Abortion-Anti-choice counselling: tell your MP to say NO!

[coffee]

Abortion-Anti-choice counselling: tell your MP to say NO!


http://www.abortionrights.org.uk/content/view/422/110/

[lewist]

Done.

[Nick]

Sorry, Coffee, but I think the site you have referred us to is appalling. It does not reflect the truth of the matter, which helps no-one. And before you accuse me of anything, I have said almost the same about the other side.

Anti-choice counselling:

Well, it's not. The objective is the separation of counselling from provision of abortions. Myself, I don't feel that's necessarily a good thing, but it is not anti-abortion counselling.

tell your MP to say NO!

No-one in a democracy should be able to "tell their MP" to do anything.

We need you to stand up for access to safe, legal abortion and the right to impartial information.

Abortion always makes me uncomfortable; a little decorum seems appropriate. Talk of "rights" just begs too many questions. And in any case, the amendment can be seen to be demanding "impartial information", just as you are calling for.

The Department of Health is planning to introduce new counselling requirements for women seeking abortion,

Absolute lies. It is not the Department of Health which is proposing anything, but a couple of MP's: Nadine Dorries and Frank Field. Secondly, the proposed counselling is not a requirement for women seeking abortions. It is the offer of independent counselling which is required. Women would be perfectly entitled to decline. I would have thought that there are enough options for advice for women before they approach an abortion provider, so they can already find alternatives.

If it is to be truely independent, then that would exclude the religious, wouldn't it? This is something they haven't really got to grips with; they think they will be permitted to launch anti-abortion "counselling", but that is patently not "independent". Given the state of the law on abortion, so recently re-affirmed by Parliament, the Catholic agencies for "pro-life" would just not be accepted as being "independent".

which could limit their access to impartial advice and delay access to services.

Nope. If the advice is to be impartial, it would reduce the scope of anti-abortion campaigners to provide counselling services. Women will not be required to take further counselling. Abortion providers will still have to counsel their patients in oder to obtain valid patient consent. Access to abortions will be exactly the same.

Based on amendments to the Health and Social Care Bill, the proposals strip abortion providers of the right to provide pre-abortion counselling, and could see anti-choice groups invited to offer pregnancy counselling in their place.

There's that bloody useless word "rights" again! What "rights"? It can't happen, and anti-abortion groups are not independent!

The purpose of these proposals is to limit access to impartial information and deter women from having the procedure. We believe they are damaging, unnecessary and should be rejected.

Given the requirement is to have available an option to impartial advice, only if required, there can be no extra limit to access to impartial advice. If people offer alternatives to abortion, because of their sense of life, then so be it. They can do so now. But that will not be "independent". The amendment will not increase the deterrent, as all the options proposed are available now. If they are successful in reducing abortions, then so be it. They've had long enough to try, and have largely failed.

The amendments could be debated and voted on in the House of Commons as early as 6th or 7th September.

OK

We want to make sure MPs know the facts about what these changes would mean for women and hear the views of the pro-choice majority who support the right to safe, legal abortion in this country

The so-called "right" is purely the decision of Parliament. I despise such sloppy, unconvincing language.

Would I support the amendment? No. Because I am satisfied that enough options for women are already available, and reject the accusation of profiteering used to justify the split between advice and provision of services. But arguments such as those exhibited here are poor, really poor, inaccurate and misleading. I cannot support such a web-site. And, as it is not being supported by the Government, the amendment has zero chance of succeeding anyway.

[anaconda]

Hi Nick

The key issue at least as far I can make out is that the current largest 'independent' abortion advisor, Care confidential, is a religious organisation whose training package for staff includes biblical teachings regarding abortion. The independence of this organisation is clearly open to question, despite their recent assertions that they will change the training content. The worry is that organisations with this agenda, well hidden or otherwise, would have greater opportunity to advise under the proposed changes.

http://politicalscrapbook.net/2011/08/n ... -abortion/

I agree with the gist of your post. The tone and language of the link doesnt do much for me either. Im not sure whether the financial incentive for abortion providers is real or not. If it is it seems logical to separate the two (advice and provision), however Im more concerned about religious morality sneaking into another area of service provision

[Alan C.]

anaconda
Care confidential, is a religious organisation whose training package for staff includes biblical teachings regarding abortion.

I'd like somebody from Care confidential to show me where in the bible abortion is even mentioned.

Im not sure whether the financial incentive for abortion providers is real or not.

It's not.
The Marie Stopes non profit organisation operates 452 clinics in 40 countries worldwide.

[Nick]

anaconda
Care confidential, is a religious organisation whose training package for staff includes biblical teachings regarding abortion.

I'd like somebody from Care confidential to show me where in the bible abortion is even mentioned.

