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

Bumbley , do you think that those women would be helped by a pro-choice grilling as referenced by the GUardian article? (and, indeed, the Mail article, Dhokoteria ).

Rather, I would think you want the women to be talked out of the abortion altogether. And nobody, and no study would be able to tell us if they would have any better mental health looking after a baby they didn't want, but had been guilted into having.

Thanks Josephine. I don't have time to read them all right now. Is there one specifically which shows what you said ie. That adoption has a longer term impact on a woman's health than abortion? Which one compares the two?

For your info, BPAS stats show that 20% of people counselled by them go on to keep the baby - which as those that consult BPAS in the first place are a self-selecting group, with a crisis pregnancy, isn't bad imo. (I didn't feel the need to consult myself, when I was pregnant with my much-wanted children.)

Dorries " .....standing as gatekeeper at your uterus........" to (mis)quote that Mash article.

The danish study looked at nearly 400, 000 women. It was published this year, jan 27 2011. Did you actually look up thearticle in The New England Journal of medicine, or did you just google!
And it compared both pregnancy and abortion before and after the event. The study you pointed out, only looked after the event and said "oh more women who have had an abortion have mental health problems, it must be the abortion that caused them all". In actual fact the danish study shows that they already had these mental problems before the abortion, which is not surprising as as I ave said before mental illness is a reason for abortion.
The danish study is going to be more accurate as it doe snot rely on people volunteering for the study and answering questionaires. researchers can look at the anonymized medical records, and did so for women over a twelve year period.

Oh for goodness sake BM, you're like a dog chewing a mars bar. Just spit it out. You don't agree that abortion is the right thing to do in any circumstance. You don't need to take 500 posts to say it.

This mental health problems thing is a complete red herring anyway. It's impossible to know whether someone would've been equally or more depressed with a child they didn't want or can't take care of on their hands. Babies don't magically cure mental health problems.

Just got this response for from my MP:

'Thanks for this which I will certainly bear in mind when this is debated next week.

I believe that abortion counselling should be independent and unbiased, and that will govern my vote. However, the actual amendments to the legislation are still being tabled each day (and keep changing), so it isn't possible to tell yet which one will be selected for debate.

Kind regards,
Michael Fallon MP'

Seems to be a lot of smoke and mirrors around this amendment doesn't there? Badly written legislation and not even knowing what part will be debated.

As Fallon generally follows the party line I would expect him to vote with Cameron .

Michelle, No babies can cause mental health problems.

Kelly I linked to it directly - see my post at 9.02. When you've read it you can provide a link to the study you say has debunked it.

Mygoldfish - you think wrong. I have been talking about independent/impartial counselling throughout this thread. I have only pointed out that the only impartial advice that was offered, in the DM article, came from care confidential. Do you think it's ok for a women to be exposed to poor counselling from a pro-choice organisation such as Marie stopes or bpac? Frankly, I don't poor counselling is acceptable from either but many of you seem quite defensive about counselling from those organisations even if it is shown to be substandard. Why is that? Surely if you have the women's best interests at heart you should be looking for the best counsellor provider.

Being pro-choice myself Bumbley - yes I do think it's preferablethat women have pro-choice (Note: not pro-abortion) counselling rather than pro-life.

Next question?

Thanks goldfish, I read that. But if there are instances where the counselling isn't up to scratch - such as that shown in the article, then perhaps that figure would actually be higher.

Kelly, the study I am linking to was published in the British journal of psychiatry in 2011 too. I have them both in front of me, in full and I did use google to find them because I don't actually keep the new England journal of medicine or the British Journal of psychiatry on my bookshelves!

You asked for evidence - I gave it to you.

As you have demonstrated a clear unwillingness to believe anything that challenges your world view, I am reluctant to waste yet more time digging it up for you.

Even if the pro-choice counselling is substandard? Bear in mind that the only genuinely impartial advice in that article came from careconfidential - Note - impartial - not pro-life. That really doesn't suggest that the quality of the counselling is that important to you.

