A matter of life and death

Three sets of circumstances seem to have found their way into the news in recent days.

The first happened at Marie Stopes abortion clinic in Ealing, West London. After suffering an abortion, a woman is said to have collapsed on the floor, hyperventilating due to bleeding from a tear in her uterus. She was discharged a few hours later. She fell unconscious in the taxi and was pronounced dead at hospital.

A doctor and two nurses have been charged with manslaughter by gross negligence.

The second occurred at Peckham in Lopdon. A woman who was 32 weeks pregnant was attacked in the street and kicked in the stomach. She was critically ill in intensive care. The baby died.

A 21-yar-old man, said to be the woman's ex-boyfriend, was charged with destroying the life of a child capable of being born alive.

The third circumstance was an announcement that so-called emergency contraception is now legally available nationwide to girls under the age of consent.

The drug, called ellaOne, can be offered under the NHS to any girl of reproductive age if it is stocked at the pharmacy. It is said to be effective up to five days after sexual intercourse.

The circumstances are different, but all have one thing in common - a lack of respect for unborn life. Some years ago, it is most unlikely that any one would have happened. Now the process of change is almost complete.

Soon I will be the criminal. For trying to force women to have babies. For daring to question a woman's "right to choose." For standing up for the lives of innocent unborn babies.
          

Tackling teen sex problems

Britain has the highest rate of teenage pregnancy in Western Europe. Rates of sexually transmitted diseases are rising.

School nurses can give out the morning-after pill to teenage girl pupils at some schools in England. Dr Anne Connolly, chairman of the Primary Care Women's Health Forum, has called for all school nurses to be able to give out the pill.

In Scotland, the Sexual Health Lead Clinicians Group has told the Scottish Government that the morning-after pill should be made available in schools there. "Why is emergency contraception not available in schools?" it says. "Why are condoms and contraception not accessible? Why can't pregnancy and. . . STIs be prevented?"

Peter Saunders points out that an American study revealed that making the morning-after pill available free without prescription does not decrease pregnancy or abortion figures, and increases rates of sexually transmitted infections.

A British study found that making the morning-after pill available free of charge did not alter pregnancy rates for girls under 16 but increased rates of sexually transmitted diseases by 12 per cent.

What is needed is not something to encourage teens in a promiscuous lifestyle but something to tackle teens' promiscuous behaviour in the first place.

Dr Saunders suggests that organisations like Love for Life, Love2last, Challenge Team, Romance Academy and Lovewise are getting great results and have a great deal of wisdom to pass on.

The website addresses of these organisations are www.loveforlife.org.uk, www.love2last.org.uk, www.challengeteamuk.org, www.romanceacademy.org, and www.lovewise.org.uk.

So why not visit some of these websites and find out what you can do to help?

Number of abortions up - but with a ray of hope?

The number of abortions in the UK is up again.

Government figures published last week show there were 196,109 abortions in England and Wales in 2010, compared with 195,743 the previous year - 189,574 of them on England and Wales residents, compared with 189,100 on England and Wales residents in 2009.

Figures for Scotland, published today, show 12,826 abortions in 2010, compared with 13,108 in 2009. That's a total of 208,935 abortions in England, Wales and Scotland, compared with 208,851 the year before.

Of the abortions on England and Wales residents, 96 per cent were funded by the NHS, and 59 per cent took place in private clinics, paid for by the NHS. A third of women having an abortion had had an abortion previously; 85 women had had seven previous abortions or more.

Ann Furedi, of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, described as the country's largest abortion provider, was quoted as saying what a splendid thing an abortion service was.

A spokesperson for the ProLife Alliance said sexual health education was clearly not impacting significantly on unplanned pregnancies. "Any abortion at whatever stage in pregnancy and for whatever reason represents the ending of the life of a developing pre-born child."

Indeed.

One blogger said what he always found astounding when the annual figures came out was the fact that they have ceased to shock us.

The Independent Advisory Group on Sexual Health, which advised the Government on things like abortion, teenage sexuality and sex education and comprised organisations in favour of abortion and sex education for children as young as five, was disbanded last year.

