The anti-abortion organisation SPUC has launched a campaign against the legal recognition of same-sex unions. This document comes as no surprise as we know that SPUC Director John Smeaton has written a number of blogs attacking same-sex unions, and calling homosexuality ‘disordered’. However, we are baffled by the argument that ‘allowing same sex marriage would damage society and would put the unborn child at a far higher risk of being aborted’.
SPUC’s position paper on same-sex marriage links to Government abortion statistics to back up its claim that ‘unborn children are much safer within marriage than outside marriage'. Abortion Statistics for England and Wales do show that overall, the majority of abortions are requested by unmarried women. But the partial use of these figures to argue that traditional, heterosexual marriage ‘protects children born and unborn’ is disingenuous. A closer look at the abortion statistics shows that age is the most significant factor. Only 1% of women under 20 having abortions are married. This is unsurprising considering the average age of marriage for women in the UK is 28. It should not lead us to the conclusion that being married in and of itself stops women requesting abortion. By the time they are 35 or over, married women make up a significantly larger proportion (40%) of women requesting abortion. The overall figures for the proportion of abortions carried out for married women are strongly skewed by the fact that 70% of abortions are provided for women under 30 many of whom aren’t married (yet).
Apart from age, there may be lots of reasons why women who are married may be under-represented in abortion statistics none of which points to a magical protective effect of marriage. What is certain is that nothing in the statistics demonstrates that allowing gay couples to marry will result in more abortions. The leap from ‘most women who have abortions are unmarried’ to ‘same-sex marriage causes abortion’ is bizarre. The attempt to dress up good old fashioned homophobia as social science is worse.
This blog from the brilliant Abortion Gang reminds us why the LGBT and pro-choice movements need to work together for reproductive justice. We have blogged before about our concern that organisations with a homophobic agenda are welcomed into our schools to talk to our children about abortion.We only have to look to the current situation in the States to see that if there is a connection between same sex marriage and abortion it is this: all too often those wishing to restrict women’s right to access safe, legal abortion are the very same people who are attempting to restrict the choices we make about who we can love and live with; how we define, create and care for our families; the way we live – in fact who we are.
Showing posts with label LGBT. Show all posts
Showing posts with label LGBT. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Tuesday, October 25, 2011
Anti-choice groups and homophobia
Government guidance states that ‘young people, whatever their developing sexuality, need to feel that sex and relationships education (SRE) is relevant to them and sensitive to their needs’. Indeed, any school SRE policy worth its salt would communicate the importance of inclusive education which doesn’t discriminate against same-sex relationships. So why are groups which hold homophobic views allowed to speak to young people as part of their sex and relationships education?
We weren’t particularly shocked when the director of anti-abortion organisation SPUC (The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children) posted a missive railing against ‘gay marriage’ on his blog. We are however, still bemused by the fact that schools across the country allow this group to speak to young people.
In this recent blog SPUC director John Smeaton used text book homophobic arguments in his opposition to ‘gay marriage’ stating that:
‘The fundamental argument against gay marriage is that homosexuality is disordered, as it is radically at variance with the truth and meaning of human sexuality... it is impossible for any homosexual relationship to be a marriage because genuine personal, sexual and spiritual union between persons of the same-sex is impossible.’
Helpfully, Smeaton clues us in as to why exactly he’s arguing against gay marriage on a blog dedicated to ‘pro-life issues’:
‘Why is the Catholic Church's teaching on homosexuality (and sexual ethics generally) important specifically for the pro-life movement? The late Pope John Paul II, the great pro-life champion, taught ... that it is an illusion to think that we can build a true culture of human life if we do not offer adolescents and young adults an authentic education in sexuality, and in love, and the whole of life according to their true meaning and in their close interconnection.’
Smeaton’s blogs are not simply personal musings but directly linked to SPUC’s work and identity – the title is ‘John Smeaton, SPUC Director’ and the header states: ‘I write this blog in my role as SPUC's chief executive, commenting on pro-life news, reflecting on pro-life issues and promoting SPUC's work’.
SPUC is currently leading a national campaign called ‘Safe at School’ bemoaning the current state of sex education in schools. It offers schools resources and send out speakers to give presentations on topics such as abortion and euthanasia.
Another organisation, Care (Christian Action Research and Education), one of the founding members of the SRE Council, which runs the sex education programme Evaluate in schools, also raises a red flag concerning its position on sexuality. Care was a vocal supporter of Section 28 and has also responded negatively to David Cameron’s speech in support of ‘gay marriage’. In 2007 CARE co-sponsored a conference entitled: ‘The Possibility of Change: Understanding the Causes and Healing of Homosexuality’.
A Stonewall survey of young LGBT people found that over a third didn’t feel safe or accepted at school. We are concerned that some organisations, which hold views contravening good practice in SRE, are being invited into schools and could share opinions which stigmatise, or may trigger negative feelings and bullying. Is a young person who is questioning or coming to terms with their sexuality, or who has friends or family members who are in gay relationships, ‘safe at school’ when an organisation with homophobic views is given a platform?
