Category: Pro-life

A victory for feminism?

Tomorrow a “pro-choice” rally takes place in central London, in response to the Dorries/Field right-to-know campaign, which aims to make independent counselling a mandatory part of the abortion process. The well-rehearsed slogans and soundbites regarding a woman’s autonomy over her own body and her right to access safe healthcare are being shrieked across the ether with increasing ferocity.

Tomorrow’s rally is perplexing in that a woman’s right to choose is not under contention. Abortion “rights” are not being eroded, the right to procure an abortion is not under threat, the only threat is to those clinics with vested financial interests.

In its submission to the Charity Commission in January 2011, BPAS states “our main priority in the coming year is to ‘grow’ our business by utilising and expanding our capacity to treat clients and extending our collaboration with the NHS”. A collaboration which proves extremely profitable. According to their accounts, the provision of abortion services accounted for £23 million of their income in 2010, but these services cost them £22 million thus they only made a profit of £1 million. When outlining the overall financial health of the ‘charity’, BPAS state that they are now in a better position than previously because “it has relieved itself of the burden of a previously underfunded pension scheme to improve its overall position”. BPAS’s charitable feelings obviously don’t extend to their employees. In terms of its aims for the forthcoming year BPAS says that it wants “to increase the number and value of contracts with NHS commissioners” as well as “extend services nationally to meet the needs of a greater number of clients”. As the organisers of the rally note, “they are professionals, not volunteers”, these extra abortions are not going to be carried out free of charge out of the goodness of their hearts. Just so they don’t feel left out, Marie Stopes, mention in their annual accounts that in 2008 they received £59.9 million in governmental fees and reimbursement for providing sexual and reproductive services globally. In 2009 this figure had risen to £71.4 million.

It’s worth bearing the above in mind amid all the slogans. If abortion is the ‘healthcare’ that women have a right to, then in common with every other medical procedure women should accept that the final decision lies in the hands of the medical practitioner. A doctor is always a moral arbiter to a certain extent, in that they recommend the appropriate course of treatment for the patient, one that may not always accord with the patient’s wishes. A patient cannot simply demand a particular course of medical treatment solely based upon their gender or their feelings in any other situation. A pregnant woman seeking a caesarian section needs to satisfy the consultant that she has strong grounds for what is major abdominal surgery, that she understands the risks and that the alternatives are unworkable in her situation. She cannot just see her GP and be instantly booked in for surgery.

Safe healthcare is a right that everyone should have access to, which is one of the reasons why BPAS lost their bid to permit women to take the RU486 without medical supervision. Safe healthcare needs to be appropriate to the needs of the patient. Pregnancy does not, for an overwhelming majority of women, require medical intervention in order to save the life of the mother. In 2010 98% of abortions in the UK were carried out for social reasons under category C of the Abortion Act provisions. If a woman feels that she is psychologically at risk from continuing a pregnancy, then counselling needs to be an important part of the decision-making process, as it is with any other medical procedure, one in which the potential risks are clearly outlined. Only then may her ‘choice ‘ such as it is, be said to be truly informed, consensual and ‘safe’.

The irony is that by removing counselling from those who may profit from a certain outcome, Dorries and Field are actually reinforcing women’s choices, rights and health. What are the vehement pro-choicers so scared of? That a woman might not have an abortion? That abortion rates might go down? Or that she might be “manipulated” into keeping a child by an organisation which doesn’t worship the god or ideology of “evidence based practice”, subscribed to by abortion clinics, who hold that abortion is a good or at worst, morally neutral. That an organisation might give her the idea that killing an unborn child is wrong and give her practical, emotional and financial support, advice and encouragement throughout her pregnancy?

What could be more of a victory for feminism than women empowered to overcome social, cultural, financial and emotional constraints to pregnancy? If enough of them do it, society really will be transformed in terms of gender equality. A woman’s ability and right to bear children at any time in her fertile years being taken as a given and factored into employment and benefits legislation and filtering into attitudes. But whilst abortion continues to be debated in terms of an indefatigable right and inherent gender-privileged choice, regardless of circumstance, then the debate about support for women with childcare needs will never be advanced as motherhood will always be seen as a “lifestyle choice” and the demand for widespread abortion will increase, making the cause so much harder for those very few genuinely tragic and hard cases for whom the 1967 Abortion Act was designed.

