We need you! Lobby your MP for the last chance to retain the right to telemedical abortion.

[JuliaMumsnet]

You may have heard that earlier this month in spite of support for the service from BPAS, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Royal College of GPs, the Royal College of Midwives, the British Medical Association, the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, Women’s Aid, Rape Crisis and many other organisations, the Government announced that telemedical abortion will come to an end in England in six months time. This service, which allows women to have a telephone or video consultation with a qualified nurse or midwife and – where eligible – have abortion medication posted to them to use, has been available throughout the pandemic.

Telemedical abortion is a safe, effective, and accessible option for accessing abortion care in the first ten weeks of pregnancy, and means that women who struggle to attend an in-clinic appointment - because of a lack of childcare, transport issues, domestic abuse or any other reason - are able to obtain care.

When we asked Mumsnet users in January, nearly 80% of you told us you supported the retention of telemedical abortion. And now, thanks to an amendment by Baroness Liz Sugg, we have one last chance to keep this provision. On March 16th, Baroness Sugg proposed an amendment to the Health and Social Care Bill as it passed through the Lords to keep telemedical abortion in place in England. The amendment passed, which means it now goes back to the House of Commons for another vote (most probably during the w/c 28th March).

The amendment will be a free vote, which means MPs won’t be instructed how to vote by their political party - they will choose themselves whether to vote in favour of or against the amendment, or, to abstain. We know that MPs’ inboxes are filling up with emails from the anti-abortion lobby - and we want to make sure that they understand the strength of feeling amongst women in favour of keeping this provision. So we’re asking Mumsnet users to contact their MP and encourage them to vote in favour of the amendment.

Here’s how you do that:

1. Find your MP's contact details here.
   
2. Write them an email about why you care about this issue, and why you want them to vote for the amendment. You can use the template we have provided below, but if you have time please consider personalising your message - it will make it more effective!
   
3. Tweet and tag your MP (and @MumsnetTowers) in some of the graphics on our twitter page with the hashtag #KeepTelemedicalAbortion. You can copy and paste the images. We'll be retweeting!
   

Let’s mobilise the power of Mumsnet and help retain what has been a real step forward for women’s reproductive rights.

p.s. If you’d like to support our campaigning work, sign up to Mumsnet Premium here. Sign up to the campaigns mailing list here.

TEMPLATE EMAIL
Subject: Please vote FOR retaining telemedical abortion in the Health and Care Bill

Dear [YOUR MP’s NAME]

I’m emailing as your constituent about the upcoming vote in the House of Commons on an amendment by Baroness Liz Sugg to the Health and Care Bill to support the retention of telemedical abortion.

The largest study of telemedical abortion in the world found that telemedicine is safe, effective, and improves care, and in a Mumsnet poll of more than 8,000 users in January 2022, more than 77% of users said they were in favour of retaining this service. Telemedical abortion means that women who struggle to attend an in-clinic appointment - because of a lack of childcare, transport issues, employment or any other reason - are able to obtain safe, timely and effective care. It also provides an accessible way for women in abusive and controlling relationships to access abortion care

Removing the provision of telemedical abortion would be a backwards step for women’s health and reproductive choice. It must be retained. Please vote for Baroness Liz Sugg’s amendment.

Best wishes
[YOUR NAME]

[pointythings]

So Lambkin you've got polls and a lot of blog posts from a consultancy company which isn't very transparent about what it consults on - but certainly has an axe to grind on abortion. Hmmm, I'm convinced. Meanwhile on the other side we have - well, experts. But who needs those, right?

[Lambkin689]

@pointythings

So Lambkin you've got polls and a lot of blog posts from a consultancy company which isn't very transparent about what it consults on - but certainly has an axe to grind on abortion. Hmmm, I'm convinced. Meanwhile on the other side we have - well, experts. But who needs those, right?

The reason the retention of telemedical abortion was ended was partly as a result of the information which arose from these freedom of information requests. Also, Mumsnet is lobbying the government based on an online poll from the users of one internet forum. The blog posts cite first-hand exhibits from the Freedom of Information requests. This data was obtained from NHS Trusts and Foundation Trusts which provide acute hospital services and NHS Ambulance Trusts. The poll on reproductive coercion commissioned by BBC Radio 4, which is generally pro-abortion.

