, DRC, Ethiopia, Ghana, Malawi, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Sudan, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. In its Business Plan (2011 – 2015) DFID committed ‘to embed in every relevant bilateral programme specific plans to take forward the promotion of choice for women over whether and when they have children’ - i.e. DFID will make sure abortion and contraception are part and parcel of any funding and aid they offer, as far as possible. 

Reading through the PMDUP business plan reveals that MSI and Ipas will be responsible for collecting the programme data, and Options - the consultancy firm wholly owned by MSI - will provide consultancy for the PMDUP programme and be linked to the impact evaluation. Options will also be involved in providing evidence to shape PMDUP implementation strategy. Not only is DFID leading the way in killing unborn children in the developing world, they are getting the abortion organisations to collect the programme data for the programmes they themselves will be carrying out, provide consultancy to DFID, and influence the impact evaluation of the programme they have been asked to do.

To use an analogy, it's a bit like a firm making landmines being given tens of millions to make and plant landmines in the developing world, and allowing that same firm making the landmines to collect data on the impact of landmines, advise the government on the safety and effectiveness of their programme to promote landmines, and then allowing the firm to evaluate themselves. The mind boggles. 

Some charts are provided in the business plan about "growth forecast" for the PMDUP programme. The 2 charts below detail the hoped for number of women having abortions and receiving contraceptive devices by MSI and Ipas. The second chart details the future increase in the number of MSI and Ipas facilities conducting abortions - usually using misoprostol or manual vacuum aspirators. 

For MSI 2,866,880 mothers are expected to undergo an abortion or post-abortion "care", and for Ipas the figure is 519,535. It's very probable that Options or MSI and Ipas themselves came up with these figures, considering how much of a free rein they have been given by DFID.

The term "post abortion care" (PAC) is deceptive. PAC is part and parcel of the abortion promotion agenda of organisations like IPPF, WHO, DFID, MSI, and Ipas who in 1993 together with IPPF founded the PAC Consortium. In 2007 pro-lifers and religious leaders rejected proposals by the Guatemalan Ministry of Health to introduce post-abortion care into public health, citing the reason that such measures are tactics to further the abortion agenda.

One of the uses of PAC is getting the abortion drug misoprostol into countries for post-abortion and incomplete abortion "services", as seen from the PAC Consortium misoprostol resources pages of their website. The devastating effect of misoprostol on a developing country has already been presented by Dr. Susan Yoshihara, following the 2010 Women Deliver Conference. Several years ago the World Health Organisation changed its policy to include misoprostol on its list of essential medicines. This move was supported by radical pro-abortion organisations such as Gynuity and MSI. This is noted by the pro-abortion Center for Reproductive Rights, and used as another prong to further abortion and avoid maternal morbidity and mortality.

PAC is a cover for introducing abortion into countries where it is illegal or highly restricted, as noted by Dr. Ideh at the SPUC maternal mortality conference. We have also seen this recently in the case of Rwanda. The radically pro-abortion Guttmacher Institute produced a study citing the lack of post-abortion care as a reason for abortion-related morbidity and lack of family planning, always discussed and offered following an abortion, as reasons for liberalising Rwanda's law on abortion. Guttmacher is supporting the lobbying efforts of Rwanda's IPPF affiliate in the country. PAC is a useful cover, as it allows abortion organisations to train people, from doctors to community health workers, to conduct abortions using MVA and misoprostol, and promote contraceptive devices, better know as post-abortion family planning. It also reinforces the canard of safe v unsafe abortion by claming that abortion is safe where post-abortion care for complications is easily available. PAC is part of a strategy which seeks to normalise abortion at the level of public opinion and medical consensus, and persuade legislators that a country's abortion laws need to be changed in favour of abortion.

What this chart above sets out is the increased number of abortion and contraception facilities that MSI and Ipas hope to establish by 2016. The total for MSI is 2563 and 1024 for Ipas.

