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]

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

It's a ludicrous comment. Of course the feotus is living. Your choice of language is foul -"feeding on" as if the feotus or baby were a parasite.

That sort of extremist language and tone is not serving any good purpose. You're certainly not going to change any one's mind who is anti-abortion.

It's not my job to change their mind.

You can dislike the language all you like. I don't care. Doesn't change the fact. Its not alive. It's a clump of cells dependent on a host.
It should be given zero consideration or thought. Same with any medical procedure.

The only concern is the patient.

@KimikosNightmare

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

It's a ludicrous comment. Of course the feotus is living. Your choice of language is foul -"feeding on" as if the feotus or baby were a parasite.

That sort of extremist language and tone is not serving any good purpose. You're certainly not going to change any one's mind who is anti-abortion.

I mean, by the definition of parasite, a foetus is a parasite. You can be as emotive as you like about it, doesn't change the biology of it.

Wait a second, no academic, politician or medical professional have claimed that these CQC reports and FOI data are unverified. You may think that the data is irrelevant, but "unverified"? Where on earth has this data been shown to be unverified? These are Care Quality Commission reports which have been used to inform government policy.

Claims in the studies you cite that the scheme has led to earlier and safer abortions aren't credible because the study showing this measured only when the pills were sent, but didn’t consider the time it took for delivery, the fact that half of women did not take them the day they received them, and the fact that gestation estimates were unreliable in the first place because no ultrasound was performed.

Something we do know for sure is that a quarter of abortions are coerced by men, the removal of safeguards is brilliant news for abusers and traffickers. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15694217/

In person examination and ultrasound are vital protections against ectopic pregnancies. Ruptured ectopic pregnancies can be life-threatening, but because they produce symptoms similar to those of medical abortion, women who have medical abortions are at risk of undiagnosed ruptured ectopic pregnancy. Most hospitals do not collect data on ruptured ectopic pregnancies, but this FOI data (whose veracity I've only ever seen doubted by a couple of posters on mumsnet, not by professionals, experts or the government) from the Trusts which do are consistent with an increase in ruptured ectopic pregnancies since the telemedicine scheme began in March 2020. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32400369/

That's not to mention a leaked NHS email last year highlighting more ruptured ectopic pregnancies and resuscitation for major haemorrhage. The lack of checks and ultrasound prior to abortion meant that babies could be aborted at any stage at home, putting the mother at risk of dangerous late-term abortions and making it possible for fully developed babies to be born alive after attempted abortion. This e-mail noted instances of babies being born at up to 30 weeks (!) , and a murder investigation for a baby who was born alive and then died. All of these were in just one region.

Sorry, but your studies are far from bullet proof. I didn't cite studies, I cited CQC reports and FOI requests which merely presents data handed over directly by the hospital trust and which shows conclusively that complications from telemedical abortions are hugely underreported.

Done

For those interested in data and studies, the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) has pulled together a briefing with the latest research based on the past two years of telemedical abortion being available in the UK. You can read it here. I've just written to my MP, Keir Starmer. If you agree that we should #KeepTelemedicalAbortion, do drop a line to yours.

Thank you for this. My MP is useless but I’ve written nonetheless.

I feel very strongly about this. Please, take a few minutes out of your day to email your MP. BPAS have the link on their website and it does it all for you, all you have to do is put your postcode in so it can generate the email and send it off.
I think the pandemic has totally revolutionised the delivery of abortion care and, all things considered, it should stay. X

@AskingforaBaskin

It's not my job to change their mind.

You can dislike the language all you like. I don't care. Doesn't change the fact. Its not alive. It's a clump of cells dependent on a host.
It should be given zero consideration or thought. Same with any medical procedure.

The only concern is the patient.

It is utter rubbish to say that the feotus is not alive.

Your comments are ridiculous.

I mean, by the definition of parasite, a foetus is a parasite. You can be as emotive as you like about it, doesn't change the biology of it

Completely vile comments from you and Baskin. And if you're going to rely on biology it's utter nonsense to say a feotus isn't living. Even if you are happy with the parasite analogy a parasite is alive.

I support the UK position on abortion but I find these views repulsive and repugnant.

Quite. Clumps of cells are alive, they are living, functioning, splitting, and so on, constantly. Bacteria in human guts are alive. The cells in my right kidney are alive.

Obviously there is a difference between symbiotic/parasitic/dependent cells/organisms that exist within another organism and ones that can exist independently and sustain themselves. Then there is obviously also a difference between an independent self sustaining organism and a human being.

It doesn't help anyone's argument to deny that an embryo or foetus is living.

@KimikosNightmare

I mean, by the definition of parasite, a foetus is a parasite. You can be as emotive as you like about it, doesn't change the biology of it

Completely vile comments from you and Baskin. And if you're going to rely on biology it's utter nonsense to say a feotus isn't living. Even if you are happy with the parasite analogy a parasite is alive.

I support the UK position on abortion but I find these views repulsive and repugnant.

Your inability to separate emotion from fact is quite concerning. I only hope you're not in a profession that requires any kind of critical thinking.

Also the only person who brought up parasite, was you @KimikosNightmare .

A foetus does 'take from' the woman carrying it. That's common knowledge. It takes what it needs to grow and survive and you are left with what remains, it's why women are often deficient in vitamins/iron etc.

You made the (not incorrect) link to a parasite, a for good reason, because that's what it does. Nobody said it in a negative context. My child took everything I had, I was literally a husk. I love her very much, and did so when pregnant. She was still, arguably, technically a parasite in utero though.