[Lambkin689]

@pointythings or are you doubting the legitimacy the data provided as a result of the FOI requests? That really is a stretch, seeing as they were provided directly by the Trusts.

[Lambkin689]

The evidence for the safety of these pills has been proved to be fallible by the FOI request which revealed (using data provided by the Trusts) that less than 1 in 5 complications are reported.

[pointythings]

Lambkin, data can be made to say many things. So I'm going to go with the Royal Colleges, thanks.

If you follow the link posted in the OP, you'll see that this study is fully transparent about the methods it has used for its data analysis. As someone who worked in health research for years, I know methodology is important.

Then on reading the links you posted, I found a surprise: the author is Kevin Duffy, who is associated with Right to Life, an anti-abortion organisation. So I am not inclined to take Percuity's word for anything on abortion - they are part of the anti-choice brigade.

[Lambkin689]

@pointythings

Lambkin, data can be made to say many things. So I'm going to go with the Royal Colleges, thanks.

If you follow the link posted in the OP, you'll see that this study is fully transparent about the methods it has used for its data analysis. As someone who worked in health research for years, I know methodology is important.

Then on reading the links you posted, I found a surprise: the author is Kevin Duffy, who is associated with Right to Life, an anti-abortion organisation. So I am not inclined to take Percuity's word for anything on abortion - they are part of the anti-choice brigade.

It's one thing to disagree with the organisations who made these findings public, but denying to veracity of the data itself, which was provided directly by the Trusts, is really clutching at straws. Also, you are contradicting your own methodology. The Royal College of midwives is not an unbiased organisation - it is openly pro-abortion www.rcm.org.uk/media/2296/abortion-statement.pdf

[DysonSphere]

Sorry I have a chronic illness and went to bed. Super tired and busy today.

I think it's very sad that people think they have right to take life. The young woman in your example has life. The unborn human is completely vulnerable, doesn't have a voice and can't make a choice.

Life has intrinsic value. Who has the right to take it? We apply this principle to the worst people in our society but not to the unborn. We don't apply capital punishment in this country even to people who commit terrible crimes.

Nor do I agree that self-determination, self-efficacy or 'sense of self' should be parameters by which the value of life is judged. The value of life shouldn't be subject to whether a person 'wants' it or not, or their opinion of it.

Ultimately I don't believe an abortion should be so accessible that it gives the message that life is easily disposable in our society. Millions of abortions are performed every year. Abortion as stated, is a reality. Why the need to make it even easier?

[RoseslnTheHospital]

@DysonSphere "Why the need to make it even easier?" Because all the evidence shows that increasing barriers to abortion results in harm to women and girls. It's that simple.

[pointythings]

Lambkin I note you not addressing the Kevin Duffy link.

As someone who is pro choice (it's not called 'pro-abortion, keep up - we don't want to force anyone to have abortions!) I am on the Royal College's side. The article linked to was not written by them, btw.

And I've done enough data management to know that raw data, once you've been given it, can be made to say pretty much what you want. So raw data from FOI + known anti-abortion activist = unreliable.

While you're here, would you care to address the point that banning safe, legal abortion leads to women dying, and why you are OK with that?

[Lambkin689]

@pointythings

Lambkin I note you not addressing the Kevin Duffy link.

As someone who is pro choice (it's not called 'pro-abortion, keep up - we don't want to force anyone to have abortions!) I am on the Royal College's side. The article linked to was not written by them, btw.

And I've done enough data management to know that raw data, once you've been given it, can be made to say pretty much what you want. So raw data from FOI + known anti-abortion activist = unreliable.

While you're here, would you care to address the point that banning safe, legal abortion leads to women dying, and why you are OK with that?