These are desperate times for mothers, babies, and families in the developing world, where our taxes are being used to kill unborn children and harm the health of mothers. Money is being diverted away from the real causes of maternal morbidity and mortality, and instead being used to serve the ideological agenda of DFID and its partners IPPF, MSI, and Ipas. We now live in a world where the manual vacuum aspirator in the hands of an abortionist counts as aid to developing countries. 

"international aid for the poor"

Undercover at a pro-abortion meeting: Final Part

The final speaker at the Voice for Choice meeting (see part 1 and part 2) was another American called Marge Berer, editor of Reproductive Health Matters, herself post-abortive. The first part of her talk was a stroll through the Department of Health abortion statistics. Her entire talk was ambitious in trying to present some sort of all-encompassing strategy for abortion supporters, with copious rhetorical questions like “what do we mean by repeat abortion?” Berer seemed baffled that the abortion lobby has failed to convince the general public about how wonderful abortion is. Berer rattled off a list of "anti-choice" arguments, and in response, described the arguments as lies, without actually interacting with any of the evidence.

For example, Berer ignored the largest study on the relationship between abortion and mental health, lead by Priscilla K. Coleman, which concluded that women who have an abortion experience an 81% increased risk of mental health problems. Published in the prestigious British Journal of Psychiatry, the review also found almost 10% of all mental health problems are shown to be directly linked to abortion. Coleman and academic colleagues have recently launched the World Expert Consortium for Abortion Research and Education which contains some of the latest and most up-to-date evidence on abortion and mental health, amongst other things. Neither did Berer spend any time discussing the evidence presented by the likes of Professor Joel Brind who published his 1996 meta-analysis of 23 epidemiological studies on the abortion-breast cancer link which the Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology (RCOG) said could not be disregarded and contained no methodological shortcomings; or the published studies of Joel Brind and Dr. Angela Lanfranchi at the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute; or the studies presented by the Coalition on Abortion-Breast Cancer.

As for ‘business’ and ‘financial gain aspects’ of the abortion industry, it’s own financial reports on the Charity Commission website and Companies House, the numerous abortion provider job adverts calling for business development mangers and so on, and the huge salaries of the top staff and abortionists, speaks for itself. Did you know that 8 members of BPAS staff earn over £70,000? Ms Berer claimed that studies unfavourable to abortion could be ‘torn limb from limb’. The sad irony was not lost on me.

Berer’s talk concluded with a call to decriminalise abortion, and called for abortion supporters to work with young people (See this shocking recent report on the abortion industry's plan for young people). Berer also drew audience attention to a recent vigil held outside a hospital in Paris - a separate post on this will appear on this blog soon. On several occasions Berer talked about the ‘violence of prayer meetings’, but provided no evidence to support this description. Like Dr. Harris, Berer was very thin on any evidence. One of the few examples given was that of a study done in Oldham on the use of contraceptives. However, during the question and answer session, Dr. Evan Harris had to correct Berer’s faulty understanding of the study, to which she could only conclude “I’ll have to go back and read the study again”. The audience also had to correct Berer on her faulty understanding of the abortion statistics and the relationship profile of mothers having abortions.

The audience were then treated to short speeches by two young women who work for Brook. Both basically said the same thing, whilst constantly using the same buzz words: signposting, access, services, rights, anti-abortion tactics, and even 'covert movement against choice' - sounds like they have been reading the same internet forums as Dr. Evan Harris. It was a stunt to give a glimmer of hope to the audience. A flat end to a private, pro-abortion talking-shop.

The Q&A provided a chance for the audience to let off some steam - most of whom seemed to worked in the abortion industry. One woman claimed it was the role of the RCOG to defend abortion, under the umbrella of treating the diseases of pregnancy. Another woman talked about the 'violence' of removing access to contraception and abortion. 