If you want to help EFC campaign against misinformation in schools please text EDFC22 followed by the amount you wish to donate (e.g. EDFC22 £10) to 70070 or visit our Just Giving page to make a regular donation.
We weren’t particularly shocked when the director of anti-abortion organisation SPUC (The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children) posted a missive railing against ‘gay marriage’ on his blog. We are however, still bemused by the fact that schools across the country allow this group to speak to young people.
In this recent blog SPUC director John Smeaton used text book homophobic arguments in his opposition to ‘gay marriage’ stating that:
‘The fundamental argument against gay marriage is that homosexuality is disordered, as it is radically at variance with the truth and meaning of human sexuality... it is impossible for any homosexual relationship to be a marriage because genuine personal, sexual and spiritual union between persons of the same-sex is impossible.’
Helpfully, Smeaton clues us in as to why exactly he’s arguing against gay marriage on a blog dedicated to ‘pro-life issues’:
‘Why is the Catholic Church's teaching on homosexuality (and sexual ethics generally) important specifically for the pro-life movement? The late Pope John Paul II, the great pro-life champion, taught ... that it is an illusion to think that we can build a true culture of human life if we do not offer adolescents and young adults an authentic education in sexuality, and in love, and the whole of life according to their true meaning and in their close interconnection.’
Smeaton’s blogs are not simply personal musings but directly linked to SPUC’s work and identity – the title is ‘John Smeaton, SPUC Director’ and the header states: ‘I write this blog in my role as SPUC's chief executive, commenting on pro-life news, reflecting on pro-life issues and promoting SPUC's work’.
SPUC is currently leading a national campaign called ‘Safe at School’ bemoaning the current state of sex education in schools. It offers schools resources and send out speakers to give presentations on topics such as abortion and euthanasia.
Another organisation, Care (Christian Action Research and Education), one of the founding members of the SRE Council, which runs the sex education programme Evaluate in schools, also raises a red flag concerning its position on sexuality. Care was a vocal supporter of Section 28 and has also responded negatively to David Cameron’s speech in support of ‘gay marriage’. In 2007 CARE co-sponsored a conference entitled: ‘The Possibility of Change: Understanding the Causes and Healing of Homosexuality’.
A Stonewall survey of young LGBT people found that over a third didn’t feel safe or accepted at school. We are concerned that some organisations, which hold views contravening good practice in SRE, are being invited into schools and could share opinions which stigmatise, or may trigger negative feelings and bullying. Is a young person who is questioning or coming to terms with their sexuality, or who has friends or family members who are in gay relationships, ‘safe at school’ when an organisation with homophobic views is given a platform?
If you want to help EFC campaign against misinformation in schools please text EDFC22 followed by the amount you wish to donate (e.g. EDFC22 £10) to 70070 or visit our Just Giving page to make a regular donation.
Monday, September 12, 2011
Myth-Busting Monday - 'Abortion is the only procedure which requires 2 doctors' signatures'
Every Monday EFC busts myths and take names, cutting through the misinformation, disinformation, and straight up nonsense to bring you the facts.Today's blog was inspired by a recent tweet from @christineburns who pointed out that abortion is not the only procedure which requires the signatures of two separate doctors.
As Christine points out, during discussions of Nadine Dorries' failed amendments to the health and social care bill last week some MPs and commentators stated that abortion is the only situation whereby somebody has to obtain the signature of two doctors for the procedure to be granted legal. Abortion rights campaigners are keen to point out that no other medical procedure requires this level of intervention, but, as Christine rightly points out, this same requirement is true of gender reassignment procedures. The 2004 Gender Recognition Act makes legal recognition of a transsexual person's true gender dependent on reports from two doctors and this GIRES document offering guidance to transmen on genital surgeries states that "two referrals supporting your clinical need for genital surgery are usually required before a surgeon will undertake it. In the UK one of these must be from a medical doctor (a gender psychiatrist) and the other can be a psychologist, endocrinologist or GP for instance."
So it's simply not true that abortion is the only procedure which requires two doctors' signatures- thanks again to Christine Burns for highlighting this. Check out her blog Just Plain Sense here. And the RCOG's comments on the requirement of two signatures for legal abortion here.
As Christine points out, during discussions of Nadine Dorries' failed amendments to the health and social care bill last week some MPs and commentators stated that abortion is the only situation whereby somebody has to obtain the signature of two doctors for the procedure to be granted legal. Abortion rights campaigners are keen to point out that no other medical procedure requires this level of intervention, but, as Christine rightly points out, this same requirement is true of gender reassignment procedures. The 2004 Gender Recognition Act makes legal recognition of a transsexual person's true gender dependent on reports from two doctors and this GIRES document offering guidance to transmen on genital surgeries states that "two referrals supporting your clinical need for genital surgery are usually required before a surgeon will undertake it. In the UK one of these must be from a medical doctor (a gender psychiatrist) and the other can be a psychologist, endocrinologist or GP for instance."
So it's simply not true that abortion is the only procedure which requires two doctors' signatures- thanks again to Christine Burns for highlighting this. Check out her blog Just Plain Sense here. And the RCOG's comments on the requirement of two signatures for legal abortion here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)