Life, a pro-life organisation, has been invited to join the Sex Education Forum, which will replace it. Although it will be the single opposing voice on a panel dominated by pro-abortion groups, its inclusion has caused outrage.

Dr Evan Harris, former MP and a humanist, even suggested its presence may prevent the forum from functioning properly by preventing the forum from being given confidential information and preventing it from having frank and open discussions. What nonsense.

Could the inclusion of a pro-life group on the forum be an indication that the Government, having thrown millions of pounds at sex education, free contraception and abortion, is at last realising that the "do whatever you like, but do take precautions" approach has done nothing to reduce abortions and the sexual infection epidemic and a new approach is needed?

Truth, lies and safe sex

Dr Miriam Grossman, a paediatrician with years of experience, has been invited to speak at a number of meetings in London on the subject of sex education in schools.

Says Andrea Williams, reporting on her blog at Christian Concern on Dr Grossman's meeting in the Houses of Parliament:

Dr Grossman emphasised how sex educators usually claim to provide "non-judgmental" and "comprehensive, medically accurate information" in order to help children make their own informed choices and delay sexual activity - but this is all, in fact, a lie.

In reality, Dr Grossman emphasised, the priority of much sex education in the UK is to promote morality-free sexual "licence." Sex education programmes normalise premature sex and promote the idea that children have a "right" to make their own decisions. Abstinence from sex is not usually presented as an option and the health risks of early sexual activity are downplayed.

Both the general public and school children in particular are often misinformed about the effectiveness of contraception in preventing disease and pregnancy. . .

Young people are often told that using a condom reduces the risks of sexually transmitted diseases and reduces the risks of conception by 98%. However, the truth is that:

* The 98% figure only refers to the risk of pregnancy - not infection. Furthermore, it only applies to circumstances where condom use is "perfect." "Typical use" is more common, where condoms are worn correctly most of the time but are occasionally used incorrectly. In such cases, the risk of pregnancy is reduced by only 85%!

* Even perfect condom use only reduces the risk of herpes by 25 - 50%, chlamydia by 26% and gonorrhoea by 62%. That's little protection at all!

* Condoms have close to 0% effectiveness in preventing the transmission of HPV.

* A girl's immature cervix increases her vulnerability to genital infections. HIV aside, girls and women carry 80% of the burden of negative consequences from early sexual behaviour and multiple partners. . .

Dr Grossman warned that if sex educators continue to deny biological truths and encourage "exploration" (read promiscuity), then the health and well-being of our children will continue to suffer. The "safe sex" message endorsed by schools is offering children a false sense of security. This must stop. There is no such thing as safe sex, other than between two people who have saved themselves for marriage.

Christians everywhere should be teaching children that each one of them is a beautiful, unique creation made in the image of God. The way that our children can be safe and free is to truly know this and to keep themselves for marriage.

Let's do all we can to promote God's truth for the sake of our children. Let's claim back our education system; let's expose bad sex education, especially in the forthcoming national curriculum review. Let's bring to society the message of purity, faithfulness, love, truth and hope that is found in our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

And a comment on Andrea's piece from a police officer:

We teach our kids not to play with matches, and don't claim "they will do it anyway," and we don't say "we teach them the dangers and let them decide." Sex is like fire, the context can determine if it is safe or destructive. Marriage is the only safe context for sex. Outside of marriage the dangers are there. . . but. . . educators and others refuse to tell the truth about it.

Can anyone say these things aren't true?

Good news and bad news

What a week it's been! Thousands killed by earthquake and tsunami in Japan. A state of emergency in Bahrain. Fierce fighting in Libya. All sorts happening in the UK.

There isn't time to talk about it all, but I can mention one thing that, for me, is a concern.

Two months ago I wrote here about graphic, sexually explicit literature approved by some local authorities for use in sex education for children as young as five years old. That same literature has now been exposed by the Daily Mail and the Telegraph.

