MEET Margaret Forrester, 39, a Roman Catholic who, according to the Christian Legal Centre, has become the latest example of “shocking intolerance” towards faith-heads.
Margaret Forrester
Forrester was effectively suspended from her job at the Central North West London Mental Health Trust because she holds anti-abortion views which she “shared” with colleagues, and showed them a booklet detailing the devastating impact of abortion on the lives of some women.
In November she was on a temporary secondment and sat next to two health workers whose job is to advise women on abortions. She felt that women seeking abortions were not given all of the information and alternatives available to help them make an informed decision, so she gave a small booklet to her co-workers called Forsaken.
Soon afterwards she was called into a meeting with her manager with no warning, interrogated over her views and suspended from work. This was then changed to special leave with pay and tshe was required to sit in an office and not work.
She could now be sacked.
Andrea Minichiello Williams, CEO of the Christian Legal Centre, which is supporting Forrester, said:
It is staggering that to voice an opinion to colleagues and pass out a booklet could cost you your job. The level of intolerance in the public sphere, particularly in public sector employment, is deeply worrying and suggests that we are living in less and less of a free society.
Well known research has confirmed that abortion can be harmful to mothers and there is absolutely nothing wrong with voicing that opinion. Women need to be given fully informed consent about the nature of abortion, as the decision to have an abortion will impact their lives forever.
She added:
Fully informed consent means that they need to be made aware of all of the risks of having an abortion including the well documented mental health risks. As well as being bad medical practice, freedom of conscience and freedom of speech are being dramatically curtailed in this case. What kind of society do we want to hand to our children? ‘Forsaken’ is a moderate and simple booklet detailing the personal testimonies of women from Taunton who have attempted to come to terms with their own abortions. We cannot let this kind of intolerance go unchallenged.
These events show the incredible intolerance that is sometimes displayed against Christians and the constant pressure that Christians face in the workplace contrary to their freedom of conscience and freedom of speech.
Forrester  told the Daily Telegraph:
I was treated like a criminal. I was bullied to the point of being physically sick. How can this go on in a civilised country? It’s crazy. Why is it that if you are pro-life you can’t work with patients?
Forrester, a Roman Catholic, came across the booklet during a political rally outside Parliament. She became concerned that the NHS was failing to provide women with adequate information about the consequences of abortion for their future health. As a mental health worker, she claims to have seen patients suffering psychological damage after opting for abortions.
Hat tip: BarrieJohn
I’m not sure I see what she did wrong.
She’s not a “persecuted Christian” – that’s clearly just bollocks. And she is probably guilty of being annoying, and being told to stop by her boss would be a reasonable response.
But being fired for this is a little over the top.
Or at least it is as the facts are currently presented.
David – that’s how these cases put by the Christian Legal Centre often appear at first sight. Unfortunately (depending on one’s point of view), the CLC generally doesn’t present all the facts. For example, I suspect a key issue is what was in this booklet she was passing around.
The booklet is available for £4.50 on the Christian Concern website. I am not curious enough to pay them money.
^^the fact that the booklet is called “forsaken” is probably a dead giveaway to the sort of pro life bullshit she was spouting.
besides mental health support in this country is shit enough as it is without bible bashers preying on people.
Ahah! I thought I recognised the title Forsaken – this is the peculiar document used by Nadine Dorries MP as the basis for some of her claims over abortion.
I seem to remember the organisation who produced it made some claims for charitable status that weren’t all they should have been.
Forsaken
Good link, Bob. Sounds like a suitably unsuitable book to be passing round a mental health trust.
Here’s a similar story:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/22/us-catholic-bishop-hospital-abortion
These people are peddling untruths again. She was not disciplined for passing on the literature, but for her refusal not to do so again in the future!
Ms Forrester, 39, from Battersea, south London, said her managers told her she should not “give materials like this to colleagues at workâ€.
“They asked me the question about whether I would do it again. I said I had not done anything unprofessional or unethical, so yes I would.â€
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8220299/Defiant-Christian-health-worker-refuses-to-stop-handing-out-anti-abortion-book.html
OH ****! They’re based in Taunton. I’ve never felt ashamed of my own town before.
More seriously, yes abortion is a big deal and a proportion of patients have varying degrees of mental trauma afterwards. I’d certainly never advocate making it too easy a decision (though anything that can be done to help with subsequent psychological problems has to be a good thing), but loading a woman up with guilt over the ‘murder’ of a non-existent person is not the way to go about it. Telling her frankly that she may suffer problems with guilt-feelings and so on, and explaining how common this is, possible ways of minimising them, where help can be got and so forth, would be a much better way. And it’s probably much like the methods actually used.
