Every Monday EFC busts myths and take names, cutting through the misinformation, disinformation, and straight up nonsense to bring you the facts.
We’ve talked about this before but we think it’s worth repeating: legal abortion doesn’t cause infertility. Young people and professionals often come to us with concerns that someone who has an abortion will not be able to have children in the future. In fact, as the RCOG point out:
“There are no proven associations between induced abortion and subsequent ectopic pregnancy, placenta praevia or infertility”
In fact, “ovulation occurs within a month of first-trimester abortion in over 90% of women” which means that those wishing to prevent future pregnancies should get information about contraception following abortion. Some contraceptive methods can be fitted or initiated at the time of abortion while a woman's motivation is likely to be high.
This myth may relate to times and places where abortion is illegal and thus unsafe. However, some organisations in the UK are still making this claim about legal abortion: Care Confidential talk about ‘relative infertility’ as a risk of abortion and a centre in their network recently gave out literature stating that ‘sub-fertility or infertility’ is a longer term effect of abortion.
Monday, November 14, 2011
Monday, November 7, 2011
Myth-Busting Monday - 'Abortion is legal in all parts of the UK'
Every Monday EFC busts myths and take names, cutting through the misinformation, disinformation, and straight up nonsense to bring you the facts. Today’s myth-bust relates to the fpa’s current abortion campaign Time For Change.
Although abortion is legal and accessible (though not available ‘on demand’) in England, Scotland and Wales, it is allowed in Northern Ireland only under exceptional circumstances. The 1967 Abortion Act, which governs abortion provision in Britain, only applies in England, Scotland and Wales. When the Act was debated and passed by Parliament in 1967 it was not extended to Northern Ireland.
Last year, over a thousand women from Northern Ireland travelled to England and Wales to obtain a legal abortion. Although women in Northern Ireland pay UK taxes they are not entitled to an abortion free on the NHS so would need to raise funds for the procedure itself (as well as travel and possibly accommodation). Abortion is also restricted in the Republic of Ireland and the Channel Islands so a number of women from these places travel to England and Wales to have abortions (see the 2010 abortion statistics for exact numbers).
There are no recorded statistics on the amount of illegal abortions taking place in Northern Ireland, but there have been reports of women ordering abortion medication online via services like Women on Web. The Abortion Support Network has been set up to provide financial assistance to those women travelling from Ireland, Northern Ireland, the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.
For more information on abortion in Northern Ireland check out the fpa’s Time For Change campaign.
Monday, October 31, 2011
Myth Busting Monday – National Adoption Week
This week is National Adoption Week so we thought we’d post some common myths about adoption for today’s blogpost. Please do add a comment if you have any examples of misinformation you’ve seen and check out our website for more information on adoption and pregnancy decision making.
Abortion isn’t the only pregnancy option which can fall prey to misinformation. Although adoption is much less likely to be targeted by those seeking to deliberately misinform it is certainly a topic which can be misrepresented by tabloids and soap operas, often with only a fleeting regard for those with real life experience of the adoption process.
Last year the British Association of Adoption and Fostering (BAAF) carried out a survey which found that a large proportion of those questioned carried outdated notions of what adoption entails. We’ve addressed a few myths below but check out the BAAF website for more detailed information on the process.
Myth 1: Most children are adopted because they have been given up by their birth family.
When abortion was illegal in England,Wales and Scotland, and single motherhood still seen as culturally unacceptable, the placing of newborns into adoptive families was a lot more common than it is now. Young, unmarried women who became pregnant were coerced into giving babies up for adoption as their other choices became severely restricted. Nowadays, the most common reason for adoption is that the child has been removed from their birth family due to abuse or neglect in the home.
Myth 2: Adopted children are never allowed any contact with their birth family.
Research has shown that for many children, some form of contact after adoption between the children and their birth parents, siblings and other relatives and significant others can be beneficial. When proposing any arrangements for contact, the first consideration will always be what is in the best interests of the child.
Myth 3: You can’t adopt if you’re single, gay, over 40, religious, obese, a smoker etc.