Brenda Almond, a professor of moral and social philosophy, wrote in the Daily Mail as a consequence: "It is parents who best understand what their children need to know - and when - not people with improbable ideas about education, and certainly not government ministers. . .

"Sex education needs to be taken out of primary schools altogether and responsibility for it should be handed back to parents. Children, after all, belong to their parents; they are not the property of the state.

"We need to stop assuming that early sexual activity is inevitable and accept that too much sex education - delivered too early - might actually be encouraging it.

"Only then will we be able to get back to the really important thing: letting children be children. They'll grow up fast enough as it is."

Education Secretary Michael Gove has now said he will not accept attempts to change the Education Bill to introduce compulsory sex education to primary schools. That's the good news.

The bad news is that the Government is devising a new sexual health strategy which it is said will go even further than the approach by the last Labour Government. One of the team devising the strategy will be Brook's national director, Simon Blake, who is in favour of a young people's sexual free-for-all. The Government is also reviewing its sex education guidance for schools, and is working closely with the homosexual campaign group Stonewall.

Write to your MP and point out that more and more sex education at younger and younger ages is not lowering rates of teenage pregnancy and sexual infection, but having the reverse effect.

If you have children at school, let me repeat my previous advice: ask their school what they are being taught in sex education and ask to see materials used. If you have concerns, talk to the head teacher or school governors. Don't rant and rave; express your concerns politely and ask for change. You may be surprised at the effect it will have.

A much better way

Andrea Minichiello Williams is chief executive officer of Christian Concern, an organisation which supports Christian standards in society. On her blog two days ago she posted the following, which merits careful consideration:

Yesterday the Government published the 'Schools White Paper.'

At 4.29 it states:

Children need high-quality sex and relationships education so they can make wise and informed choices. We will work with teachers, parents, faith groups and campaign groups, such as Stonewall to make sure sex and relationships education encompasses an understanding of the ways in which humans love each other and stresses the importance of respecting individual autonomy.

Not content with pushing for and achieving equality laws that promote a homosexual agenda, Stonewall wants to get its message to children directly. . . currently the actor Sir Ian McKellan is touring schools across Britain on behalf of Stonewall. He is giving assemblies, talking to children in classrooms and promoting a homosexual campaign "to tackle homophobic bullying". . . Stonewall's solution to bullying is to promote and legitimise the practice of homosexuality to children. That is not right. . .

When asked how teachers should explain the Christian stance on homosexuality, Sir Ian said that they should abandon the teachings of the church. They may not need to if Prime Minister David Cameron gets his way - in February he told pro-homosexual magazine 'Attitude' that the Church of England should change its policies on homosexuality.

The Prime Minister is serious about the homosexual agenda. Last week a Conservative councillor from Bristol, Chris Windows, was actually suspended after he expressed concern over Sir Ian's visit to schools in his ward. The more that incidents like this happen, and the less the Prime Minister defends freedom of speech, the more it is eroded and the more society is harmed. . . What happened to the concept of "I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it"? . . .

The White Paper also stated:

4.30: Children can benefit enormously from high-quality Personal Social Health and Economic (PSHE) education. Good PSHE supports individual young people to make safe and informed choices. . . We will conduct an internal review to determine how we can support schools to improve the quality of all PSHE teaching, including giving teachers the flexibility to use their judgement about how best to deliver PSHE education.

This is a strong endorsement of PSHE ahead of a likely attempt to make PSHE compulsory in future legislation. PSHE, in its current form, is often taught as a politically correct programme which encourages the "promotion of equality" in sex education. In practice this means the promotion of the practice of homosexuality; legitimising same sex relationships as normal and desirable, as well as treating heterosexual cohabitation as equal to marriage.

The promotion of practising homosexual relationships as normal will not benefit children, only confuse them. It's contrary to the ethos of many parents and schools, whether Christian or not, and it may cause a range of difficulties for Christian teachers. . .

I will be doing all that I can to resist any attempt to make PSHE in its current format compulsory in schools. Please join me in resisting Stonewall's determined and aggressive campaign for the hearts and minds of our children. Their agenda must not go unchallenged.

