Our right to know

The Sunday Telegraph reports the outrageous news that the Pro-Life Alliance (PLA) is being barred by the Government from a hearing about whether abortion figures in cases of disability should be released. Not only this, the Government is referring to legal proceedings usually used in terrorist trials to ban them.

After a public outcry in 2005 over the abortion of a child with a cleft palate at 28 weeks, the Department of Health (DoH) stopped publishing statistics if fewer than 10 cases were carried out under this clause. The alliance applied under the Freedom of Information Act for the figures to be revealed and the Information Commissioner has upheld their case. But the Government claims the data could lead to women who have had late abortions being identified. This is despite the fact that names and addresses of women who have had abortions are never published as part of the annual figures.

I can't believe how much of a cover up this is. When the Abortion Act was amended in 1990, we were assured that "serious handicap" would mean "serious". But it hasn't turned out that way.

This is besides the point, of course. Any abortion because a disability has been detected in the unborn child is the ultimate discrimination against disabled human beings - to not even recognise the child has anything worth living for just because it isn't perfect. This clause is part of a law that regulates the most common operation performed in the UK each day. Surely we the public have the right to know the reasons why these children are aborted? The Pro-Life Alliance shouldn't even have to appeal for this information. It should be already there.

It's ironic that a members of an organisation - which gave out such a strong comment attacking the BBC for portraying pro-lifers as child murderers in the recent TV drama Hunter - should now be virtually treated like terrorists themselves.

The PLA is in a battle for freedom of information. Previously, it has fought battles against censorship and democracy - and lost. In 1997 and 2001, the alliance (an active political party as it was then) had their party election broadcast censored by the BBC because they contained pictures of aborted babies. It meant the most common operation in the UK was not allowed to be broadcast on the public service broadcaster. The alliance's appeal to the High Court was rejected.(I used this case in a seminar at university on free speech in the media. All students in the room agreed the broadcast should not have been censored. And believe me, hardly any of them were remotely pro-life.)

In a later election, BBC Online initially refused to link the alliance's website on its list of political parties because it contained pictures of aborted babies - the reality of how the procedure ends.

And, perhaps most shockingly, two of its candidates in the 2003 Welsh Assembly election campaign were arrested for holding up a picture of a dismembered 21-week-old aborted baby in Newport city centre. Joseph Biddulph and Fiona Pinto were locked up for three hours before being charged for a public order offense. They were found not guilty by magistrates.

When you consider what lengths other campaign groups (particularly the green agenda fanatics) go to in order to get their message across without many cases even reaching court, I think we can safely presume the establishment doesn't really like pro-life groups, especially in light of the Government reportedly treating the PLA like terrorists.

The alliance was in a battle for freedom of expression, now it's fighting against secrecy. We should support them.