Furthermore, I wonder how many less would suffer guilt problems afterwards if there wasn’t such a huge amount of christian-inspired moralising over said non-existent ‘murder’.
“…showed them a booklet detailing the devastating impact of abortion on the lives of some women.”
Would she have also shared details of how being denied abortions has had a devestating impact on many other lives? Highly doubtful.
Nevertheless, possibly a bit of an over-reaction on the part of her employers. But then again, possibly a similar over-reaction on the part of the increasingly desperate and silly CLC.
I think David and Grumpy Bob are both right in the top comments. Does seem ott but the CLC have a history of presenting their facts with interesting selectivity.
Check out how they reported this story about Duke Amachree in an August press release, then the statements made by Wandsworth Council in July that the CLC chose not to include.
http://www.christianlegalcentre.com/view.php?id=1156
http://www.wandsworthguardian.co.uk/news/4479577.print/
So, she’s guilty of presenting a point of view, barriejohn? Of refusing to stop presenting it? Not even to patients, but just to co-workers? Where’s freedom of speech now?
I am involved in mental health and such people are not hard to find. I won’t go into details as I must respect confidentiality but suffice to say that there are a small but scary number of full on batshit jesus junkies using their work with people, frequently distressed and highly vulnerable, as a personal platform for pushing their religious agenda. It goes way beyond misusing the photocopier, I’ve chanced upon people dangling the carrot of support before people but only if they pray together first, agree to attend stuff out of hours and all manner of dodgy shit which would be an instant sackable offence. It rarely comes out because departments can be very political at the best of times and people close ranks, keep their mouth shut and try to hold on to their job. It’s really not at all unusual.
Creepy as fuck though. Preying on the people they are tasked with supporting. Conditional help is the last thing many patients need, given that conforming to other people’s frequently abusive conditions is often the reason they’re in that situation.
mikespeir:
There’s a difference between presenting evidence-driven research into a problem, and presenting religion-based opinion. It would, I agree, be her job to do the first. The second is unscientific and has no place in the field of medicine.
So, freedom of speech doesn’t extend to religion, Daz? Are her co-workers so simple-minded that they can’t make the distinction between “evidence-driven research” and “religion-based opinion”? Does their need to be shielded officially from the latter trump her right to speak her mind?
I think that I will reserve my opinion on this story until such time as I know all the facts. The CLC have form for presenting only half of a story so that it appears that their victim was fired for no good reason. That is why when they go to court they always lose, because when the full story comes out it proves that they have no case.
mikespeir:
She is free to talk about religion in a social context (and they’re free to ignore her, agree with her, tell her to STFU or whatever). She is not, in the course of her job in a scientific (medical) organisation, supposed to advance unscientific opinion, whether religion-based or not. If there are medical concerns, then she should be able to present more than a religious tract to back up her claims.
I would be smart to do that, too, Stonyground. But apparently I’m not smart. :-7
Daz, I don’t see that you’re dealing with the issue as presented. Is she doing it in the course of her duties? I don’t see that mentioned anywhere. She got in trouble, according to barriejohn, simply for sharing the tract with her coworkers and for saying she would do it again. Now, we probably ought to take Stonyground’s advice and wait for further details. Maybe there really was a good reason for dismissing her, but I haven’t seen it yet.
mikespeir
She is clearly shown as presenting a pamphlet of anecdotes as part of a discussion about the work and how it should be done. That alone should be enough to set alarm bells ringing, regardless of the religiosity, or not, of the organisation producing the pamphlet.
Mikespeir: Maybe her employers are wrong, but she was told that they didn’t want her distributing any more of these booklets and she refused. I think they are within their rights to stand firm on that decision.
“…but she was told that they didn’t want her distributing any more of these booklets and she refused.”
Did I miss this somewhere up above? That changes the whole complexion of the thing. If the co-workers themselves told her not to bother them and she continued, then yes, I agree with the decision.
mikespeir:
Good point. That’s the inference. A pretty strong inference, but not demonstrated fact, I’ll grant.
<speculation>I can’t actually see any other way to read it, though. Knowing the amount of red-tape and legal mumbo-jumbo involved in a disciplinary action, especially going so far as to suspend the employee, it almost has to be either that, or it’s all about something else entirely, and she’s throwing up a ‘victimisation’ smoke-screen.</speculation>
As has been noted on this site, so many times that I have lost count, the religious love to pounce when people are at their weakest. Just recently the case of the miners in Chile, who someone thought needed a bible at several hundred feet underground.
If I was in hospital and a member of staff said to me ‘You are about to have an abortion but what about the impact on your soul?’ I would rip that person apart. People are in hospitals to get well not to be pounced on by opportunistic vultures.
