Men must speak up on abortion debate - Page 14 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-18-2011, 05:50 PM   #196
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 12:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mama cass View Post
a late-term abortion would be incredibly traumatic all round if left completely unrestricted...


generally, the ones that are performed not only comprise a tiny, tiny percentage of all abortions, but they are usually performed for medical reasons.

i know someone who has had a late-term abortion, and she is a mother of five children (now a grandmother, as well), and she would have given birth to a baby without a brain, just a brain stem because the brain had failed to grow. that was a decision that she and her doctor made.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2011, 08:34 PM   #197
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 12:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mama cass View Post
a late-term abortion would be incredibly traumatic all round if left completely unrestricted...

Well, a lot of things are incredibly traumatic and unrestricted. It is also traumatic to carry full term and give birth to a child missing parts that are essential for living and breathing. Birth is still a pretty invasive "procedure", not without risk, not something I want to force people to do, just because I think I know what's best for them. As Irvine pointed out, most late term abortions are already lose-lose scenarios.
__________________

__________________
Liesje is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2011, 03:33 AM   #198
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
mama cass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 5,906
Local Time: 06:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
generally, the ones that are performed not only comprise a tiny, tiny percentage of all abortions, but they are usually performed for medical reasons.

i know someone who has had a late-term abortion, and she is a mother of five children (now a grandmother, as well), and she would have given birth to a baby without a brain, just a brain stem because the brain had failed to grow. that was a decision that she and her doctor made.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liesje View Post
Well, a lot of things are incredibly traumatic and unrestricted. It is also traumatic to carry full term and give birth to a child missing parts that are essential for living and breathing. Birth is still a pretty invasive "procedure", not without risk, not something I want to force people to do, just because I think I know what's best for them. As Irvine pointed out, most late term abortions are already lose-lose scenarios.
oh sorry, i was just thinking about "voluntary" abortions re. not being completely unrestricted, i.e. those not for medical reasons obviously... as, here, a late-term termination for such serious medical reasons would just not be viewed in the same way as an "abortion" but as a medical necessity, not just a "choice"... i think i would describe that as a "termination" rather than an "abortion" in medical speak... i don't know...

i do think it is important to distinguish between voluntary abortions and terminations which are due to serious medical issues though re. late-term abortions, which is why i feel it should not be "completely unrestricted" like i said in my earlier post, which is the case here in France and the UK... i feel abortion is a necessity, but which must be defined and governed by rational laws nonetheless so as to preserve its integrity and prevent abuse in the late stages of pregnancy, as we cannot deny that the situation gets much much more sensitive and emotive as foetal development progresses...

in the UK for instance, abortions are legal up to 24 weeks, apart from in certain specific situations in the later stages of pregnancy:

- if it is necessary to save the woman's life
- to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman
- if there is substantial risk that if the child were born, it would suffer from physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.

and a massive percentage of abortions (90%) are in fact performed within the first 13 weeks... the earlier the better as it is a very risky procedure to the mother's health the later it gets...

here, pregnant mums are given regular scans in the early stages of pregnancy so as to monitor foetal development and offer mothers the option of early abortion if major developmental problems are found early on in the pregnancy when termination would be safer, but i guess some problems can go undetected or only become apparent at a later stage, and that's where late-term abortions might be needed...

anyway, i find it just awful that women are being criminalised like that in the US - it's not exactly an easy thing for a woman to go thru is it?! as someone living outside the US, i do find the whole situation incredibly shocking and perplexing, not to mention oppressive to women...

but to clarify, i am pro-choice but believe that restrictions are necessary for late-term abortions, basically in agreement with current UK legislation which seems to cover most serious medical eventualities...
__________________
mama cass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2011, 04:09 AM   #199
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
mama cass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 5,906
Local Time: 06:58 PM
oh and to confirm, here in France, the term "abortion" (interruption volontaire de grossesse - voluntary termination of pregnancy) is definitely used to describe termination of pregnancy for non-medical reasons... it is referred to as a "medical termination of pregnancy" when continuing with the pregnancy would endanger the mother or if the foetus is malformed or has a serious incurable illness, hence my reasoning re. completely unrestricted late-term abortion... as we don't describe such serious medical situations in the same way... so a distinction is clearly necessary between "voluntary" and other serious medical situations (would that be "indirect abortion" in English???)... even though i'm sure the pro-lifers will say it's killing babies all the same

also, here in France, women can choose a voluntary abortion up to 12 weeks of pregnancy, but after that period, only medical terminations are permitted (up to the end of gestation), so voluntary abortions are much more restricted compared with the UK...
__________________
mama cass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2011, 08:43 AM   #200
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,495
Local Time: 12:58 PM
since late-term abortion gets so heated, here's some information:

