for the

Family

for the

Youth

for the

Future

Bulletin 143: Spring 2011

In this issue:

AGM and conference

Saturday 25 June 2011

Royal Air Force Club, 128 Piccadilly, London W1

10.30am to 4.45pm

This year we are looking forward to hearing addresses from Dr Agneta Sutton and Shaun Bailey.

Having served as Head of Research at the Centre for Bioethics and Public Policy, Dr Agneta Sutton currently lectures in sexual ethics, medical ethics and bioethics at Heythrop College, part of the University of London . She has also served as Associate Editor of the peer-reviewed international journal, Ethics and Medicine, since 2001. Dr Sutton will address the meeting on the subject of ‘Ethical dilemmas in modern medicine’.

Shaun Bailey is managing director and co-founder of MyGeneration, a registered charity that aims to break the cycle of poverty, crime and ill-health in struggling communities by encouraging young people and adults to be free from dependency on drugs, crime and welfare, and by promoting the family. He is the author of No Man’s Land: How Britain’s inner city young are being failed (reviewed in Bulletin 122) and will speak on ‘Breaking the cycle of welfare dependency’.

As usual, we shall conduct the formal business of the Trust during the morning, with reports from the Chairman, Treasurer and Director, and contributions from some of our supporters.

We hope you will join us if you are able.

Please let the office know if you are planning to attend. There is no charge for attending the conference, and we are able to offer a substantial lunch for the subsidised price of £25.00. To reserve a lunch, please send a cheque for £25.00 made payable to ‘Family Education Trust’.

^ Back to the top ^

 

The importance of grandparents

Dave Percival of 2-in-2-1 reflects on why the inter-generational transmission of support and values matters

All over the world, and for generations long past, grandparents have been a vital part in the system of support for parents in raising children, providing vital relief at critical times, as well as financial and moral support as the next generation grows up. It is natural, and not only ensures that there is physical support, but is also a mechanism for passing on values – harnessing the wisdom gained over a lifetime, and transmitting it forward. Similarly family rituals – the ‘way we do things in this family’ – build a sense of identity and belonging. I still vividly recall Christmas with my grandparents.

Recent research indicates that this remains the case, and yet there has been a marked change in the way we think about the role of grandparents. Take for example the phrase ‘a substantial proportion of grandmothers are filling the shortfalls of formal childcare’. 1 The implication seems to be that it is the state’s function to care for children, and that grandparents ‘fill in’ when there is a shortfall.

I have no problem accepting the concept that it is good that there is a state-funded and state-provided safety net to support those families and parents who cannot for whatever reason, provide adequately for their children. But the implication of the phrasing above is that this is the primary support, and that families are ‘stepping in’ where this has failed.

There are those who believe that child rearing is much too important to be left to the ‘family lottery’ of leaving it to natural families – how would you ever achieve ‘consistency of care’ and ‘guarantees of safety’? But all the evidence points to the fact that children raised by their natural parents, in the context of a wider family, are the ones who do best at school, become economically productive adults, enjoy better health and live longer. Part of being a ‘family friendly’ country should be to empower and equip robust families to thrive, rather than constantly eroding family roles, and assuming that the state is the primary provider.

And of course, the most stable families are those where the parents base their relationship on a lifelong commitment to each other. Equipped with order and stability, they create the opportunities for the inter-generational transmission of support and values, not only benefiting the children, but removing an unnecessary burden from the state.

 

Note

1. Briony Horsfall and Deborah Dempsey, ‘ Grandmothers and grandfathers looking after grandchildren: Recent Australian research’, Family Relationships Quarterly No.18, Australian Institute of Family Studies, March 2011.

Adapted from 2-in-2-1’s Weekly Update of UK Marriage News – No. 11.12, 21 March 2011 and reproduced by kind permission. www.2-in-2-1.co.uk

 

^ Back to the top ^

 

Government reaffirms that primary schools are not required to teach sex education

In response to a parliamentary question on primary school sex education from Lord Patel of Blackburn, the Schools Minister in the House of Lords, Lord Hill of Oareford has confirmed that ‘There is no requirement on primary schools to provide sex education.’1 Lord Hill’s statement comes at a time when there remains considerable confusion surrounding the legal position of sex education in primary schools following the failure of the previous Labour government to fulfil its intention to make it a statutory part of the national curriculum last spring.