In a country full of unplanned pregnancies, abortions, STDs and family breakdown, Christians have a strong argument that there is a better way. The 'sexual liberation' experiment has failed and has produced bad fruit.

We can offer values and an education based on our Christian faith. We can teach children about the importance of marriage and the family. We can teach them about purity and how to respect who they are. . . We can teach them that abstinence before marriage is the best way. We can give them positive life lessons and help them to avoid some of the consequences of sexual promiscuity.

The message is one of hope and promise and yet one that is excluded from the debate. It is time to re-enter the debate.

You can read the whole thing here.

It's time for parents to wake up

Britain remains at the top of the league table of Western nations when it comes to teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases.

The UK Government has spent £280 million on sex education and contraception. The result is dismal failure.

The fact that the Government is still insisting that more sex education and more free contraception are the answer and politicians are still wanting compulsory sex education for children from five years old would be amazing if it were not for the fact that people don't seem to realise what is going on here.

The United Nations organisation UNESCO has prepared international guidelines on education in sexuality which it sees as a "need and entitlement" of all children from the age of five, with an explicit approach which it admits will horrify many politicians, policymakers and parents.

Simon Blake, director of Brook and a member of the Teenage Pregnancy Independent Advisory Group that advises the Government, said "We need a grown-up conversation with young people. We need to make sure they are having sex when they are ready and for the right reasons, are able to enjoy it and take responsibility for it."

Gill Francis, chairperson of the same TPIAG, said "Discussions on sexual pleasure help children realise sex should be enjoyed, allowing them to take responsibility for decisions and recognise issues around coercive sex."

The idea is that if Britain's children were better educated in sexual matters and could be taught to use contraception responsibly then all would be well. It is not true. A report by UNICEF shows widespread use of contraception. Dr Trevor Stammers, an authority on teenage sexuality, says 80 per cent of teenagers who become pregnant are using some form of contraception.

Brenda Almond, professor of social and moral philosophy at Hull University, writes in the Daily Mail: "Traditional moral values have all but evaporated in modern Britain. As a result, there is no ethical basis to any of the advice given to young people about sex. In Britain, sex education is, quite literally, just words.

"Indeed, so powerful is this collapse of a stable moral code in Britain that youth counsellors, campaigners, teachers and ministers are now terrified about making any judgments whatsoever about an individual's behaviour.

"Do whatever you want, with whoever you want, whenever you want, as long as you wear a condom or take the morning-after pill. That is the thrust of most sex education for teenagers in Britain today.

"Indeed, far from promoting restraint or commitment, the entire emphasis of this politically correct system is on the 'sexual rights' of young people. . .

"The only stigma in modern Britain, it seems, is directed at those who warn against infidelity, adultery or parental neglect of children. In this brave new world, personal rights reign supreme."

What can be done to deal with this state of affairs? Certainly in the short term, first responsibility lies with the parents. Many parents are blissfully unaware of what happens or is likely to happen to their children in the name of sex education.

The Family Education Trust emphasises that schools should be encouraged to ensure that parents are fully involved in developing a school's policy, sex education is taught within a clear moral context, the consequences of sexual activity are honestly faced, and the positive benefits of saving sexual intimacy for marriage are clearly presented.

Parents need to find out what's happening to their children in school and out of school and be determined to have a responsible say in it. Bringing up their children is their responsibility - not the responsibility of the state.

The sex education war

Sex education is an ideological battlefield on which a war is being waged for the hearts and minds of children. Behind the innocuous-sounding words used by the sex education lobby, there is a definite agenda at work to undermine the role of parents and to tear down traditional moral standards. The need for parents to be alert and vigilant has never been greater.

Who says so? The Family Education Trust (otherwise known as Family and Youth Concern), whose aims are to uphold marriage and traditional family life and promote young people's welfare.

And with good reason. NICE, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, which advises on medicines and health issues - its chief role is to ration NHS drugs - has issued draft guidance on sex education suggesting that all children should be taught about sex and relationships starting at five and continuing into early adulthood.

