British Pregnancy Centers Aren’t the Problem, It’s Doctors Falsifying Abortion Forms

International   |   SPUC   |   Feb 13, 2014   |   11:34AM   |   London, England

Pro-life pregnancy counsellors are “doing an heroic job”, says the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) the UK’s largest pro-life organisation.

SPUC was commenting  the light of The Telegraph newspaper’s attack, in concert with pro-abortion campaigners, on crisis pregnancy centres manned by pro-life counsellors.

ukflagPaul Tully, SPUC’s general secretary, commented: “SPUC does not run crisis pregnancy centres, but we encourage such efforts and provide some groups with literature telling accurately about what abortion does to women and babies. Our literature is backed up with medical evidence. In our experience, on the whole, crisis pregnancy centres are doing an heroic job, in the face of concerted and deceitful opposition from representatives of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) and the avaricious abortion industry which the RCOG represents.”

Mr Tully continued: “The counselling centres are helping hundreds of women to avoid abortion, and playing a significant part in reducing the abortion rate. Many of them not only provide counselling but practical support – something which none of the abortion agencies do. Also, unlike abortionists, these counselling centres  do not receive NHS funding contingent on the outcome of the services they provide.”

Mr Tully added: “Doctors falsify statutory abortion forms on a routine basis, with the connivance of the RCOG and the Department of Health. This enriches abortion merchants such as the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), out of the deaths of over 500 babies every day. Dishonest doctors are raking in huge fees, and are jealous of those groups who are snatching potential victims away from them.

“Dr Kate Guthrie of the RCOG told The Telegraph that there is ‘absolutely no evidence that abortions lead to an increased risk of breast cancer’. Dr Guthrie’s statement is simply not true. Although the evidence is not conclusive, it is voluminous. For example, in November last year a meta-analysis of 36 studies of the possible abortion-breast cancer link among Chinese females found a 44% increased risk of breast cancer after one or more abortions, 76% increased risk after two abortions or more, and 89% increaseed risk after 3 or more abortions.  Although this does not prove that abortion causes breast cancer, for a doctor to deny that such evidence exists is irresponsible, and to try to stop women finding out about suggests a profound commitment to promoting abortion”, concluded Mr Tully.




  • Dr Yubei Huang et al., A meta-analysis of the association between induced abortion and breast cancer risk among Chinese females, Cancer Causes Control  DOI 10.1007/s10552-013-0325-7, November 2013
  • Anthony McCarthy, Open Letter to the British Humanist Association and Education for Choice in response to allegations made about SPUC’s education programme, 25 May 2012 (this letter contains further references to evidence linking abortion to breast cancer, as well to infertility and to psychiatric harm).