Where primary school governing bodies choose to provide sex education, Ministers have expressed concern that the materials used should be of an appropriate nature. In a written response to a parliamentary question from Andrea Leadsom MP, the Schools Minister, Nick Gibb, stated that: ‘It is important that pupils are protected from teaching and materials which are inappropriate to their age and religious and cultural background.’2

Age-appropriate

On the floor of the House of Commons, Mrs Leadsom drew attention to ‘the great concern of some parents about the inappropriate material being shown to their five-year-old and seven-year-old children under the guise of sex and relationship education’ and asked the Minister to ‘take steps to start a licensing regime to ensure that the material being shown is age-appropriate’. In reply, the Minister for Children and Families, Tim Loughton, said he shared some of Mrs Leadsom’s concerns and added that ‘it is crucial that whatever we do should be age-appropriate’.3

In response to another parliamentary question from Mrs Leadsom, Nick Gibb considered it unnecessary to require primary schools to inform school governors of the teaching materials used in sex education lessons. Since the governing body had a statutory responsibility for the school’s sex education policy, there was an expectation that the governors would already be familiar with the materials used.4

Long-term damage

In an article published in the Daily Mail, Family Education Trust sponsor, Professor Brenda Almond, expressed concern about the long-term damage being done by sex education in schools:

‘Our children are inundated with the information they supposedly need to get through their teenage years — sexual names, positions, techniques — while almost no emphasis is placed on such qualities as love and fidelity and the long-term sexual well-being of an individual. It’s well established that over-exposure to pornography desensitises an individual, and I’m convinced that too much sex education could have a similarly damaging effect on children. For the little boy and girl whose sex education begins when they were five, the question of what they will be like at 15 — after nearly ten years of sex education — is worrying enough. But what will they be like at 25, 35, 45?

‘For all their sexual expertise, will they have any idea of how to nurture a warm, loving and monogamous relationship over several decades? Sex education in this country needs to be completely overhauled, not least because if the educationalists’ fashionable theories do turn out to be wrong this blanket approach will have damaged an entire generation.

‘Sex education needs to be taken out of primary schools altogether and responsibility for it should be handed back to parents. Children, after all, belong to their parents; they are not the property of the state. We need to stop assuming that early sexual activity is inevitable and accept that too much sex education — delivered too early — might actually be encouraging it.’5

References

1. HL Hansard, 23 March 2011, col WA189.

2. HC Hansard, 21 March 2011, col.845-6W.

3. HC Hansard, 21 March 2011, col.696.

4. HC Hansard, 14 March 2011, col.50-51W.

5. Brenda Almond, ‘Teaching five year olds about sex will only make them want to try it’ Daily Mail, 10 March 2011.

^ Back to the top ^

Sex Education Forum attempts to redefine science curriculum in bid to impose sex education on primary schools

The uncertainty and confusion surrounding primary school sex education has been further increased by a recent article on the Sex Education Forum’s website which makes several inaccurate and misleading claims. 1 According to the Forum’s briefing on The Current Status of Sex and Relationships Education, ‘Sex education is compulsory as part of the statutory Science Curriculum’ in all maintained schools, both primary and secondary.

The Sex Education Forum claims to be ‘ the leader, authority and trusted voice’ on sex and relationships education and exercises a considerable influence on many local authorities and schools, but this statement is misleading, because there is nothing in the statutory science curriculum for primary-aged children that most people would classify as ‘sex education’.

Key Stage 1

For example, at Key Stage 1 (ages 5-7), pupils are taught in national curriculum science:

  • that animals, including humans, move, feed, grow, use their senses and reproduce
  • to recognise and compare the main external parts of the bodies of humans and other animals
  • that humans and other animals can produce offspring and that these offspring grow into adults.

While schools are required to teach about the fact of reproduction, there is no requirement to go into the detail of how it occurs, and while pupils are to recognise ‘the main external parts’ of the body (arms, legs, hands, feet etc), there is no obligation on schools to discuss the sexual organs and how they operate.

Key Stage 2

Similarly, at Key Stage 2 (ages 7-11), the science curriculum places primary schools under no obligation to cover ‘sex education’ as commonly understood. It merely requires schools to teach:

  • that the life processes common to humans and other animals include nutrition, movement, growth and reproduction
  • about the main stages of the human life cycle.

