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

My MP has finally replied - he says "I am writing to inform you that I agree with your concerns about these possible amendments and intend to vote against them.. I will however be away on Parliamentary Select Committee business on 6 September."

So... does that mean he would vote against them if he was there, but as he isn't there, he can't, or does he get a postal vote?

I can't quite believe that I'm defending DC, but I imagine that, given his background, he'd be fairly pro-choice.

I don't imagine many 17yo Etonians actually wanting their girlfriend to continue with a pregnancy, basically.

Posh teenage girls do get pregnant. But rarely do they have babies.

My MP will vote against.

She also made a fair point that this amendment is taking up time that should be spent debating the wider impact of the reforms of the NHS contained in the Health and Social Care Bill as they only have 2 days on the whole bill.

I suspect ND doesn't care about stifling debate on changes to the NHS to pursue her her negative agenda but I would have expected Frank Field to give a damn.

I'd call ND a fucking nutter, but I was brought up to not mock the afflicted.

Kelly, I did actually say the doctor was from the US and I didn't say killing the baby was legal anywhere - just pointing out that it does happen, even if it isn't legal. ( once again, not saying it is what happened in Dorries example)

"Saying abortion should be banned as if it is legal some people might do other illegal things makes no sense."

Where did I say this?

MyGoldfish - I haven't overlooked it but it's pretty clear it's all just speculation. Dorries clearly had an independent organisation in mind that isn't religious according to that quote from her blog. Would you approve of them? If there is a genuinely impartial organisation offering advice then what would be the issue with stopping the advice from Marie Stopes and BPAS? Surely there'd be no need for them?

Good luck with contacting the lovely Nadine, she is my local MP and a more self serving opportunistic woman it would be hard to find. She will NOT respond to anything which doesn't suit her agenda, two attempts already on other issues have proved this to me. One day she will be at the top, be very afraid.

Bumbley, did you not read Chaz's post on the poor quality of the wording of the amendment?

Saying it is merely speculation doesn't stop it being a possibility - and actually highly probable considering Dorries' political agenda. Vulnerable pregnant women need protecting against this possibility.

Janey, poor you on the Nadine as MP front. It has been reported that she threatens her constituents with the police if they write to her more than once on a topic that she doesn't like (immigration in that case).

I am a BACP-registered (not accredited yet though) counsellor. I have no idea where this 'prohibited from working withl pregnant women' line is coming from - utter rubbish, of course we do! Or does Dorries mean BPAS don't employ BACP counsellors? Seems most unlikely.

I am a nurse in one of these 'abortion clinics'.

Just today I saw a lady who had consented to an early medical abortion (tablets pre 9wks). I was seeing her for her second visit to the clinic, for her first tablet. She had been asked on her first visit by a Councillor, then a nurse, if she had considered her choices, and yes, she wanted an abortion. As I went to put the tablet in her hand she broke down crying. Turns out she wasn't sure, but she hadn't realised until it came to the act. I sat with her for half an hour while we chatted about the support she had in place that would help her with continuing with the pregnancy and she left without having taken the tablet.

Do I have a vested interest in encouraging abortion? Do doctors have a vested interest in people being ill? Of course not!!! We're offering an essential service, for women who have made a choice.

Thanks for posting that Frank. No need to ask you how you feel about the slander assumption that because you work for an abortion provider you can't possibly be impartial then?

I get incensed by the comments and assumptions made by those such as ND. If she was a foster carer who put the plight of abused and unwanted children into the political agenda as much as she does this I might have a bit more sympathy.

Do I think people should be helped and encouraged to address their contraceptive needs, yes. Do I think everyone that gets pregnant should have a baby, no.

What's wrong with Marie Stopes and BPAS? Bumbley?

