To ask pro-choice MNers to email your MPs? <this is not a request to vote on anything>

[EricNorthmansMistressOfPotions]

There is an article here about the proposed amendments to the health and social care bill which will force women to undergo 'independent' counselling before being allowed to choose to terminate a pregnancy. The assumption is that BPAS and the like have a financial investment in encouraging women to terminate and as such their counselling is biased. The stated goal is to reduce the number of terminations per year by forcing women to delay between seeking and receiving termination, and having to undergo additional counselling (political bias unknown, though easily guessed at) prior to the termination. ND hopes that woman will change their minds during this enforced extended waiting period.

If you think this is a shit idea you can email your MP by clicking this link

This is not a request to vote on anything at all

I am appalled that anyone would want to slow down the process. Appalled.

Bubble you need to drop this, seriously. Women may well feel NO guilt about their termination at all - but of course they will be emotionally distressed by seeing a scan. Doesn't mean that keeping the baby is the right choice for them. Why would you want to punish them for seeking an abortion, because that is what you are suggesting.

bumbleymummy - because the only purpose that showing a women who wants an abortion a scan is to say, 'look, here's your baby. It's alive and moving. Do you still want to go ahead with your abortion?'

What other purpose is there, in showing them the scan? Am I missing something? I'm genuinely curious; not trying to be antagonistic.

Wilson, Why would they be emotionally distressed if they knew what they are doing anyway? According to most people yesterday women are well aware of what abortion is and what it involves. Are you now suggesting that they don't actually understand the reality of it and need to be sheltered from it to allow them to go through with it?

Tilly, yes, I reckon that is the idea. To make sure that the women are aware of the reality of what they are doing. If they are, then why would they be affected by it - it's not showing them anything they don't already know. If they aren't then it ensures that they are actually making an informed decision that they do not/will not regret.

Of course the women know what they're doing. The scan is there purely to guilt them into changing their mind. That's what's wrong with it. It's nothing to do with being informed. I watched a video of a tonsillectomy on youtube thinking it's better to be prepared. Was it hell. It scared the bejesus out of me, when actually the procedure was fine. All I needed to know was that by the end I would be tonsil free. I really didn't need to see it in all it's glory. It's a glib comparison, but there you go. There's no need to show women a scan if they don't want to see it. Your assumption, again, is that women are a bit stupid and obviously don't understand what they're actually doing. A bit patronising don't you think?

Why will they be emotionally distressed - oh perhaps because they are full of hormones and the person showing them the scan is from an organisation whose intent is to reduce the number of abortions so will be looking on disapprovingly?

Women seeking abortians are not heartless bitches, of course it may be emotionally distressing seeing a scan, and you know it Bumble.

The purpose of putting them through that has nothing to do with helping them make an informed choice, it's about guilting them into changing their mind and that is abhorrent.

And fWIW many women having abortions have already got children. How can you argue they are uniformed?

"To make sure that the women are aware of the reality of what they are doing. If they are, then why would they be affected by it"

To my mind there are two types of women who get abortions.

• those who use it as some form of passive, post-coital 'contraception'; the types that pro-lifers get particularly het up about

• everyone else, i.e. women from all walks of life, who've found themselves in an untenable position and who just want it over. As quickly as possible.

Do you really think that the sorts of people who don't give a hoot about contraception and have multiple abortions are really going to be bothered, let alone swayed, by a fuzzy image on a screen?

As for the others, well, all you're going to achieve is to make a miserable woman feel even more rotten about the situation she finds herself in.

You're the one who is so keen to ostensibly protect women's feelings and ensure they don't make a decision which they will regret and yet you're happy to make a difficult, unhappy situation even more traumatic for them. I'm not sure how that works.

You say: 'if women are aware of the reality, then why would they be affected by it?'

Seriously....?? Presumably you think the 'type of woman' who goes for an abortion is some uncaring, unfeeling wench. I'm actually quite gobsmacked. Just because someone has chosen and is going through an abortion, doesn't mean they're blasé about it, or unaffected. It's one of the most horrible situations to find yourself in; no-one relishes it or treats it like a trip to the dentist.

Of course you're (generic) affected by it, even if you don't regret it for a second. All you seemingly want to do is make women feel worse about something which they want or need to go ahead with regardless.

Abortion has been going on since time immemorial - nothing but nothing will stop a women from terminating a pregnancy if that is what she wants. But yes, let's at least ensure women feel as bad as they possibly can about the situation.

Booboo - If they know what they are doing then the scan isn't showing them anything new. If they don't feel guilty about it when they know what it involves then why would a scan make them feel guilty? Unless they can't face the reality of it which suggests that it isn't a truly informed choice. If they do feel guilty looking at the scan isn't it better to have the opportunity to change their mind if they want to rather than feeling guilty afterwards when they can't do anything about? At the very least know exactly how they do feel about it before they go ahead so if they do feel some emotion/guilt they can decide if they can live with it. I see it as ensuring it is an informed choice not an attempt at emotional blackmail.

whether you agree with independent counselling or not, can we TRY to stick to the facts, which is that the amendment proposes merely OFFERING independent counselling - IT WOULD NOT BE COMPULSORY and would not delay access to abortion. All you have to do is say - NO THANK YOU.