Mad as a box of frogs

Nadine Dorries added her voice to the chorus condemning the remarks of the Archbishop of Canterbury on her blog. Very often I have some sympathy with Mrs Dorries, she is the UK’s answer to Sarah Palin, the politician that everyone loves to deride, her personal reputation meaning that her detractors often don’t take the time to see beyond the muddled, emotive rhetoric, designed for maximum impact, but often with minimum thought or nuance. Today’s blog is a perfect example, with Dorries taking issue on both the content of the Archbishop’s remarks and also that he dared to speak on the ‘wrong’ topic.

She starts by trying to call the Primate of the Church of England’s Christian faith into doubt:

only weeks ago he proclaimed how uncomfortable he had been with the shooting of the mass murderer and most wanted man in the world, Osama Bin Laden. In 2008 we had Sharia Gate. A speech given by the Archbishop which must have deeply offended every practicing Christian in the UK.

Many people were uncomfortable with the execution of Bin Laden. The fifth commandment states “thou shalt not kill” which is why, as Dorries should undoubtedly be aware, many Christians don’t condone either abortion or the death penalty. Dorries certainly seems to support the latter. In any event being uncomfortable with the death of an unarmed man, is not indicative of a lack of Christian faith. Dorries seems to be rather un-subtly implying that Dr Williams is more concerned with Islam than he is his own religion by rather unfairly linking Sharia Gate (when Dr Williams made some equally ill-judged comments stating that Sharia would become unavoidable in this country) with his concern regarding the execution of Bin Laden. The Roman Catholic Church also stated that the death of a man was no cause for celebration.

(His article) was a derogation of his responsibility to lead and unite his flock

Calm down dear. He guest edited a magazine and made some political comments, that is all. It is the role of the Church to offer moral comment on government policy, no matter how unpalatable that may be to those who are of a different political persuasion.

and the most transparent expose yet of the fact that at the top, the Church of England is almost wholly infiltrated and run by people who would regard The New Statesman as their own particular gospel.

Watch out, there’s a communist in every cassock! This is ridiculous paranoia and untrue to boot. The Labour party have somehow managed to infiltrate the Church of England by sending party activists off to theological college and then ordination and then managed to get them elected onto the Synod. That takes some doing. Clergymen are more concerned with the New Statesmen than the Gospel of Jesus Christ? They are all hypocrites and liars, who don’t put the Gospel at the centre of their lives? Rightyho. Whatever you say dear…

There are areas of policy where politics and the church overlap, where debate should be robust and where the church and its Archbishops could speak with authority and have real influence and effect.

Such as those which might involve the poor and disenfranchised. But here’s the nub of the issue. Dr Williams did not speak about those issues which Nadine Dorries would have endorsed and supported her agenda. That’s hardly surprising, Dorries already mentioned the readership of the New Statesmen, so all the Archbishop of Canterbury was trying to do was reach and engage with the readership who would not be inclined to purchase an issue with a heavy pro-life agenda.

MPs and congregations want to know, what does Rowan Williams think of our over sexualised society, or the teaching of abstinence in schools?

Do they? Is that the most pressing issue on the minds of congregations when it comes to what Rowan Williams thinks? Are congregations actually that concerned about what Rowan Williams thinks? With the greatest of respect, church-goers will obviously pay attention to his remarks, but as they aren’t doctrine, they are simply his opinion, there to be noted and thought about, but not infallible pronouncements. I would argue that most people don’t really care about what Rowan Williams thinks about our over-sexualised society, having already come to their own conclusions. Same with abstinence, and in fact never mind most congregations, most members of the population seem to have focussed on the most negative interpretation as to how abstinence may be taught and thus don’t really care what the Archbishop thinks. Are most MPs most concerned about abstinence and the over sexualisation of society? If only.