The Sex Education Forum itself defines sex and relationships education as: ‘ learning about the emotional, social and physical aspects of growing up, relationships, sex, human sexuality and sexual health’ in order to ‘equip children and young people with the information, skills and values to have safe, fulfilling and enjoyable relationships and to take responsibility for their sexual health and well-being’. However, there is nothing in the statutory science curriculum for children aged 5-11 that remotely covers the areas included in the Forum’s definition.

Inaccurate

The Forum’s briefing also inaccurately asserts that:

‘It is compulsory for all maintained schools to teach some parts of sex education i.e. the biological aspects of puberty, reproduction and the spread of viruses. These topics are statutory parts of the National Curriculum Science which must be taught to all pupils of primary and secondary age.’

Secondary, not primary schools

While the science curriculum for pupils at Key Stage 3 (ages 11-14) requires secondary schools to teach that ‘the human reproductive cycle includes adolescence, fertilisation and foetal development’ and that ‘ conception, growth, development, behaviour and health can be affected by diet, drugs and disease’ (including viruses associated with sexually transmitted infections), there is nothing in the statutory science curriculum that places primary schools under any similar obligation.

As the Family Education Trust’s new leaflet on primary school sex education states: ‘There is no requirement in national curriculum science at either Key Stage 1 or Key Stage 2 to teach children about the sexual organs, sexual intercourse, contraception, sexually transmitted infections, or same-sex relationships.’

Copies of the leaflet, Sex Education in Primary Schools: Dispelling the Myths, are available from the Family Education Trust office priced at £2.50 (10 copies), £4.50 (25 copies), £7.00 (50 copies), £13.00 (100 copies). Prices include p&p.

Reference

1. Sex Education Forum, The Current Status of Sex and Relationships Education, March 2011.

^ Back to the top ^

An opportunity to hear Dr Miriam Grossman

Family Education Trust has teamed up with Anglican Mainstream and the World Youth Alliance to sponsor two events in London at the beginning of May at which the child and adolescent psychiatrist Dr Miriam Grossman will provide insights on how so-called ‘safe sex’ messages are affecting young people today. Dr Grossman is the author of You’re Teaching My Child What? A physician exposes the lies of sex education and how they harm your child (see Bulletin 138) in which she faces head-on many of the myths that are prevalent in school sex education programmes.

Thursday 5 May – A day conference for parents, educators, medical and mental health professionals, policy makers, youth workers and clergy.

Location: Emmanuel Centre, Marsham Street, Westminster, London SW1P 3DW

Time: 10.00am-5.00pm (Registration and coffee from 9.00am)

Speakers to include: Dr Grossman and Professor David Paton.

Conference fee: £30 per person, including registration, morning coffee and afternoon tea, and materials. Please bring a packed lunch.

Friday 6 May – A half-day conference specifically intended for t hose in the medical and other health professions, and educational specialists in the fields of PSHE and science (both qualified and in training).

Location: St Peter-upon-Cornhill, Cornhill, London EC3W 3PD

Time: 10.00am-1.00pm (Registration and coffee from 9.00am)

Conference fee: £65 per person, including registration, morning coffee, and materials.

Online booking for both conferences is available at www.anglican-mainstream.net Alternatively, please send a cheque for the appropriate amount payable to Anglican Mainstream to: Dr Lisa Nolland, AM Conference, 6 Phoenix Grove, Henleaze, Bristol BS6 7XY. (If booking by post, please ensure that you include the names and contact details of all conference delegates).

Further details from Dr Lisa Nolland, 0117 924 4896 or Ls.n@talktalk.net

 

^ Back to the top ^

 

What is marriage?

Marriage is defined as ‘the voluntary union for life of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others’. Throughout history, no society’s laws have explicitly forbidden same-sex marriage because, until recently, it has not been thought possible. Even in traditions that permit or have permitted polygamy, marriage has always been between a man and a woman.

