Whilst we never backed the amendments, the considered and reasoned response from Health Minister Anne Milton has come as a consequence of the questions that have arisen from the debate. The debate has reinforced public opinion that there are too many abortions and that action needs to be taken to make sure that fewer women have crisis pregnancies. We look forward to engaging with the Government consultation on pregnancy counselling to look at the facts and produce evidence-based policy. We would encourage as many people as possible to contribute to this process. 

Olivia Darby

0207 5816939

Within the current debate, on all sides, counselling, as a term, has been bandied around but not defined. When counselling is being debated, what is its nature, purpose or content and how is it accredited?

The ProLife Alliance has always believed that anybody involved in abortion provision or referral should be delivering accurate information on the psychological and medical risks associated with abortion

The current debate has not differentiated between the legal requirement to provide women seeking an abortion with medical information about the risks associated with abortion and more formal counselling. There is a clear difference between counselling and the provision of information.

Further, whilst abortion providers say they should be able to provide and do provide counselling, there has in the past been a tendency for pro abortion organisations to dismiss the need for such support. There have been many reports of conveyor-belt style abortion centres where women are rushed through an abortion without feeling that they have been enabled to make a fully informed or calmly considered choice. We believe that all women should be informed about alternatives to abortion, and that anybody, whether pro-life or pro-choice, should be properly equipped to discuss these alternatives.

It is unclear how the current amendments, which we believe have been proposed with the right intentions, would work in practice. For example, who would be responsible for ensuring that information provided to women was objective and accurate? We are concerned that these amendments will not achieve the aim of providing appropriate counselling to women.

The ProLife Alliance maintains its total opposition to terminating the life of the unborn child and is convinced that women and their families deserve better than abortion. We pin genuine hopes on the forthcoming Government consultation on abortion which we hope will unravel many of the current misunderstandings.

Should you wish for any of these ideas to be elaborated upon, please do not hesitate in contacting us.

Olivia Darby 0207 581 6939

Two nurses have recently used equalities legislation to ensure that they would not be discriminated against for refusing to be complicit in abortions. The Christian nurses were moved to a clinic where they were required to administer two drugs (Mifepristone and Misoprostol)  to pregnant women. When the pair learned that these drugs were causing which cause “early medical abortion” and that consequently they were participating in abortions they objected but clinic managers instructed them to continue with the work, contravening their freedom of conscience rights. 

The nurses made enquiries, and following clarification from the Thomas More Legal Centre, who wrote to the hospital where they worked, they were told that they would no longer have to administer the abortifacient drugs but would have to continue working in the clinic.

Neil Addison, their lawyer, intervened again, writing to the hospital noting that the nurses would still be “morally complicit in abortion” and did not want to work in the clinic in any capacity. The hospital changed its stance and move the nurses to another department.

Section 4 of the 1967 Abortion Act, already states that nurses have the right to conscientious objection to involvement in an abortion, but here the use of equality laws should protect the courageous nurses from further discrimination which could affect their future careers.

Mr.  Addison stated that the Equality Act protected their ability to take this position, without reference to their religious beliefs, as the sanctity of life is a protected philosophical belief. This means that any pro-life medical professional’s rights to conscientious objection should be protected, regardless of their religious background.   

​Full story here

Norma was homeless at the time of her pregnancy and therefore in a desperate situation. She says that she didn’t understand what she was being asked to do. Given that Norma was only 21 years old when she became pregnant and was not from an educated background, this is hardly surprising. When the Roe v Wade judgement was made, and the reality of what she had been involved in hit her, she attempted suicide. Since 1980 she has repeatedly spoken out in favour of the right to life.

The Times article attempts to portray Norma McCorvey as ignorant and attention seeking. We believe she should be praised for being prepared to stand up and be counted – it is great that she is willing to be attention seeking in a good cause! She wants a quiet life, yet is trying to make amends for the Pandora’s Box which was opened as a result of that fateful court case in 1973.

Women who are pregnant in crisis situations such as homelessness, as Norma was, should be helped in practical terms, not provided with a quick fix which is the death her their children and the physical and emotional trauma of abortion.

The ProLife Alliance congratulates Norma McCorvey for her bravery when those who claim to be on the side of women’s rights denigrate her for her stand in favour of life.

On Monday 18 April the legal battle continues in the High Court, as the Department of Health (DoH) challenges a ruling in October 2009 from the Information Tribunal (IT) in favour of the request of the ProLife Alliance (PLA) to the Information Commissioner (IC) for full disclosure of statistical information covering the provision of late abortions.

When attention was drawn to the original cleft palate case there was huge public outrage in the United Kingdom and not just from the pro-life movement. A relatively simple surgical intervention can repair this defect and many plastic surgeons currently offer their services free to children with cleft palates living in developing countries.

Subsequent to the publicity around the UK cleft palate case, a decision was taken by the DoH in 2003 to no longer reveal detailed information about the provision of abortion in the United Kingdom, where figures fell below 10 cases. They argued that where the number of cases was low, there was a risk of identification of the women involved.

The PLA considered this an unjust and unreasonable response and one contrary to Freedom of Information legislation. It initiated a series of requests and formal applications to reverse the new policy adopted by the DoH.

Abortion statistics do not identify individual patients, and with 200,000 abortions occurring annually in the United Kingdom it would be impossible to identify any single abortion even if there was only one incident of a particular kind recorded. The public however has a right to know exactly what is happening under our current Abortion Law, not least those who like ourselves are engaged in legitimate lobbying against abortion.