What words does he have for his congregations on abortion or assisted suicide? What does he have to say about the screening of the documentary to be shown which next week which will shows us a man’s dying moments at a Dignistas clinic in Switzerland? What does he think of embryology research? Silence. Nothing, nada, not a word.

OK I get this and understand the point she’s making. The Church of England’s teaching on abortion and euthanasia is clear, they are pretty much against these practices, although with some room for interpretative hand-wringing. The Church leaders do need to speak more loudly and more frequently against these practices. It is nothing short of a tragedy that the leaders of Christ’s Church remain silent on the issues that affect the most vulnerable in our society. In some ways this is something of a veiled advert for the Catholic Church, although we would like our priests, bishops and archbishops to be more vocal in their defence of the elderly and unborn, often shying away from these uncomfortable topics, at least we have the authority of the magisterium, which is crystal clear on these issues.

Abstinence, abortion and euthanasia are issues that dovetail perfectly with Christian teaching, which is what Dorries is getting at. These issues are however, entirely logical stances to support, which do not require a belief in God. The support of the Church is vital, but the problem is that by linking them with the Church, Dorries makes clear her agenda is predominantly a Christian one, which gives fuel to the idea that abstinence teaching in schools is motivated purely by Christian morality, as opposed to being a good idea in itself. Abstinence makes sense and does not need to be taught within a Christian framework, as might be inferred. If Dorries is serious about getting a decent SRE programme in place, she needs to appeal to more than just the Christian vote or agenda. All these issues are rational ones, reinforced by religious faith, but not necessitating it.

I wonder if Nadine Dorries is interested in the views of the Archbishop of Canterbury on adultery? I know of some who are screaming out for guidance on this issue also.

the retreat of the church from our communities into its own ivory alters, is what has left a void within communities.

Rambling hyperbole. How precisely has the church withdrawn from communities?

A void the Big Society initiative is trying desperately to fill. The coalition, Archbishop, is trying to do the job in which your church has failed and is that maybe what has irked? That the Big Society policy has shone a light over the lazy failings of a rather wealthy established church?

Offensive piffle. How has the Church failed? Is it the Church’s job to prop up the government’s economic policies, to provide social care if the government won’t? Actually the Church provides an enormous amount of community support, from volunteers who visit the elderly and sick, to fund-raising for local causes such as hospices. David Cameron wants to emulate and build upon the model of community support that churches provide, recognising that this is all organised at a local level. The Church of England does not work from the top down; though it is governed by a mixture of episcopal, synodical and also parliamentary authority, it is also highly congregational, in short a unique structure that is very different to that of the Catholic Church. To state that the Church of England has somehow failed, without defining how, is erroneous and to call it lazy, is deeply offensive to all the members of the congregations and clergy that comprise the Church of England. What have these lazy priests, many of whom work longer hours and for considerably less pay, despite being easily as qualified as a city executive, failed to do? What else should the members of the Church of England be doing, other than what they are doing already? The only laziness here is Dorries’ statement of wealth of the Church of England. The Church of England is not some centralised organisation sitting on piles of cash, far from it. Churches cost thousands a week in upkeep, clergy salaries, pensions and houses need to be provided and maintained, not to mention the church schools. Many parishes are desperately struggling financially. To accuse the Church of England of lazily sitting back and doing nothing to tackle the problems of social exclusion whilst wallowing in money is the statement that surely must offend very single member. I’m not one, but I am offended nonetheless, having seen firsthand the selfless dedication and generosity of members of church communities.

church goers across the country scream out for guidance.

Why? How very patronising. They don’t know what to think and need the Archbishop of Canterbury to direct his scattered flock? Is the Bible and the guidance of their local priests and clergy not enough for them?

A church to lead and one they can follow. They want and need continuity and conformity, basic tenants upon which the church is based. That’s why they attend church because otherwise, they may as well stay at home and pray in isolation.

People attend Church because they want an encounter with Christ in the Eucharist, which is not available at home. They want to share in the fellowship of Christ as he commanded.