Done

Your inability to separate emotion from fact is quite concerning. I only hope you're not in a profession that requires any kind of critical thinking

Oh the good old anyone who expresses a view I disagree with isn't as clever as me line.

I only hope the poster who thinks a feotus isn't alive isn't in a profession which requires any thinking.

It is possible to produce a rational argument for continuing with telemedication without spouting arrant nonsense that a foetus isn't alive.

A fetus is alive. It’s not a parasite because technically parasites are of a separate species to the host, but the nature of the relationship is parasitic.

I don’t think you have to deny a fetus is alive to be pro choice. It’s not a person with rights (personhood is conferred upon birth), but alive? Certainly. Life itself does not, or should not, give anyone the right to use another person’s body against their will (consent can be denied outright, or revoked after all). You can’t force anyone to give blood, bone marrow or organs in order to sustain the life of another, for example. In reality you can’t force women to continue pregnancies against their will either, they can and do access abortion at great risk to their own health and lives.

Nobody is denying a foetus is alive. A tumor is also alive.

@pointythings

Nobody is denying a foetus is alive. A tumor is also alive.

Well actually Baskin was arguing a feotus wasn't alive. Comparing a feotus to a tumour is a new low.

As far as I'm concerned abortion is a necessary evil and the lesser of 2 evils but some of the points made here are utterly revolting.

I have actually signed the petition but it's certainly not because of the arguments made on here.

I don’t think you have to deny a fetus is alive to be pro choice

You don't- that is why comments like

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

Doesn't change the fact. Its not alive

No it's not. It has not had its first breath and it is not Living in any sense

are deranged. So deranged I almost wonder if anyone making is actually anti- abortion.

@JustineMumsnet

For those interested in data and studies, the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) has pulled together a briefing with the latest research based on the past two years of telemedical abortion being available in the UK. You can read it here. I've just written to my MP, Keir Starmer. If you agree that we should #KeepTelemedicalAbortion, do drop a line to yours.

The BPAS is as far from an unbiased source as you could possibly get. If you want unbiased and transparent information, don't touch them with a barge pole. Also, please do not ignore the data which has come to light proving that many of these studies are compromised and based on underreported complication rates.

Jesus Christ. Read what was written. BPAS have produced a briefing on the latest research, which is different to ‘BPAS have published their own research’.

No one is doubting the ability of FOI to collect data, what is being doubted, rightfully, in the interpretation of said data. There is a difference.

The studies are, whether you like to admit it or not, infinitely more relevant, and trustworthy, than the rantings of pro life bloggers or indeed you. You not liking what the studies show doesn’t not negate their veracity.

Coerced abortion is a problem for you, but coerced birth is of no concern, is it? It’s been demonstrated time and time again that abortion restrictions hurt women, yet the self styled champion of vulnerable women on this thread hasn’t had a word to say about that, funnily enough. At least own your agenda.

Here’s an overview of the peer review process:
www.biomedcentral.com/getpublished/peer-review-process

More info on peer reviewing:
journals.lww.com/ijsoncology/fulltext/2018/02000/peer_review_in_scholarly_publishing_part_a__why_do.1.aspx

For all your dislike of the studies, the fact is that peer reviewing, is considered to produce the highest quality of scientific papers. It is the best method of quality control we currently have.

The fact is that more than one peer reviewed paper published in medical journals, including the largest study of it’s type on the issue, concluded that the benefits of telemedical abortion services were greater than it’s drawbacks. Your dislike of these conclusions doesn’t mean there’s some great conspiracy at hand, it means the facts don’t suit your narrative.

@whumpthereitis

Jesus Christ. Read what was written. BPAS have produced a briefing on the latest research, which is different to ‘BPAS have published their own research’.

No one is doubting the ability of FOI to collect data, what is being doubted, rightfully, in the interpretation of said data. There is a difference.

The studies are, whether you like to admit it or not, infinitely more relevant, and trustworthy, than the rantings of pro life bloggers or indeed you. You not liking what the studies show doesn’t not negate their veracity.

Coerced abortion is a problem for you, but coerced birth is of no concern, is it? It’s been demonstrated time and time again that abortion restrictions hurt women, yet the self styled champion of vulnerable women on this thread hasn’t had a word to say about that, funnily enough. At least own your agenda.

No I am well aware that that it is a briefing on the research. But you can't make unfounded claims about the reliability of data from a CQC report because the data was published my someone who is pro-life, and then be fine with going to BPAS (a heavily biased organisation) in order to be referred to research which has their stamp of approval. And none of what you have said changes the fact that a number of these studies have since been proven to be fallible. Quoting myself... Claims in the studies that the scheme has led to earlier and safer abortions aren't credible because the study showing this measured only when the pills were sent, but didn’t consider the time it took for delivery, the fact that half of women did not take them the day they received them, and the fact that gestation estimates were unreliable in the first place because no ultrasound was performed. As well as the fact that the studies were based on complications rates which have been proven to be underreported.

whumpthereitis well put.

Peer reviewed research involving proven scientific methodology is more reliable than FOI data manipulated by an organisation with an agenda - especially since said organisation has made zero effort to show the methodology used in its own data analysis.

I suspect Lambkin and the Antis do indeed understand research methodology - and wilfully choose not to use them because they do not suit the chosen narrative.

My MP is anti abortion..Mr Fox, so prob pointless