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

X posts chandellina

Hi chandellina I agree. I'm massively pro-choice, which for me means giving all women who want them access to abortions, whatever the reason for the pregnancy. I try not to judge, but... it's not my body, and therefore not my business.

Thank fuck for that. Is it a free vote?

Bumbley, the abortion in question was at 14 weeks. I absolutely would not advocate any abortion over 24 weeks, and nor would the Law.

There are other reasons besides how many weeks it was that make people uncomfortable, Goldfish, as chandellina also pointed out.

Good article. I think the clear point we can take from it is that the bill seeks to completely dismantle the existing system without any assurances or funding provided for a replacement - and that even number 10 is seriously worried by this prospect.

For those people on this thread concerned about the lack of current counselling - that's hardly going to improve if the very organisations who currently DO provide counselling are actively prevented from continuing to do so.

There's nothing to stop organisations setting up as counsellors now, if they want to and have the charitable funds and inclination to do so. Stopping this bill does nothing to stop the possibilities of charities stepping up to provide more counselling.

Actually abortion is legal until birth if the mother's life is in danger, though this is very rare.

Abortion for medical reasons can legally take place up to term btw and a cleft palate is considered a medical reason. You have drawn your line at 24 weeks but some staunch pro-choicers believe that it should be a woman's right to terminate right up to term for any reason.

"For those people on this thread concerned about the lack of current counselling - that's hardly going to improve if the very organisations who currently DO provide counselling are actively prevented from continuing to do so."

Quite

Chandellina, that was a good point about the multiple embryos in the US. What is the limit in the UK? Why do they allow so many in the US?

I don't think the idea was to stop all counselling without there being a replacement so surely that is a bit of a non-issue.

No, the idea was to replace all current counselling with counselling by pro--life companies.

Bumbly- Some pro-choicers can believe what they like - but as it is not supported in Law, I will not concern myself with it.

No empusa, that is what some people assumed it would be.

So why attempt to get rid of the current counselling?

So what happens when the law changes goldfish? Or what about the abortions that are allowed later in other countries? Or the ones that are allowed for cleft palates? Do you not concern yourself with them either?

Empusa - I guess the reasoning was that it couldn't be considered impartial if it was coming from abortion providers.

Nice try, Bumbley.

I am very relieved about the government u-turn on this - I think that the Guardian article says that the outcome of the vote is still uncertain, but at least it won't be a foregone conclusion.

Which is flawed logic. As they are not "for profit" organisations. And no one who has that little grasp of logic should be in a position to have their plans given any consideration.

"I don't think the idea was to stop all counselling without there being a replacement"

Yes; the bill proposed does stop the counselling currently on offer because most of the current providers are specifically prevented from continuing to do so.

In terms of future provision it specifies "independent" counselling but does very little to outline how that will be defined, ensured or funded.

How is this magical perfect counselling supposed to materialise out of thin air, when, in the meantime, the existing system is in the bin?

? Goldfish

Tyv, yes, stop one but provide another. I'm glad you pointed out that the independent counselling wasn't specifically defined. It just shows that most people on this thread are arguing against a hypothetical situation - nothing was confirmed.

Yes but Bumbley you don't legislate on a wink and a nod.

You can't just airily say "oh we'll ban this and and a replacement will work itself out - it'll be fine tra la la"

It's a stupid, ill-thought out bill and a pig-in-a-poke in that no-one knows quite what they would be letting themselves in for by supporting it.

And by supporting it you are arguing FOR a hypothetical situation.

You have absolutely NO evidence that a new system would be better - or even adequate. It might be far, far worse. And even the possibility of a far worse situation makes this bill dangerous.

The independent counselling was only defined in that it could not be provided by abortion provider, and on Dorries' blog she said non-religious (But I haven't seen non-religious specified elsewhere). I found it worrying that this was the only definition - as it would allow the existing pro-life organisations to do the counselling. Of course this is not definite yet, and hopefully won't ever be - that is why we are protesting it. It would be a bit late to start protesting it after the amendment had become law.

When it comes to laws and amendments being passed, you do have to examine the outcome before it becomes set in law, so yes, we are talking about a hypothetical situation. One that we don't want to come to pass.

Empusa, if it is genuinely impartial then I don't see why anyone would object to it or seek to stop it. There must be some reason why the current system is seen as being flawed. No one was able to clarify earlier whether a doctor who performs abortions is contracted to do so by the NHS (so gets paid regardless of how many patients he sees) or whether abortion is an additional service that gets paid for separately (similar to how gps are paid) - which could potentially cause a conflict of interest.

This doesn't mean that I think that doctors are pulling women off the street to give them abortions before someone jumps on me (again) but just that they they may be seen to just provide the woman with what they originally come looking for (abortion) without discussing the alternatives in any great detail.