At the end of March, the Home Office launched a consultation with a view to removing the ban in England and Wales on civil partnership registrations being held on religious premises.1 The proposal has been described by Home Secretary and Minister for Women and Equalities, Teresa May, as ‘a positive step for lesbian, gay and bisexual rights and for religious freedom’.2 However, the consultation document indicates that the coalition government is considering going further. In their foreword, Teresa May and the Minister for Equalities, Lynne Featherstone, write:

‘During our engagement with stakeholders on these proposals it was also made clear by many that there is a desire to move further towards equal marriage and partnerships. This document does not cover these further steps, but our commitment remains to consult on how legislation can develop, working with all those who have an interest in this area.’3

As the pressure mounts to blur the distinction between marriage and same-sex partnerships, a recent article published in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy helpfully identifies two competing views that lie at the heart of the debate on the nature of marriage: the conjugal view and the revisionist view (see below for definitions). The authors, from Princeton University and the University of Notre Dame, dismiss the view that support for the conjugal view of marriage is based only on religious beliefs and set out a reasoned case for enshrining it in law, using arguments that make no appeal to religious authority.

More than an emotional union

The article observes that revisionists do not propose leaving intact the historic definition of marriage and simply expanding the pool of people eligible to marry. Rather, their goal is to abolish the conjugal conception of marriage in law and replace it with their own conception. However, if marriage were to be redefined along revisionist lines, the law would be teaching that marriage is fundamentally about adults’ emotional unions, not bodily union or children, with which marital norms are tightly intertwined. But since human emotions are not constant, viewing marriage essentially as an emotional union would have the effect of increasing marital instability and would blur the distinct value of friendship as a union of hearts and minds.

Even more importantly, because there is no more reason for primarily emotional unions to be permanent, exclusive, or limited to two people than ordinary friendships, marriage would cease to have a clearly-defined meaning and purpose. In the absence of consistently strong feelings, spouses would be inclined to see no real reason to stay together or to be faithful to each other. In the words of the article, ‘a mistaken marriage policy tends to distort people’s understanding of the kind of relationship that spouses are to form and sustain’ – and that is likely in turn to erode people’s adherence to marital norms that are essential to the common good.

If, in line with the revisionist view, marriage is reduced to an essentially emotional union that has no principled connection to organic bodily union and the bearing and rearing of children, the marital norms of permanence, monogamy and fidelity have less meaning. Rather than imposing these traditional norms on homosexual relationships, abolishing the conjugal conception of marriage would run the risk of eroding the basis for those norms in any relationship.

Best for children

Legally enshrining conjugal marriage socially reinforces the ideal, supported by social science evidence, that the union of husband and wife is the most appropriate environment for the bearing and rearing of children. However, if same-sex partnerships were recognised as marriages, that ideal would be abolished from the law, and no civil institution would any longer reinforce the notion that children need both a mother and father; that men and women have different contributions to make to the care and nurture of children; and that boys and girls need and tend to benefit from fathers and mothers in different ways. The law would be sending out the message that a household of two women or two men is just as appropriate a context for raising children and that it does not matter whether children are reared by both their mother and their father, or by a parent of each sex at all.

Adverse consequences

Already supporters of the conjugal conception of marriage are frequently considered bigots and organisations advocating the legal redefinition of marriage claim they are upholding ‘human rights’ and standing against hate. If marriage were to be legally redefined, continuing to hold, in common with every known human society in history, that marriage is a male-female union, will increasingly be regarded as evidence of moral insanity, malice, prejudice, injustice, and hatred. The article notes that:

‘In the absence of a flourishing marriage culture, families often fail to form, or to achieve and maintain stability. As absentee fathers and out-of-wedlock births become common, a train of social pathologies follows. Naturally, the demand for governmental policing and social services grows.

‘According to a Brookings Institute study, $229 billion in welfare expenditures between 1970 and 1996 can be attributed to the breakdown of the marriage culture and the resulting exacerbation of social ills: teen pregnancy, poverty, crime, drug abuse, and health problems. Sociologists David Popenoe and Alan Wolfe have conducted research on Scandinavian countries that supports the conclusion that as marriage culture declines, state spending rises.’

Defined as a comprehensive inter-personal union that is consummated and renewed by acts of organic bodily union and oriented to the bearing and rearing of children, marriage is possible only between two people of the opposite sex. No single act can organically unite three or more people at the bodily level or seal a comprehensive union of three or more lives at other levels. The very comprehensiveness of the union requires the commitment of marriage to be exclusive and undivided. Likewise, children can have only two parents – a biological mother and father. But if marriage were to be redefined to give legal recognition to same-sex relationships, it would be difficult to deny the legal recognition of polyamorous and non-sexual relationships on the same basis.

