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]

And that "analysis" is just... well, it's not following any proper methodology, it's not been peer reviewed nor published in any well regarded scientific publication. It's one person's mathematical doodlings starting from a biased (anti choice) position. It's laughable to suggest it's meaningful.

@RoseslnTheHospital

And that "analysis" is just... well, it's not following any proper methodology, it's not been peer reviewed nor published in any well regarded scientific publication. It's one person's mathematical doodlings starting from a biased (anti choice) position. It's laughable to suggest it's meaningful.

This. This in spades. But in part Lambkin's inability to understand this is down to the way the British education system fails to teach scientific methodology and an understanding of statistics. You don't really get that except in some A level subjects. It should be part of GCSE maths or science and in much greater depth than now.

Absolutely, and there’s a reason for this. They’re a body that focuses on women’s health. As such, they’re not likely to take a position that’s harmful to women’s health.

@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.

And most women aren’t abused, but on the basis that some are, should we ban all relationships? Because people die in car accidents, should we ban cars? Because that’s the argument you’re essentially making.

The same way we have laws against child abuse, we have laws against domestic violence. That’s the recourse, not banning anything that may be used to harm.

@TyrannosaurusFlex I agree that the foetus sadly has no rights in society today. But it wasn't always like that.

You say you're appalled at my opinion. But I expected that. I expect such a reaction in the feminism thread on Mumsnet. It's pretty predictable. It doesn't alter my opinion.

I likewise am appalled that human life is so cheap to people and only 'rights' are given consideration and nothing about responsibility either by individuals or wider society. Society keeps promoting sex without responsibility, and has reduced it to a good time untethered to the concept of family, then treats ensuing life as disposable, because the foetus is unprotected.

I believe if we don't have the rights to kill depraved murderers etc we don't have the right to kill the unborn innocent.

I also believe that it affects how women, children, the disabled and life in general is perceived and appreciated in society. It has wider implications not least, a coarsening up of society and an undermining of the value of life.

As an aside, I'm interested in whether rates of child neglect etc have gone down since the increase in abortions over the past 20 years. Is there a positive correlation? This is the justification that keeps being quoted and I genuinely would like to know if one is affecting the other positively or not.

With regards to @pointythings

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.

In one scenario life is preserved in the other it is ended.

I've lived a very full life with lots of drama and trauma and stuff that would warrant sympathy many times over if I wanted an abortion(s). I've lived my beliefs.

I can tell you from experience that the option of abortion also keeps women locked into bad relationships. Providing a way for the relationship to be maintained.

My point is if option A and option B are imperfect and provide access to abortion (where a certain amount of harm is caused by default) then why advocate for option C (telemedical services) too?

Anyway I am struggling to write proper sentences now and am off to bed, I hope everybody has a good night.

Historically speaking, in regards to the western world, we have far more in the way of human rights than we ever have previously. Not too long ago, single mothers were shamed, it was legal to beat your wife, blind eyes were turned to child abuser, and the disabled were shoved away in asylums if they weren’t left to die at birth. Rather than a coarsening of attitudes, there’s been a distinct softening.

In regards to the UK, fetuses have never been considered legal persons with according rights. Prior to 1967, abortion wasn’t murder, it was fetal destruction.

Abortion isn’t a modern invention. It’s existed for as long as women have given birth. There was actually a herb that went extinct in Roman times because it was so overused for its abortifacient properties. Ironically, there’s even a reference to ‘bitter water’ to be found in the bible. Abortion is a fact of life. It always has been and it always will be. Why advocate to telemedical services? Because women who have used that service have overwhelmingly found it to be beneficial.

I don't like the 'coarsening of society' narrative, and the opposition to the idea of sex detached from procreation is a construct used to control women and their sexuality.

As whumpthereitis says, overall the world is a much better place for women and children than it was 50 years ago, though not good enough and not everywhere. The legislation banning smacking of children is a good example of that - here is a law brought in to protect children from violence? Coarsening? I don't think so. I think the people who use that terminology are looking back with rose-tinted spectacles on 'the good old days'. Rape in marriage was not a thing until 1992, let's not forget that.

The evidence is pretty clear that making abortion more easily accessible is a positive. If you're opposed to abortion overall, that's probably upsetting - so campaign to have it made illegal again. (But preferably not by bullying vulnerable women coming into clinics, if you please!). Meanwhile let those of us who want abortions have them. Nobody is making you have an abortion. Ultimately you live your beliefs, we live ours. One is not better than the other.

@Mumof3lovelygirls

Nope, definitely won't be signing. What about the unborn baby's rights? Sex is a luxury, not a right. If you can't be responsible enough to take the repercussions then just abstain. Simple.