From the horse's (Nadine Dorries) mouth:

I will say it again, the compulsion will be on the GP to offer counselling, the woman has no obligation to accept that offer.

The counselling would be available within days. Given that there is around a two week wait for an abortion, there would be no delay to accessing abortion. Counselling will be no more compulsory after the amendment is accepted than it is today. But it will be fairer and no organisation with any financial benefit from the decision a woman takes will be able to help her reach that decision.

I haven't said anyone is a heartless bitch or anything similar...sigh (again)

Thank you chandellina for clearing that up. It doesn't sound like a bad idea to me.

I never said you did bumble. I am saying they are not, that they aren't robots and that forcing them through an unnecessary scan could cause emotional damage even though their choice to terminate is the correct one for them.

Can you answer my question please bumble? How is a woman who is already a mother naive and uninformed enough to justify such action?

and just to respond to a few recent comments - I would assert that the vast majority of women, with children or not, have no idea what an embryo looks like on an ultrasound at 6 or 8 weeks. Most women in this country are not offered a scan until 12 weeks. As stated previously, there is still a misinformed impression that an embryo is "just a clump of cells" in the early stages. That is not the case and there is a discernible "baby" shape from around 6 weeks, with a heartbeat. If that awareness didn't give any women seeking abortion pause, I would be very surprised. And maybe fervent pro-choicers don't like that reality - that there is a discernible baby shape - but it is A FACT. We can't pretend that abortion is something more benign than it is. That doesn't mean women shouldn't have access to it and the right to choose, simply that they should understand what is going on in their own body when they do so.

Also, not all women fall into the two camps neatly divided by Tilly. There are many women who find themselves pregnant with mixed feelings, maybe they wanted a baby but not yet. Maybe they aren't sure how their partner really feels. Maybe they don't understand the ramifications of an abortion now if they are in their mid-30s and may not be able to get pregnant again. These are not outlandish scenarios. So what is the harm of asking all women if they want some counselling? Anyone can say NO.

For the record, I am absolutely pro-choice but wholly support more information and counselling for women considering abortion.

Shakira, not ALL women who have abortions are mothers. There are very few medical procedures that will just assume knowledge of something before going ahead.

Women choose to abort because they cannot have or do not want the end product of the pregnancy, ie a baby to care for and raise.
And discussion about them being fully informed should revolve around baby care, support available for their situation etc. Helping then to decide whether or not having a baby at that point in their lives is at all viable for them.
My point is they know dam well what they are aborting, a developing baby. A baby they do not want in their lives for a multitude of reasons.
So how on earth is forcing them to see it ikle tiny hear rear anything but a stick to beat them with? Whether they are 6, 12, or 18 weeks pregnant it doesn't matter, it's the 9 months term baby they don't want.

Heart beat

"There are very few medical procedures that will just assume knowledge of something before going ahead."

There are equally few medical procedures that force a patient to have a medically unnecessary investigation against their wishes.

In any case this is an irrelevant point because a scan is not what's proposed with this legislation.

Chandellina, I think lots of people would support better access to counselling.

If that was the issue perhaps the government would be better to increase funding for mental health provision and counselling for people who want it and are therefore in a better position to benefit from it?

Since they are not proposing any extra funding I think people have a right to be suspicious about where this extra funding would come from and what strings would be attached.

And since Dorries has expressly said that her intention with this bill is to decrease the number of abortions, I think those suspicions are probably well founded.

Shakira - if only everyone was so certain of their choices. I disagree it is so clear cut though for at least SOME women. Look at all the angst on these boards on whether to plan to have a first, second, third or fourth child - the decision is made even tougher when it is not planned. I also disagree that most women know what they are aborting. There is still a great deal of misinformation and misunderstanding out there on how women's monthly cycles work, much less what happens when they do conceive.

youngvisitor - i dont' see anything wrong with reducing the number of abortions - i personally think more attention should be on contraception education. abortions are not a cheap thing for the taxpayer to fund. (nor is pregnancy of course). it also wouldn't be a bad thing IMO if more women chose to carry their children and offer them for adoption. It is very difficult to adopt in this country, yet that could be the best option for some pregnant women who don't want to abort but don't want to raise a child either.
mental health is a separate issue but of course access to counselling there is also needed.

"We can't pretend that abortion is something more benign than it is. "

Benign? I don't think anyone on this thread is claiming that an abortion is benign iin any way

Of course it would be great if the number of unwanted pregnancies went down - but not if it's at the cost of women being persuaded into making choices they are not happy with.

Putting in legislation at the point of access to abortion smacks of trying to change the figures by reducing access - it does nothing to help reduce the number of women in the situation in the first place.