British abortionists and their imaginary world of limitations on abortion

By Dave Andrusko

bpas-logoThe British Pregnancy Advisory Service is a rough and tumble, give no quarter abortion advocate with tentacles extending into Parliament, the British Medical Establishment, and academia.

Clare Murphy is its Director of External Affairs, who recently penned an op-ed for the United Kingdom version of the Huffington Post.

I claim no particular expertise, although I do follow events fairly closely. But you don’t have to be a citizen of the UK to recognize deception and dissembling on an appalling scale.

Murphy is writing about the 182 new members of Parliament and what pro-abortionists might expect. But before she gets to speculating, Murphy offers the obligatory condemnation of pro-life members, even though she begins her piece by assuring her readers, “The anti-abortion movement in Britain has largely failed.”

Here’s an example, one of three we will talk about, of how Murphy reasons.

Among the proposals of “Those MPs who spearheaded and supported restrictions on abortion in the last parliament” was to “urge restrictions on abortion for foetal anomaly.”

What this means is placing modest limitations on what is essentially abortion on demand through the last week of pregnancy if the child is diagnosed with fetal anomaly.” Children are aborted because parents are told they will have Down syndrome or spina bifida, or something as insignificant as a cleft palate.

But you can’t find this outrageous if (as supposedly these pro-life MPs have done) you haven’t joined pro-abortionists in calling “for fortification of flour with folic acid.”

Murphy’s penchant for euphemism really kicks into overdrive when talking about the trivial requirements that abortionists must meet before aborting a woman. They are supposed to check a few boxes, to suggest that they have talked with the woman prior to the abortion. It is as close to pro forma as you can possible get.

But because of these minimalist requirements–“fill[ing] in the legal paperwork that is unique to abortions,” as Murphy puts it–this “inevitably make some doctors think twice before entering this field.” Really? Please.

One more. Murphy asks rhetorically, “What message do our abortion laws, which deny women the right to make their own decisions about their own bodies, send about the legal status of women today?”

This is hyperbole on steroids. As noted, women who seek to abort face the most nominal requirements for a kind of water-down informed consent. Abortionists videotaped agreeing to abort a woman because her child is the “wrong” (read female) sex are not prosecuted.

Indeed, British Pregnancy Advisory Service and like-minded pro-abortionists, insist there is no explicit provision in the 1967 Abortion Law against sex-selection abortions [gendercide] and then defeat a proposal in Parliament to make it clear that it is illegal.

No limitation on abortion for any reason at any point in an unborn child’s development, repeat abortions on the upswing–that’s the law in the U.K. Yet Murphy insists abortionists are on pins and needles, afraid of being prosecuted for “excellent clinical care for women.”

These people will say, and do, anything.