Jesus the naivety, ignorance and arrogance of that statement.

@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?

If it can't breathe or function without being hooked up to another human it's not alive.

Thank you for this. I will sign.

@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?

Many, including many midwives, think it's utterly nonsensical that that a midwifery organisation should support abortion.

@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.

You don't even have to "interpret" this data at all. The numbers speak for themselves. Per 1000 abortions, there were 247 complications, 188 of which were from medical abortions. How would you like that data to be "interpreted"?

@whumpthereitis it would depend on the proportion of accidents to safe car journeys. If the proportion of car accidents to safe journeys equalled that of complications to "safe" medical abortions, yes, cars would be banned. Also, the procedure for obtaining these pills itself (a telephone consultation with no way of verifying if the woman is being coerced or checking her gestational stage) is fundamentally high-risk. These risks can be eliminated if the medical professional is required meet with the woman in private and in person.

[quote Lambkin689]@whumpthereitis it would depend on the proportion of accidents to safe car journeys. If the proportion of car accidents to safe journeys equalled that of complications to "safe" medical abortions, yes, cars would be banned. Also, the procedure for obtaining these pills itself (a telephone consultation with no way of verifying if the woman is being coerced or checking her gestational stage) is fundamentally high-risk. These risks can be eliminated if the medical professional is required meet with the woman in private and in person.[/quote]
On that basis perhaps we should prevent giving birth, given that statistically it’s far more dangerous to women than abortion is.

You are of course entitled to your opinion, but given that women who have availed themselves to telemedical abortion, and experts in the actual field of female health care, support the continuation of this service, I’m not sure how relevant you expect it to be considered.

If it can't breathe or function without being hooked up to another human it's not alive

I support UK law on abortion and think telemedication should stay but that is a ludicrous comment. Of course a feotus is alive.

I find the double standards quite puzzling. You're happy to trust organisations like the or the RCOG, and RCM, which, 5 years ago, supported abortion up to birth, and uses heavily politicised language when explaining their stance on abortion. But data from a freedom of information request to the Care Quality Commission, which took data from dozens of hospital and ambulance trusts and brought to light truly worrying numbers, somehow isn't reliable... I guess people will pick and choose who they listen to bolster an ideologically-driven opinion which they have no intention of changing, no matter how much it hurts vulnerable women.

Emailed my MP thanks for this thread.

@Lambkin689

I find the double standards quite puzzling. You're happy to trust organisations like the or the RCOG, and RCM, which, 5 years ago, supported abortion up to birth, and uses heavily politicised language when explaining their stance on abortion. But data from a freedom of information request to the Care Quality Commission, which took data from dozens of hospital and ambulance trusts and brought to light truly worrying numbers, somehow isn't reliable... I guess people will pick and choose who they listen to bolster an ideologically-driven opinion which they have no intention of changing, no matter how much it hurts vulnerable women.

@Lambkin689 Nothing about this telemedicine approach has been shown to hurt vulnerable women. In fact it is safe, effective and preferred by the large majority of women accessing it.

You really don't seem able to understand the difference between an anti-choice campaigner doing some maths on various FOI returned data and a full piece of research, following appropriate methodology, supervised, interests declared, peer reviewed and published in an appropriate and well respected journal.

Your concern here is to prevent women accessing abortions altogether, let's be honest. It's disingenuous to pretend that your objections are about safety and vulnerable women.

‘You really don't seem able to understand the difference between an anti-choice campaigner doing some maths on various FOI returned data and a full piece of research, following appropriate methodology, supervised, interests declared, peer reviewed and published in an appropriate and well respected journal.’

^this.

As for the RCOG’s stance on abortion: again, they’re a body that concerns themselves with the health of women. It’s hardly surprising that they’ll take a stance in support of that, rather than an anti abortion one that is demonstrably harmful to women.

Welp.

@KimikosNightmare

If it can't breathe or function without being hooked up to another human it's not alive

I support UK law on abortion and think telemedication should stay but that is a ludicrous comment. Of course a feotus is alive.

No it's not. It has not had its first breath and it is not Living in any sense. It's entire existence is solely dependent on feeding on a woman.

The BMJ and BJOG studies are heavily compromised by the fact that the number complications have been shown to be highly underreported.

@Lambkin689

The BMJ and BJOG studies are heavily compromised by the fact that the number complications have been shown to be highly underreported.

No. The number of complications have not been shown to be heavily underreported. That's an as yet unverified claim made by your anti-choice maths doodler.

Do you think that the authors of the research in the BJOG made an error in their methodology, an error in their calculations, or are you suggesting they made a deliberate decision to hide reports of complications?

Done. My MP will be backing this anyway, but one more reminder never hurts.