The desire to destroy

The article refers to a statement entitled ‘Beyond Same-Sex Marriage’ in which more than 300 ‘LGBT and allied’ scholars and advocates, including prominent Ivy League professors, call for legal recognition of sexual relationships involving more than two partners, and cites a number of academics and activists whose support for same-sex marriage is motivated by a desire to destroy marriage as it has historically been understood. Professor Brake of the University of Calgary, for example, regards it as a matter of justice to change the legal definition of marriage in order to ‘denormalise heterosexual monogamy as a way of life’ and to rectify ‘past discrimination against homosexuals, bisexuals, polygamists, and care networks’. Another academic, the late Professor Ellen Willis, rejoiced at the prospect that ‘conferring the legitimacy of marriage on homosexual relations will introduce an implicit revolt against the institution into its very heart’.

The political commentator, Andrew Sullivan, who extols the ‘spirituality’ of ‘anonymous sex’, believes that the ‘openness’ of same-sex unions could enhance the relationships of husbands and wives. He writes:

‘Same-sex unions often incorporate the virtues of friendship more effectively than traditional marriages; and at times, among gay male relationships, the openness of the contract makes it more likely to survive than many heterosexual bonds. . .

‘[T]here is more likely to be greater understanding of the need for extra-marital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman… Something of the gay relationship’s necessary honesty, its flexibility, and its equality could undoubtedly help strengthen and inform many heterosexual bonds.’

Michelangelo Signorile, a prominent gay activist, urges same-sex couples to ‘demand the right to marry not as a way of adhering to society’s moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution.’ He argues that same-sex couples should ‘fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely, because the most subversive action lesbians and gay men can undertake…is to transform the notion of “family” entirely.’

Pressure to be resisted

Given the antipathy to marriage of many proponents of the revisionist view, it is perhaps not surprising that while they frequently assert that marriage is not inherently a male/female union, they rarely attempt to set out what they believe marriage is.

Ministers would be well advised to carefully consider the wide-ranging implications and consequences of changing the legal definition of marriage and to firmly resist pressure to move in that direction. There is far more at stake than superficial appeals to a misguided view of equality might suggest.

References

1. Government Equalities Office, Civil partnerships on religious premises: A consultation http://www.equalities.gov.uk/news/civil_partnership.aspx

Responses should be sent by email to: civilpartnerships@geo.gsi.gov.uk

or by post to: Civil Partnerships Consultation Responses Government Equalities Office Zone 9/K10 Eland House Bressenden Place London SW1E 5DU. Closing date for responses: 23 June 2011.

2. HC Hansard, 10 March 2011, col. 1062.

3. Government Equalities Office, Civil partnerships on religious premises: A consultation , p.4.

Sherif Girgis, Robert P George, Ryan T Anderson, ‘ What is Marriage?’ Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy Vol. 34, No. 1, Winter 2010, pp245-287.

 

^ Back to the top ^

Two competing views on marriage

The conjugal view

‘Marriage is the union of a man and a woman who make a permanent and exclusive commitment to each other of the type that is naturally (inherently) fulfilled by bearing and rearing children together. The spouses seal (consummate) and renew their union by conjugal acts—acts that constitute the behavioural part of the process of reproduction, thus uniting them as a reproductive unit. Marriage is valuable in itself, but its inherent orientation to the bearing and rearing of children contributes to its distinctive structure, including norms of monogamy and fidelity. This link to the welfare of children also helps explain why marriage is important to the common good and why the state should recognise and regulate it.’

The revisionist view

‘Marriage is the union of two people (whether of the same sex or of opposite sexes) who commit to romantically loving and caring for each other and to sharing the burdens and benefits of domestic life. It is essentially a union of hearts and minds, enhanced by whatever forms of sexual intimacy both partners find agreeable. The state should recognise and regulate marriage because it has an interest in stable romantic partnerships and in the concrete needs of spouses and any children they may choose to rear.’

^ Back to the top ^

 

Fragile families in the US and UK

According to a study of families in the United Kingdom and the United States, cohabiting families with young children tend to be more unstable, vulnerable and impoverished than their married counterparts, and single mothers and their children tend to have lower levels of wellbeing than married or cohabiting families.

