Wed 20th Aug 2014 | Last updated: Wed 20th Aug 2014 at 10:24am

Facebook Logo Twitter Logo RSS Logo
Hot Topics

Comment & Blogs

Soon, the racist anti-Semite Marie Stopes will be on our stamps. Already, eponymous abortionists are menacing pro-life prayer. A mad world, or what?

The wealthy Marie Stopes International is legally threatening the use of rosaries in baby pink and blue

By on Monday, 6 August 2012

Marie Stopes is still held up as a 'Great Briton' in Lefty circles (Photo: PA)

Marie Stopes is still held up as a 'Great Briton' in Lefty circles (Photo: PA)

The Good Counsel Network, which is dedicated to providing advice and support for women contemplating abortion, or who are suffering psychological trauma following an abortion, has been threatened with legal action by Marie Stopes International (MSI).

MSI, of course, is an immensely rich organisation because of the massive number of abortions it carries out, and it can afford very expensive lawyers. Through them, MSI has accused the Good Counsel Network of “intimidating” women going into their abortion facility in London. What particularly annoys them is their daily prayer vigil outside the Marie Stopes abortion facility in Whitfield Street, London. Good Counsel Network says that these “abortuary vigils” give volunteers the opportunity to talk to women who are in crisis pregnancies, but insist that they would not attempt directly to prevent any woman from entering the MSI premises. Among MSI’s complaints is that during their prayer vigils the GCN display rosary beads in “baby pink and blue”: a really under the belt tactic, that. Reminding women contemplating abortion of the existence of babies? Surely not.

Neil Addison, barrister director of the Thomas More Legal Centre, is representing GCN. In his response to a letter from MSI, he says Marie Stopes International is itself indulging in a campaign of intimidation by using its vastly superior financial resources to deploy the law to rid itself of a group that is becoming increasingly embarrassing to the abortion giant. “Let us be blunt,” Addison wrote to MSI’s legal representatives. “Marie Stopes International makes a great deal of money by persuading women to kill their unborn babies and makes no money if women decide to keep their babies.” They are “by no stretch of the imagination a neutral and impartial voice” and have a “substantial financial interest in trying to silence” opposition.

What is interesting is the prominence this organisation still gives to its trademark heroine, Marie Stopes, as though flaunting this woman’s name were in some way a sign that what they do is honourable and of good repute. Marie Stopes is undoubtedly still a heroine of the bien pensant left: so much so that the Royal Mail will, in October, be launching a postage stamp bearing her image. Go to the Guardian website, here, and you will read, under the headline “Marie Stopes is one of the Great Britons”, how last year the BBC announced its viewers’ “Greatest Britons” (evidence, perhaps, of the PR skills employed to get her into that list). Marie Stopes International, we are told, “derives its name from a remarkable lady who made it into the top 100”.

“Women,” asks this Guardian website piece, “can you imagine your body being the property of your husband?” [if not, I am tempted to interject, try reading that huge women’s bestseller Fifty Shades of Grey]. “Being permanently pregnant through ignorance? Then thank Dr Marie Stopes. The lifestyle and personal fulfilment enjoyed by British women today owes more than many realise to this remarkable character…

“She founded Britain’s first family planning centre in 1921, published numerous articles and spoke extensively on the subject throughout the rest of her life. Determined, single-minded, relishing challenge and controversy, with staggering self-confidence and an outrageous talent for publicity, Marie Stopes succeeded in improving the quality of life for countless women, couples and families. She was and is truly a Great Briton.”

Really? A “Great Briton”? Well, not quite: on the contrary, this was a truly repulsive human being. For a start, let me tell you, if you didn’t know already, about that family planning centre she opened in 1921. Later the same year she founded the “Society for Constructive Birth Control and Racial Progress”, as a support organisation for the clinic. That name is, of course, a dead give-away. The clinic’s purpose was to prevent the birth of so many of the racially inferior working class, of those she described as “the inferior, the depraved, and the feeble-minded”. That’s why her clinics were founded in poor areas. Her slogan was: “Joyful and Deliberate Motherhood, A Safe Light in our Racial Darkness.” She believed, as she wrote in her book Radiant Motherhood (1920), that “the sterilisation of those totally unfit for parenthood [should be] made an immediate possibility, indeed made compulsory.” She contributed a chapter to The Control of Parenthood (1920), which was a sort of manifesto for her circle of eugenicists, arguing for a “utopia” to be achieved through “racial purification”.

Her ideas on racial purity included a rabid anti-Semitism. She admired Hitler and sent him, with a gushing letter, a copy of a slim volume of love poems she had written; in 1935 she attended the Nazi-sponsored International Congress for Population Science in Berlin. Her anti-Semitism was noted disapprovingly by other pioneers of the birth control movement such as Havelock Ellis. She was also anti-Catholic and anti-Russian; the following poetic gem was produced in 1942:

Catholics, Prussians,
The Jews and the Russians,
All are a curse,
Or something worse…

At least, by 1942, she realised that for an Englishwoman publicly to continue to admire German militarism wasn’t very clever; but her anti-Semitism and her racism were unmodified.

