Antonia Tully, blogpost

When I give money to a children’s charity I expect it to be used to help children. I don’t expect my donation to fund propaganda about practices which are dangerous for children. In my view, giving hormone treatment to “trans” children and young people is extremely dangerous and it is disturbing that four leading children’s charities are supporting this.

The National Children’s Bureau and The Children’s Society have joined forces with Barnardo’s and the NSPCC to issue a statement, saying that they “stand in solidarity with all children and young people who are trans, non-binary, gender non-conforming, or exploring their gender identity”.  The four charities also state that children have the right to have “their wishes taken seriously” when it comes to healthcare.

This statement was issued as a judicial review got underway earlier this month which seeks to stop puberty blockers being given to young people. The case has been brought by a woman who previously “identified” as a transgender man and is now arguing that children should not be able to consent to medical treatment.

This legal case actually goes to the heart of an issue which SPUC has repeatedly called out. Allowing children be “treated” by a medical professional without parental knowledge or consent has, over the years, resulted in thousands of young girls having abortions which their parents knew nothing about. Indeed, the four charities opposing this judicial review state expressly that if the legal challenge is successful it could have repercussions for young people accessing abortion.

In fact, teenage abortions have plummeted since 2009. However, the deeper problem is that of children seeking “medical treatment” without their parents, which has, over the years, seriously undermined families. Policies which drive children away from their parents are of concern to SPUC.  It is within the family, first and foremost, that pro-life values are fostered. When outside forces such as schools and abortion agencies usurp the role of parents, children grow up with a corrupted understanding of human sexuality and human life. This allows the abortion industry to flourish.  

However, my concerns about these four charities didn’t start with this latest sign that their work seems not to have the best interests of children at heart.

When a pro-life supporter wrote to Barnardo’s to enquire about their policy on abortion, this is the response she received in a letter dated 15/1/2019: “At Barnardo’s, our primary focus is to support the UK’s most vulnerable and disadvantaged children, young people and families. We deliver this support through over 900 projects and services across the UK. Some of these services provide information and advice on reproductive health, including assisting service users with access to contraception and providing information around pregnancy and abortion if this is sought. This may involve referrals to organisations or services that provide abortions if requested by the service user after consultation with our specialist nurses. We work to empower our service users to make their own decisions around reproductive health.”

The NSPCC is the charity which now runs ChildLine. The ChildLine website directs young people to organisations which provide contraception and abortion to young people including those under the age of consent and without their parents’ knowledge or consent.

Go to The Children’s Society website and type in “pregnancy” in the search bar and the only result you’ll get is “abortion”.  Once you’re on that page you’re guided straight to abortion provider Marie Stopes. These pages are addressed directly to young people.

The National Children’s Bureau (NCB) is an umbrella group. NCB stated clearly that it was “at the forefront of the campaign that brought about the introduction of compulsory Relationships and Sex Education (RSE) in all secondary schools, and Relationships Education in all primary schools.” The reality of compulsory RSE is that the state has taken over teaching our children about human sexuality and relationships. This is yet another massive wedge that has been driven between children and their parents. And the tragedy is that children always suffer when they are cut adrift from their parents.

Keira Bell is the young women seeking to judicially review what is known as the Gillick competence, which states that children under 16 can consent to their own treatment if a medical professional believes they fully understand what is involved.

Bell, 23, clearly did not feel she was competent: "I was allowed to run with this idea that I had, almost like a fantasy, as a teenager.... and it has affected me in the long run as an adult.”

It is staggering that Barnardo’s and its co-signatories can make a statement proclaiming that if trans children receive the “right support from adults” they can lead “happy and healthy childhoods”.  If their idea of what’s “right” for confused and troubled children is to wreck their lives by pumping sex hormones into them, they won’t get a penny out of me.