Jasper Gerard, how many prolifers have you met?!

A year ago, in a flurry of articles about abortion in reaction to the news that abortion was going to be shown on TV by Channel 4, in a moving article expressing his own growing discomfort with abortion, (which I intend to expand on elsewhere) Times columnist Jasper Gerard wrote:

"If the law is ever to be revised, antis need a more likeable spokesman. Many display the warm understanding of the Rev Ian Paisley. Jepson would be perfect but she might need to lose the dog collar: the British like their debates rational, not religious."

It is a pity that in an article that was otherwise sensitive to the seriousness of the issue of abortion, Jasper Gerard reduces the issue to the issue of personality. To say that the prolife case is based on a religious view is a massive presumption, when in fact the opposite is true. The prolife case is explicitly not religious and based on rational argument and evidence based on the biological development of a child, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the physical reality of abortion.

No one needs celebrity endorsement to assess the issue of abortion. The facts of abortion as another Times columnist put it "scream to be debated". The truth of abortion eclipses whoever is speaking. I was interviewed briefly in the documentary "My Foetus". No one was interested in me. I have seen people walk past demonstrations using abortion images and their faces reflect gravity and shock, they are certainly not interested in something as trivial as the clothes worn by the spokesperson.

But even if it was about the spokesperson rather than the issue, the caricature Jasper Gerard refers to is not one that I recognise. The prolifers I know are doctors, nurses, teachers, students, solicitors, vets, computer programmers, pilots, tax consultants, accountants, artists, university lecturers, charity workers, journalists and political campaigners, to name just a few. In other words, an incredibly diverse group in terms of age, profession, temperament, political affiliation, interests and personality, some with religious belief and some with none. The issue is just basically about humanity and anyone with humanity can respond. As for the emotional warmth Jasper Gerard refers to, it is inescapably the case that if you believe what we do about abortion than your heart must go out to any woman affected by abortion.

If the media's impression of prolifers is skewed than whose fault is that? When has the media ever covered Student LifeNet, the network of prolife students in universities, which doesn't in the least resemble Jasper Gerard's caricature? Student LifeNet actively campaigns for better support for pregnant students, issues press releases which are expert and relevant, and a few years ago, when I was involved, donned Tony Blair masks to campaign against cloning (the sight of 15 grinning Tony's Clonies were simply irresistable, and appeared on news bulletins and even on Have I Got News For You) . It is perhaps understandable that the media as a whole isn't that fascinated in student news, but The Times has its own survey of Generation X, and Newsnight's recent student house gave huge publicity to a few students. The media is missing out on much more interesting news. It is more than tuition fees that affect students.

And then there is the ProLife Alliance which fielded candidates first in the 1997 election and again in 2001, and in the European elections in 2004. Even forgetting the democratic imperative for proper reporting and vigorous debate at election time, which should have guaranteed the ProLife Alliance fair coverage, the media were looking for a way to make the election more interesting and had a goldmine in the ProLife Alliance candidates - ordinary people inspired to stand for something they believed in, speaking from the heart, without the cushy support of a mainstream party machine.