The Labour Government legislated to make sex education part of the schools' national curriculum for the first time for pupils from the age of five upwards, but because of opposition Schools Secretary Ed Balls scrapped the sex education provisions in order to get the remainder of the Children, Schools and Families Bill into law in the limited time available before the General Election. Members of the sex education lobby were said to be furious, and attempts to reintroduce such provisions were expected.

The NICE draft guidance contains positive points, which might cause some people to be confused. But it also says

Research evidence does not support use of an approach to sex and relationships education that only teaches abstinence. Evidence shows that this does not help prevent the initiation of sex, or reduce the frequency of intercourse or reduce the number of partners a young person may have. Rather, such an approach may increase early sexual activity and its consequent risks.

(There is ample evidence that abstinence education is effective.)

It says school governors, teachers, nurses and community groups should

Reassure parents that sex and relationships education does not promote early sex, increase rates of sexual activity or increase the likelihood of sexual experimentation. Rather, it helps children and young people to resist pressure to get involved in activities that might damage their health. It also gives them the skills and confidence to delay sex until they are ready to enjoy a responsible and mutually loving relationship.

(Until they are ready?)

All involved in education should

Promote awareness of and sensitivity to diverse faith and cultural beliefs, and encourage understanding of different beliefs and practices, for example, in relation to alcohol use, sexual orientation and abortion. Discrimination and prejudices should be discussed and challenged.

(Prejudices against homosexual relationships and against abortion?)

It says that

A planned programme of sex and relationships education (SRE) that includes information and opportunities for discussion about sexual health, sexually transmitted infections, methods of contraception, pregnancy and abortion can help children and young people to delay sexual activity until they are ready. It does not cause them to have sex at an earlier age, or to have more sex, or sex with more partners, nor does it increase the number of unwanted or teenage conceptions and abortions.

(There is no explanation of why the more sex education there is, the more unwanted pregnancies and the more abortions increase.)

and

An overemphasis on concerns about the potential negative consequences of sex for young people, including teenage pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections, has sometimes led to an unbalanced approach to SRE that ignores the importance of consent and mutually rewarding sexual relationships for individual wellbeing.

(No mention, you will notice, of the context of sex within marriage.)

Norman Wells, of Family and Youth Concern, said "The team that drafted the guidance included lobby groups with an agenda to break down moral standards and redefine the family. Organisations with a commitment to marriage and traditional family values were not represented."

The draft guidance (you can read it in full here) is open for comment via the NICE website until July 15. Submissions will then be considered, and final guidance is expected in January.

Christian Concern for Our Nation is appealing for parents, teachers and school representatives to respond to the consultation.

Will you write and express your concerns? You should use the form here.

'Safe' sex or no sex?

David Toma, the 12th child of a Christian mother, was a detective on the vice, narcotics and gambling squad in crime-ridden Newark, New Jersey. He became a master of disguise in order to infiltrate drugs gangs.

He made thousands of arrests without ever firing his gun, though he was himself hospitalised numerous times with shot and stab wounds. He had a 98 per cent conviction rate. He was given the title "The World's Greatest Cop" by fellow policemen. Two series of television programmes were based on his experiences.

He has spent countless thousands of hours speaking to audiences about the dangers of alcohol and drugs. He has received numerous humanitarian awards and several honorary doctorates.

Denny Hartford quotes on his blog something of what David Toma has to say about teenage pregnancy:

Kids are having kids! Eleven year old, twelve year old and thirteen year old kids are having babies! Why? Because they are having sex! Unfortunately they don't think that having sex will lead to getting pregnant. Kids don't think about their consequences, they just want to have sex. And that's the problem.

My 50+ years of experience, talking to millions and millions of kids, tells the story: teen sex leads to babies, teen sex leads to unwanted pregnancy, teen sex leads to suicide, teen sex leads to drug addiction, teen sex leads to alcoholism, teen sex leads to Aids and HIV, teen sex leads to STDs. Teen sex is not only a moral issue, it's a health issue and it's a national health issue! . . .

