As I’ve written before, BPAS (British Pregnancy Advisory Service), is a publicly funded charity, deriving around £30million every single year from you, dear taxpayer.

According the government’s website, ‘charities cannot have a political purpose or undertake political activity which is not relevant to the charity’s charitable purposes. Charities cannot be used as a vehicle for the expression of the personal or party political views of any individual trustee or staff member’.

The stated aim of BPAS is to ‘support reproductive choice by advocating and providing high quality, affordable services to prevent or end unwanted pregnancy with contraception or by abortion’.

Regardless of whether or not one agrees with that aim, it ought to have little to with whom Theresa May, or indeed any political leader, chooses to promote in a cabinet reshuffle. And BPAS ought to have absolutely no business expressing its disappointment, as it did on Twitter, that Mrs May has chosen to to appoint the Lewes MP, nurse Maria Caulfield, as the Conservatives’ vice-chair for women.

Not only is commenting on this appointment outside its remit, BPAS is also disingenuous when it claims that Maria Caulfield supports the criminalisation of women who have abortions. She does no such thing.

In common with more than 72 per cent of women in a ComRes Poll carried out last year, Maria Caulfield argued against the Bill which seeks to ‘decriminalise’ abortion in the UK. The phrase ‘decriminalisation’ is of course massively emotive and misleading, not least because women can already have an abortion in the UK with no questions asked up to 24 weeks of pregnancy.

What decriminalisation seeks to do is to extend the current limit, allowing abortion until at least 28 weeks, or birth, for any reason whatsoever, a position which is at odds with the majority of women in the UK. In the ComRes poll, 72 per cent of women said that they wanted a legal framework to remain in place for abortion in the UK and 59 per cent of women said that they would like to see the legal limit reduced to 16 weeks. Only 2 per cent of women agreed with the BPAS campaign to raise the legal limit, demonstrating that theirs is the ‘extremist’ position.

Under the current law women are not prosecuted for having an abortion and nobody, least of all Maria Caulfield, is suggesting they should be. The Bill that she voted against would have removed all legal protections against forced abortions. It is profoundly anti-woman.

Decriminalisation is a carefully chosen term, designed to evoke images of desperate women in terrible situations being thrown into jail for having an abortion. No woman has ever been criminalised, as is often claimed, for buying abortifacients online. The only two prosecutions which have occurred have been in the circumstances where women have procured abortion pills extremely late in pregnancy and behaved in a callous fashion, killing and then dumping the bodies of their viable late-term babies. In one of these cases, the woman was given a suspended sentence as she already had a child. Wherever you stand on abortion, there is simply no excuse for killing a perfectly viable unborn child on the grounds that you do not want to care for it. Disrespecting the body compounds the crime.

The proposed change in the law is all about abortion on demand for any reason, including if the baby happens to be the wrong sex, which predominantly affects unborn girls. It’s about removing the conscience rights of doctors, midwifes, nurses and any other ancillary staff who are currently allowed to refuse to participate in abortion. It’s about forcing abortion to be on the syllabus for all obstetric and gynaecology students. It’s about removing vital medical safeguards for people wanting to take abortifacients at home and it’s about including the aggressive promotion of abortion rights ‘education’ in schools.

Getting rid of the legal framework means removing penalties for aborting your baby because she’s a girl, it means allowing abortion for any kind of disability or illness, no matter how mild or treatable, and abortion into the latter stages of pregnancy. Heck, you could even abort your baby if you didn’t like its eye colour. Decriminalisation also means removing the protection the criminal law affords pregnant women against men who coerce abortion, or backstreet abortionists. How progressive.

Far from being on the extreme fringe, Maria Caulfield represents the majority of the British public, who routinely reject abortion on demand in every single poll, including one conducted by the BBC, which despite asking leading questions found that most people agreed with Jacob Rees-Mogg and that more women than men do not want decriminalisation. Maria Caulfield is not proposing that women’s access to abortion or contraception should be removed. She has opposed attempts by BPAS to widen abortion provision.

While infuriating, the hysterical response from BPAS was at least predictable. Far more questionable and indeed unprofessional was that of the political editor of the BBC, Laura Kuenssberg, who jumped on their bandwagon. Kuenssberg not only uncritically retweeted the BPAS response to Caulfield’s appointment but also endorsed it, making out that Caulfield’s appointment was some kind of ‘glitch’ which would be rectified.