Thanks Josephine - I'll take it that you just googled a bunch of studies that show that adoption can cause depression and that none of them actually prove or even address the point you made; that it has more of an impact on a woman's health than abortion. You've saved me a lot of wasted time reading. If you do want to produce a study that proves that point then I would be happy to read it.

The mental health issue is a red herring.
Woman A has depression. She gets pg and seeks termination which is agreed on the basis of her depression. Her depression stays the same or gets worse at a later date. Is that caused by the abortion? No. Is it exacerbated by the abortion? Absolutely no way to tell. Would she have remained depressed had she continued the pregnancy? Absolutely no way to tell.

Woman B has no MH issues but has an unwanted PG. She terminates and experiences reactive depression/guilt. This was due to her own decision making process and not due to the termination.

Woman C gets pregnant and miscarries. She experiences depression due to hormonal change and grief.

Woman D gets pregnant, wanted and planned, and develops PND or PPP after the birth.

Woman E gets pregnant and despite her misgivings, keeps the baby. She develops PND.

Who can say that any of those women would have, or wouldn't have, developed MH issues if they had taken any other course of action? Pregnancy causes hormonal shifts that can precipitate depression, whatever the outcome of the pregnancy. This can account for women experiencing their first MH episode after a pregnancy. How many women who experience PND had a MH episode prior to this? Not all, or even most.

A Christian advice line that isn't ultimately pro life......how do they square that with God?

The pro-choice counselling is not sub-standard - but like any part of the NHS/private healthcare providers, there are bad examples of failings. Would you bin the lot?

Care confidential most certainly touts itself as unbiased - and comes out with the most unbelievable 'abortion is wickedness' claptrap. So no, I would certainly not want any actual pro-life organisations doing the counselling, if that is what the 'unbiased' ones come out with.

Are you denying you're pro-life and anti abortion now? It's all about the counselling is it?

Unfortunately I have read and seen your conduct on other abortion theads.

Bumbley,
Do you not have access to academic journals online? I gave you the citation, if you are not capable of finding it for yourself, and need someone to provide a link then that is pathetic. it seems your judgement of articles does not come from actually reading the articles themselves, but reading the highlights in newspapers.
I have read your article, it says nothing about abortion itself causing more mental problems than pregnancy and childbirth. I have explained several times what it is saying.

There is a man on the news from a childrens charity, that is saying between 1 in 4, and 1 in 6 children will be sexually abused in their childhood, we have one of the highest rate of maternal deaths in the western world. Yet people like Dorries think teaching girls to say NO will stop the abuse, and that instead of trying to have women's lives during pregnancy, we should try to force more women to stay pregnant and therefore be at risk from our healthcare.

You are of course free to assume what you like.

Meanwhile I'll assume that you're scared of evidence that might disrupt your world view

What about the high levels of depression in young parents? Which in turn causes depression in their children who in turn become young parents and the cycle continues.

PP, maybe you should ask them.

That was in response to your first post about religious organisations providing impartial counselling.

Not at all Josephine, I've already said I would be happy to read it if you can produce it. I just don't have time to read lots of articles that don't actually address the point you made about adoption having a longer impact on the woman's mental health than abortion.

Kelly, I've said 3 times that I have them in front of me - and yes they are online. Surely that would be obvious because I actually linked to one (at 9.02 as I pointed out to you). Why are you finding this difficult to understand? I am not reading the newspaper article I am reading it in the journal itself - online

Bumbley,
You were given several links to studies about adoption causing mental ealth issues. You were given the citation tot he Danish study.
You admit you have not read them, and somehow tto you hat proves that they are not good studies. That is like going into a resturant, demanding the waiting staff cut up your food and spoon feed you, and then when they say your an adult feed yourself, claiming that proves the food is bad!

You were given the links, and citations to the studies, your were given the summary of the findings, read them or do not read them, but do not claim that the fact you do not attempt to find them or read them proves they are wrong.

See