A summary of the legal dispute to date follows:

2003
Following cleft palate case the DoH significantly reduced the information available for abortions performed under ground E, which relates to abortion for disability.

2005
Feb: FOI request from PLA asking for full disclosure of 2003 stats.
April: Substantive reply from DoH denying request.
May: Application by PLA for internal review of DoH decision.

2006
April: Review completed upholding decision not to reveal information in question
May: PLA complained formally to the IC

2008
July: PLA complaint upheld by IC
August: DoH appealed against judgment.

2009
29 May-1/3 June: Appeal heard by IT
October: IT ruled in favour of disclosure to PLA
November DoH appealed

2011
April 18/19: Appeal Hearing
Court 73 at 10.30

Before Mr Justice Cranston
Appellant : Department of Health
and
Respondent : Information Commissioner
and
(Additional Party : ProLife Alliance)

The ProLife Alliance congratulates the Department of Health on the successful outcome. The pro-life organisation SPUC intervened in defence of the unborn child and further details about the case are available on their website.

The challenge is an attempt to move the country towards do-it-yourself abortion, and must be rigorously opposed. With their proposed change the mother would in effect be taking over a significant part of the current role of the abortion provider.

The acknowledged shortage of doctors prepared to perform surgical abortions is one of the reasons why abortion providers are hyping up the medical alternatives, but more significantly this present initiative is an attempt to chip away at the Abortion Act and trivialise the dramatic reality of abortion.

It is well known that the pro-abortion lobby in the UK wants to see abortion on demand in the first trimester of pregnancy and this attempt to entrust the second stage of medical abortion to the patient, would move that agenda forward dramatically.

The ProLife Alliance opposes abortion because it ends the life of the developing child, but we also have huge concern for the physical and psychological welfare of women and the trauma they may suffer after abortion. To be possibly on your own, taking medicine to end the life of a developing child, is a harrowing experience that can understandably cause huge distress to the mother. There is ample evidence already reflecting the anguish for the women involved in home abortions, particularly when they actually see their tiny unborn child flushed away in the toilet.

There are also serious side-effects to be considered including haemorrhaging, pelvic inflammatory disease, toxic shock syndrome, diarrhoea, nausea and vomiting. Many patients suffer pain or abdominal cramps, which can last for several hours. There have been two deaths in Britain caused by early medical abortion since 1991 when medical abortion was introduced.

How can the BPAS possibly portray itself as pro-woman, when it is prepared to expose women to such risks? Pro-abortion is certainly not pro-woman.

The reports in effect reinforce the status quo of a 24 week upper limit and refuse to provide guidance as to what constitutes severe disability which is a legal ground for abortion up till birth. This is an extremely important consideration considering the uproar caused a few years ago by the reporting of an abortion after 24 weeks for cleft palate.

A spokesperson for the ProLife Alliance said:

“This is a nakedly political attempt by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists to defend the status quo against any potential attacks in Parliament. The Prime Minister has openly backed a reduction to 20 weeks and this is supported by an overwhelming majority of the British population. The RCOG are trying to stop abortion reform and will ignore the opposing side of the argument to suit their purposes. We would not be surprised if these reports get short shrift from international experts, such as Professor Sunny Anand, the world’s leading expert in the field who was not even consulted.”

Professor Sunny Anand, Professor of Pediatrics, Anesthesiology, Pharmacology, and Neurobiology at the University of Arkansas College of Medicine, has said in the past:

“Very likely most fetuses at 20 weeks after conception will be able to perceive abortion as painful, unpleasant, noxious stimulation.”

The US state of Nebraska passed a law in Aril this year banning abortions after 20 weeks on the grounds of fetal pain.

NOTE TO EDITORS

Fetal Awareness can be found here: http://www.rcog.org.uk/files/rcog-corp/RCOGFetalAwarenessWPR0610.pdf

Termination of Pregnancy for Fetal Abnormality can be found here: http://www.rcog.org.uk/files/rcog-corp/TerminationPregnancyReport18May2010.pdf

Expert opinion on fetal pain can be viewed here: http://www.doctorsonfetalpain.com/

The Nebraska Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act can be viewed here: http://nebraskalegislature.gov/FloorDocs/Current/PDF/Slip/LB1103.pdf

The Daily Mail and The Sunday Times both quoted the ProLife Alliance’s reaction to the reports.

Next week the ProLife Alliance expects to receive from the Department of Health (DoH) withheld statistics relating to abortions for abnormality. We won access to this data following a high profile court case under the Freedom of Information Act, when the Information Tribunal ruled in our favour mid October this year. The DoH could still appeal the decision, however, and has until November 11 to decide.

If we obtain this missing information, it will clearly be a step in the right direction but must be followed up by genuine disclosure and transparency in relation to all abortion statistics.

The most significant aspect of the Tribunal Decision is not so much the ruling re the disclosure of statistics as the damning assessment of the Department of Health’s failure to regulate abortion.

The Department bears the full burden of enforcing abortion laws in this country, yet the Tribunal highlights the absence of any mechanism for rigorous scrutiny of abortion referral forms, with no audit, spot checks, outside opinion or quality control of the basis for the terminations. It expressed particular concern that decisions were not scrutinised clinically or substantively and that no witnesses were able to point to a case where the diagnosis of a certifying doctor had ever been checked by the Department of Health.

The ProLife Alliance will continue to campaign in defence of the absolute right to life of the unborn, and reiterates its opposition to all abortions. But at the very least, we argue, there should be robust mechanisms in place which ensure conformity with the existing requirements of the Abortion Act.

This is an issue which all pro-life groups should be concerned about and we recommend that you read the full Judgment.