Just curious what advice they would give that wasn't independent? Is anyone suggesting that they insist that abortion is the only option or something? (genuine question)

I keep returning to the old saying 'if it ain't broke why fix it?' Do we desperately need more children? Have we suddenly eradicated poverty? We now celebrate the single mother? Are no pregnancies resulting from rape or coercion? Or is the state becoming the moral guide to our women? The same state that doesn't put enough money to keep the elderly warm through winter, the disabled bus services and other vital resources to enable them to have a full life, that very same State that allows children to live below the poverty line, children carry guns, drug addicted parents to hang onto their children, what fucking moral high ground can the State stand upon here?

And if it is not to sit in moral judgment why are they changing anything about abortion practice? I just can't work it out.

The only thing I can come up with is that Dorries fancies herself as a British Palin? Well Dorries there ain't no snow, there's no tea party and you're not a MILF.

likes Posie's last post

Posie, I didn't say there was anything wrong with them, just that counselling from them wouldn't be necessary if there was a completely impartial source available. Tbh I don't see how the term 'independent' could be interpreted as only excluding abortion providers and not pro-life organisations and it seems that she has said several times that she does not intend that to be the case. Once again, I don't know much about her but, taking the proposal at face value, it does not sound like a bad idea.

Did not want to join the discussion but is it not ironic that women are clamoring for greater access to fertility treatment and at the same time campaigning for the right to abort their so called 'unwanted' babies without independent counseling?

This is interesting.

Published in the British Journal of Psychiatry:

?Overall, the results revealed that women who had undergone an abortion experienced an 81 per cent increased risk of mental health problems, and nearly 10 per cent of the incidence of mental health problems were shown to be directly attributable to abortion.?

@ kelly2000 who said 'Abortion at 24 weeks is not allowed on demand. It is allowed up to 24 weeks if the foetus is deformed, and from 24 weeks if there is a serious risk to the mother. '

Abortion allowed from 24 weeks if there is a serious risk to the mother? Well how is this serious risk defined? Is it danger to life or is it something more 'serious like it would wreck her career chances, ruin her marriage, pose financial difficulties? Truth be told these so called pro choice organizations encourage women to terminate without reflecting on the long term effects of abortion. And why would they not, agencies like Marie Stopes get paid for the number of abortions they perform. What shambles!

As opposed to the mental health issues for both parent and child bringing up an unwanted child in difficult circumstances, or giving a child up for adoption.
Stop being facile.

Dhokotera: I don't understand why its ironic? The point of being pro-choice is for women to have all the options available to them when it comes to reproduction and to be able to choose the option that is right for them.

Bumblemummy: A 2008 systematic review of the medical literature on abortion and mental health found that high-quality studies consistently showed few or no mental-health consequences of abortion, while studies with methodologic flaws and other quality problems were more likely to report negative consequences (Charles VE, Polis CB, Sridhara SK, Blum RW (2008). "Abortion and long-term mental health outcomes: a systematic review of the evidence".)

What the research finds is that women who have mental health problems prior to the abortion are surprise! likely to continue to have mental health issues after the abortion.

It's not my study pamplemousse. I just posted it because it's in today's news and is relevant to some poster's comments over the last few days.

The one I linked to seems to be more recent Josephine.

here

877 181 participants (163 831 experienced an abortion)

Well those results are hardly surprising, because contrary to the image some people carry of careless silly women who can't be arsed to use contraception or fit a baby into their lives, I think most women choose abotion because they find themselves pregnant at a time when their lives are totally fucked up and full of problems.

I suspect it's the state of their lives that bring on mental health problems rather than the abortion itself.

'Truth be told these so called pro choice organizations encourage women to terminate without reflecting on the long term effects of abortion.'

Please provide evidence. The most common outcome of an abortion for women is relief. This is not to say that it doesn't negatively affect some women but for the vast majority there are no long term effects. In addition your claim that pro-choice organisations encourage women to terminate is insulting, libellous and just plain wrong.

And FYI, terminations after 24 weeks are only permitted if the women's life is in danger or she faces permanent disability if the pregnancy goes ahead or if the foetus is severely malformed.