Parents, what are you going to do about this national crisis? School administrators, what are you going to do about this national crisis? Local government and health agencies, what are you going to do about this national crisis? Some 'experts' preach non-abstinence based on the theory that kids will have sex anyway, so why not teach them to have safe sex. These experts haven't seen what I saw on the streets as a detective. They haven't heard the personal stories, thousands of them, that I heard while a beat cop in Newark, New Jersey.

Parents have given up on teaching total abstinence to their kids. They take their daughters to the doctor to get them birth control pills, so they won't get pregnant. Well guess what? They get pregnant anyway! There is no birth control pill that is 100% safe, and many have dangerous side effects, like blood clots that lead to death! Condoms are not 100% safe either. Protected sex is not the answer, total abstinence is. I am a parent and now a grandparent and guess what my wife and I taught our kids and are now teaching our grandchild? Total abstinence. Was it easy? No! But I will not surrender to complacency. I did whatever it took to make sure my kids knew that premarital sex was not an option. . .

The 40,000,000 (that's right, forty million!) kids I have talked with over my career gives me the expertise to tell you that absolute abstinence is the only thing that works. I have heard personally the horror stories of back alley abortions that went wrong. I have personally visited kids in the hospital who tried to kill themselves and their unborn babies because they were too scared to tell their parents they were pregnant. Imagine being so afraid to tell your parents you were pregnant that you would rather kill yourself and an innocent growing inside you! I have held young girls in my arms as they died from Aids which they contracted from having oral sex. They thought that oral sex was safe sex! I have counseled thousands of girls who were gang raped because they had a reputation for being easy.

My twenty years on the streets as a cop and then as a detective made me see things I still have nightmares about: mothers throwing their babies off bridges into freezing rivers, babies killed by their teenage mothers because they wouldn't stop crying, babies in dumpsters, babies thrown away like garbage! We are in a throwaway society and we throw our babies away too! I have seen it all!!!

Don't tell me that non-abstinence and sex education are the answer, because you are dead wrong. The only answer is absolute abstinence. . .

I have preached absolute abstinence for over 50 years. I will not surrender to popular theories by people who are supposed experts who don't have my background and don't know what they are talking about. I can absolutely guarantee you that your child will not get pregnant, will not get Aids, and HIV, will not get STDs, will not end up killing themselves when you teach your children the value of a strong moral code of conduct. . .

Let me tell you that when I talk to kids at schools about absolute abstinence, I get a standing ovation. They want to hear more about how to live a good clean life and how to live the right way. They want someone to love them and discipline them. They know I love them, and they know I know what I am talking about. Your kids want your guidance, your kids want your love. Love your kids enough to teach them absolute abstinence.

Well, you can't argue with that, can you?

Incidentally, you'll find David Toma's website at www.davidtoma.com.

What's the real agenda here?

The authorities introduced sex education in schools and the number of teenage pregnancies went up. The authorities provided more sex education, and teenage pregnancies continued to rise. The authorities decided what was needed was MORE sex education, and still teenage pregnancies increased.

Question: Is one entitled eventually to assume that the powers that be really aren't concerned about reducing teenage pregnancies?

Here is part of a piece by Peter Hitchens at MailOnline:

Some years ago, I wrote a short history of sex education in this country. I didn't then know about its first invention, during the Hungarian Soviet revolution of 1919, when Education Commissar George Lukacs ordered teachers to instruct children about sex in a deliberate effort to debauch Christian morality.

But what I found was this. That the people who want it are always militant Leftists who loathe conventional family life; that the pretext for it has always been the same - a supposed effort to reduce teen pregnancy and sexual disease; and that it has always been followed by the exact opposite.

It was introduced into schools against much parental resistance during the early Fifties. And, yes, the more of it there was, the more under-age and extramarital sex there seemed to be.

By 1963, in Norwich, parents were told that their young were to be instructed in sexual matters because the illegitimacy rate in that fine city had reached an alarming 7.7 per cent (compared with a national rate of 5.9 per cent). The national rate is now 46 per cent and climbing, so that was obviously a success, wasn't it?