They want their church leader to reflect the teaching of Jesus and to spread his word into the wider community. To influence policy in the way Jesus would do if he were here today. What people don’t want is an Archbishop hijacking their church as a platform for his own Sharia friendly, socialist, personal political views.

Ah nice, another smear on Dr Williams’ agenda. I’m always wary of the “what would Jesus do” debates. What we do know is that Jesus Christ was the most revolutionary radical person ever to walk this planet. In terms of policy he would amongst other things demand that individuals, corporations and governments do everything possible to ensure that the poor have access to nutritious food, clean water and sanitation, decent housing, good schools, adequate employment and health care. So Dr Williams was well within his remit.

Their Church? The one that is lazy and wealthy? How can the Archbishop of Canterbury “hijack” something that he is already in charge of? Isn’t this something of a contradiction in terms? Which is it, thanks to the Archbishop of Canterbury the church is failing, lazy and wealthy and now he’s taking it over? Surely if the former is true, perhaps his sudden hijack might improve matters? Is every member of the Church of England right-wing? Bit of a sweeping statement. I thought the Church of England had been infiltrated and was being run by socialists already according to her opening statements. Presumably they are very happy to see Dr Williams use it as a platform for his socialist views. In any event anything that any Archbishop of Canterbury says will always be his personal views. He is not a direct sovereign of the Church, he word is not binding law.

The buzz word around Westminster is ‘Who will rid us of this troublesome priest’. The answer is ultimately his flock, as they stay at home week after week. The Archbishop is feeling the effect of true democracy as they let him know what they think of his ridiculous uttering’s, with their feet.

If congregations are down, it is for reasons far more prosaic than folk disagree with Rowan Williams. Most genuine Christians, would not let a leader with whom they may have divergences of opinion, affect their encounter with the divine. Just because one might have some personal disagreement with the political views of a bishop or archbishop, will not affect our desire to deepen in spirituality. Another nonsense banality.

The last time “who will rid us of this turbulent priest was uttered” it resulted in sainthood. Dorries should think on.

I have been loathe to write this because Dorries is one of the few pro-life MPs who we have in Parliament. There is a glimmer of sense and rationality behind some of the rhetoric, once you manage to unpick it. When she comes out with tripe like this, you just want to put your head in your hands and groan. Surely we can do better – we have to. The thought that she is the sole voice of the unborn, terminally ill and elderly in Parliament is profoundly depressing.

Home Alone

*Warning: This post is a lengthy discussion of the issues concerning Early Medical Abortion. It contains information that some may find distressing.*

Today is the final day of the High Court hearing where the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) are challenging the Department of Health, in order that women may be allowed to take the Abortion Pill, RU486 at home. Under the current system, the woman is prescribed and given two pills at the clinic, which block the pregnancy hormones and cause the developing embryo to detach from the womb lining where it cannot survive. The second set of pills is given in the clinic 48 hours later, which will cause her to miscarry. What the BPAS wish to do is challenge the 1967 Abortion Act which states that ‘any treatment for the termination of pregnancy’ must take place in a hospital or clinic and allow women to take the second set of pills at home, their main argument being that a woman will be able to better manage ‘a natural miscarriage’ in the comfort of her own home, where she will be better physically and emotionally prepared to cope.  Ann Furedi, the Chief Executive of BPAS claims that many women describe the cramping and bleeding as a “blessed relief”. The Abortion Pill, or EMA (Early Medical Abortion) “isn’t a period, but is probably the closest thing to it there is”.

