Bid in Lords to overturn move to decriminalise abortion for women

She had to wait a week until the next oncology list, probably not a lot to you but bloody awful for her. Remember you don't get booked for surgery as soon as you're diagnosed. She had already sat the with the fear of leaving her children behind while she waited on scans and MDT and a treatment plan, only to finally have a treatment date and be cancelled because of an archaic law. As I said, it didn't endanger her life but who's benefit was it in? Are you a man by any chance? You seem very unempathetic to actual womens experiences so I'm sure you'll be along to say it's not that bad to have your cancer treatment delayed, but as someone who watched her go through that it was heartbreaking.

I wanted a clear answer from you. Now that I have it, how long was the delay?

PP also shared with you examples of supporting a law change because of inappropriate and unnecessary investigation into women who have had a natural miscarriage

One of those cases mentioned in the article was dodgy as hell. In all cases, police don’t investigate unless the medical professionals report it—and I don’t think they’d report unless there’s some compelling evidence of wrongdoing. But maybe you are more suspicious of medical professionals than I am.

Yes my issue is in the delay and distress it caused and the law overriding the common sense approach of her decision and her HCP medical advise, who's benefit was that in? Unless you've had to have cancer surgery and have children you're scared to leave behind, perhaps you can't relate because you seem to be belittling it as irrelevant that they had to go through red tape rather than proceed with her care. I'm surprised because that sort of dismissal, lack of empathy and coldness toward others is much closer to what I'd expect from the likes of Carla and what you're condemning about her for than to someone who actually cares about women and their lives. Basically "yeah this was distressing but it was necessary because I think women are gonna start murdering their toddlers so shut up"

Your friend was able to access a termination,
was she not? Was your complaint in the delay? What specifically is your issue?

Well many think we do need to change the law and I've given you examples of why that you refuse to engage with to explain your position. For example, in cases like my friends a change to the law would have prevented unnecessary distress in an already horrible situation and prevented a delay in her cancer treatment, that's a reason why some people support a law change. PP also shared with you examples of supporting a law change because of inappropriate and unnecessary investigation into women who have had a natural miscarriage. Instead you don't want to actually engage with why some support a law change you only want to leap to the extreme rare cases like Carla which shows your reasoning isn't based in logic or fact it's based on scaremongering and emotive examples.

You didn’t need to change the law at all. Now it will protect people like Carla Foster.

And yet she's still an extremely rare case, she is not the rule and yet you still haven't answered where is the benefit of people being at risk of prosecution in the vast majority of cases? When my friend could not simply go ahead with her surgery, where was the benefit?

Coming from the poster who equated decriminalisation of abortion with the slippery slope for women abandoning their children into the streets or committing infanticide because they all go hand in hand but you're not overly emotional or factually incorrect at all ...

Had they agreed to carry out the termination and still not monitored her for sepsis, while preparing for/ carrying out the termination, the termination alone would not have saved her life.
Yes bad aftercare could cause sepsis, as it can with any procedure but I don't see how that relevant to the actual scenario though which is she developed sepsis form RPOC? She developed sepsis from an inevitable miscarriage that was never going to be a successful pregnancy, where is the benefit to the patient, the doctors or the public from there being a risk of prosecution for performing an abortion for a failed miscarriage?

I'm also not overly emotional just because I'm talking about real life difficult situations that occur when the emotive prolife stance has real world consequnces.

They had to wait either for the heartbeat to stop or her life to be at risk from infection which would be the case once she had RPOC. Regardless of the e coli, her pregnancy was an inevitable miscarriage that hadn't completed yet. She had asked for an abortion because of her concern of sepsis already and ithe procedure was denied it and she died because it was too late. None of this would have happened if she wasn't restricted from accessing an abortion until an immediate risk to life and instead was a decision to be made by her and the HCP solely. Whether the hospital could have done better or not doesn't mean that she wouldn't have objectively been safer if the risk of prosecution and the requirements of immediate risk to life wasn't preventing doctors from offering her a lifesaving procedure. Did you ever hear Debbie Reynolds talk about her stillborn? When you insert the law into women's healthcare, doctors can't act in their patients best interests :
www.today.com/parents/debbie-reynolds-abortion-roe-v-wade-clip-rcna36562

Getting overly emotional and being factually innacurate mimics the pro life stance

This right here is what bothers me about the pro-choice movement as of late. Literally nobody but the most fringe activists wanted a law like this … it’s like giving the pro-life movement something to advocate for that most normal people actually agree with—why the FUCK would you do that?

To prevent it would have required people to have some foresight over pills by post, however she should have served out her prison term.

All medical proceedures take time.

Had they agreed to carry out the termination and still not monitored her for sepsis, while preparing for/ carrying out the termination, the termination alone would not have saved her life.

My point is, it was not a simple yes/ no scenario. Treating her for sepsis is more likely to saved saved her life than a termination.

Both should have been carried out.

Terminations are not just healthcare. Sometimes its a choice.
Getting overly emotional and being factually innacurate mimics the pro life stance.

They did not have to wait for the heartbeat to stop if they had realised a mother was at risk.

She was admitted to hospital on the Sunday and blood tests were taken which showed she had a urinary tract (E.coli) infection. It was this infection which probably caused the spontaneous miscarriage on the Wed and sepsis and death a few days later. Crucially, her consultant didn’t access her blood results until Wed but said if she had seen them sooner would have performed an abortion Mon or Tues. Blood spectrum antibiotics were only given from Weds. It was too late.

I just don't think it's helpful to extrapolate from a a very rare and by the sounds of it sad case all round to the issue at large and make hyperbolic statements that decriminalisation of abortion equates to decriminalising people murdering or abandoning their toddlers. I don't see how the current law prevented Carlas case at all either.

Her life wasn't immediately at risk because she hadn't yet miscarried, she would inevitably miscarry this pregnancy because the sac was outside of the womb. The decision to not allow her an abortion was not a medical opinion it was because they risked breaking the law if they did not wait for the heartbeat to stop, even though this put her at risk of sepsis.

But cases like Carla Foster’s should be condemned and prevented, no? And yet so many defended her—she wasn’t a scared teenager, she did it to save a failing relationship. Literally for a man.

Abortion was legal if the mother’s life was at risk. When they refused the abortion they thought it wasn’t. If they thought it was at risk then it would have been legal to abort.

Which case are you talking about?

Because they were afraid of being prosecuted by acting illegally and terminating while the foetus still had a heartbeat though, that's the point, they were waiting for the heartbeat to stop. Yes they could have monitored her more intensely but that still wouldn't have guaranteed she wouldn't have developed an infection because that's always an urgent risk form RPOC and they were forced to wait until this inevitable miscarriage became RPOC instead of "a life", even though it has no potential to continue as a pregnancy.

What is your specific complaint in her situation? That she didn’t get this abortion fast enough?

The enquiry found they didn’t assess or monitor her properly and they didn’t adhere to clinical guidelines around sepsis management. That’s why I said ‘seem to’…if they knew they certainly weren’t acting on that knowledge properly.

They did know it was coming, sepsis is always a risk from retained products on conception. Savita asked for an abortion because of her concerns of contacting an infection from RPOC and the doctors explained they legally weren't allowed to.

They didn’t seem to know it was coming. The hospital failed terribly.