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]

As well as the fact that the studies were based on complications rates which have been proven to be underreported.

But they haven't been proven to be anything, because we have not seen the metholodolgy used to present and analyse the FOI data.

And, again, I'm not saying that X research is more reliable than Y research. I didn't cite studies, I cited CQC reports and FOI requests which merely present data handed over directly by the Hospital and Ambulance Trusts and which show conclusively that complications from telemedical abortions have been hugely underreported and that these studies are based on data which has since been shown to be faulty and misleading.

@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.

You are a clump of cells.....

@Lambkin689

And, again, I'm not saying that X research is more reliable than Y research. I didn't cite studies, I cited CQC reports and FOI requests which merely present data handed over directly by the Hospital and Ambulance Trusts and which show conclusively that complications from telemedical abortions have been hugely underreported and that these studies are based on data which has since been shown to be faulty and misleading.

Except, of course, they haven’t. Raw data in itself tells a partial story. That’s why it’s analyzed and reviewed by those conducting studies based upon it.

Look, there comes a point where instead of doubling down, it’s preferable to accept that you may indeed just be wrong. Insisting that it’s the experts in the actual relevant fields of medicine that are either purposely lying or themselves deceived just makes you look delusional at best, if not stupid.

I had a medical abortion a few years ago. When I contacted the clinic closest to me they said that I would have to wait around 4 weeks for an appointment. I didn't feel I could wait this long so had to travel 50 miles each way to a clinic that could see me that week. I am lucky enough that I managed to be able to go- especially as no one (not my husband or any of my family know to this day that I had an abortion).

Luckily, when I had to return a couple of days later they managed to find me a space at my local clinic to actually take the tablets. Otherwise, I would have had to think of another excuse to make that 100 mile round trip.

If I could have accessed these pills over the phone it would have made all the difference. It would have saved me not only the journey, but also the stress of the thought of someone finding out where I had gone and why.

I'm in a better place now. I hope I never ever have to have another abortion. I wouldn't describe myself as 'pro' anything. Just that women should have autonomy over their own bodies. Until you are in that desperate situation yourself you have no idea how it feels. No one would ever guess from looking at me that I have had an abortion. In this instance the government should be following the advice of the professional bodies, rather then leaving it to MP's who will be swayed by their own prejudices.

No, I won't be contacting my mp. Abortion should absolutely not be this easily available.

There is too much emotion on this thread for me to make a clear decision.

I would like to know more about the process. How often does a woman get contact with a health care professional during this process?

I am inclined not to support this, since there would still be the usual ways to access an abortion if needed where a woman definitely does have contact with a health care professional.

I feel uncomfortable about her doing this alone, scared, possibly through coercion.

I am usually pro-choice. I had to terminate my own second baby late in the pregnancy for medical reasons and it devastated me.

I would love someone sensible to take the sting out of this thread and let me know a woman is not doing this alone.

Thanks

@Crankley

I won't be signing. I know someone who was forced to take the drugs against her wishes by her abusive partner and it appears this is not unique, judging by other comments on here.

^ This is awful and would put me off signing. However these women need to get away from violent partners, (I know it’s not easy). Either get away or use contraception if they can and the bloke lets them. It’s almost a separate issue as it’s all down to choice, I’m conflicted. Being brought up in a violent household is also damaging.

I’m in Wales so can’t sign anyway.
Honestly don’t know what the answer is, seems a shame to take the choice away from everyone because some women are abused.

@mellongoose I would advise following the link in the opening post by MNHQ to the original research. The research article describes the treatment pathway followed by women who used this service. There's a flow chart that explains it really well. It's basically the same as the traditional process, except that the consultations with a health care professional are done on the phone, either video or audio. At each stage, if there are any issues at all, the women are swapped onto the usual pathway, for a scan if necessary.

The research clearly shows that this was as safe or safer than the usual treatment pathway and that the women that used it found the service to be good or very good. It's really not any more complex than that.

Those who are raising emotive arguments and "alternative data" on this thread are typically doing so from a very clear anti abortion position, full stop. They don't want any women accessing any abortions at all.

Access to abortion should be free and without delays but I think consultation face to face is important both times ensure it is appropriate medically and that there's no coercion. An appointment with the practice nurse could be the only time an abused woman could speak privately to someone.

There comes a point where people's ideological tunnel vision overrides any concern for the actual wellbeing of women. This is probably one of the worst aspects of the pro-abortion movement today, which has taken a very sinister path. No acknowledgement of the 25% of abortion service users who have been coerced. Wilful blindness to any data which shows the very real, proven danger of making abortion as easily obtainable as possible.

The insistence on making abortion as "easy" and "accessible" as possible (which, by definition, means removing safeguards) has become a catch-all argument that surmounts all other considerations, even at the cost of women's health and security.