I'm not denying that the investigations were made public (and that some of them were commissioned) by pro-life figures and organisations - whenever someone wants to challenge the legitimacy of something, they demand evidence. Obviously, these were conducted by organisations and individuals who wanted to see proof of the safety of this procedure because they weren't convinced by the data already being put out. The pro-abortion lobby had no interest in doing this because they were happy with the policy as it was. That doesn't mean the resulting evidence itself is flawed, especially when that data itself was provided by the hospitals. Whenever something is banned, it is usually because a lobby group has demanded evidence for its legitimacy. This evidence was deemed sufficiently valid by the government to end the retention of telemedical abortion. Of course, Kevin Duffy (once a senior executive at one of the world's largest abortion providers and now an independent public health consultant) has an opinion on abortion just like you have an opinion on abortion. If you go digging for data, is your data necessarily flawed just because of your opinion? Maybe, but certainly not necessarily - because what matters is the source and quality of that evidence. This evidence has been shown to be valid.

There is no doubt that the Royal College of midwives is pro-abortion. The link I posted there was from their own website.

[whumpthereitis]

[quote Lambkin689]percuity.blog/foi-investigation-into-medical-abortion-treatment-failure/

percuity.blog/2021/11/16/emergency-ambulance-responses-three-times-higher-for-pills-by-post/

percuity.blog/2021/11/16/emergency-ambulance-responses-three-times-higher-for-pills-by-post/

percuity.blog/2021/10/29/less-than-1-in-5-complications-are-reported/

comresglobal.com/polls/reproductive-coercion-poll-bbc-radio-4-8-march-2022/

www.theyworkforyou.com/wrans/?id=2021-06-14.15421.h&s=abortion+section%3Awrans+section%3Awms

The poll showing public concern and GPs' were conducted by SavantaComRes

www.gov.uk/government/consultations/home-use-of-both-pills-for-early-medical-abortion/outcome/home-use-of-both-pills-for-early-medical-abortion-ema-up-to-10-weeks-gestation-summary-of-consultation-responses[/quote]
Have read all links.

The one on reproductive coercion was a study conducted by BBC Radio 4. I cannot see any reports that suggest, in the cases of women coerced into abortion, availability of telemedical abortion had any impact on those coerced.

Incidentally, there have been cases where women have been spiked with abortion pills to force miscarriage. I am not, upon looking at the cases, seeing that those men spiking women accessed the pills via registered clinics. Rather, they bought them online. Availability of telemedical abortion is a separate issue to this one.

The government study states as attached. The women who availed themselves to the service have a positive response. If you read about who responded to the government survey, you can see that anyone could, and did, reply. Most respondents did so online, and the majority did so as part of campaigns. Should the opinions of anti abortion campaigners have more weight than the opinions of women that actually had an abortion in this way?

Here’s a link to a peer reviewed study, published in the BMJ:

srh.bmj.com/content/47/4/261

And here’s another one from the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology:

obgyn.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1471-0528.16668

Both conclude that availability of telemedical abortion is positive for women as well as providers. Being peer reviewed in scientific journals also means that they’re rather more trustworthy sources than a blog run by a pro life advocate, and a government poll that’s easy manipulated by pro life campaigners flexing their fingers on the internet.

[pointythings]

There you go again with the pro abortion! Get this into your head: nobody is pro abortion.

People who favour safe legal abortion just want women to have the choice about whether or not they carry a pregnancy to term. Failing the availability of 100% failsafe contraception, this is the next best thing. People who favour safe, legal abortion also tend to favour high quality sex education, the provision of contraception for women and men, and healthcare.

Contrast this with the people who let Savita Halappanavar die and I know who has the moral high ground.

Illegal abortions kill women. Are you OK with that?

And if you think this government made their decision based on evidence, you're dreaming. They did it because they're Conservatives. Many of their number are opposed to abortion (Nadine Dorries, anyone?), have tried to reduce the limit, have supported tightening abortion law. They have also opposed implementing civil partnerships/same sex marriage because that is what Conservatives do.

I wouldn't trust this government to organise a piss up in a brewery.

[DysonSphere]

[quote RoseslnTheHospital]@DysonSphere "Why the need to make it even easier?" Because all the evidence shows that increasing barriers to abortion results in harm to women and girls. It's that simple. [/quote]
Removing telemedical services is not 'increasing barriers'

Effectively it's having almost zero barriers and there are very good reasons why some of those so-called barriers aka stops and checks, need to be in place.

