A lesson to be learnt from US pro-lifers?

AT THE END OF his inspiring article (Catholic Herald, 16 August), Piers McGrandle suggests what needs to be done "to educate the British public, to re-establish in their minds the notion that human life is sacred", One brave act by the Pope would help the process, not only in Britain but worldwide.
He should concede, firstly, that the vast majority of married Catholics of parenting age, certainly in advanced countries, ignore the Church's official teaching on contraception. A law ignored is not a good law, and brings other teachings into disrepute. So, the Pope should next reexamine the report of the commission set up by Paul VI, which most Catholics thought would persuade him to change the rules on contraception. Finally, a statement should he made that Humanae Vitae was a mistake, a mistake which destroyed the Church's credibility when she tried to lead the battles against the evil of abortion.
As long as the general
public sees a Church which proclaims an outdated, unworkable and largely ignored attitude to contraception, that public will never fully support the same Church's views on the sanctity of post-conception life. Mr /B Griffin
Leigh, Lanes
PIERS MCGRANDLE is wrong when he writes: "In the States, it matters deeply whether a candidate is pro or anti-abortion; in this country it assumes secondary importance".
Pro-abortion and pro-life Parliamentary candidates in many areas of the United Kingdom have fo'und that abortion has had a decisive impact on the outcome of the election.
However, quite apart from major differences between US and British electoral law, there is an enormous cultural difference between Britain and America in our respective approaches to electioneering: the British simply do not like being told "Vote for pro-life Charlie Brown", nor, at elec
tions, do they respond to prolife issues being paraded at the press. For both legal and cultural reasons, therefore, SPUC has developed its "Value Your Vote" campaigns and many pro-abortion Parliamentary candidates, of various parties have complained bitterly about the impact of such campaigns both before and after the election.
Furthermore, almost exactly 30 years ago only 29 Members of Parliament (plus two tellers for the "Noes") voted against the second reading of the Abortion Act 1967; now more than 200 MPs consistently vote for various measures to restrict the Abortion Act, No other country in the world has seen such growth of support in their legislature.
In addition, during the past two years, SPUC's Parliamentary campaigns have resulted in three significant victories: the passage of Dame Jill Knight's Amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill, banning the use of eggs from aborted female infants
in fertility treatment; the Government's refusal to introduce the Law Commission Bill on Mental Incapacity which would have ushered in legalised euthanasia through the back door; and John Major's refusal to introduce new abortion legislation for Northern Ireland, where the British Abortion Act does not apply.
Piers McGrandle is right to say that the recent, untypical, major news coverage of pro-life issues has provided "a moment of truth; it is up to pro-lifers to seize it". But it is also up to perceptive journalists with integrity, whatever their views on abortion, to insist on fair coverage for the arguments and activities of major pro-life organisations instead of the media persistently selecting for enormous coverage tragic shooting incidents in the US, which have nothing whatsoever to do with the American pro-life movement, and depicting the perpetrators of such evil actions as "pro-life fanatics". John Smeaton General Secretary, SPUC