While you are waiting, Alan, try Hosea 13:16.

Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.

Abortion: sanctioned by God.

Nice.

[Alan C.]

Nick
Abortion: sanctioned by God.

Not only sanctioned but caused, isn't god responsible for the 1 in 4 pregnancies that end in spontaneous abortion (miscarriage)?

[anaconda]

Im not sure whether the financial incentive for abortion providers is real or not.

It's not.
The Marie Stopes non profit organisation operates 452 clinics in 40 countries worldwide.

I read that, but not for profit doesnt mean they dont take money in for their services. If theres a link between income and the number of abortions performed then their independence as an advisory service may be open to question. This was what I was getting at - again Ive no idea if this is the case.

The flip side to this by separating advice from the procedure itself could be to lengthen the process.

[Nick]

Brain surgeons are paid to perform operations, too. Are they therfore biased?

All the counsellors at Marie Stopes and BPAS are governed by various external rules, including the BACP, centring on the woman. A woman from Care Confidential was interviewed on Today this morning and wriggled and squirmed (and IMO lied) when asked about how they could be confidential. She did not reveal their religious inspiration. They have only been a charity since July 2011 and their counsellors sre not members of th BACP, which is telling, I think.

I think it is important to say at this stage, that though my opinion may be valid, I think the opinions of women on this topic are much more so.

[Tetenterre]

[Fia]

Quite. I can't quite bring myself to attach a smilie...

However, I was delighted to note that this muddled amendment failed as miserably as it deserved to.

[Alan H]

Quite. I can't quite bring myself to attach a smilie...

However, I was delighted to note that this muddled amendment failed as miserably as it deserved to.

...and by a larger margin than many thought...

[lewist]

Quite. I can't quite bring myself to attach a smilie......

Too right. The Jesus and Mo cartoons are sometimes funny, but often, as here, they go right to the heart of the matter. It's not funny.

[Tetenterre]

... but often, as here, they go right to the heart of the matter. It's not funny.

Indeed not, but it's very apposite. (IMNSVHO, of course)

[Alan C.]

Only in America....Note all the anti abortionists in the photo are male.
Mississippi to vote on reversing abortion rights by redefining 'person'

[Val]

I find it difficult to allow men any voice in the matter of abortion until I feel that no man will have sex with a woman without taking precautions, unless the couple intend to have a child., in which case abortion would not be needed. Now that statement will have put the cat amongst the pigeons I expect. (Val sits back and awaits the flack)

[Alan C.]

Not flack Val but surely (in most cases, not rape etc.) It should be a joint decision? It takes two to make a an embryo, and in some cases the father may be prepared to bring up the resultant child alone.
I agree with your point in the main.

[Val]

I await others to discuss first the point about the father being prepared to bring up the child on his own. It leaves unsaid the affect the pregnancy will have on the mother and her subsequent feelings for the child. I accept what you say about unless it is rape but I believe that many women are coerced into sex without precautions, and I speak from experience of working with women clients in one guise or another for forty years. How often has it been said "it is ok I will pull out" or "I have had a vasectomy". (Even in the latter case safer sex should mean using a condom,) but...

[thundril]

I find it difficult to allow men any voice in the matter of abortion until I feel that no man will have sex with a woman without taking precautions, unless the couple intend to have a child., in which case abortion would not be needed. Now that statement will have put the cat amongst the pigeons I expect. (Val sits back and awaits the flack)

No flack from me, either. This question is entirely for women, with men having only a duty to support, or at least not to obstruct, what women decide they want.
For me it's a much harsher situation, but otherwise parallel, to the burqa question; where my opinion is simply that 'Men should stop telling women what they can and can't wear.'
That is, 'Men should stop ruling on what women may or may not do with their own bodies.'

[Tetenterre]

I find it difficult to allow men any voice in the matter of abortion until I feel that no man will have sex with a woman without taking precautions, unless the couple intend to have a child., in which case abortion would not be needed. Now that statement will have put the cat amongst the pigeons I expect. (Val sits back and awaits the flack)

Not so much flack as disagreement:

• <cliché>It takes two to tango</cliché>, hence I think it is up to both partners, not only the man (or only the woman), to "take precautions". It's no longer relevant to me since I live in a monogamous relationship and have had the snip but, in my "active" youth, I would have considered it demeaning to any sexual partner to presume that all contraceptive responsibility is mine and mine alone.
• No form of contraceptive is 100% reliable, hence abortion can sometimes be needed despite best contraceptive efforts of both partners.
• Maybe we Y-chromosome types should not have a voice in the matter of abortion per se, but I would argue that we do have a voice as regards to our preparedness (or otherwise) to care for the resulting child if the woman chooses not to abort the foetus; in many cases this may influence the woman's decision in the matter.