Although there are some clear restrictions to who can and can’t adopt (such as certain criminal convictions or health issues) the remit for acceptance is not as strict as many people seem to think. The BAAF Chief Executive states that in fact, ‘94% of people who make it to an adoption panel get approved.’
Friday, October 28, 2011
Safe at school? Abortion Education
The final blog of #SREisSAFE week looks at the false and stigmatising information about abortion given out in schools by anti-choice groups and those that seek to influence SRE policy.
False information about abortion is everywhere, including schools. The stigma surrounding this particular pregnancy choice means that misinformation, often spread by those groups who oppose women’s legal right to abortion, is able to flourish. We know that both Life and SPUC, the two main anti-abortion organisations in this country, have given non-evidence-based information about abortion on their websites, educational materials and directly to young people via school presentations. There are also groups like Lovewise (a member of the SRE Council) which provide school presentations with medically inaccurate information from a ‘pro-life’ perspective.
For example, websites run by Life claim that ‘Post Abortion Syndrome is now a recognised heath condition’ (false), that ‘there is some extremely strong evidence’ for a link between breast cancer and abortion (false) and that abortion leads to ‘increased suicide rates’(false).
A 2008 copy* of SPUC’s school presentation reveals an alarming amount of misinformation. We covered its misleading stance on contraception in this post, and links to breast cancer, Post-Abortion Trauma and infertility are also made.
We are frankly baffled that teachers would be happy to invite in groups which give misinformation about one of the most common medical procedures being performed in this country. It seems the topic of abortion is one where young people are expected to sort fact from fiction themselves, something which would never be expected in a history, maths or science lesson.
But the misinformation is only one side of the problem. These groups, in their opposition to abortion, may also stigmatise this pregnancy option over parenting or adoption. Of course, it’s perfectly valid for organisations to put forward their viewpoint that abortion is morally wrong. But this becomes unacceptable when presented as fact rather than opinion, by using false information to bolster the argument, or when a negative stance on abortion is intended to – or is likely to result in – distressing or stigmatising young people in the audience.
At the beginning of its school presentation SPUC claims: ‘Although SPUC are against abortion we do not judge or condemn anyone involved in them, neither doctors, nurses and especially not the girls and women who have them.’ However, the content of the following slides (including graphic images of aborted fetuses), and indeed its website materials, give a very different picture:
SPUC: ‘The abortion pictures are not very pleasant to look at and I will warn you before I show them. My intention is not to shock you but rather to inform you sensitively of the truth and reality of what abortion entails’
SPUC: ‘As you can see this little boy is not just a clump of cells. He is a living growing unborn baby who deserves a right to live‘(photograph of fetus in utero – no indication of scale/size)
SPUC: ‘A hysterotomy abortion involves major surgery and is like a delivery by caesarean section’ (accompanied by a full colour picture of a late-term fetus being removed from open, bloody abdomen – with the implication that this is an ordinary abortion procedure and no indication that this procedure is very rare indeed and is only ever used as a procedure of last resort in a medical emergency ‘when a pregnancy must be ended promptly under general anaesthesia because of an acute medical condition and a vaginal method is impracticable or unsafe.’** So rare is this procedure that in recent years hysterotomy does not appear at all in UK abortion statistics)
SPUC: ‘It can never be compassionate deliberately to take innocent human life’
By using shocking images, emotive language - ‘the aim is that the baby dies’, and presenting opinion as fact, SPUC seek to stigmatise the option of abortion. We would argue that this kind of presentation could be upsetting for young people who have experience of pregnancy themselves or who know somebody who has had an abortion (extremely likely since we are talking about a third of the female population).
LIFE’s ‘preg help’ advisory website displays a similarly judgmental tone:
LIFE: ‘Abortion exploits everyone involved’
LIFE: ‘The abortion ethos depends upon denying that the deliberate killing of the unborn child has any traumatic effect on anyone involved’
LIFE: ‘Abortion, for men as well as women, is not the best solution to the problem of unplanned pregnancy.’
So, as campaigns like SPUC’s ‘Safe at School’ argue against ‘explicit’ sex education we wonder why a photograph of a miscarried fetus passes muster?