Talk about letting the mask of impartiality slip. Why on earth would Caulfield’s appointment be a ‘glitch’? Because, er, BPAS had just said so. And of course they have absolutely no financial interest whatsoever in opening up the market and demand for abortion even further, have they? Is Kuenssberg really suggesting that those who hold pro-life views should be disqualified from political office?

Just as BPAS needs to be reprimanded for this unacceptable political interference, so too does the publicly funded Laura Kuenssberg who made no attempt to tweet any of the counter-arguments to BPAS by any of the pro-life organisations, who are also relevant parties.

The selection of this ‘story’ by the BBC on their website, demonstrates how media bias works. Lobby group opposes appointment of person who is not sympathetic to their agenda. Big deal.

What is disappointing is how people are tricked by the likes of Kuenssberg and others in the media into believing that the view of these beyond-the-pale ideologues is somehow the consensus. It isn’t. All you need to do to confirm this is to look a day-old baby with Down’s syndrome in the eye and ask yourself whether you would be comfortable with him or her being killed 24 hours earlier. If you would, by all means join in the attacks on Maria Caulfield.

91 COMMENTS

  1. I’d hazard a guess that BPAS is trying to become Britain’s “Planned Parenthood”. In the US, PP flouts the law, without any apparent repercussion, and receives significant funds from the taxpayer. A slab of the money ends up in Democratic Party coffers. BPAS trousers a lot less than PP, but – what the heck – it all adds up. BPAS is clearly prepared to be every bit as partisan as PP, which should raise questions over its charitable status.

    • There are lots of irons in the fire here, and we have a shortage of blacksmiths. My guess is that a day of reckoning is coming in the no longer distant future for PP. I pray that it is so, and pray the same for BPAS, although with less assurance.

  2. It’s sometimes difficult to know how to combat this sort of hysterical outburst by the BBC and it’s “progressive” staffers and supporters . Their rantings are so extreme and ridiculous that it’s like having to tell a tantrum-prone child that they can’t do something “because I say so “.
    These professional outragists ( is that a word ? ) simply don’t respond to reasonable discussion and debate , they just shriek their faux anguish even more hysterically and the only way to respond is to oppose them at every turn and to make sure that any so-called Charity stops receiving any financial help .

    • It is only going to get worse as women become the majority uni students taking humanities courses and subsequently going into the public sector as fully indoctrinated ideologues.

    • OED 2nd Edition 2009 —

      outragistie

      The quality of being outrageous: a.a Going beyond usual bounds, abnormality, monstrosity; b.b Violence.

  3. The British Progeny Annihilation Service, along with all the gyno-fascist organisations like Mary Stopes, want women to have abortions even if the women don’t want them. They want to weaponise pregnancy in order to propagate the toxic agenda of feminist extremism. Thankfully, the public have a different view.

    • It’s possible that statistically that is true. What would worry many people is that that fact (if true) is therefore used as grounds for doctors to agree to signing off an abortion on the “medical health” grounds of the mother.

      • It’s possible that statistically that is true

        No it isn’t — abortion leads to one human death in about 99% of cases (rare failed attempts at abortion do exist), and not infrequently to the death of the pregnant woman too.

        If the statistics of childbirth were worse than that, our species simply would no longer exist.

        • I think you misunderstand me. My point was purely about the mother. X number of women will statistically die during/as a result of childbirth. If it were to be the case that fewer comparable women ultimately die young because they either never get pregnant or have an early-stage abortion, then that would make abortion theoretically “safer” for the women than childbirth. The point I was actually trying to make was, supposing that is true, it would be terrible if doctors used that as their sign-off justification.

          • In theory, I can accept your X, noting that with modern medicine (or even the NHS) it is very low. I also note that some number of women, Y, will die during or as a result of an abortion. That number is increased by the shoddy conditions of many abortion providers, and by mental problems caused by killing their child (yes, it happens, and quite often).

            Experience suggests that X is considerably smaller than Y.

          • The maternal mortality figures are as follows (UK):
            Surgical abortion: 3 per 100,000 at 13-15 weeks; 12 per 100,000 after 21 weeks
            (Marie Stopes)
            Childbirth (live birth): 8.2 per 100,000
            (From Lancet study, via the Guardian).

