Tuesday, 25 May 2010

Their True Colours – Declining Abortion Rates and the Response of the Abortion Industry

The abortion provider, Marie Stopes International came under fire this week for advertising its service on television. But we must not be surprised at Marie Stopes’ actions. It is adopting sound business strategy. You see national statistics for 2009 show a second consecutive year of decline in abortions. Not good news for providers like Marie Stopes, who were contracted by the NHS to provide more than half of the 189,000 abortions in 2009. The “market” is in decline and therefore money must be invested in expensive advertising on national prime time television to ensure continued financial viability. After all taxpayer (NHS) funded abortions have been steadily increasing since the year 2000, for this lucky multi- million pound industry. Moves to guard against a decline in sales are therefore entirely understandable. Marie Stopes even admits its fear in a current job advert for a Business Development Manager. According to the advert “ It is essential that the role keeps abreast with proposed changes in the NHS and identify opportunities or threats that these may present to MSI” . Another job advert says applicants “will be responsible for researching and developing new business opportunities in the region in order to increase MSI’s profile and market share”.

So it emerges out of the horse’s mouth. This is about increasing market share in the face of potential decline in “sales” and threats to the business. It must have rattled the industry when David Cameron on the election trail talked about supporting a reduction in the time limit for abortion. The industry’s activists came out kicking and screaming at his remarks. Well why not, after all seven out of ten late term abortions performed in 2009 was in the taxpayer funded independent abortion industry of which Marie Stopes leads the way. With this so called charity collecting £1,720 for a single late term abortion (19-24 weeks-Marie Stopes website), its fears are understandable.
What is disgraceful is the refusal by this abortion provider to tell the whole truth about the purpose of the abortion ads. They are clearly a marketing tool for Marie Stopes services, ranging from its £80 telephone consultation, to its £1720 abortions. For four decades the abortion industry has profited off the plight of women in crisis pregnancies and it is not going to stop now. It should readily admit that and stop this charade about empowering and acting in the interest of women. If Marie Stopes is really serious about women’s interest, how about empowering women with the ability to continue with their pregnancies. If they are really pro-choice they should provide practical support for women who choose to keep their baby . But this in non-existent. Instead the word from the abortion industry is...come to us, we will help you, by ending the life of your child, for at least £440 (cheapest abortion at Marie Stopes). In this new age of austerity the Government would do well to take a second look at the lucrative taxpayer funded contracts awarded to such institutions as Marie Stopes.
The number of abortions will continue to decline in line with the turning tide of public opinion against this procedure. The next step must be to expose the abortion industry for what it is. At a time when some are hanging their heads in shame for the way they have used taxpayers money, I am sure there is room for some more on the bandwagon. Please do make some space for the abortion industry!

Friday, 9 April 2010

David Cameron on Abortion

The Guardian today totally abandoned all impartiality in reporting to facilitate an attack by the abortion industry on the leader of the Conservative Party for taking a position on abortion. David Cameron earlier this week told the Catholic Herald Newspaper that he favours a reduction in the time limit for abortion from 24 weeks to 20 or 22 weeks. For an industry which has seen huge increases in income from the ever increasing plight of women in crisis pregnancy, there are no prizes for guessing the response. Two of the usual suspects, Abortion Rights and Family Planning Association came out kicking and screaming in the Guardian that any rollback of the limit would be distressing for women. Yet this concern for women does not manifest itself in any tangible support for women who decide to keep their babies. So much for being pro-women and pro-choice. Those who really care about women will reach out to empower women to have their babies.
Quite like King Canute who tried to command the waves to roll back, the abortion industry is worried that the tidal wave of public opinion is turning against it and therefore screams loudly to intimidate those who take a definitive position on the abortion issue. A 2008 ComRes poll showed that seven out of ten people back a reduction in the time limit to 20 weeks or below or a complete ban. This revelation should not be ignored by those who claim to represent the interest of the people. Top marks awarded to those who are forthright in proclaiming their position so the public are fully informed and equipped to make decisions on how their wishes can best be fulfilled.

Monday, 29 March 2010

Shirley Chaplin and her Faith

I cannot believe that in a Christian country one cannot wear the symbol of the Christian faith.
I am tired and frustrated by the political correctness brigade making ludicrous assumptions of what constitutes an offence for people of other faiths. It is patronising and downright rude.
I am a Hindu but I sought treatment when I was very ill in a Christian hospital. I have to say the cross which some of the nurses wore provided great reassurance and comfort to me as a patient because of what it represented. I felt that the wearers were people of gentleness and compassion and I trusted them wholesomely with my treatment. I felt at ease with them, simply because I could identify them as people upholding Christian values.
So please PC Brigade, not in my name!
Well done Shirley Chaplin for challenging these demands for you to remove your cross. Your story suggests this is much more than an issue of health and safety for the Trust. I would be surprised if you can find a single Hindu who has a problem with you wearing a cross.