Are young women who have experienced abortion and been told it is ‘the deliberate killing of an unborn child’ which could lead to cancer, infertility or serious mental health problems ‘safe at school’?
Are students, the majority of whom will go on to experience abortion either themselves, or support a partner, friend or family member who does, ‘safe at school’ when they receive misinformation like this?
Guardian ‘Shock Tactics’ article on anti-abortion groups in schools.
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 do not have access to a more recent copy of this presentation, wording may have changed.
** Risk Management and Litigation in Obstetrics and Gynaecology [Ed. RV Clements. published in 2002 , Royal Society of Medicine Press in association with the RCOG].
False information about abortion is everywhere, including schools. The stigma surrounding this particular pregnancy choice means that misinformation, often spread by those groups who oppose women’s legal right to abortion, is able to flourish. We know that both Life and SPUC, the two main anti-abortion organisations in this country, have given non-evidence-based information about abortion on their websites, educational materials and directly to young people via school presentations. There are also groups like Lovewise (a member of the SRE Council) which provide school presentations with medically inaccurate information from a ‘pro-life’ perspective.
For example, websites run by Life claim that ‘Post Abortion Syndrome is now a recognised heath condition’ (false), that ‘there is some extremely strong evidence’ for a link between breast cancer and abortion (false) and that abortion leads to ‘increased suicide rates’(false).
A 2008 copy* of SPUC’s school presentation reveals an alarming amount of misinformation. We covered its misleading stance on contraception in this post, and links to breast cancer, Post-Abortion Trauma and infertility are also made.
We are frankly baffled that teachers would be happy to invite in groups which give misinformation about one of the most common medical procedures being performed in this country. It seems the topic of abortion is one where young people are expected to sort fact from fiction themselves, something which would never be expected in a history, maths or science lesson.
But the misinformation is only one side of the problem. These groups, in their opposition to abortion, may also stigmatise this pregnancy option over parenting or adoption. Of course, it’s perfectly valid for organisations to put forward their viewpoint that abortion is morally wrong. But this becomes unacceptable when presented as fact rather than opinion, by using false information to bolster the argument, or when a negative stance on abortion is intended to – or is likely to result in – distressing or stigmatising young people in the audience.
At the beginning of its school presentation SPUC claims: ‘Although SPUC are against abortion we do not judge or condemn anyone involved in them, neither doctors, nurses and especially not the girls and women who have them.’ However, the content of the following slides (including graphic images of aborted fetuses), and indeed its website materials, give a very different picture:
SPUC: ‘The abortion pictures are not very pleasant to look at and I will warn you before I show them. My intention is not to shock you but rather to inform you sensitively of the truth and reality of what abortion entails’
SPUC: ‘As you can see this little boy is not just a clump of cells. He is a living growing unborn baby who deserves a right to live‘(photograph of fetus in utero – no indication of scale/size)
SPUC: ‘A hysterotomy abortion involves major surgery and is like a delivery by caesarean section’ (accompanied by a full colour picture of a late-term fetus being removed from open, bloody abdomen – with the implication that this is an ordinary abortion procedure and no indication that this procedure is very rare indeed and is only ever used as a procedure of last resort in a medical emergency ‘when a pregnancy must be ended promptly under general anaesthesia because of an acute medical condition and a vaginal method is impracticable or unsafe.’** So rare is this procedure that in recent years hysterotomy does not appear at all in UK abortion statistics)
SPUC: ‘It can never be compassionate deliberately to take innocent human life’
By using shocking images, emotive language - ‘the aim is that the baby dies’, and presenting opinion as fact, SPUC seek to stigmatise the option of abortion. We would argue that this kind of presentation could be upsetting for young people who have experience of pregnancy themselves or who know somebody who has had an abortion (extremely likely since we are talking about a third of the female population).
LIFE’s ‘preg help’ advisory website displays a similarly judgmental tone:
LIFE: ‘Abortion exploits everyone involved’
LIFE: ‘The abortion ethos depends upon denying that the deliberate killing of the unborn child has any traumatic effect on anyone involved’
LIFE: ‘Abortion, for men as well as women, is not the best solution to the problem of unplanned pregnancy.’