Using data from the Millennium Cohort Study in the UK and the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study in the US, researchers from the University of York and Princeton University, concluded that the marital status of parents at the birth of a child provides an indicator as to whether that child will grow up in a stable or more complex household.

In both the UK and the US the past 40 years have witnessed dramatic increases in the number of births outside marriage. The proportion of children born to unmarried parents in the UK has risen from eight per cent in 1971 to 45 per cent in 2008, while in the US 11 per cent of births were to unmarried mothers in 1971 compared with 41 per cent in 2008.

Despite the fact that unmarried mothers are, on average, four to five years younger than married mothers, unmarried mothers are much more likely to have had a child by more than one partner. Among those with at least one other child, over 60 percent of cohabiting mothers in the US and nearly 30 percent of cohabiting mothers in the UK report ‘multi-partner fertility,’ defined as having a child with more than one partner.

Alcohol and drugs

Heavy drinking and the use of recreational drugs are both more prevalent among unmarried mothers than married mothers. In the US, eight per cent of unmarried mothers engage in heavy drinking during the first year after giving birth compared with only two per cent of married mothers.

In the UK, the study records that:

‘Heavy drinking during the first year after birth is higher among mothers with lower levels of partnership commitment and shows a clear gradient among UK mothers, rising from 4 percent among married mothers to 10 percent among cohabiters and 13 percent among single mothers.’

Marriage more stable

Married mothers are the most likely to have stable unions, followed by cohabiting mothers (including mothers who remain cohabiting and mothers who marry after the birth), with single mothers showing the least stability. Particularly high levels of relationship instability are associated with mothers not living with their child’s father at the time of the birth.

Absent fathers

The involvement of unmarried fathers in the lives of their children decreases over the course of the first five years of a child’s life. Their relationships with the child’s mother also tend to worsen with the result that around 30 percent of mothers in each country are on friendly terms with the non-resident father when the child is five.

The researchers note that a large body of research in both the US and the UK shows that single motherhood is associated with lower quality parenting and poorer outcomes in children and that recent studies show that changes in relationship status – partnership instability – are also associated with poor outcomes in children.

Kathleen Kiernan, Sara McLanahan, John Holmes, Melanie Wright, Fragile Families in the US and UK , Fragile Families Working Paper, WP11-04-FF

http://crcw.princeton.edu/workingpapers/WP11-04-FF.pdf

 

^ Back to the top ^

 

Senior judge demands marriage rights for unmarried couples

In an interview with the Times newspaper, Sir Nicolas Wall, the President of the Family Division of the High Court, called for cohabitees to be given more rights when they separate. While acknowledging that ‘Marriage undoubtedly remains the most stable relationship for bringing up children and for support’, Sir Nicolas described the current lack of legal recognition for cohabitation as an ‘injustice’ and lent his support to the Law Commission’s 2007 report on cohabitation which proposed that cohabitees who had lived together for a minimum period of between two and five years should be eligible for the same legal remedies upon separation as married couples.

Norman Wells, director of the Family Education Trust, told the Times:

‘To give cohabitees the same legal protection as married couples would lead to the public perception that it is does not matter whether you marry or cohabit, but all the evidence shows that there are substantial differences in terms of family stability and outcomes for children. In view of the wide-ranging adverse consequences of family breakdown, particularly for children, it would be wrong for the law to send out the message that cohabitation is in any way on a par with marriage.

‘By its very nature cohabitation is a more fragile relationship, involving no pledge of commitment, and should not be given the same legal status as marriage. While we are sensitive to the hardship that is sometimes experienced when a cohabiting relationship breaks down, the solution is not to treat cohabiting couples as if they had been married.’1

Note

1. Frances Gibb and Rosemary Bennett, ‘Opinion split over rights for cohabitees’, Times, 4 February 2011.

^ Back to the top ^

UNPLANNED: The dramatic true story of a former Planned Parenthood leader’s eye-opening journey across the life line

Abby Johnson, 267pp, $22.99

Tyndale House edition, ISBN 978-1-4143-3939-9

Ignatius Press edition, ISBN 978-1-4143-4835-3

In the words of Planned Parenthood’s latest annual report, for more than 90 years the abortion and reproductive health care provider has been ‘fighting for a world where every child is wanted, loved, and treated fairly; a world where women’s health is a paramount concern and access to health care is not only a right but a reality; a world where women are in charge of their own destinies’.