There was also a convoluted debate on whether abortion supporters should be promoting contraception, and what attitude to take towards contraception. People were frank in speaking about the serious problems with current widespread contraception strategies, and the problems of contraceptive devices themselves, particularly long acting reversable contraception (LARC). Abortion was presented by some as part of contraception, as a back-up if the condom splits, or  the woman takes her hormonal pill at the wrong time or forgets to take it. Dr. Lohr called abortion ‘part of the fertility control spectrum’, seemingly not realising that abortion doesn’t control fertility, it kills a child. Some members of the audience described the promotion of contraception as misleading, because it suggests that abortion is in some way to be avoided or a morally undesirable choice. One member of the audience argued that abortion was a way of ‘saving women from violence during pregnancy, from violent relationships, from pregnancy itself’. 

Dr Lohr said that there is a need for all medical workers to be able to direct women towards an abortion even if they consider it to be morally wrong. SPUC has recently been involved with a case in Scotland, defending the conscientious objection of two midwives to any involvement in abortion. The pro-life movement should be more confident about exercising and promoting conscientious objection for all medical staff. Not long ago the findings of a survey amongst medical students found that an increasing number are rejecting abortion. In contrast, in 2010 one major abortion organisation made their own survey disappear when 94% of respondents to an online poll said NO to the question 'Should abortion be legal in Ireland?' 

Myself and Paul Smeaton was invited to stay afterwards. There were a few jugs of water and glasses on a table in the next room. With BPAS chief executive Ann Furedi earning at least £115-120,000, I’m sure they could have at least provided tea and coffee!

LifeSiteNews recently covered part of this report

Undercover at a pro-abortion meeting: Part 2

Evan Harris was the next to speak at the Voice for Choice meeting (see part 1), speaking mostly about himself and how fantastic his efforts in parliament had been. Evan Harris was a leading pro-abortion and pro-euthanasia politician during his time in Parliament. Harris began by lamenting that pro-life groups are and have been banned from universities, as this makes martyrs out of them. I’m sure students at the University of Bristol and University College London would have a few things to say about that. Harris then launched an ignorant attack on pro-lifers in the UK, making wild and unsubstantiated claims that we are seeing “American tactics, and certainly American money” pouring into the UK pro-life scene. Such a claim is laughable. Harris completely failed to provide any evidence of “American tactics and money”. However, considering that two out of the three speakers were Americans, I'm sure Harris knows a thing or two about American influence. For someone who cries “evidence based” at every opportunity, Harris failed to provide any evidence-based facts of his own.

Harris continued his non-evidence based diatribe by claiming that crisis pregnancy centres were “part of a conspiracy”! Dr. Harris, please tell us more about this exciting conspiracy you claim to know about! Perhaps Dr. Harris has been spending too much time surfing through spurious internet forums and websites. Again, there was a distinct lack of evidence-based support for his claims. When Harris finally got around to speaking about the political scene, he lamented the wasted pro-abortion majority in parliament from 1997-2010 (the Blair and Brown years). Dr Harris bemoaned the fact that we still have a 1967 Abortion Act. Harris said he wanted to see nurses doing abortions. On a related note, SPUC has been supporting the conscientious objection of two midwives to any involvement in abortion. Another important case regarding conscientious objection is that of Bayatyan v. Armenia. Pro-life lawyer Dr. Roger Kiska, who works at the major European institutions, has written about this case and its importance in the field of abortion and conscientious objection. Roger will be speaking at SPUC's forthcoming conference on abortion and maternal health, looking at the question of abortion as a 'right' in international law. Harris also wants abortions carried out in places other than abortion facilities. BPAS has been pushing for bedroom abortions for several years. After desperate attempts to have their way with the Department of Health, they decided to launch a legal challenge, which was strongly defeated last year. It's important to keep in mind the devestating impact such anti-life ideas as proposed by Harris and BPAS could further have on the abortion scene in the developing world. 