          • They are deliberately skewing the presentation by omitting the death statistics of the aborted, which is higher than 100,000 per 100,000 abortions.

          • So 50% more likely to die as a woman if you have an abortion after 21 weeks than if you carry the child to term.

            That is never mentioned

            What happened to the 15 to 20 weeks? No data?

          • Not on the website I cited that I could see. You’re welcome to look yourself. I’d have assumed it was logically somewhere between 3 and 12.

          • I think you misunderstand me

            Nope.

            Overtly and deliberately disagreeing with a fundamental of your presentation does not constitute “misunderstanding” it.

  4. “charities cannot have a political purpose or undertake political
    activity which is not relevant to the charity’s charitable purposes.”

    In other words they can have a political purpose and undertake political activity as long as it is “relevant” to their charitable purpose. And thanks to that badly worded and elasticated clause of contradictory nonsense they do, the majority of them pursuing a common political purpose which is aligned to the infamous box set of all the other left wing “causes” which now dominate our lives.

  5. Since when has what the people want ever been of any interest to the media or politicians who regularly quote “overwhelming public support” when no such thing exists.

  6. Kuenssberg is well known on the left (Momentum) as someone who wears her liberal New Labour prog colours rather openly on her sleeve.

    • She was the subject of a petiton arising from the fact that she asked Jeremy Corbyn hard questions then pushed him for an answer. She is generally viewed on the Corbynite left as a closet Tory. The petition was withdrawn because of the abuse towards her it engended.

      • I got the impression from her that she was more of a Blairite. Which these days is pretty much interchangeable with Tory.

  7. It was heartening to read Maria Caulfield’s response to the BPAS/Beeb online reaction to her appointment. She briefly made clear her position on current abortion legislation and followed it up with: “It’s a sad day in this country if you can’t have a different view to someone. To say that someone who has a different view cannot represent women is absolutely ridiculous.” And that’s the point. BPAS, the BBC, Marie Stopes and so on, would all like everyone, women in particular because we are such an embarrassment, we conservative women, to shut up and stop disagreeing with any aspect of their activities.

  8. Well, first of all, all abortions should be illegal.

    And no, medical interventions to save the life of a pregnant woman that lead to the accidental or deliberate death of the unborn are not “abortions”.

    Abortions intend the death of the unborn — procedures to save a woman’s life do not.

    Abortion violates both the Hippocratic Oath “Above all, do no harm” and, more fundamentally, the Commandment — Thou Shalt Not Kill.

  9. BPAS is no more a real charity than is Planned Parenthood in the United States and they share names which deliberately disguise their true purpose which is to promote abortion and infanticide. They exist and are showered with public money to enable government to keep a distance between itself and the actual practice of abortion which is why abuses of their position are tolerated. Their institutional racism is never alluded to by the otherwise rampant anti-racism lobby or by female journalists who advocate ferociously on behalf of abortion. No caucasian family in Britain aborts foetuses because they are female. The notorious Kermitt Gosnell abortion clinic in he US where babies born live were promptly murdered was exclusively a clearing house for poor black women. What Gosnell ran was more of a charnel house than a clinic. Neither BPAS not Planned Parenthood is in a position to lecture anyone about ethics. Their existence is a social scandal but one with a self-satisfied smile of untouchability on its face.

  10. As someone said, if men could get pregnant, abortion would have been not only legal, but subject to some kind of free gift. The comment below in which someone says ‘all abortions should be illegal’ is said with clear-eyed certainty that it’s either funny or tragic. I can’t decide which. If that individual was, say, crippingly broke, had some kind of substance abuse problem and a life from which all hope had been drained. I bet he’d be clamouring for abortion as soon as he found out that he was pregnant.

  11. It’s not difficult really. Women have no RIGHT to have an abortion, and the futher into the pregnancy the worse it is. Now having said that, an abortion can be forgiven depending on the circumstances. The law at the moment seems reasonable, providing that women realise that just because it is legal doesn’t neccessarity mean it’s right. Remember also that there are cases where women have abortions because of pressure from men. Sometimes they have them and bitterly regret it after. My own mother was one, and she had to belied to by the doctor on behalf of the church minister, that she had only had fibroids and hadn’t actually been pregnant, before she could live with herself. I still live with that lie, and the fact that I gave my mother the blessing to have the abortion because she couldn’t live with the ‘disgrace’ of getting pregnant in her late 40s.