It's not that simple and I'm surprised you describe it as such. Coercion, problems with the pills, and mental side effects etc are all factors and concerns that shouldn't be dismissed.

You can't just pretend that the right to abort is the only factor that should be considered. Abortion as an end in itself is not a continuous unvarying property of good, even if you support it.

[TyrannosaurusFlex]

@DysonSphere

Sorry I have a chronic illness and went to bed. Super tired and busy today.

I think it's very sad that people think they have right to take life. The young woman in your example has life. The unborn human is completely vulnerable, doesn't have a voice and can't make a choice.

Life has intrinsic value. Who has the right to take it? We apply this principle to the worst people in our society but not to the unborn. We don't apply capital punishment in this country even to people who commit terrible crimes.

Nor do I agree that self-determination, self-efficacy or 'sense of self' should be parameters by which the value of life is judged. The value of life shouldn't be subject to whether a person 'wants' it or not, or their opinion of it.

Ultimately I don't believe an abortion should be so accessible that it gives the message that life is easily disposable in our society. Millions of abortions are performed every year. Abortion as stated, is a reality. Why the need to make it even easier?

Exactly, it can’t make a choice because it can’t survive without using her body as a host. Do you think she should have been forced to give birth to a child she didn’t want? I’m appalled that you would want to put A CHILD through the trauma of continuing a pregnancy she didn’t want, giving birth and then either raising a child she couldn’t look after properly or having to give the child up for adoption. You’re talking about ‘rights’, who the fuck has the right to force her to do that? A foetus has no rights, she does.

[Lambkin689]

@pointythings

There you go again with the pro abortion! Get this into your head: nobody is pro abortion.

People who favour safe legal abortion just want women to have the choice about whether or not they carry a pregnancy to term. Failing the availability of 100% failsafe contraception, this is the next best thing. People who favour safe, legal abortion also tend to favour high quality sex education, the provision of contraception for women and men, and healthcare.

Contrast this with the people who let Savita Halappanavar die and I know who has the moral high ground.

Illegal abortions kill women. Are you OK with that?

And if you think this government made their decision based on evidence, you're dreaming. They did it because they're Conservatives. Many of their number are opposed to abortion (Nadine Dorries, anyone?), have tried to reduce the limit, have supported tightening abortion law. They have also opposed implementing civil partnerships/same sex marriage because that is what Conservatives do.

I wouldn't trust this government to organise a piss up in a brewery.

Most Conservative MPs are in favour of abortion.

If you want to debate whether abortion in general should be legal, I think you should start a new thread.

I'm afraid you don't get to decide what terminology I use. I could equally insist you use "pro-life" rather than "anti-abortion". I don't use the term "pro-choice" for a number of reasons, but that's a whole other discussion and I don't want to take this thread down a rabbit hole.

[RoseslnTheHospital]

@DysonSphere did you read the research article linked to in the MNHQ OP? I can't believe that you think the treatment pathways described there can be described as "zero barriers". At each stage the individual woman's risk is assessed and she can be transferred to the traditional pathway at any point. And the most important point of all, the outcomes for women were the same or better than the usual approach.

It is incorrect to suggest that the right to abort is the only consideration that I have discussed. I've been quite clear in pointing out the clinical effectiveness and positive outcomes for women of the telemedical pathway. And women in the UK have the right to an abortion, that's not at debate here.

[whumpthereitis]

@DysonSphere

Sorry I have a chronic illness and went to bed. Super tired and busy today.

I think it's very sad that people think they have right to take life. The young woman in your example has life. The unborn human is completely vulnerable, doesn't have a voice and can't make a choice.

Life has intrinsic value. Who has the right to take it? We apply this principle to the worst people in our society but not to the unborn. We don't apply capital punishment in this country even to people who commit terrible crimes.

Nor do I agree that self-determination, self-efficacy or 'sense of self' should be parameters by which the value of life is judged. The value of life shouldn't be subject to whether a person 'wants' it or not, or their opinion of it.

Ultimately I don't believe an abortion should be so accessible that it gives the message that life is easily disposable in our society. Millions of abortions are performed every year. Abortion as stated, is a reality. Why the need to make it even easier?