Harris was also emphatic that the “abortion in Northern Ireland ship” had well and truly sailed away and was a non-starter. SPUC has successfully campaigned on the issue for years, together with other pro-life groups at the grassroots and political level.

Harris was very keen to proclaim his influence on people who are actually members of parliament, unlike himself. As Stewart Jackson MP quipped in a recent debate: "The hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Julian Huppert MP), who is currently fulfilling his role as Dr Evan Harris’s vicar on earth..."

Third and final part coming...

Undercover at a pro-abortion meeting: Part 1

On 22 September 2011 myself and Paul Smeaton attended the ‘Voice for Choice’ meeting hosted by Voice for Choice, a coalition of abortion advocates and providers. Voice for Choice includes: Abortion Rights, Alliance for Choice NI, Antenatal Results and Choices (ARC), BPAS (British Pregnancy Advisory Service), Brook, Doctors for a Woman’s Choice on Abortion, Education for Choice (recently saved from extinction), fpa, Marie Stopes International, Pro-Choice Forum, and Reproductive Health Matters. These are most of the leading anti-life groups in the UK.

The aims of Voice for Choice include: 

• Abortion to be available solely at the request of the pregnant woman within existing legal time limits 
• Abortion services are subject to the same statutory regulations as other medical services 
• Suitably trained nurse practitioners to be allowed to provide early medical and surgical abortions, in both the NHS and non-NHS sector 
• The law in Northern Ireland be brought into line with the rest of the UK
• Current legal abortion rights are to be defended 

This event was described as a 'public meeting' and so I had expected a reasonably large crowd. In total there were no more than about forty five people, including the speakers. Most attendees were older women, and clearly people already working in the abortion industry in one way or another. This 'public' meeting had more of the feel of a closed, private meeting and in reality this was little more than the abortion lobby speaking about and to itself. It was advertised through pro-abortion channels, and when I arrived there wasn't a single poster or notice directing people to the right venue. For a coalition that seems intent on the ‘de-medicalisation’ of the killing of unborn children, it came across as rather contradictory to host a meeting at The Medical Society of London.

The abortion lobby have good reason for wanting to keep these sorts of meetings as small, internal affairs. It is in these sorts of environments in which their true face and their radical anti-life agenda is revealed.

Ann Furedi, CEO of BPAS opened the meeting with a few words about Voice for Choice, and introduced the speakers. Furedi spoke about Dr. Carlos Morin whom she claims is facing 309 years in jail. Dr. Morin has been under police investigation since 2007 over his abortion practices. BPAS were sending women seeking abortions in the UK over to Dr. Morin in Spain. BPAS was subsequently investigated by the Department of Health for such practices, including serious concerns over their call centre.

Guardian journalist Libby Brooks chaired the meeting, with Dr. Patricia Lohr speaking first. 

Dr. Lohr is an American and current medical director of BPAS. Lohr spoke about her personal experience of being a medical student and how during that time she became convinced that abortion is “self-evidently moral”. Lohr explained that she came to the conclusion that she could only be truly pro-choice by committing to performing abortions.

It was chilling to hear her speak, and to sit in the same room as her. What does one say or do when faced with an abortionist proclaiming their pride at aborting babies? Lohr explained that she was not only convinced of the moral goodness of abortion, but that she found performing abortions “extremely gratifying”.

But what kind of person thinks that performing abortions is gratifying; that one’s fortunate to provide them and that abortion is a good thing? Here, as a brief reminder, is a description of a suction abortion, the most common type of abortion procedure in Britain, representing 52% of the 189,574 abortions which took place in 2010 under the Abortion Act in England and Wales:

“The cervix (the neck of the womb) must be stretched open to allow the surgeon to insert a plastic tube into the womb. Sharp-edged openings near the tip of the tube help to dismember the baby so the parts are small enough to be sucked out. The surgeon then uses the suction tube to evacuate the placenta from the womb. The remains of the baby are deposited in a jar for disposal.” 

To be continued...