Back to the organisation which so proudly bears her name: the most admirably expressed comment about both of them that I have seen in the papers (well, online, actually) was, as so often and on so many subjects, by the estimable Peter Hitchens, who under the headline “Abortion and its repellent heroine”, wrote that “Marie Stopes International (which receives about £25 million a year from the NHS, much of it for killing unborn babies under contract) should be allowed to advertise its repellent services on TV. But on one condition. That each advertisement is followed by both of these: film of an actual abortion of a 24-week-old baby, and a brief documentary reminding viewers that Marie Stopes sent love poems to Adolf Hitler in August 1939, advocated compulsory sterilisation for the ‘unfit’, and cut her own son out of her will because he married a girl who wore glasses.”

“What sort of organisation,” he concludes, “would name itself after such a monstrous woman?” The unspoken answer — the multi-million-pound group Marie Stopes International — is at present seeking to protect its income by legally threatening an organisation which makes no profits at all, which depends on donations to survive (readers, please note), and whose only aim is to defend the unborn lives of those currently being slaughtered in such vast numbers by such organisations as MSI, an image of whose flagship heroine will shortly be gracing our postage stamps. Truly, it’s a mad, mad world.

  • Gypsycook

    See Wiki info below on Marie Stopes.  Note the last line. I could not find anything about her being an evil monster; maybe that is just Prolife ad hominem abuse.

  • Bob Hayes

    Why are you posting here Gypsycook? To enlighten or to insult? If the former, I respectfully suggest it would help your case greatly to reduce the amount of the latter. If the latter, I imagine you are familiar with the word troll…

  • Bob Hayes

    Wiki……. where would we be without that fount of knowledge?

  • Gypsycook

    To enlighten; not to insult, but just to try using a bit of humour and gentle sarcasm to illustrate that Catholics don’t know everything. Of course if you would prefer to go round and round in a closed epistemological loop shut off from outside input, then you will never get any further towards enlightenment.

  • Bob Hayes

    There you go again, hectoring tones. No wonder people find it hard to listen.

  • Gypsycook

    The State has of course the right to protect individual lives, hence the laws against murder. But it is still an unsettled question whether an unborn embyo is an separate peson or not. I would say not. The question becomes more difficult when it is a fully formed foetus near full term. I would say that abortion near full term is not justified, -as would you; but this is already enshrined in law, at least here in the U.K.,-so there is nothing to argue about.

  • Gypsycook

    “Unborn babies are killed and dissected for research and the harvesting of spare parts.”At least here in the U.K. there are laws about NOT aborting embryos specifically in order to harvest them for spare parts. Instead foetal cells are removed from the umbilical cord in abortions that are done for other and legitimate reasons in order to do necessary stem cell research which benefits everybody, as well as from babies born full term.  Scientists are coming up with ways to reprogram adult cells in order to eliminate the need for foetal cells at all.

  • Gypsycook

    A somewhat unreal attitude in the modern world, don’t you think?

  • Gypsycook

    Don’t tell me that there is now an ecclesiastial industry devoted to “interpreting”   the Declaration of Human Rights, rather than just reading what is written in it and applying it as read?
    Biblical “interpretation” is bad enough. How many new Gospels and pseudepistles will it mutate into I wonder?

  • Fides_et_Ratio

     Ridiculous straw man.

  • Zerox

     And yet so many atheists seem to end up sounding like Stalin and the other athiest mass killers (there is hardly any other kind of mass killer if you go on the sheer volume of murders), and many end up following in their tracks.

    Dawkins himself is pro eugenics, and has spoken with gushing approval at the idea of banning free speech and making his own ideas compulsory. (Read: The Rage Against God for quotes)

  • Zerox

     What ‘pro choice majority’? The majority of people are against abortion.

    And I don’t see how killing babies is ‘kind’ or ‘respectful of human life’. If that is how you view those things you will you are well on the way to being arrested for something pretty horrific.

  • Fides_et_Ratio

    I think you misread something. I am pro-life – from conception to natural death.

  • Zerox

     So you would rather abort a baby than teach children that when you have (unprotected) sex they get pregnant?

  • Zerox

    Eye is just about the funniest thing I have seen all week.

  • Fides_et_Ratio

     He is not funny, he is an extremely annoying troll. He has no respect for logic; he simply attacks pro-lifers with multiple dishonest attacks; he flings mud, hoping some of it sticks.

  • Zerox

    And now you are changing names and pretending to be a doctor, fantastic!

     What about the powerful pro-abortion lobby, who are funded by people who make a hell of a lot of money off of abortion?

    What about the fact that those women had consensual  unprotected sex?

    What about the fact that the baby they are carrying is a living child that they chose to try and kill?

    “overbreeding and overpopulation of unwanted and ofen abused children.”

    And now you are a eugenicist, well done.

  • Zerox

     ” So ban masturbation, (afterall, it makes you go blind doesn’t it, as
    well as being a “sin”?),-and install religious police in every boy’s
    bedroom to keep watch on him.”

    Fun fact: it was scientists and doctors that started the anti-mastabation campaign.

  • Zerox

    Exactly, and in the real world there exist these things called STDs and babies. If you want to sleep with loads of different people there WILL be consequences.

  • Zerox

     ” is … pretty much what Marie Stopes was against when she wrote Married Love”

    The woman who’s entire goal was ethnic and social cleansing? You are favourably quoting her?