As for playing the victim card it would be too lazy to mention the crusades, all of them, or the inquisition, again too easy. In the last 20 years alone the followers of christ have been up to their armpits in blood in Northern Ireland, Rwanda and Kosovo, and that’s just off the top of my head. So when people like this woman screams ‘victim’ I am afraid I could not give a proverbial fuck.
Is that a “mental health” worker, or a mental “health worker”?
Having been raised a Catholic in a deeply* pro-life household, I recall booklets of the ilk of Forsaken and their completely fabricated histrionics. They tend to be 99% fiction, telling you what god and angels and demons are up to and full of blanket statements about how “countless” women feel awful and kill themselves after being tempted into aborting their baby just so they could fit into a dress at their sister’s wedding. Then there’s 1% of actual information, misquoted, mined and cherry-picked, with the suggestion there are reams of data elsewhere to back up such bullshit.
Long story short, these booklets are full of opportunistic lies that are damaging, distressing and hold no place in medicine. Someone saying privately to colleagues “I don’t agree with abortion” or even “I think we don’t emphasise the psychological effects of abortion enough” are perfectly fine, though from what I’ve read what is often not emphasised is that there are women who feel great relief and peace after it is over. However, when a colleague brings up extremist pamphlets that are based on nothing but wild theological fantasies, and starts using them as a platform to suggest they change the way they do their job as mental health workers, I would be very concerned. I don’t think they are disciplining and potentially sacking this woman because she is religious, I think it is because they are concerned she is mentally incapacitated and incapable of performing her duties without damaging someone else. If there’s a danger a health worker would ever present this kind of material to someone suffering mental health issues after an abortion, I would fire them on the spot. This isn’t about freedom of speech or putting religion in its place, it’s about being able to do the job required, and this woman is clearly compromised in her abilities.
*When you proclaim some belief is held deeply, it means you think you are allowed to force it on other people.
Ignoring the usual bullshit about being persecuted because of religion, I object to the description of her as “pro-life”. She is not and we should not pander to these people and let them set the terms of the debate. She is “anti-abortion” which is a totally different concept and she should be described as such.
Well said, Graham. For too long religion has been allowed to frame the debate and argue from a presupposed moral high ground that they have built on the sand of simply being religious.
It is nauseating that those who claim to be “Pro life” are the same people who support the death penalty and the slaughter of abortionists.
My Mother spent a few years as a Sister on a hospital ward that did terminations. She often had to call the security guards to remove the religious nutters who somehow found their way in.
She was indeed asked to stop but she refused.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8220299/Defiant-Christian-health-worker-refuses-to-stop-handing-out-anti-abortion-book.html
Another idiot whining about how persecuted she was because she refused to follow her employer’s requests. Boo-hoo.
I posted that link earlier, Harry, with the quote. The Mail is giving a slightly different impression, more in line with the claims of the CLC. There may indeed be even more to this story, but I believe that her employers were within their rights to ask her to desist from distributing that kind of material amongst her colleagues. As with the wearing of little crosses, handing out religious tracts is not a fundamental requirement of the Christian faith!
Daz said,
“More seriously, yes abortion is a big deal and a proportion of patients have varying degrees of mental trauma afterwards. I’d certainly never advocate making it too easy a decision (though anything that can be done to help with subsequent psychological problems has to be a good thing), but loading a woman up with guilt over the ‘murder’ of a non-existent person is not the way to go about it.”
My point of view as well. Depending upon their upbringing, and the intensity of maternal instinct, there is a great deal of anecdotal evidence that some women wear an emotional scar for life. But, go figure, after abortion became legal in the US, there was a crossection of women who didn’t like condoms, and were wary of the pill, who would go every three months or so, and get an abortion. At family planning clinics it was a $75 procedure.
While I believe the human population of this planet is too big, and no safe remedy should be dismissed, such decisions should be made on a case by case basis. Women who are unsure of which path is right for them have many options for SEEKING advice. Having religious opinions thrust upon them is not a viable solution.
Last thought. At my work place, if I made fun of someone for reading a bible at breaktime, I would be fired forth with. Conversely, in the workplace, let the fundies keep their goatherder mythology to themselves.
NeoWolfe
“But, go figure, after abortion became legal in the US, there was a crossection of women who didn’t like condoms, and were wary of the pill, who would go every three months or so, and get an abortion. At family planning clinics it was a $75 procedure.”
Fuck off NeoWolfe, yeah you don’t like women, we get it. Your bullshit is boring and this is a crap story you’re vomiting up without substantiating evidence.
I love you too, Anonymous. Where’s your evidence?
It was simply a comparison between cases of women who feel a life changing horror when they undergo an abortion, and other women who consider it routine.