I’m side eyeing the statement that life has inherent value. I’m sure it does, until it’s convenient for life to be cheap (see ‘war’).

Debating abortion is, at this point, fucking boring, and moral handwringing about how awful abortion is amounts to little more than mental masturbation. You’re free to think what you like about the value of a fetus versus the value of a woman, and you’re free to conduct your own pregnancies accordingly. What bearing should your ideals have on anyone else’s though? What bearing DO they have on anyone else’s? When enacted by law, these ideals result in women risking injury and death as they access illegal abortion. Away from all moral considerations and quasi intellectual angst, that’s the reality. Anti abortion legislation hurts women, and it hurts them every fucking day.

I’ve had an abortion. Thankfully, I live in a country where I was able to access it. If I hadn’t been able access it legally, I absolutely would have accessed it illegally. If I’d have been in a country where abortion was illegal, I may very well been seriously injured. I may have died. As such I’m incredibly grateful, and appreciative, that I have the rights I do here. Unfortunately so many women worldwide don’t, and they suffer and die as a result.

[Lambkin689]

These are GPs who are concerned that telemedical abortion is being used to coerce women into having abortions.
Being spiked is one thing, but the fact remains that, with a telephone consultation, there is no way to ensure the woman is alone when requesting the pills.
I wasn't denying that most women did not have complications. Most don't, but there is now evidence that a significant number of women did have complications. Safeguards exist for the minority not the majority. The majority of children aren't abused, that doesn't mean we throw out social care.

[pointythings]

DysonSphere as I posted a ways back, coercion cuts both ways. Why is it OK for a woman to be forced to carry to term a pregnancy she does not want in an abusive relationship because she cannot access an abortion, but it is not OK for a woman to be coerced into an abortion? Both are wrong, but only one brings a baby into an abusive relationship. In the other scenario, the woman still has the option of getting out. Having a baby makes getting out of an abusive relationship harder.

[RoseslnTheHospital]

No, your "evidence" is not research, done with an appropriate methodology, peer reviewed and published.

The evidence linked in the OP shows that the telemedicine route was as safe as the traditional pathway. Of the 29,984 women accessing the telemedicine route, only 7 experienced bleeding that required a transfusion compared to 8 on the usual pathway. There were no instances of more serious adverse outcomes via either route.

It's just not true to say that "many women" had complications. It's scaremongering based on biased misinterpreted "data".

[Lambkin689]

@RoseslnTheHospital

No, your "evidence" is not research, done with an appropriate methodology, peer reviewed and published.

The evidence linked in the OP shows that the telemedicine route was as safe as the traditional pathway. Of the 29,984 women accessing the telemedicine route, only 7 experienced bleeding that required a transfusion compared to 8 on the usual pathway. There were no instances of more serious adverse outcomes via either route.

It's just not true to say that "many women" had complications. It's scaremongering based on biased misinterpreted "data".

But the FOI request revealed that complications were highly underreported. The data given as a result of this request was provided by the hospital and ambulance trusts themselves.

[Lambkin689]

This is the data provided by the Trusts

[Lambkin689]

@RoseslnTheHospital

No, your "evidence" is not research, done with an appropriate methodology, peer reviewed and published.

The evidence linked in the OP shows that the telemedicine route was as safe as the traditional pathway. Of the 29,984 women accessing the telemedicine route, only 7 experienced bleeding that required a transfusion compared to 8 on the usual pathway. There were no instances of more serious adverse outcomes via either route.

It's just not true to say that "many women" had complications. It's scaremongering based on biased misinterpreted "data".

Also, I'm sure you know this, but the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists takes a pro-abortion position

[pointythings]

Lambkin your record appears to be stuck.

There's a choice on who to believe:

A peer reviewed study with transparent methodology, or a bunch of raw data gleaned from FOI requests and then manipulated by a known anti-choice activist.

Easy one.

[RoseslnTheHospital]

And the "interpretation" of the data provided by that FOI request has been done by a wildly biased person.

The Royal College takes decisions based on science and the law. Why should they be anti-choice when women have the legal choice to access abortions? That would be a nonsensical position for that organisation. And regardless of whether you think the organisation is biased, can you tell me how that perception of bias has negated the research evidence they have provided?