 |
 |
|
|
February 2005
Contents: Possible legal action against Cambridge Students' Union; DoH reveals 1,000+ abortions on 14-year-olds; NUS holds day of pro-abortion campaigning; The wrongs of Abortion Rights: what you need to know; 5 ways to get involved; Broadsheet editorial compares abortion to holocaust; Mental Capacity Bill: what is going on?
Click
here for our press contact details To download a hard copy of this newsletter click on the below links - feel free to distribute this newsletter at your university or school: Front Page (PDF - 441KB) Back Page (PDF - 533KB) Printing Instructions - VERY IMPORTANT Possible legal action against Cambridge Students’ Union Legal action could be on the cards by Cambridge University Pro-Life Society against the Cambridge University Students’ Union (CUSU) for its “illegal” membership to pro-abortion campaign groups, and for its explicitly pro-choice stance. David Foster, of Barlow Robbins Solicitors, issued a letter at the request of Antonia Dale, President of the Pro-Life Society, to CUSU. The letter warns that if CUSU fail to answer all of the enclosed questions by the end of February then legal proceedings would be issued without further notice. The Pro-Life Society believes that not only are the memberships (or affiliations) to Abortion Rights and the Family Planning Association illegal, but the way in which the decisions were taken, and maintained, are too. The letter seeks to clarify this. The Education Act 1994 “requires governing bodies to draw to the attention of all their students at least once a year any restrictions which the law of charities places on students’ unions.” Patrick Leahy, Director of Student LifeNet and student at Cambridge University said: “Every Cambridge student, regardless of their stance on abortion, should be shocked by CUSU’s lack of accountability and disregard for the law. “We currently have no clue as to how the decision to affiliate to Abortion Rights was undertaken in the first place.” Victory against CUSU would have major ramifications for other educational institutions, like Oxford University Students’ Union who adopt an even more blatant pro-abortion stance than CUSU. The Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship has been providing valuable assistance in the current drama. You can keep up-to-date on this story via either the Student LifeNet or the Cambridge University Pro-Life Society’s website at www.cuprolife.org.uk DoH reveals 1,000+ abortions on 14-year-olds Due to a request originally made by Student LifeNet through parliament, the Department of Health (DoH) has disclosed that in the calendar year 2003, there were 1023 abortions performed on 14-year-olds and 148 for those under 14. The DoH had previously refused to release this information for fear of “undermining confidentiality”. The recent request was made under the Freedom of Information Act. The revelation comes at a time when the government guidelines, which allow under-16s to have secret abortions, are being challenged in a court case by mother-of-give Sue Axon. NUS holds day of pro-abortion campaigning Women’s Officer says NUS won’t tolerate pro-lifers “lies or propaganda any longer” The National Union of Students Women’s Officer has launched a scathing attack on pro-lifers whom she fears are winning. At a Pro-Choice day in Westminster, hosted by the All-Party Parliamentary Pro-Choice and Sexual Health Group, Jo Salmon twice called for abortion on demand and accused pro-lifers of lying. She said: “We won’t allow women’s rights to be diminished because of the pro-life, anti-choice agenda. “We won’t tolerate their lies and their propaganda any longer”. Patrick Leahy, Student LifeNet Director, mocked Salmon’s comments. He said “She not only claimed that we ‘throw dolls covered in red paint’ but that we also make ‘threats against doctors who carry out abortions’. “Actually Jo, whilst you’re busy making ridiculous comments, we’re lobbying for a change in the abortion law.” The Women’s NUS Conference has set up a campaign for this year called “Pro Choice and Proud of it”. Their main target is to produce and distribute a pro-choice information pack and tool kit. However, should Cambridge pro-lifers be successful in legal action, the NUS will have difficulty implementing their plans. The wrongs of Abortion Rights: what you need to know Monica Macauley looks at the organisation behind the controversy at Cambridge Abortion Rights is a pro-abortion campaigning organisation which was formed at the start of 2004 by the merger of two groups: the National Abortion Campaign and the Abortion Law Reform Association. Some student unions have illegally become members of Abortion Rights, believing it to be sufficiently moderate to be worthy of their support. However, there is compelling evidence that it is much more extremist than it is willing to admit.
In light of these revelations, it is deceitful for student unions to illegally affiliate with such a controversial organisation whilst claiming it is moderate. Abortion Rights is by no means of the imagination representative of the views of the majority of students. Is your Students’ Union affiliated to Abortion Rights? Let us know now! info@studentlifenet.co.uk 5 ways to get involved with Student LifeNet: 1. Sign up to our free mailing list online to keep-up-to-date with news and events (www.studentlifenet.co.uk) 2. Join an existing pro-life society or create a new one (it’s not as hard as you might think!) 3. Get involved with one of our creative campaigns. For instance, we are currently encouraging individuals to stand as NUS delegates for their university. We want to secure an influential pro-life voting block. 4. Help organise a discussion or talk at your university or school. We can suggest good speakers. 5. And if you’re really keen, join our executive committee. As with all these points, check out our website for more details. Broadsheet editorial compares abortion to holocaust On Sunday 23rd January, the Editor of the Sunday Telegraph wrote a brave and commendable editorial underlining the evil reality of abortion. The following is a short excerpt: “About 200,000 unborn children are aborted every year in England and Wales, many because doctors have decided they will be handicapped. That is a killing rate of nearly 550 a day: less than the number of people gassed at Auschwitz, but a horrifically large number none the less – and larger than the number of defenceless handicapped murdered by the Nazis. We have successfully disguised the enormity of what we are doing from ourselves, just as the Nazis did. Next Thursday should not be an occasion for congratulating ourselves on how far we have come from the moral abyss of National Socialism. It should rather prompt an honest recognition of how disturbingly close our abortion laws have taken us to it”. (Reprinted with permission). Mental Capacity Bill: What is going on? Richard Marsden looks briefly at the current status of this “euthanasia bill” After the shambles in the Commons on 14th December, I personally was baffled by the bill having campaigned against it for the last two years. It was one of the most chaotic scenes ever seen in the Commons, with MPs shouting at the constitutional affairs minister David Lammy from all sides of the house. Despite a lifeline given as a result of the exchange of letters between Archbishop Peter Smith and the Lord Chancellor, the government still suffered a heavy pounding from backbench MPs, even those on its own side. A letter apparently assured Archbishop Smith that the bill would be amended in the House of Lords exclude any element of euthanasia. It is thought that as many as 100 Labour MPs, in addition to the 34 Labour rebels, were considering to vote for an amendment tabled by former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith which stated that nothing in it “permits, authorises or gives validity to any decision made with a purpose of bringing about the death of the person about whose welfare the decision is made”. However, it was defeated by 297 votes to 203. The bill has now passed to the Lords and has come under fresh scrutiny by pro-life peers, most noticeably Lord Alton of Liverpool and newly appointed Lord Patten of Barnes. The objection is that the amendment promised by the Lord Chancellor crucially refers to excluding decisions only “where the motive is to kill” rather than intention to kill. What the person intends to do (i.e. kill by a denial of treatment or care, including the possible withdrawal of food and water) is most important in the eyes of the law as opposed to their motive (to benefit from the victim’s will, for example). It remains to be seen whether this anti-life government will pass this and other proposed amendments to the bill to safeguard it from euthanasia by the backdoor. When this newsletter went to press, the House of Lords were still considering the bill at committee stage. |
|||||||
