Bid in Lords to overturn move to decriminalise abortion for women

[IwantToRetire]

A landmark move to decriminalise women terminating their own pregnancies could be overturned as legislation is considered in the House of Lords.

In June, MPs in the Commons voted in favour of decriminalisation, with one saying it would remove the threat of “investigation, arrest, prosecution or imprisonment” of any woman who acts in relation to her own pregnancy. ...

But, with the Bill making its way through the Lords, an amendment has been tabled to remove the relevant clause. ...

https://nation.cymru/news/bid-in-lords-to-overturn-move-to-decriminalise-abortion-for-women/

I find it very strange you are equating an abortion needed to save a life (something done every fucking day, no legal obstacles to it) with a woman who knowingly took abortion pills at 32 weeks to kill a healthy fetus, all to save a failing relationship.

It would have been extremely unlikely though if she has been offered a termination when she asked for one that she would have died of sepsis. You can monitor for infection but we don't have mechanisms that are going to detect that immediately. Laws that require immediate risk to life and ban abortion, is exactly why they couldn't help her until the foetus which was inevitable going to be miscarried no longer has a heartbeat. How is that Nina simple yes or no that if abortion want criminal she wouldn't have died? Any doctors is aware of the potential fo sepsis and death from RPOC and which is why where we don't have total criminalisation they proceed with treatment asap not waiting for a woman to have a dead foetus inside.

Because those are the large majority and that woman is a very very very rare case. Why are we legislating with these arre cases in mind when it has actual risks to life for the majority of women ?

I'm not engaging with your posts anymore now...you are being too demanding and taking up more time than I'm willing it give.

@RingoJuice you so keep skimming over that there are legal obstacles, that's the whole point of the legislation. You have access to abortion provided XYZ and done. In my friends case yes they could get that red tape sorted very quickly given it's a hospital and it wasn't hard to find two medical professionals who could see the obvious need for her to have her cancer surgery, but she did not have the legal right to proceed with her surgery with no obstacles.

It's quite ironic you find simply explaining your stance to be demanding and jumping through hoops when you're defending the stance that woman should jump through hoops to demand an abortion, rather than agree that there was no benefit to my friend or any of the HCPs potentially facing prosecution.

They didn’t seem to know it was coming. The hospital failed terribly.

They did know it was coming, sepsis is always a risk from retained products on conception. Savita asked for an abortion because of her concerns of contacting an infection from RPOC and the doctors explained they legally weren't allowed to.

The enquiry found they didn’t assess or monitor her properly and they didn’t adhere to clinical guidelines around sepsis management. That’s why I said ‘seem to’…if they knew they certainly weren’t acting on that knowledge properly.

What is your specific complaint in her situation? That she didn’t get this abortion fast enough?

Because they were afraid of being prosecuted by acting illegally and terminating while the foetus still had a heartbeat though, that's the point, they were waiting for the heartbeat to stop. Yes they could have monitored her more intensely but that still wouldn't have guaranteed she wouldn't have developed an infection because that's always an urgent risk form RPOC and they were forced to wait until this inevitable miscarriage became RPOC instead of "a life", even though it has no potential to continue as a pregnancy.

Which case are you talking about?

Abortion was legal if the mother’s life was at risk. When they refused the abortion they thought it wasn’t. If they thought it was at risk then it would have been legal to abort.

But cases like Carla Foster’s should be condemned and prevented, no? And yet so many defended her—she wasn’t a scared teenager, she did it to save a failing relationship. Literally for a man.

Her life wasn't immediately at risk because she hadn't yet miscarried, she would inevitably miscarry this pregnancy because the sac was outside of the womb. The decision to not allow her an abortion was not a medical opinion it was because they risked breaking the law if they did not wait for the heartbeat to stop, even though this put her at risk of sepsis.

I just don't think it's helpful to extrapolate from a a very rare and by the sounds of it sad case all round to the issue at large and make hyperbolic statements that decriminalisation of abortion equates to decriminalising people murdering or abandoning their toddlers. I don't see how the current law prevented Carlas case at all either.

They did not have to wait for the heartbeat to stop if they had realised a mother was at risk.

She was admitted to hospital on the Sunday and blood tests were taken which showed she had a urinary tract (E.coli) infection. It was this infection which probably caused the spontaneous miscarriage on the Wed and sepsis and death a few days later. Crucially, her consultant didn’t access her blood results until Wed but said if she had seen them sooner would have performed an abortion Mon or Tues. Blood spectrum antibiotics were only given from Weds. It was too late.

All medical proceedures take time.

Had they agreed to carry out the termination and still not monitored her for sepsis, while preparing for/ carrying out the termination, the termination alone would not have saved her life.

My point is, it was not a simple yes/ no scenario. Treating her for sepsis is more likely to saved saved her life than a termination.

Both should have been carried out.

Terminations are not just healthcare. Sometimes its a choice.
Getting overly emotional and being factually innacurate mimics the pro life stance.

To prevent it would have required people to have some foresight over pills by post, however she should have served out her prison term.

Getting overly emotional and being factually innacurate mimics the pro life stance

This right here is what bothers me about the pro-choice movement as of late. Literally nobody but the most fringe activists wanted a law like this … it’s like giving the pro-life movement something to advocate for that most normal people actually agree with—why the FUCK would you do that?

They had to wait either for the heartbeat to stop or her life to be at risk from infection which would be the case once she had RPOC. Regardless of the e coli, her pregnancy was an inevitable miscarriage that hadn't completed yet. She had asked for an abortion because of her concern of sepsis already and ithe procedure was denied it and she died because it was too late. None of this would have happened if she wasn't restricted from accessing an abortion until an immediate risk to life and instead was a decision to be made by her and the HCP solely. Whether the hospital could have done better or not doesn't mean that she wouldn't have objectively been safer if the risk of prosecution and the requirements of immediate risk to life wasn't preventing doctors from offering her a lifesaving procedure. Did you ever hear Debbie Reynolds talk about her stillborn? When you insert the law into women's healthcare, doctors can't act in their patients best interests :
www.today.com/parents/debbie-reynolds-abortion-roe-v-wade-clip-rcna36562

Had they agreed to carry out the termination and still not monitored her for sepsis, while preparing for/ carrying out the termination, the termination alone would not have saved her life.
Yes bad aftercare could cause sepsis, as it can with any procedure but I don't see how that relevant to the actual scenario though which is she developed sepsis form RPOC? She developed sepsis from an inevitable miscarriage that was never going to be a successful pregnancy, where is the benefit to the patient, the doctors or the public from there being a risk of prosecution for performing an abortion for a failed miscarriage?

I'm also not overly emotional just because I'm talking about real life difficult situations that occur when the emotive prolife stance has real world consequnces.

Coming from the poster who equated decriminalisation of abortion with the slippery slope for women abandoning their children into the streets or committing infanticide because they all go hand in hand but you're not overly emotional or factually incorrect at all ...

And yet she's still an extremely rare case, she is not the rule and yet you still haven't answered where is the benefit of people being at risk of prosecution in the vast majority of cases? When my friend could not simply go ahead with her surgery, where was the benefit?

You didn’t need to change the law at all. Now it will protect people like Carla Foster.