@Lambkin689

There comes a point where people's ideological tunnel vision overrides any concern for the actual wellbeing of women. This is probably one of the worst aspects of the pro-abortion movement today, which has taken a very sinister path. No acknowledgement of the 25% of abortion service users who have been coerced. Wilful blindness to any data which shows the very real, proven danger of making abortion as easily obtainable as possible.

The insistence on making abortion as "easy" and "accessible" as possible (which, by definition, means removing safeguards) has become a catch-all argument that surmounts all other considerations, even at the cost of women's health and security.

No, pro choice advocates don't ignore the wellbeing of women. That's an unfounded allegation. You have no evidence that 25% of women who have abortions have been coerced, that's another unevidenced assertion.

No, making abortions as easy and accessible as possible for women and girls does not by definition mean removing safeguards. That's your assertion, which is simply incorrect.

Your objection is to all abortions - stop hiding behind claims of caring about women's safety and wellbeing, and just own the fact that you don't want any women/girls to be able to choose to have an abortion at all.

@Lambkin689

There comes a point where people's ideological tunnel vision overrides any concern for the actual wellbeing of women. This is probably one of the worst aspects of the pro-abortion movement today, which has taken a very sinister path. No acknowledgement of the 25% of abortion service users who have been coerced. Wilful blindness to any data which shows the very real, proven danger of making abortion as easily obtainable as possible.

The insistence on making abortion as "easy" and "accessible" as possible (which, by definition, means removing safeguards) has become a catch-all argument that surmounts all other considerations, even at the cost of women's health and security.

So no acknowledgment of what has been explained to you in regards to data collection and interpretation? And fucking LOL at the complete lack of self awareness, ‘ideological tunnel vision’ indeed.

Ultimately though, what is most laughable is your repeated assertion that you actually care about vulnerable women being coerced. You don’t though, given that you have no problem with coercion to continue unwanted pregnancies.

Ultimately the difference between people who are pro choice and people who are anti choice is that those of us who want abortion to be available would not dream of forcing a woman to have an abortion. Whereas opponents of abortion want to force women to carry pregnancies that they do not want, or to resort fo unsafe illegal abortions with all the associated risks.

It's pretty obvious who's blinkered here.

Thank you to all those who have emailed their MP and tweeted. A quick reminder of how - if you want to - you can support the campaign, depending on how long you have:

If you have one minute: sign the petition here

If you have two minutes: quote tweet our tweet and @ your MP, asking them to vote for Baroness Sugg’s amendment.

If you have five minutes: Send an email using our template (copied below) asking your MP to vote for Baroness Sugg’s amendment - you can find contact details here. Then tweet and tag them (and @mumsnettowers) with the hashtag #KeepTelemedicalAbortion and the image below.

If you have ten minutes: Write a more personal email to your MP to tell them why this is important to you, and to ask them to vote for Baroness Sugg’s amendment - you can find contact details here. Then tweet and tag them (and @mumsnettowers) with the hashtag #KeepTelemedicalAbortion and the image below.

Once you’ve taken action, let us know!

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

Ultimately the difference between people who are pro choice and people who are anti choice is that those of us who want abortion to be available would not dream of forcing a woman to have an abortion. Whereas opponents of abortion want to force women to carry pregnancies that they do not want, or to resort fo unsafe illegal abortions with all the associated risks.

It's pretty obvious who's blinkered here.

Entirely this.

@pointythings

Ultimately the difference between people who are pro choice and people who are anti choice is that those of us who want abortion to be available would not dream of forcing a woman to have an abortion. Whereas opponents of abortion want to force women to carry pregnancies that they do not want, or to resort fo unsafe illegal abortions with all the associated risks.

It's pretty obvious who's blinkered here.

She’s been debunked in this thread now across numerous pages. At this point I don’t think she cares that she’s making a tit out of herself or exposing herself as a bad actor, it’s now just a deliberate effort to disrupt an important thread.

Done. Thanks MumsNet

I stopped replying because your claims about how the data was obtained were getting more and more absurd and unfounded. This data was a large contributing factor as to why the at-home telemedical abortions were removed in the first place. It wasn't obtained using some shady unknown methodology, but by the Care Quality Commission, according to the standard processes. You can write to the hospital and ambulance trusts themselves to ask them to verify these figures. They've been cited in Parliament - the only people I've seen questioning the reliability of the CQC processes is a couple of desperate posters on mumsnet. Not even BPAS and the RMC have gone so far as to claim that the CQC didn't follow protocol to obtain this data. You have no evidence for that and it's actually quite laughable, and heartbreaking, how desperate you are to silence anyone who disagrees with removing abortion safeguards.