A pill-popping exercise and Post-Abortion Syndrome

Stop right there. First of all, one of the many problems with the RU486, is that it turns abortion into nothing more than a pill-popping exercise. Many will not see a problem with that, but regardless of whether or not you believe the unborn child to actually be a child and have any rights, (for a photo of a 9 week fetus click here) abortion is the destruction of unborn life. Many many women, and I know, I have spoken with enough of them, suffer lasting emotional trauma after an abortion, when the reality of their choice has kicked in. The vast majority of women who undergo an abortion do experience a measure of guilt and pain, which society does not want to recognise, because such a recognition means an identification of what abortion is. Therefore a woman struggling with the after-effects of an abortion is unable to seek support of her close friends or family, who will condemn her for two reasons, either that she had the abortion itself, or more commonly, that she is experiencing grief and pain. Society embraces and endorses abortion as being a valid lifestyle choice and so a woman who suffers unforeseen emotional consequences as a result of that choice is seen as being self-indulgent and/or undermining the validity of that choice. Phrases like “well it was for the best, it was what you wanted to do”, “it wasn’t really a baby anyway” being all too common. A woman suffering from Post Abortion Syndrome or abortion related PTSD needs to be able to vocalise her experiences to a non-judgemental listener, one who will seek to ascribe neither blame, nor validation to her decision, but simply be there to listen and also to help her find ways of marking her loss. Many women who have been through an abortion  and need help beat themselves up in almost unimaginable ways, they don’t need any more guilt than they already have. Now when you make the woman physically responsible for the ending of her pregnancy, this only compounds the potential after-effects.

(Incidentally it is worth noting that neither BPAS or Marie Stopes offer any free emotional post-procedure counselling, their websites talking about the importance of having a good friend, counselling only being available on an appointment basis, in contrast to all the major pro-life charities, who are there at the other end of the phone 24/7, free of charge. )

So that’s the issue with pill-popping, it puts the burden and responsibility back onto the woman herself and reduces a devastating procedure into the routine everyday action taking a pill to alleviate an ache or pain. The comparisons that Ann Furedi makes with a patient who suffers from, for example, high blood pressure, only seeks to trivialise the issue further and is a straw-man argument. A patient with high blood pressure needs pills or medication to alleviate or control the symptoms of his condition and hopefully cure it. Pregnancy is not an illness or disease, an unborn child is not a symptom that needs to be eliminated.

A quick, safe decision?

Let’s look at the next issue surrounding the Early Medical Abortion, namely the time limit. The RU486 may only be taken before the woman has reached 9 weeks of pregnancy, therefore woman wishing to take this option need to do so quickly, the quicker the better. I can testify, having had 2 unplanned pregnancies, that in those first early weeks, one is in an absolute state of shock. Your hormones are all over the place, you are extremely tired, emotional, terrified of the future and often unable to think clearly. Even if, as with my second child, the baby is planned, you are still rather overwhelmed and incredulous that you are pregnant. It doesn’t seem real, apart from the two lines on the stick; there is no obvious physical manifestation that you are actually carrying a child. For me the weeks between 4 and 8 are the hardest, you know that you are pregnant, but you don’t actually have anything to show for it and it’s easy to go into a state of denial, particularly as you are bound to silence, for obvious reasons.

Though I need to be wary of disclosing too much private information, I feel it is appropriate to share some information regarding my pregnancy with my first daughter. As most know, my husband is not the biological father of our eldest child. Her biological father, with whom she now enjoys a close, loving and fulfilling relationship had always been explicit that he never ever wanted to have children. When I became unexpectedly pregnant, it is not melodramatic to state that for him, it was a total and utter disaster. It soon became very clear that at some point a choice would need to be made between the child and my relationship and that the relationship would not survive a child. Both sets of parents were extremely concerned, I took many phonecalls from his father urging an abortion and my mother also put pressure on me, stating that perhaps now was not the right time. His parents were terrified of the effect of an unwanted child on their son, my parents were terrified that our relationship would split up. At some point, someone well-meaning booked me in for an appointment at Marie Stopes. I rang them to discuss the situation when I was 7 weeks pregnant, about a week after I had taken the test. They informed me that I had an appointment to be prescribed the RU486 the next day. I stated that I was unsure as to my decision, (at that point I was pro-life though not practicing my faith) briefly outlined my circumstances, i.e. unplanned pregnancy, desperately unhappy partner, worried parents and had only begun a new job 5 months previously. Their response was that it sounded like an abortion would be the best option for me, the EMA was definitely the safest and most recommended method as it wouldn’t involve surgery, however they pressed home that I was really short of time, I desperately needed to act quickly. I asked for counselling, in order that I could discuss my options more fully and their response was to give me a counseling slot, half an hour before the time I would be given the clinical slot, but they did not want to cancel the clinical slot.

