By Matthew O'Gorman, President of Sussex University Pro-Life Society
A few months ago, members of the National Union of Students (N.U.S.) staged a protest outside the American embassy in response to the decision of the U.S. government to criminalise partial-birth abortion.
In this procedure, the unborn child is partially delivered feet-first and an incision is made in the base of the skull with a sharp instrument. A tube is inserted through this incision and the brain is removed by a suction catheter, which causes the skull to collapse. The now-dead baby is then delivered fully.
Whether you regard yourself as being ‘pro-choice’, ‘pro-life’ or undecided, what is objectively clear is that partial-birth abortion is a shocking procedure. So shocking, in fact, that the U.S. is one of the only countries in the world to have made it legal.
The procedure is illegal in the U.K. and the majority of other European countries, not least because it is detrimental to both the health of the mother and her fertility. In September 1996, former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, supported by other medical professionals, said, "Partial-birth abortion is never medically necessary to protect a mother's health or her future fertility. On the contrary, this procedure can pose a significant threat to both."
Two questions inevitably follow:
1. Why is the money of U.K. students being used to protest in favour of a dangerous procedure which is not even carried out in this country?
and,
2. What other irrelevant and unethical campaigns does the N.U.S. invest our money in?
The N.U.S. Women’s Campaign, through affiliating to the National Abortion Campaign (N.A.C.) endorses its view that “We are opposed to any upper time limit on abortion” (Fiddy Jones, former N.A.C. steering committee member). Thanks to modern scientific advances, it is now undeniable that the unborn child feels pain as early as 20 weeks and can survive outside of the womb at 22 weeks. However, the N.U.S. deems it logical to campaign for abortion up to 36 weeks for any reason. Good policy?
The N.U.S. also supports eugenic abortion to kill all disabled unborn children, no matter how minor the disability. This is a clear case of discrimination against the disabled: “Unless routine screening is offered to all women and abortion is offered where all tests are positive, then abortion will not ‘catch’ all foetal abnormality.” (‘The NAC Conference Resolution’ from The Abortion Law We Want by The NAC)
Should we hold the view that the disabled students on this campus ‘slipped through the net’? That is what the N.U.S. seems to be saying.
Finally, Post-Abortion Syndrome (P.A.S.) is a recognised psychological illness, the incidence of which is thought to range “from 7% to 41%” (Southern Medical Journal 1987 vol. 80 p817-821). Further discussion of the syndrome can be found in The Lancet (9 Dec 1989) and British Medical Journal (Feb 2003). The N.U.S. Women’s Campaign seems unable to accept this, however, and I quote: “The anti-choice movement contends that abortion is unsafe, and causes post-abortion trauma. There is no evidence of this at all.” (http://www.cusu.cam.ac.uk/campaigns/womens/repro.txt)
How can a women’s campaign so callously ignore P.A.S. when so many women suffer from it? Is looking after the health of female students anathema to our national union?
This flawed constitution based on lies, prejudice and irresponsibility is funded from our pockets. The question we must ask, therefore, is: are these policies really benefiting the students of this country? Does a protest about partial-birth abortion outside the American Embassy change our lives for the better?
If your answer is ‘no’, then why does Sussex University Students’ Union support the N.U.S. pro-choice network so publicly with the posters on this campus? If we are to disaffiliate from the N.U.S. then the greatest achievement will be severing connections with the Pro-Choice Network: an extremist wing which wastes our money on irrelevant campaigns and discriminatory policies.
Matthew O'Gorman
sussexuniprolife@hotmail.com