I wasn't being "disingenuous" - I was trying to keep the discussion very narrow and exclusively about at-home abortion pills. I've seen some arguments break out on this thread about when an unborn baby becomes a person, whose rights surmount whose, whether a foetus is comparable to a parasite... And it's these rabbit holes which normally get threads deleted. I'm totally happy to have an open discussion on the more general matter of whether abortion has helped or harmed women since it was legalised on another thread.

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15694217/ RE the proportion of abortions being coerced by men, here's the study. You can read it all if you're genuinely interested.

*Objective: The present study aimed to identify the most important reasons for induced abortion and to examine their relationship to emotional distress at follow-up.

Results: Reasons related to education, job and finances were highly rated. Also, "a child should be wished for," "male partner does not favour having a child at the moment," "tired, worn out" and "have enough children" were important reasons. "Pressure from male partner" was listed as the 11th most important reason. When the reasons for abortion and background variables were included in multiple regression analyses, the strongest predictor of emotional distress at T2 and T3 was "pressure from male partner."*

As for how the figures were analysed, the report opens with an explanation ad to how the data was processed and analysed

Breakdown of how the data used in the "less than 1 in 5 complications are underreported" figure was analysed :

"The official DHSC statistics for 2020 show a 1.1% complication rate for all medical abortions and only 0.3% for medical abortions under 10-weeks. The footnote on Table 8 says:

“Total complications include: haemorrhage, uterine perforation, sepsis and/or cervical tear and are those reported up to the time of discharge. Therefore complications that occur after discharge may not be recorded.”

Abortion providers and the DHSC are not reporting medical abortion treatment failure as a complication, even though at least 5.9% of women using the abortion pills, need hospital treatment because of this failure. In any case, since these complications arise after discharge, the current method of reporting, using the HSA4 form, would still miss these cases even if the definition of complication were to include failed medical abortion treatment.

Abortion Providers Under Report.
The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists takes a pro-abortion position and can often be heard citing science and data in favour of the ‘safety’ and ‘efficacy’ of telemedicine abortion. It did so at the start of this year when promoting a cohort study into the safety, efficacy, and acceptability of telemedicine early medical abortion by Aiken et al. published in BJOG; we commented on this in February 2021. This study is still being used by activists when promoting the continuation of telemedicine abortion.

The authors claim that telemedicine abortion-at-home is very effective noting that in the period April – June 2020, across 29,984 medical abortions, only 208 women were treated surgically for the removal of retained products of conception (ERPC), a rate of 0.7%.

Our FOI investigation, which received responses from 85 NHS Trusts, found that 3.0% of women using abortion pills subsequently require a surgical procedure to complete the abortion by removing retained products of conception. We need data from only 20 NHS Trusts of the 127 which provide acute hospital services to reach an equivalent rate to that claimed by Aiken et al. These three Trusts alone provided more than 208 ERPC procedures in 2020:

Mid and South Essex NHS Foundation Trust
King’s College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
University Hospitals Bristol and Weston NHS Foundation Trust
Aiken et al. reported just seven cases of haemorrhage arising from 29,984 medical abortions in the period 06 April to 30 June 2020; they state that this cohort accounts for 85% of all medical abortions reported in England and Wales.

Our FOI investigation shows just how ridiculous this claim is; we need only refer to one of the 85 responses to find the same number of haemorrhage cases for the same period; that from e.g.:

University Hospital of Derby and Burton NHS Foundation Trust
Overall we find 2.3% of women having an induced medical abortion are subsequently treated at an NHS hospital for haemorrhage; this rate is one hundred times higher than that claimed by Aiken et al. and promoted by the Royal College."

And again with the broken record. Above, you’ve quoted a study from 2005 that concerned 80 women (and then critiqued small numbers in the RCOG study!). It concluded that abortion regret is associated with coercion. No shit. Again, you’re arguing something that isn’t being argued.

Coercion exists. Women are coerced into abortion, and they’re also coerced into giving birth. You’re being disingenuous in pretending you care about vulnerable women being coerced when you clearly don’t actually give a shit when they’re being coerced to your liking.

Own your agenda at least. Your concern is not vulnerable women, if it was you wouldn’t support an ideology that directly contributes to maternal injury and death on a horrifying scale worldwide.

The largest study on telemedical abortion ever conducted concluded that telemedical abortion is overall beneficial to women. A study supported by the actual experts in the field, that has gone through rigorous critical control to the highest standard employed as part of the peer review process. Argue around that all you like, allege a conspiracy theory by the RCOG, whatever. You’re not going to change the facts here.

Thank you, I've signed the petition and sent a personal email to my MP.

@Lexie365

No, I won't be contacting my mp. Abortion should absolutely not be this easily available.

Why not?

I can understand, although I disagree with, the view that abortion should not be available.

But abortion can be available as long as it's difficult to get is a strange concept.