I decided there and then to cancel the entire thing, knowing how rubbish I am at saying no to people, and already under enough pressure, I felt that the sheer existence of this clinical appointment, looming immediately after the counseling might tip the balance or that I might be persuaded to make a quick decision. I was also concerned that the person on the phone, did not seem willing or able to discuss the alternatives. Marie Stopes were also guilty of using the oldest salesman’s trick in the book, namely of not only emphasising my limited time, but also of stating that if I didn’t take the given appointment that they couldn’t guarantee that there would be any available in the allocated time. It was a now or never scenario. I felt enormous pressure to abort with Marie Stopes keen to endorse and facilitate the decisions of others, not once did anyone ask “how do you feel about this, have you considered keeping your baby?”

I went home in floods of tears and announced somewhat melodramatically that I was keeping the baby and although I knew he would think I was mental, that I couldn’t abort because that would mean that I would burn in hell forever! I need to add that is not my stance now, but my daughter’s birth was an enormous turning point in my journey of faith.

What got me through those incredibly awful early weeks, was the determination that I couldn’t hurt my baby and the support of a very good friend, who helped me to see that what I saw as obstacles were not really obstacles at all, and that the very worst thing I could do would be to rush into a decision. 9 weeks may seem like plenty of time, but in reality, many women do not find out until they are at least 6-7 weeks pregnant, and 2 weeks is not sufficient to get one’s head around the enormity of the decision and make any kind of rational judgement, particularly when you are being pressured by an abortion provider. It worried me that counseling was not offered for a decision of this gravity. Let’s contrast the attitude of Marie Stopes/BPAS with that of a responsible Family Planning Clinic, which my friend visited aged 17. She had suspected that she was unexpectedly pregnant, went to the FPC who confirmed this, whereupon her first reaction was “I want to get rid of it”. Admittedly this was some time ago, attitudes are now different, but she was told “you’ve just found out that you’re pregnant five minutes ago. You cannot possibly make that decision. You need to go home, have a week to think about this, spend some time and come back next week, if you still feel the same then we will discuss options”. Her daughter is now 13 years old, she also has an 11 year old and despite having been kicked out of home as a result of her pregnancy, is a qualified staff nurse.

The reality of the procedure

Pressuring women is not the responsible option. Having subsequently been motivated to do some post abortion counselling work, almost every woman I have spoken to who was prescribed the RU486, has an absolute horror story to relate. To describe the cramping and nausea as being similar to period pain is a cruel deception. Women are not properly informed as to their potential ordeal until it is too late. Clinical sanitised language is employed and it is only once women are given the second set of pills, or in some cases, pessary, are they told “what you are are about to experience is a mini labour”. Not every woman suffers from period pain, so for many this is a meaningless comparison, many women think they will just experience a mild tummy ache. I have heard stories of women in agony for hours, one that I think will stick with me forever, was of one woman who had an intuitive compulsion to walk up and down the stairs of the clinic to alleviate her terrible pain, with some nurse Ratchett type urging her back into bed and to stay still. She had a dreadful fever, was throwing up and all the nurse could say was “oh good that proves its working well”. The RU486 is a taste of labour for many women, but instead of the relief described by Ann Furedi, it is accompanied by emptiness and grief, the labour bringing home to them exactly what they have lost. Those of us who have children and have experienced the pain of labour, can also testify to the joy and wonderment when our children are finally delivered, your body having been working up to this for several hours.

Not so for women affected by the RU486, they have absolutely nothing to show for their pains and are often so scarred that they are deterred for life from ever experiencing the empowering nature of childbirth. They associate it with an ugly outcome. Though I attempt to refrain from being graphic in these matters, the outcome is horrific. Women are given a carboard kidney dish in which to “pass the sack”, which then needs to be put into a paper bag allegedly resembling a lunchsack, whereupon it is checked to ensure that it is intact. Then they are sent home with paracetamol to deal with the fall-out and get on with life.