So, as campaigns like SPUC’s ‘Safe at School’ argue against ‘explicit’ sex education we wonder why a photograph of a miscarried fetus passes muster?
Are young women who have experienced abortion and been told it is ‘the deliberate killing of an unborn child’ which could lead to cancer, infertility or serious mental health problems ‘safe at school’?
Are students, the majority of whom will go on to experience abortion either themselves, or support a partner, friend or family member who does, ‘safe at school’ when they receive misinformation like this?
Guardian ‘Shock Tactics’ article on anti-abortion groups in schools.
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 do not have access to a more recent copy of this presentation, wording may have changed.
** Risk Management and Litigation in Obstetrics and Gynaecology [Ed. RV Clements. published in 2002 , Royal Society of Medicine Press in association with the RCOG].
Thursday, October 27, 2011
Safe at School - abstinence, chastity, marriage and the family
Today’s blog looks at what some of the groups seeking to influence current SRE policy or delivering SRE in schools have to say about marriage and the family. This is the fourth in our #SREisSAFE series of blogs.
Sex educators all over the country acknowledge the reality of young people’s lives and the reality of adolescent sexuality, and try to give young people the tools, knowledge and confidence to make the best decisions they can. Good sex education is inclusive – has something to say to everyone in the room whether they are already sexually active, or plan to wait to meet their life partner before they have sex. It also recognises that young people represent a range of sexualities and identities; and that the families they live in come in all different shapes and sizes. It's in this context that members of the new SRE Council, which hopes to influence UK SRE policy, are still committed to preaching about marriage as the only context in which to bring up a child. They would prefer our young people to be brought up on a diet of abstinence-only education and vows of chastity. While organisations promoting these views often co-opt the notion of family values, the reality is that they only place value on one particular type of family.
Challenge Team UK (an SRE council member) proclaims as a matter of fact: ‘Children brought up with married parents do better in every department of life’ and state ‘(we) made the difficult decision not to use the term 'long term committed relationship' as interchangeable with marriage.’
SPUC which is not a member of the SRE Council, but claims to work with hundreds of young people in schools across the UK and has launched its 'safe at school' campaign, doubts that gay people are capable of caring for children. ‘In the past fifteen years the breakup of the traditional family unit has escalated in Britain and with it we are witnessing an increasing number of child tragedies. Whereas it is not the aim of the writers of this paper to comment on the lifestyles of homosexuals one does have to consider the best ways in which society can encourage a happy and healthy environment in which children may grow up.’
On sex before marriage Silver Ring Thing (also SRE Council members) say, ‘There is only one true "Safe Sex" message and that must be the message of abstinence until marriage....abstinence until marriage is not only God's plan for their lives, but also the best and only way to avoid the harmful physical and emotional effects of premarital sex.’
So, no safer sex messages for those young people that do have sex before marriage. Why? Because not telling them about ways to avoid physical risks is the best way to help them avoid physical risks...hmmm. And if you’re gay I guess you have to resign yourself to never having sex because you can’t get married. So that's well... no sex ever then? However there is a silver lining to that particular cloud. According to Challenge Team Gay and Lesbian youth can join in with the saving themselves for marriage project if not marriage itself.
‘Saving sex gives adolescents who may be confused about their sexuality time to mature before deciding whether they are 'gay' or 'straight'. The underlying message being that gay adolescents may ‘grow out of’ being gay *Challenge Team crosses fingers*.
Lovewise – also SRE Council members say that ‘it is God’s desire that we keep sex for marriage’ and somewhat more scarily that ‘choices in relationships can have life and death consequences’ and ‘you can never get back what you have given away.’
