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

kelly -seriously, what are you going on about pregnant women who want to be pregnant being told the risk of pregnancy for? You just seem to be going around in circles. You said you were talking about women who were considering abortion a minute ago. It isn't even relevant to the discussion as far as I can see. I'm sorry but I may just have to stop replying to your posts if you keep just going round and round and asking the same questions in different ways unless you are actually trying to make a point.

Bumbleymummy

'Where I live, abortion is only legal when the mother's life is in danger. IMO, if it is possible to preserve both lives eg through premature delivery, then I think that should be the preferred option.'

'Only one side of the debate recognises that there are 2 lives involved, not just 1.'

I had an US at 9 weeks due to a miscarriage Michelle - traditional and then they tried TV just in case my dates were wrong. They did say we should be able to see something with the UV at 9 weeks.

When they cannot see everything. I nearly had to have one quite late on as there was difficulty with the USS for some reason. Besides what do you suggest make them wait until they can be taken for a USS aganst their will, have their tops lifted whilst a stranger performs a medical rpocedure against their will.
And you think doctors should not tell women they are at risk of illness or death from the fact that they are pregnant as this is natural and not a medical procedure. It does not matter that it is natural women have as much right to know the risks as women seeking an abortion. Dorries cannot claim she wants women to have all the information for their own good when the government does not force pregnant women to be informed of the risks. we are told straight away the risks of eating pate, even though that is not a medical procedure why not tell us the risks to our own bodies and lives. It is not just that this is my body, it is my life, and my health and I have a right to be informed by medical staff when it is at risk. Doctors are encouraged to tell people they are too fat and are at risk, they need to do the same with pregnant women. And if this legislation is passed it is going to be very difficult for them to argue they are right not to tell them.

ELNP - thanks for the quote - I do know my own views you know :) Just running a few posts behind.

Hi Wilson. I think people are pretty well aware what my colours are and I don't think I've hidden anything. :) Just because I don't agree with abortion doesn't mean that I think women shouldn't have counselling. TBH it would seem I'm one of the very few here who are FOR counselling. I think the benefit is that it could prevent abortions where the woman is more likely to regret her decision and I think that's a good thing for the mothers and the babies involved. For those who chose to go ahead with the abortion, I don't see how offering counselling would do harm.

So we shoud not tell women who want to be pregnant about the risks, but should tell women who want an abortion about the risks. It is just hypocritical and exposes the Dorries of this world for having a purely anti-abortion agenda.
And you replies do not answer the question or show great holes in your "informed choice" arguement. You want informed choice, but only if it leads to stopping abortions.

Lovely as it has been ladies I have things to do. :)See you later!

Because the counselling is anti-abortion, and is not going to tell women that they are more at risk not having an abortion, and the trainign manual refers to abortion as wicked and uses christian religious terminology. Which apart from anything is discriminatory. Non-christian women should not be offered chirstian based counselling.

Sounds like bumbleymummy's had enough rope to hang herself with

Yes Kelly2000. Which is why Bumbleymummy likes the idea.

If you're anti-abortion then be upfront. There are other posters here who believe abortion is wrong, and though I disagree with them trying to impose their beliefs on other women's bodies, I do respect them as individuals. Having seen the way Bummbleymummy's conducted herself on another thread, I have no respect for her.

Bubbleymummy: 'For those who chose to go ahead with the abortion, I don't see how offering counselling would do harm.'

That would rather depend on the nature of the counselling wouldn't it? Impartial counselling would be fine - but unfortunately, the kind of organisations considered 'independent' by Dorries include very pro-life, religious organisations who have already be found to preach pro-life propaganda to vulnerable women. I notice you didn't comment on the abhorrent language found in the Care Confidential training manual. Probably because you would agree with it.

Since, apparently, you live in a place where abortion is only legal when the mother's life is in danger, you must be very happy there. Kindly leave us, in the UK, to lobby our MP's to keep intact our abortion laws and the woman's right to choose. Those laws were hard-won, and I for one do not want to take any steps, no matter how small, back in time.

I already mentioned her interrogating me on the details of why I wasn't able to arrange an adoption on another thread.

I'm not a fan.

Kelly response from ND's office about Freedom of Info request

^FOI applies to public authorities and both the House of Commons and House of Lords are listed as institutions covered by the Act.

However, the Act does not apply to individual MPs (or peers) or to the information held in their offices and, therefore, MPs are under no statutory obligation to provide the data requested.^

Any idea where to go next? Would it be the register of interests?

I'm interested in the assertion that birth is not a medical procedure, which is what bubbleymummy seems to be suggesting.

In what way can this possibly be true?

Unless you are labouring in the field and give birth totally assisted, giving birth is highly medical procedure for the overwhelming majority of women.

It is also one of the most dangerous things that a woman can undergo.

And I think that more women need to know this.

wow, what a lot of bullying from so-called enlightened and informed women. Whether someone is pro-choice or pro-life, I respect their ability to stick to the facts and sadly that has been extremely lacking on the pro-choice side here.

Why don't you read what Dorries herself has said before putting words into her mouth/trusting twisted media reports? Of course it is unacceptable if she were calling for compulsory counselling by organisations with a pro-life bias. That is not the case. No contracts have been awarded and any organisation found to have pro-life tendencies, as revealed by Newsnight or whoever, is not going to be found up to scratch by the regulator as an offeror of independent advice. So stop fanning flames on a non-existent fire.

I don't know if Dorries indeed has a larger agenda to restrict access to abortion. Lots of politicians have personal views that inform their political aims. That doesn't in iteself make that unable to do good work though.

Whoops - should, of course, have said 'totally unassisted'!

I am certain that is incorrect, MPs have to supply detaisl of themsels in their role as MPs. hang on I will check.

Chandellina - The amendment will prevent Marie Stopes and BPAS from offering the counselling, as they are the organisation performing the abortion, they apparently have the vested interest.

Any other organisations, which are not abortion providers, including religious ones, are deemed 'independent' regardless of whether they have a pro-choice stance or not. Care Confidential deny having a pro-choice stance, even though mystery shopping exercises, and their training manual, have shown the contrary.

Well, I'm not keen to restrict access to legal abortion, but I think it arouses such strong passions in everyone that moves towards impartiality make sese. I'm for 'counselling', not because I think women need information - though I've counselled, and some of them DO, but because I know from experience that such pressures are brought to bear on women that any chance to step back is welcome.

Dorries has said that she wants to prevent charities that offer abortion as part of their services from offering counselling on the basis they will be biased.

She has not said that she wants to prevent anti-abortion charities from offering this service.

That is what it says in her proposals.

That + her idea that this counselling will prevent 60,000 abortions a year kind of points in one direction.

She also wanted to reduce the max no of weeks you can abort.

And was it her who said that sexual abuse of children could be prevented by "girls saying no"?

And was it her who wants abstinence classes in schools - but only for the girls?

How anyone can support this woman is beyond me. Her views are beyond vile.

Counselling alone isn't the issue. It's counselling with an agenda.