The argument goes that it is much kinder to let women manage their abortions in the comfort of their own home. From the stories I have heard, home is the very last place that women need to be, they need medical support and assistance, even if it is of a very brusque nature. Sometimes women need serious pain relief and intervention and a clinic or hospital is undoubtedly the best place. Complications such as incomplete or failed abortions which require surgery or problems associated with bleeding are not rare. What concerns me about this, is that it will be the vulnerable who will be most at risk. Teenage girls taking this pill without the knowledge or support of their parents, quietly taking the pill all alone in the privacy of their bedrooms, experiencing excruciating pain and potentially serious complications and too scared to ask for help or support. Apparently clinics will have a manned helpline for those concerned with symptoms, but the helpline will be of no practical support if someone needs urgent medical attention. All sorts of things could happen. The so-called ease and convenience of this pill could mean that many are pressured into taking it by boyfriends or abusive partners, relatives or even pimps without the proper care and support. Worse still, it is not beyond the bounds of imagination that women may be unknowingly duped or forced into taking it, particularly given the amount of women estimated to be working illegally in the sex industry. It seems so simple, go to the clinic take a few pills, go home, then take a few more 48 hours later and problem solved. Just a little bit of tummy ache to contend with. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Many women do experience natural miscarriages at home, with a significant proportion needing follow-up medical attention. Furthermore most women who do experience a natural miscarriage have the support of friends, families and partners who understand that this is an emotionally and physically gruelling time for them, with time off work often granted for compassionate reasons. I cannot see women taking the RU846 at home being accorded anything like the same amount of support, the myth is take the pill, solve the problem and get on with life. Besides, a miscarriage is a dreadfully traumatic experience for any woman, and yes probably they are more comfortable tucked up in bed, or curled up on the sofa. Not so for the woman going through a mini labour on the quiet, who has absolutely no idea of what to expect, whether or not her pain or blood loss is normal and no-one to talk to about it, unless she can sneakily use her mobile whilst locking herself in the bathroom or bedroom, unable to physically manifest any sign that she might be in pain in case someone suspects. The bedroom or bathroom will forever be associated with horrific memories and associations, a constant reminder of her ordeal.

There is also the issue of disposal of the fetus. Existing Department of Health guidelines state that dignity and respect should be afforded to fetal tissue and to leave women to deal with this aspect not only contravenes existing guidelines but is downright cruel.

Holistic healthcare – body and soul, or an expedited solution?

This is being sold under the premise of healthcare and concern for the woman, whereas if healthcare was the main issue, proper counseling would be mandatory before any abortion takes place, so that the woman is able to fully consent to the procedure and knows exactly what to expect. Since when did mental health cease to become a healthcare issue? The whole point of the 1967 Abortion Act was to ensure that abortion was as safe as possible for women. A successful challenge would totally undermine the spirit of the act, would compromise women’s safety and put abortion safely back behind closed doors.

And if you still think that this is done in the name of altruism, consider this. BPAS charges £530 for a medical abortion, although the NHS funds 93% of abortions carried out by them. Marie Stopes charges the same, although they will let you have your consultation over the telephone  rather than face-to-face and will charge an extra £35 if you need them at the weekend. Do you think that if all of a sudden women are allowed to take their pills at home, with no medical supervision, that the prices will fall? If the challenge is successful, the clinic’s overheads are reduced, meaning plenty more money in the pot to guess what sell and promote even more speedy abortions to even more women. It’s a nice little earner for them, make no mistake. And for those who are sceptical, check out Planned Parenthood in the US. A similar “altruistic” organisation, providing choice for women, abortions given, no questions asked, who have this week been uncovered not only covering up cases of child abuse and statutory rape, but also giving advice to pimps and sex traffickers who bring in their clients for a no questions asked service.

Regardless of one’s views on abortion, today’s challenge is motivated far more by profit than altruism. If you truly care about women facing crisis pregnancies, you’ll enable them to make a properly informed, wholly consensual choice, instead of rushing them into a course of action which will have serious long-term emotional and physical repercussions. To any woman who has ever suffered a miscarriage, to equate it to being the closest thing to a period, shows how out of touch BPAS and Ms Furedi really are.