It was this kind of rhetoric which persuaded Abby Johnson, in spite of her Christian upbringing, to seek employment with Planned Parenthood and which resulted in her becoming the director of a clinic which performed abortions. She describes herself as a naïve college girl who joined the multi-million dollar organisation with over 800 health centres across the United States believing that its goal was to make abortion rare and save women’s lives.

Disconnection

Over the course of time, abortion was to become ‘a simple and normal reality’ in Abby Johnson’s life – personally as well as professionally. The disconnection between her behaviour and her values is demonstrated in the fact that she had her second abortion while telling herself that she was a champion for decreasing the number of abortions through the promotion of contraception.

She reveals how Planned Parenthood employees were encouraged to view pro-life advocates as anti-choice extremists who would do and say anything to take away the rights of women and harass their clients. Nevertheless, there were occasions when she was deeply affected by some of the pro-life campaigners who maintained a peaceful vigil outside her clinic and offered support to women seeking an abortion.

Having genuinely believed that Planned Parenthood’s purpose was to reduce the number of abortions by decreasing the number of unwanted pregnancies through birth control services, Abby Johnson received a rude awakening when clinic directors were told that abortion must be made a priority because of the revenue it generated. However, it was not until she took part in an ultrasound-guided abortion that she was faced with the reality that abortion is not a mere ‘medical procedure’ or a ‘surgical solution to a life problem’, but the death of a baby.

Unique insight

She describes her years with Planned Parenthood as a slow slide into darkness in which she had fenced herself off from her parents, her husband, her friends, her conscience and God. But even though she decided she could never again participate in an abortion herself, she did not immediately adopt a pro-life position. It took time for her to recognise the stark contrast between the Coalition for Life’s commitment to life-nurturing, long-range solutions and Planned Parenthood’s focus on solving short-term crises.

Reflecting on her experience, the now uncompromisingly pro-life Abby Johnson writes: ‘ Never trust a decision you don’t want your mother to know about… [T]he road that finally led me to this wisdom is paved with regret, pain, brokenness, shame and even blood on my hands.’ UnPlanned traces that personal journey and in doing so provides a unique insight into the workings of America’s largest abortion provider.

 

^ Back to the top ^

 

Let’s Stick Together: The Relationship Book for New Parents

Harry Benson, Lion, 2010, 126pp, £6.99, ISBN 978 0 7459 5399 1

In this short book, Harry Benson provides easy-to-read, thought-provoking and straightforward help to new mothers and fathers at the outset of their journey into parenthood. The material was originally written as a short introductory session on ‘mum and dad relationships for new parents’, but it is now being made more widely available in the hope that it will be useful to others wishing to run a similar course.

Three chapters form the core of the book. In the first, entitled ‘Bad habits’, husbands and wives are encouraged to take a look at themselves and recognise when their reactions are not what they should be. Working with the acronym STOP, Harry Benson asks: are you Scoring points, Thinking the worst, Opting out or Putting down in your responses to your spouse? He stresses the necessity of nipping these bad habits in the bud, admitting you are wrong and offering a sincere apology to restore harmony.

Good habits

In the second core chapter, the focus is on the good habits parents should cultivate in making an effort to love their spouse in a way he or she most appreciates. Husbands and wives are encouraged to recognise their spouse’s ‘love language’ and to go out of their way and make an effort to do things for them that may not come naturally.

‘Keeping dad involved’ is the final theme of Harry Benson’s threefold approach. He observes that mums have a headstart when it comes to parenthood because every waking thought of a pregnant woman is ‘baby, baby, baby’. Mothers are advised to resist the urge to step in and take over if dad is not caring for the baby in just the way she would and fathers are encouraged to get involved, stick at it and not take it personally if their wives tell them they are getting it wrong.

Homely and profound

In his concluding chapter Harry Benson pulls together some thoughts which are rather homely – such as the delight of keeping a quote book to record children’s amusing comments, and other thoughts which are more profound – such as the need for the father to assume responsibility for making his marriage work and taking responsibility for his family’s wellbeing as well as his family’s problems. He also emphasises the importance of commitment and dedication to one another in a marriage and the importance of deliberately deciding on marriage, rather than sliding into it through cohabitation.