Evaluate – another member of the SRE council makes a cursory nod towards the feelings of students observing their presentations, recognising that while their aim is to ‘be a voice into society affirming marriage and faithfulness in relationships,’ they should be ‘mindful that for many young people, this ideal is not their home experience’ This acknowledgement is important because one of our key concerns is how damaging it could be to the aspirations and confidence of young people to be told by a ‘professional’ speaker visiting their school, that because of the shape of their family, their life chances are severely compromised. However, we would like more specifics about what ‘being mindful’ would actually look like. If it’s a pitying look from a well-meaning visitor it won’t go down well with most of the young people we know.
We ask:
Is a young person being brought up by a single mum ‘safe at school’ if a visiting speaker is telling her she is more likely to fail in life.
Is a young gay or lesbian person ‘safe at school’ if they are told that abstaining from sex until civil partnership may give them the chance to mature and to get over their confusion about their sexuality.
Is a young person who is sexually active already, is likely to become sexually active or may experience abuse or rape ‘safe’ without information about how to use and access contraception including emergency contraception.
If you want to help EFC campaign against misinformation and bad practice 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.
Sex educators all over the country acknowledge the reality of young people’s lives and the reality of adolescent sexuality, and try to give young people the tools, knowledge and confidence to make the best decisions they can. Good sex education is inclusive – has something to say to everyone in the room whether they are already sexually active, or plan to wait to meet their life partner before they have sex. It also recognises that young people represent a range of sexualities and identities; and that the families they live in come in all different shapes and sizes. It's in this context that members of the new SRE Council, which hopes to influence UK SRE policy, are still committed to preaching about marriage as the only context in which to bring up a child. They would prefer our young people to be brought up on a diet of abstinence-only education and vows of chastity. While organisations promoting these views often co-opt the notion of family values, the reality is that they only place value on one particular type of family.
Challenge Team UK (an SRE council member) proclaims as a matter of fact: ‘Children brought up with married parents do better in every department of life’ and state ‘(we) made the difficult decision not to use the term 'long term committed relationship' as interchangeable with marriage.’
SPUC which is not a member of the SRE Council, but claims to work with hundreds of young people in schools across the UK and has launched its 'safe at school' campaign, doubts that gay people are capable of caring for children. ‘In the past fifteen years the breakup of the traditional family unit has escalated in Britain and with it we are witnessing an increasing number of child tragedies. Whereas it is not the aim of the writers of this paper to comment on the lifestyles of homosexuals one does have to consider the best ways in which society can encourage a happy and healthy environment in which children may grow up.’
On sex before marriage Silver Ring Thing (also SRE Council members) say, ‘There is only one true "Safe Sex" message and that must be the message of abstinence until marriage....abstinence until marriage is not only God's plan for their lives, but also the best and only way to avoid the harmful physical and emotional effects of premarital sex.’
So, no safer sex messages for those young people that do have sex before marriage. Why? Because not telling them about ways to avoid physical risks is the best way to help them avoid physical risks...hmmm. And if you’re gay I guess you have to resign yourself to never having sex because you can’t get married. So that's well... no sex ever then? However there is a silver lining to that particular cloud. According to Challenge Team Gay and Lesbian youth can join in with the saving themselves for marriage project if not marriage itself.
‘Saving sex gives adolescents who may be confused about their sexuality time to mature before deciding whether they are 'gay' or 'straight'. The underlying message being that gay adolescents may ‘grow out of’ being gay *Challenge Team crosses fingers*.
Lovewise – also SRE Council members say that ‘it is God’s desire that we keep sex for marriage’ and somewhat more scarily that ‘choices in relationships can have life and death consequences’ and ‘you can never get back what you have given away.’
Evaluate – another member of the SRE council makes a cursory nod towards the feelings of students observing their presentations, recognising that while their aim is to ‘be a voice into society affirming marriage and faithfulness in relationships,’ they should be ‘mindful that for many young people, this ideal is not their home experience’ This acknowledgement is important because one of our key concerns is how damaging it could be to the aspirations and confidence of young people to be told by a ‘professional’ speaker visiting their school, that because of the shape of their family, their life chances are severely compromised. However, we would like more specifics about what ‘being mindful’ would actually look like. If it’s a pitying look from a well-meaning visitor it won’t go down well with most of the young people we know.
We ask:
Is a young person being brought up by a single mum ‘safe at school’ if a visiting speaker is telling her she is more likely to fail in life.
