Action needed! Early Day Motion 1622 – Consultation on the care of women considering induced abortion

Jim Dobbin MP has put forward an Early Day Motion regarding the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists’ recent, thoroughly biased, consultation on their amended guidelines for abortion practioners. Only 21 days were allowed for consultation instead of the usual 12 weeks, which did not allow for proper consideration of the document.

The RCOG guidelines referred to in the EDM, as it stands, could result in tremendous damage to women as well as undermining their right to proper care. Please see attached link for the guidelines themeselves.

The ProLife Alliance asks readers to contact their local MP to request that they sign EDM 1622. If your MP says that he or she cannot sign it because of their position, go back and ask whether they agree with it! You can find your local MP on this link.

The text of the EDM is as follows:

That this House notes that the Consultation Committee and Report of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) The Care of Women Requesting Induced Abortion fails in at least four criteria required by the Government Code of Practice; further notes that the Leader of the House has stated that the Government could not interfere because it was a RCOG Consultation Committee and not the responsibility of the Government (17 February 2011, Official Report, column 1145); further notes, however, that in the Answer to Lord Alton of Liverpool, Official Report, House of Lords, column WA425, the Government stated that the Department of Health commissioned and funded the review; further notes with grave concern, therefore, that the committee considering the review allowed only 21 days for consultation instead of at least 12 weeks as required by the Government’s guidelines and that the membership consisted almost entirely of pro-abortion personnel including representatives from the UK’s two main abortion providers, the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) and Marie Stopes International; further notes it was not until a press release from BPAS quoted the guidelines and implied that they had been finalised that it became known to a majority of interested parties that the consultation existed, by which time there were only five days for interested parties to respond; further notes that the present guidelines include a number of claims which peer-reviewed medical literature suggest are inaccurate or misconstrued; and calls on the Government to establish a further consultation with a balanced membership under the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence which will be answerable to Parliament.