Update on Life Issues - October 2024.


Abortion

The general election
 On Wednesday 22 May, in the pouring rain outside No 10 Downing Street, the Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, announced the date of the 2024 general election.  It was to be Thursday 4 July.  And by the following day the results were declared – it had been a Labour landslide.  Of the 650 seats up for grabs Labour had won 404 with a whopping working majority of 167 allowing it to force through any of its policies.  The Conservatives secured just 121 seats.  But beyond their political affiliations, just who are these new and old Members of Parliament who make our laws that govern our lives?

There are currently 335 new MPs.  What makes these newbies tick?  Nobody quite knows because they have yet to vote on any bioethical issue.  Will they and the returning MPs share our values?  A crude answer can perhaps be found in their religious connections.

Only 60% of the 650 MPs officially sworn in at Westminster during July chose to swear a religious oath of allegiance to the Crown.  That proportion is similar to the results of the 2021 census, which showed that 65% of UK adults have some religious affiliation – we have therefore elected a Parliament, not only the most irreligious in history, but also one more godless than the nation.  Of all MPs, 338 swore on the Bible, 14 on the Quran and 3 on the Bhagavad Gita, the Hindu scripture.  The remaining 40%, around 249 MPs, made an affirmation without any reference to God.  Almost half (47%) of Labour MPs affirmed, compared with only 9% of Conservatives.  After the 2019 general election, only 24% of all MPs chose a non-religious affirmation.  Is the UK and its Parliament becoming a more secular jurisdiction?  Is it more than just a falling away of a cultural, nostalgic Christianity?  It certainly seems that Sir Keir Starmer ‘doesn’t do God’ as he becomes the first atheist prime minster in decades.

What does all this mean for the pro-life cause?  Here is the good news.  Several reliable pro-lifers, such as Sir Edward Leigh, Carla Lockhart, Jim Shannon, John Hayes and Mary Glindon were re-elected.  The bad news is that many MPs with a previously strong pro-life voting record lost their seats.  They include Fiona Bruce, Caroline Ansell, Miriam Cates, Sir Jacob Rees-Mogg, Maria Caulfield and Sir Liam Fox.

Why the concern?  Because in this Parliamentary session these 650 new and old MPs will likely be voting on key bioethical issues, such as the decriminalisation of abortion, more permissive embryo experimentation and the legalisation of assisted suicide.  Indeed, as an ominous portent, the extremist pro-abortion MP, Diana Johnson, who has led multiple attempts to introduce a more radical abortion law up to birth, has already been appointed as a Home Office minister in the new Labour Government.  Meanwhile, Keir Starmer, has once again declared himself in favour of permitting assisted suicide and has promised to allocate government time for a debate and a free vote on the issue.

This is going to be a tough and testing Parliament.  Are you ready?

Abortion law changes
Earlier this year the abortion political lobby flexed its muscle at Westminster.  Those two Labour MPs, Stella Creasy and Diana Johnson, tabled two extreme abortion amendments, even up to birth.  Thankfully, both failed.  However, the abortion commercial lobby, led by BPAS (British Pregnancy Advisory Service) and MSI Reproductive Choices (formerly Marie Stopes International), spent huge sums of money supporting pro-abortion MPs in their lobbying and campaigning efforts to try and force through major changes to our abortion laws.

It is reported that BPAS has a yearly budget of over £50 million and MSI has an even bigger fund of over £300 million.  Abortion is a big and profitable industry.  And by vigorously lobbying and campaigning for more extreme abortion laws the industry intends to maintain and advance its trade.  These pro-abortion businesses, charities and organisations wield huge financial clout.

By contrast, pro-life groupings are poor, even destitute.  We are the church mice of bioethical issues.  The pro-life cause has no commercial funding.  It depends on individuals like us.  Do you give money to fight for the survival of the unborn?  Maybe it is time for many of us to review our giving.

Yet money is not the only issue.  More enthusiastic, well-informed women and men are also needed.  How will that come about?  Do you read, listen and watch, newspapers, podcasts, TV and more to become better educated?  For most of us, it is like Isaiah 28:10, ‘ … a little here, a little there.’  Abortion law is currently under threat of changing for the worse, we should be for changing ourselves for the better.

Abortion in Scotland
What is wrong with Scottish people?  For sure, they can be loud and opinionated, but many have charming accents, especially if they were brought up around Edinburgh (rather than Glasgow).  However, when it comes to abortion, there is a Caledonian sector that is extreme in both word and deed.

Herein are two complaints.  First, there are specifically troublesome members of the Scottish National Party (SNP).  On Sunday 1 September, at the SNP’s 90th Annual National Conference in Edinburgh, a motion was put forward by the Elgin SNP branch.  It was debated in session 11 under the title, ‘Enshrining the Right to Abortion in the Future Constitution of an Independent Scotland.’