But, your response reveals much about you. Exactly what was it I said that led you to believe I don’t like women? I was being empathetic, understanding that maternal instincts are a built in function. A decision for an abortion must necessarily collide with that instinct. I was respecting the woman’s right to decide. And if she is confused, to seek advice.
And therefore, like atheists who are antisemitist, or white supremacist, that think that just because they don’t believe in god, that they are freethinker, I strongly suspect you are an asshole.
NeoWolfe
@ Neowolfe
“…a crossection of women bla bla bla …”
Sources, please.
@Uzza
Like you, I would be interested in these. Every three months? This beggars belief but who knows? Let us see what Neowolfe provides.
NeoWolfe:
Thanks for the “agreement”. Next time, please don’t say things like that if you’re going to then associate my point with unsubstantiated tabloid-like stories, eh? If such a ‘cross-section’ exists, I’d imagine it to be a tiny number of outliers on the graph. Got sources? Preferably with actual numbers, not just a couple of anecdotal headlines or sob-stories.
Going for an abortion every 3 months and never even considering the less painful option of having a coil or similar fitted?
Kind of on topic and kind of not. I just found a great quote:
Found at wikiquotes. I’ve never heard of the bloke, but he’s got a great eye for a sharp quip.
If you can be bothered to track your way back about three layers through Forsaken’s fairly pitiful attempts at astroturf (setting up fake ‘grassroots community organisations’ – a fairly common PR stunt)you’ll come to an organisation called ‘Care Confidential’, which is an offshoot of CARE (Christian Action for Research and Education). I think CARE’s stance on, for example, retaining Section 28 and opposing civil partnerships is a matter of public record. For example, you can probably still find their submission to a public consultation on a CP Bill on the Westminster website. They have an equally long record of lobbying and ‘advising’ on other matters of ‘Christian conscience’, for example, assisted suicide, so it follows that they’d be poking their noses in on abortion too.
As for Forsaken’s crapulous little pamphlet being available
at CCON – how much intellectual weight would you give to a publication sold by an organisation whose only academic ‘partner’ is Oral Roberts University?
Daz,
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1238612/Girls-using-abortion-birth-control.html. I wasn’t writing a thesis, but since you insist, here is your footnote. In the future can you use your search engine before you doubt my word.
NeoWolfe
We shouldn’t doubt your word? What are you, God? We doubt your word because you’re full of shit, and you couldn’t prove it any better than providing a cheap tabloid article, about the wrong country.
Your source is the Mail Online? Seriously?
“it has been claimed”
“exact details remain hidden from public scrutiny”
“Campaigners say”
“Pro-life campaigners argue”
Not a single one of the claims you made is supported by this piece. Use your own advice and use a search engine. Start with US and UK, you’ll find they’re not the same.
Uzza,
First I’m accused of inventing facts. As though there are no women who use abortion as contraception. Then when I present proof, I got the country wrong. I must then prove that UK women are the same as US women. I think this is the appropriate point where you blow me.
NeoWolfe
‘Ignoring the usual bullshit about being persecuted because of religion, I object to the description of her as “pro-lifeâ€. She is not and we should not pander to these people and let them set the terms of the debate. She is “anti-abortion†which is a totally different concept and she should be described as such.’
Agreed. This Christmas day I went to help out in an ‘orphanage’ full of very young children produced by working-class women and girls, who are unable to afford a backstreet rusty coathanger job, and so are condemned to give birth to a baby they didn’t want under the anti-abortion laws of the Asian country in which I work. Nearly everyone working with the kids that day was a foreigner like me from countries where abortion is legal. The people who want to keep anti-abortion laws in place don’t give a shit what happens to the children as soon as the nine months in utero are over. They’re important when they’re a foetus, but as soon as they are an actual born human being, they become irrelevant. If these anti-choicers want to be described as ‘pro-life’, here are some things they could do, not just here but across the board:
1) Work with the children produced by these unplanned pregnancies.
2) Adopt them.
3) Do something to assist single mothers.
4) Help with contraceptive advice. Prevention’s got to be better than ‘cure’, right? The easiest way to prevent abortions is to make sure everyone knows how to avoid unplanned pregnancies.
3) Give money to fostering organisations or children’s homes where kids such as this live. The weather has been brutally cold for ages but the children have only just been able to get hold of winter coats thanks to a charitable donation.
This would all be genuinely pro-choice, but sadly it’s just too much work for these maniacs, who prefer leaping up and down screaming outside clinics in Western countries, and using religion as a tool of repression elsewhere and in Ireland.
“pro-life”? no my dear, you’re “anti-choice”. why do monotheists go into these jobs? surely their aims as good christians should be to help people, not cloud their judgement. and for these “anti-choicers”, i do not see them setting up free childcare and support for these mothers from the god botherers!