Harry Benson admits that nothing in this book is rocket science, but he expresses the hope that his deliberately simple approach will help husbands and wives strengthen their own marriages and also help those whose are advising others whether in a group setting or informally, as friends.

^ Back to the top ^

Ask teenagers if they are homosexual, says government quango

Young people between the ages of 11-16 need to be questioned about their sexual orientation in order to assess the extent and impact of the discrimination and disadvantage experienced by lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) teenagers, according to a report published by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. The report argues that LGB young people suffer homophobic bullying, mental health issues, rejection from family and friends and increased risk of homelessness.

‘Not too sensitive’

The author of the report, Elizabeth McDermott, a lecturer in social policy at the University of York, dismisses the idea that researching and monitoring adolescent sexual orientation is ‘too difficult, sensitive or unfeasible’. In her view, ‘widening acceptance of sexual diversity within the UK…means adolescents have, potentially, more opportunities to define their own sexual orientation, may be more willing to disclose their sexual orientation and do so at an earlier age’.

She argues that ‘researchers should pilot the monitoring of adolescent sexual orientation across different sectors e.g. health, education, youth service’ and assess the three dimensions of ‘sexual behaviour, sexual attraction and sexual identity’, bearing in mind that ‘adolescent sexual orientation is not fixed and is in a process of forming’.

Sidelining parents

Dr McDermott notes that while it is commonly considered good practice to obtain parental consent for research with children and young people, there is no legal requirement in relation to social research, and ‘parental/carers’ consent may be particularly problematic where adolescent LGB people have not disclosed their sexual orientation to their immediate family’.

In the United States, researchers have argued that ‘where parental permission cannot safely be obtained, adolescents under the age of 16 should be included in studies, provided their rights as research participants are fully protected’ and Dr McDermott asserts that, ‘There are numerous examples in the US where parental consent is waived by federal, state and national research ethics boards’ on the basis that the waiver of parental permission is necessary in order to obtain information that is required to promote the safety and wellbeing of young people.

Elizabeth McDermott, Researching and monitoring adolescence and sexual orientation: Asking the right questions, at the right time , Equality and Human Rights Commission, December 2010.

 

^ Back to the top ^

Tax burden on single-earner married couples continues to rise

Married couples in the UK on an average wage where one parent stays at home to look after the children are paying a proportionally higher rate of tax than similar families in other countries elsewhere in the Western world.

According to a detailed assessment of the impact of the tax system on families in the UK compared with 33 other countries published by the Christian social policy charity CARE, the tax burden on one-earner married couples with two children on an average income in the UK was 33 per cent greater than the OECD(1) average in 2008/2009, 39 per cent greater in 2009/2010, and is set to become 50 per cent greater by 2012/2013.

By way of contrast, the tax burden on lone parents on both low and average incomes in the UK compares favourably with taxes paid by lone parents in other countries. At two-thirds of an average wage the net tax burden on single parents with two children was close to zero, compared with an OECD average of 15 per cent and a European Union average of 23 per cent. For a lone parent with two children on 50 per cent of an average wage the tax burden was negative.

CARE observes that the widening tax gap ‘ will make for uncomfortable reading for Prime Minister David Cameron, who pledged to make the UK the most family friendly country in Europe and who previously backed greater support for married couples, a married couple’s tax allowance and an end to the couple penalty’.2

Notes

1. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

2. ‘ UK Families Clobbered by Highest Taxes in the Western World’, CARE Public Affairs News, 7 March 2011.

Don Draper, Leonard Beighton and Alistair Pearson, The Taxation of Families 2009/10, CARE 2011. www.care.org.uk

 

^ Back to the top ^

 

Special Offers!

The following titles are being offered at 3 for £10.00 (including p&p). Please make cheques payable to Family Education Trust.

Waking up to the morning-after pill

Norman Wells and Helena Hayward

Sex Education or Indoctrination?
Valerie Riches

Sex under Sixteen?
Clifford Hill

The Fight for the Family
Lynette Burrows

Broken Homes & Battered Children
Robert Whelan

^ Back to the top ^

>