Is a young gay or lesbian person ‘safe at school’ if they are told that abstaining from sex until civil partnership may give them the chance to mature and to get over their confusion about their sexuality.
Is a young person who is sexually active already, is likely to become sexually active or may experience abuse or rape ‘safe’ without information about how to use and access contraception including emergency contraception.
If you want to help EFC campaign against misinformation and bad practice 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.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Anti-choice groups and contraception
Today’s blog looks at what some of the groups seeking to influence current SRE policy or delivering SRE in schools have to say about contraception and fertility. This is the third in our #SREisSAFE series of blogs.
Contraception and abortion are fairly obviously linked. Whenever EFC delivers a presentation or workshop in a school we make sure we address how unplanned pregnancy can occur and give a brief overview of the contraceptive methods, including those which can be used after unprotected sex. We make clear that although some methods have extremely high effectiveness rates, no form of contraception is 100% reliable. We also stress that condoms are the only method which can also help to prevent STI transmission – the operable word here being ‘help’ as again, due to imperfect use and the existence of STIs which are passed from skin to skin they won’t protect everyone every time.
At EFC we see abortion education as a matter of sexual health and think it’s important that young people understand fertility, how contraception works and where they can find out more information should they need it. We are concerned that some speakers visiting schools may not be giving accurate information about contraception to young people.
Myth 1: Contraception = Abortion
Two of the main anti-abortion organisations which deliver presentations in schools have made the false claim that certain forms of contraception are the same as abortion – working to end rather than prevent a pregnancy. Although some people believe that pregnancy begins when the sperm and egg meet (fertilisation), legally pregnancy begins when this fertilised egg is implanted in the womb. Which means that emergency contraception (aka the ‘morning after pill’) works to prevent pregnancy occurring and is not medically considered to be an abortion.
A blog on the LIFE website (downloaded by EFC 22/06/2011 but now removed) claimed that Emergency Hormonal Contraception (EHC) is an abortifacient. In SPUC’s school presentation* EHC is described as ‘another threat to early human life in the womb’ which ‘ends the life of the tiny baby, it is abortifacient i.e. causes an early abortion.’ SPUC goes one step further in its booklet ‘Birth Control Methods Which Cause Abortion’ claiming that all hormonal contraceptive methods - the combined and mini contraceptive pill, implant, injection, IUD, and IUS - can cause ‘abortion’.
This belief, that pregnancy begins at fertilisation rather than, as legally defined, at implantation, is not acknowledged as a belief but rather presented as fact. SPUC are being invited into schools to deliver misinformation which may have direct impact on young women’s health, and may confuse and upset those who have taken emergency contraception or may need to take it in the future.
Myth 2: Abortion results in infertility
Recent research on repeat abortion indicates that the belief that abortion results in infertility reduces young women’s motivation to use contraception after abortion and may be contributing to the incidence of repeat abortion. This misinformation is promoted to a greater or lesser extent by several of the anti-abortion/ pro-abstinence groups. In its presentation on abortion Lovewise says one of the ‘long term physical consequences of abortion’ is ‘infertility’. A newsletter published by humanlife.org, and given out by 40 Days For Life at their ‘vigils’ outside UK abortion clinics, claims that ‘women who abort are more likely to experience...infertility’. Care Confidential refer on their website to the risk of ‘relative infertility’ following abortion. SPUC, in its school presentation* also claims infertility as one of the ‘long-term risks of abortion.’ In fact most women are fully fertile within two weeks of abortion and it is recommended that they choose and begin to use an effective contraceptive method at the time of abortion to prevent subsequent unintended pregnancy.
SPUC is currently leading a campaign against comprehensive SRE called ‘Safe at School’. We ask: Is a young person ‘safe at school’ if they are deterred from using contraception for fear they may be causing abortion? Is a young woman who is told using contraception won’t be necessary following abortion ‘safe at school’?
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.
*EFC has a copy of a SPUC presentation from 2008 from which this quote is taken. We cannot be sure that this wording is used in their current presentation.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)