Well, yes it was, because the people who force these popular classes on our young are lying about their aims. You can see why.

Most of us, in any other circumstance, would be highly suspicious of adults who wanted to talk about sex to other people's children. But by this sleight of hand - that they are somehow being protected from disease and unwanted pregnancy - we are tricked into permitting it.

And our civilised society goes swirling down the plughole of moral chaos.

The UK Government is now introducing legislation to make sex education an integral part of the national curriculum and remove the right of parents to withdraw children from sex education lessons. The Teenage Pregnancy Advisory Group, which advises the Government, says contraception, abortion and homosexuality are all legal; therefore children should be able to learn "the correct facts."

Is Peter Hitchens right? Is the real target not the reduction of teenage pregnancies, but simply the "sexual liberation" of our children and young people?

Wanted: a second William Booth

Britain, alas, seems to have done it again. The Daily Mail reports:

A vast study of youngsters' wellbeing in 30 industrialised nations ranked Britain among the worst for health, lifestyles and school standards relative to public spending levels.

Under-age teenagers in Britain are more likely to get drunk than those in any other country, and the proportions of teenage mothers and single-parent families are amongst the highest in the survey.

In "risky behaviour" - a combination of drinking, smoking and teenage pregnancy - Britain's performance is worse than all nations other than Turkey and Mexico.

Educational achievement is low given the billions poured in by Labour, with more than one in 10 youngsters aged 15 to 19 not in school, training or work. This is the fourth highest rate in the 30 countries. Only Italy, Turkey and Mexico perform worse. . .

The report, published by the economic think tank the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, compared data from 30 leading countries on children's welfare. . .

Teen drunkenness, as measured by the number of youngsters aged 13 and 15 who have been drunk at least twice, tops the league table at 33 per cent.

By an apparent coincidence, the letters page in the same issue of the same newspaper contained a letter from a Derek Hanna, of Newtownabbey, Co. Antrim. It said:

One of the nation's greatest sons, William Booth, once said: "The chief danger of the 20th century will be religion without the Holy Ghost, Christianity without Christ, forgiveness without repentance, politics without God, salvation without regeneration and heaven without hell."

No wonder the nation is in such decline and the future looks so bleak.

The only hope, the letter said, is that God will raise up another William Booth. Or another John Wesley.

May it be so.

Sad news indeed

In 1999 the British Government pledged to cut teenage pregnancies by half by 2010. It has spent almost £300 million promoting sex education and handing out free contraceptives and morning-after pills. The result? Teenage pregnancies have increased.

Figures from the Office of National Statistics show that pregnancies in 2007 in girls under 18 were up. Pregnancies in under-16s were up six per cent. And the number of pregnant girls under 18 who chose abortion reached 50 per cent for the first time.

The Government's response? To announce the provision of a further £20 million to promote contraception. Every time more sex education, more free contraceptives and easier access to morning-after pills have failed to stem the tide, the Government has announced its remedy: more sex education, more free contraceptives and easier access to morning-after pills. You would have thought, wouldn't you, that by now it would have occurred to someone that something wasn't working. Alas, no. What we're dealing with here is not reason, but ideology.

The same week these figures were announced, the Government issued new guidance to parents. Parents should not teach their teenage children that it is wrong to have sex, the Government said, lest that discourage children from being "open." Instead parents should encourage children from the age of 13 - three years under the legal age of consent, mark you - to obtain contraception. Why not, says a new leaflet, offer to go with your daughter to visit a local clinic or GP so that she can make a choice that is right for her?

How dare they? How dare they tell parents how to bring up their children when their own teenage pregnancy strategy is such an abject failure?

If I am a parent - above all a father - it is my responsibility to bring up my children to be moral, God-fearing citizens who respect marriage and shun illicit sex.

When it comes to morality, the British Government has lost its way. Yet it still insists on telling parents how to bring up their children. How very, very sad.