charity

Abortion Business Wins Charity of the Year Award Over Groups Helping With Disaster Relief, Homelessness

The British Pregnancy Advisory Service (bpas) has won the Times Charity of the Year Award for charities with an income of more than £10 million. The organisation tweeted that it was “completely thrilled & delighted to have won charity of the year”, coming ahead of charities such as the Disaster Relief Fund.

 Abhorrent agenda

Bpas, the largest provider of abortion in the UK, is spearheading the campaign to decriminalise abortion, which would take abortion outside of the law and leave women more vulnerable to the unscrupulous abortion industry. (Join SPUC’s We Care About Women campaign opposing it!)

Alithea Williams of SPUC commented in a press release: “It seems astonishing that an organisation like bpas should win a charity of the year award ahead of charities who work in disaster zones, with the homeless, and with ex-offenders. Whatever one’s view on abortion, bpas is promoting an extreme agenda that most of the public find abhorrent.”

Abortion for baby girls and up to birth

Bpas CEO Ann Furedi recently caused widespread outrage when she told the hosts of ITV’s Loose Women that a decision to have an abortion based on the gender of the baby is “always down to the woman”. In the same interview, she argued that abortion was a form of birth control, and that the current 24 week limit should be removed. The most recent survey of British views on abortion found that 89% of the general population and 91% of women agree that gender-selective abortion should be explicitly banned by the law. It also revealed that 99% of the public oppose the abortion limit being raised to birth.

Hospitalising women

The organisation’s Merseyside clinic was recently slammed by the Care Quality Commission after 11 women were transferred for emergency hospital treatment after suffering serious injuries between January 2013 – March 2016. The report also highlighted a catalogue of safety issues, including infection control procedures not being followed, no effective systems being in place to ensure resuscitation equipment was regularly checked to protect patients from avoidable harm, and incidents not being properly investigated.

Source: Life News

What do YOU think? Leave a reply.