The strident agenda stated that, ‘Conference believes that women's rights are human rights, and access to safe, legal abortion is a fundamental aspect of healthcare and bodily autonomy.  The right to choose should not be subject to the changing tides of political or judicial decisions but should be a guaranteed and protected right within the highest legal framework of our nation.’  And ‘Conference resolves that the SNP would call for the right to abortion to be enshrined in the future constitution of an independent Scotland, safeguarding women's reproductive rights against any potential political or legal regression.’

This motion was almost certainly driven by the recent developments in the USA including the 2022 overturning of Roe v. Wade and the subsequent loss of a national right to abortion.  And, in 2023, France, similarly fearing a possible loss of access to abortion, took a proactive step by enshrining the right to abortion in its Constitution.  Spokesperson for Right To Life UK, Catherine Robinson, commented, ‘The Constitution of a country acts as its foundational document, defining, among other things, the country’s basic principles of government and law.  It is deeply disturbing that this SNP resolution proposes to make ending the lives of its unborn citizens one of those foundational principles.’

Kim Marshall, a former SNP candidate, defended the motion, despite concerns that it could alienate voters who hold pro-life views.  Apparently, a significant majority of SNP members at the Conference voted in favour of this call for a constitutional right to abortion.  Thankfully, the party holds only 9 of the 57 Scottish seats in the House of Commons.  And Scotland is not about to become independent and so this contentious motion, like the SNP and its membership, will likely wither.

The second complaint centres on the Abortion Services (Safe Access Zones) (Scotland) Bill, which passed in the Scottish Parliament by 118 votes to 1 on 12 June 2024, became an Act on 22 July 2024 and came into force on 24 September 2024.  These so-called buffer zones around clinics which offer abortion services are intended to prevent any protests or vigils from taking place within a 200m radius of the 30 abortion clinics around Scotland.  See what you have done, Scottish citizens?  You have set a sub-standard precedent because a few weeks later, on 31 October, buffer zones will be enforced around a 150m radius of abortion clinics in England and Wales under Section 9 of the Public Order Act 2023.  Even silent prayer may be under threat though it has not been specifically listed as an offence under the new rules.

Within the buffer zones, it will be a criminal offence to behave in ways that could influence the decisions of women and staff to access abortion services.  Stopping women and staff from entering the clinics or otherwise causing alarm, harassment or distress will also be an offence.  Anyone who breaks the new Safe Access Zone laws could be fined up to £10,000 or an unlimited amount in the most serious cases.

Scottish Green MSP Gillian Mackay, who originally tabled the Bill, said it was a ‘pivotal moment for reproductive rights in Scotland.’  However, opponents of the Act have claimed the legislation infringes on their freedom of religion and speech.  Of course, there can be no excuses for deliberately harassing or intimidating women on their way to abortion clinics.  Laws are already in place to punish such behaviours.  But the UK governments’ response to clamp down on people’s speech and beliefs is dangerous and misguided.  It will only serve to limit ordinary people’s civil liberties.  There are some people who wish to think and pray silently outside such clinics.  Why should they be forbidden?

From the Update on Life Issues (February 2023), ‘Some pro-life activists argue that their work outside abortion clinics has helped women seeking practical support.  Some pro-choice activists say the move will stop women being ‘harassed’.  Is this new law really censoring and silencing help for women in delicate situations with vulnerable mindsets?  Maybe.  Christians can pray silently and undemonstratively elsewhere.  Is there some unhelpful self-satisfaction about being present where the action is?  This is a minority issue.  Where are the thousands of Christians rather than the dedicated few who stand in the rain?  What does that say about our understanding of abortion and this sort of public protest activity?  Are we complicit or cowardly?’

‘Whatever the arguments for and against standing outside abortion clinics, the approval of buffer zones has more sinister connotations.  First, it regards trespass where no intent to trespass exists.  The non-demonstrating public may freely ‘trespass’ within buffer zones.  Only those who seem to be praying, or leafleting, or engaging with likely abortion clinic clients will be barred.  Second, it infringes public engagement, stopping, for example, any opportunities for conversation.  Are we no longer allowed to chat freely with fellow citizens?  Third, it militates against free speech.  If conversation is banned, what about silent prayer?  What about freedom of religion?  What about a person’s private thoughts?  Where next, what next?  Street preaching is already under attack.  Is the poor Christian, who prays as he walks to the supermarket, or as he digs his garden, likely to be muzzled?  Of course not, you say.  Really?  Why are you so sure?’

People of Scotland, consider these two complaints.  First, there is a small group of extremists among you who wish to institutionalise abortion in a Scottish Constitution.  Second, your Parliament has overstepped the abortion line.  It has exceeded its powers and sought to encroach upon and ban the thoughts and opinions of others, including you.  This cannot be right.
...