        • See my reply to Phil R, above.

          I may well be a presumptious and/or supercilious and/or arrogant and/or berkish … but you could at least entertain us by showing us just how you deduce this from my very brief comment: which can by no stretch of the imagination be described as presumptious, nor supercilious, nor arrogant.

          • Oh no, kind Sir, please do not say I’m hateful, murderous, monstrous AND stupid: I might cry.
            On the other hand, I just might not. I might just write you off as a sanctimonious, ignorant, arrogant, loudmouthed, silly little man – or woman – or thing – or thingy – or whatever you might like to be called – or, come to that, whatever you might NOT like to be called: such spiteful and ill motivated spleen is the sign of a defective intellect, or possibly great immaturity: or both. And possibly other defects, too depressing to consider.
            And continue to add whatever you like. It matters not a fig to me.

        • I am not a transphobe. Why on earth should you think it ? We are discussing ABORTION her, you clueless clot, which requires the conjugation of a real man with a real woman. A trans this, or a trans that, or a trans whatever, is, as I understand it, sterile. Thus not a parent, of either (trans ?) sex. So, I may have weird, offensive, criminal or treasonable views on abortion, but that does not make me trans-anything, certainly not transphobic.

          You, Phil R, are trans rational.

          • Sorry about that. OK, I’ll take the joke, and add “transphobe” to a long list of insults I have earned over the years – racist, antisemitic, islamophobe, white supremacist, fascist, capitalist – it gets funny when you tot it all up.

      • Well it involves killing another life, which is also the offspring of a man. There is no way you would say the man has the right to kill his child. We all have rights and obligations, and the right to life, gives the parents the obligation to rear the child they have created. That’s not what happens all the time certainly ,but if you kill a foetus you must be sorry, not arrogant about it being your right. I say so.

        • You are a silly man (?)( (Is Mik male or female ?)
          In England, a woman has a de facto right to kill her child, after it is born, and the Crown will not prosecute: it is too easy for any minimally competent brief to put up the defence of post natal depression, and no jury would convict. Collapse of prosecution case – it’s just a waste of money.

          So, if it’s OK for a mother to slaughter her own child (and I agree that it really isn’t, but it is not something the law is going to tangle with with a ten foot pole) then it is obviously OK for her to get it over with before birth. If she wants to. And I do not give a fig for the father – he has not had to pay for the child. Just Patriarchalism – the Man “owns” his own wife, the Man is the Head of the Family, the Woman must obey her husband, the child’s mother must defer to the father even if they are not wed – rubbish, rubbish and yet more rubbish.

          I am a man. Thus I have no right to kill a foetus. But that does not give me the right to deny such a right to a woman. (Sexual egalitarianism ? Stow it, buster.)

          And anyone who kills a foetus is liable to feel sorry, to put it mildly. I do not recommend anyone killing a foetus, not even the mother, but I cannot see why my recommendation, my advice, even my heartfelt plea, should cut any ice with a woman who wants an abortion. Nor no other man’s word, neither.

          You seem to think because for most people it would be murder (actually, murder is a term thrown around with quite reckless abandon whenever the subject of abortion comes up – usually totallly inaccurately and with no logical justification – but I digress:) killing is not all that dramatic – I felt no pain – no regrets – but the readiness of the Law to stick its ignorant (often) mcp (always) nose in where it has no business has a long history. Time to stop. I DID NOT say that a man has a right to kill his child: just that a woman does. “We all have rights and obligations …” which is true, but they are not equal rights and certainly not equal obligations. If the mother wants to say “Stop, I cannot go on” she is under no obligation to continue. The “right to life” is dependent on the woman’s prior aquiescence in the creation of that life – which is the whole point of abortion. You use the term “parents” as if to suggest, or imply, or stress, or argue for some equality of obligations: not so.

          If you wish to attack my comment, please attend to what I said, and not some phantom of what you think I might be though to believe.

          • I’m sorry, from your first post I assumed you were a woman, and so missunderstood the tone of your comment. By saying that no woman has a ‘right’ to have an abortion, I meant in the sense of ‘moral right’, what used to be called God given right, not that that it’s illegal or that she is unable to do it, but that it’s a terrible thing to do. But, we all do terrible things sometimes. I assume from your post that a woman aborted an unborn child of yours. If that is so, it is sad,

          • Apology accepted, thank you. (JabbaPapa: please note alternative mode of discussion.)

            I fully agree that abortion is dreadful – particularly artificially induced abortion, which, luckily, I have never had to deal with up close and personal. Fortunately my children were all born OK, but in my familly there have been spontaneous abortions. One of my brothers only lived to six days of age – I never saw him. One of my nieces married a man much older than herself (since dead) and she aborted several times. In the end the hospital said, “Right, we’re pulling out all the stops for you, come in early, and we’ll see what can be done.” She deliverred a premature baby at about one kilo – the smallest baby ever delivered in that hospital, and she survived after a very long stay in an incubator. Now a strapping wench at Durham University – or maybe finished now: I lose touch. But the early abortions of what should have been her siblings took a heavy toll on the mother.

            Yes, it is a terrible thing to do: and it is a terrible thing to put a pregnant woman in the position where she sees abortion as her “best” (or really “least bad”) option. Which, sadly, is what a lot of God Fearing people seem to take delight in doing. We may have come on a bit from the Calvinists of Geneva, but there are very few Christians I would trust with a decision on abortion. Either way.

            No woman but my wife has ever had a chance of carrying, let alone aborting unborn, any child of mine. My concerns are purely for the poor women who end up in such a state that abortion is their preferred way out. A state mainly engineered by men.

            The only sad thing here is that JabbaPapa was not aborted: even now, perhaps, it is not too late ? Does anyone know the real name and address of this knucklehead ?

  12. I just love this introduction that 72% of women expressed a preference! Anyone would think that Britain is a democracy and surely no one in this day & age thinks that?

    We elect a dictator to serve a 5 year term, and once elected they cannot be removed save in exceptional circumstances. We have no idea what they are going to do once in power, whether they chose to do the things they promised, or a completely different set of policies they never told us about.

    Just because a majority supports something means not one iota of difference to any dictator, unless it will affect the re-election 5 year hence.

    I have to say though that this is a Catholic issue, and has nothing to do with conservatism. Catholics in the Labour party are just as likely to have a similar view, and I therefore pose the question as to why this is being raised yet again on a site which is supposedly about conservative issues?

    • Actually, it is not a Catholic issue, although the Catholic church is on the right side of it, so are a fair proportion of Anglicans, Lutherans, Fundamentalists, and yes, even Atheists. It’s about western civilization and the right to life, of all people. It’s part of our heritage in the west, a large part of why we are superior to all others, it’s the exact same argument that led us to eliminate Suttee, and slavery. To see our societies regress this way is deplorable, and yes, despicable. It’s all about killing the innocent.

      • I note that you deny it’s about catholic issues, but cannot lay claim to it being a conservative issue, because it’s just as much an issue for the Socialists too.

        • erm, pointing out that “it is not a Catholic issue” does not amount to “denying” that it is a Catholic issue — the point is that the issue is Catholic but also several other things besides.

          What he was trying to say is that the issue is not uniquely Catholic.

          Hope that helps.

  13. A baby’s heart starts to beat 22 days after conception. I am simply baffled that anyone can hold a position that stopping this can be okay.

    And no, I am not Catholic or any other religion, I’m just opposed to killing babies, because despite all the language, that’s what this is.

    Some of the elements in the debate seem to be arguing that if a baby still has a foot in the birth canal it’s okay to kill them.

    • Some of the elements in the debate are arguing that it’s OK to kill a baby up to three years after one is born.

  14. I’m glad to read an article that is reasonable and I agree with you.
    I’m also glad to see that it seems that catholic women doesn’t have fall in love for the “abortion at every time she wants” rhetoric.
    Not yet, at least.

  15. Write to the BBC. Request a personal response (not one produced by a word processor) and ask why LK was allowed to stray from the corporations remit of impartiality.I think the Beeb must have a small team dedicated to answering my letters 🙂

Comments are closed.