Quote:
Incidence

* Canada: During the year 2003, 6.5% of induced abortions were performed between 13 to 16 weeks, 2.2% between 17 to 20 weeks, and 0.8% over 20 weeks. This sample included procedures carried out in hospitals and clinics.[7]
* England and Wales: In 2005, 9% of abortions occurred between 13 to 19 weeks, while 1% occurred at or over 20 weeks.[8]
* New Zealand: In 2003, 2.03% of induced abortions were done between weeks 16 to 19, and 0.56% were done over 20 weeks.[9]
* Norway: In 2005, 2.28% of induced abortions were performed between 13 to 16 weeks, 1.24% of abortions between 17 and 20 weeks, and 0.20% over 21 weeks.[10]
* Scotland: In 2005, 6.1% of abortions were done between 14 to 17 weeks, while 1.6% were performed over 18 weeks.[11]
* Sweden: In 2005, 5.6% of abortions were carried out between 12 and 17 weeks, and 0.8% at or greater than 18 weeks.[12]
* United States: In 2003, from data collected in those areas that sufficiently reported gestational age, it was found that 6.2% of abortions were conducted from 13 to 15 weeks, 4.2% from 16 to 20 weeks, and 1.4% at or after 21 weeks.[13] Because the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's annual study on abortion statistics does not calculate the exact gestational age for abortions performed past the 20th week, there are no precise data for the number of abortions performed after viability.[13] In 1997, the Guttmacher Institute estimated the number of abortions in the U.S. past 24 weeks to be 0.08%, or approximately 1,032 per year.[14]

Reasons

United States

In 1987, the Alan Guttmacher Institute collected questionnaires from 1,900 women in the United States who came to clinics to have abortions. Of the 1,900 questioned, 420 had been pregnant for 16 or more weeks. These 420 women were asked to choose among a list of reasons they had not obtained the abortions earlier in their pregnancies. The results were as follows:[3]

71% Woman didn't recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation
48% Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion
33% Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents
24% Woman took time to decide to have an abortion
8% Woman waited for her relationship to change
8% Someone pressured woman not to have abortion
6% Something changed after woman became pregnant
6% Woman didn't know timing is important
5% Woman didn't know she could get an abortion
2% A fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy
11% Other


so i may have overstated it when i said that "most" of them are because they are medically necessary, however, i find it fascinating -- although this looks like quite old data. however, it does seem that pressure not to have an abortion, misinformation about abortion services, and difficulty in arranging abortion services -- all things that would likely spring from these "pregnancy care centers" -- resulted in late-term abortions.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2011, 10:46 AM   #201
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
mama cass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 5,906
Local Time: 06:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Irvine511 View Post
since late-term abortion gets so heated, here's some information:





so i may have overstated it when i said that "most" of them are because they are medically necessary, however, i find it fascinating -- although this looks like quite old data. however, it does seem that pressure not to have an abortion, misinformation about abortion services, and difficulty in arranging abortion services -- all things that would likely spring from these "pregnancy care centers" -- resulted in late-term abortions.
wow... ok... so those women would also face problems here in France if they wanted a late abortion for non-medical reasons then... they would have to prove that having a baby would be detrimental to their psychological health or something i guess... although i don't think women face the same problems in arranging an abortion here in France within the first 12 weeks...

also, re. the waiting period mentioned earlier in the thread, i read something about women in France being given a week's reflection time later on in pregnancy to consider their decision, even though it would be for medical reasons after 12 weeks...
__________________
mama cass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2011, 10:54 AM   #202
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
mama cass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 5,906
Local Time: 06:58 PM
interestingly, i don't know what the exact figures are... but teen pregnancies here in France seem low compared with the UK where figures are really high... i would've thought it might be the opposite what with the different abortion legislation in the 2 countries (12 weeks in France, vs. 24 weeks in the UK)...
__________________
mama cass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2011, 12:44 PM   #203
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 12:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mama cass View Post
oh sorry, i was just thinking about "voluntary" abortions re. not being completely unrestricted, i.e. those not for medical reasons obviously... as, here, a late-term termination for such serious medical reasons would just not be viewed in the same way as an "abortion" but as a medical necessity, not just a "choice"... i think i would describe that as a "termination" rather than an "abortion" in medical speak... i don't know...

i do think it is important to distinguish between voluntary abortions and terminations which are due to serious medical issues though re. late-term abortions, which is why i feel it should not be "completely unrestricted"
But these terms are still vague and not clearly defined.

First, isn't it always voluntary? They could choose not to do it. Many women do, even with their own lives at risk. I know someone that voluntarily chose to give birth to a baby without a brain. Emotionally, she needed to deliver the "baby" and hold it in her arms until it passed. It actually lived for quite a while (at least a week I believe). Had a name, received a funeral....she had always thought of him as a person and needed to go through the birth, the death, and grieving in that way. For her, that was the right choice, but it was HER choice. And in this case there was no added risk to her, other than the baby not having a brain it was a normal pregnancy and she had delivered other healthy babies.

Second, what constitutes a "serious medical issue"? Who decides what falls into that category? Same for a "medical necessity"... Will we pass legislation that contains some terms and conditions or a list of what "issues" count and what don't? Or, if we're leaving it up to a doctor to decide, then what is the point anyway? That is exactly my point, these are decisions for individuals and their doctors, not congress and legislation.

I don't feel it should be unrestricted because I think it's OK, I just don't see how it can realistically and fairly BE restricted.
__________________
Liesje is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2011, 01:03 PM   #204
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
mama cass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 5,906
Local Time: 06:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liesje View Post
But these terms are still vague and not clearly defined.

First, isn't it always voluntary? They could choose not to do it. Many women do, even with their own lives at risk. I know someone that voluntarily chose to give birth to a baby without a brain. Emotionally, she needed to deliver the "baby" and hold it in her arms until it passed. It actually lived for quite a while (at least a week I believe). Had a name, received a funeral....she had always thought of him as a person and needed to go through the birth, the death, and grieving in that way. For her, that was the right choice, but it was HER choice. And in this case there was no added risk to her, other than the baby not having a brain it was a normal pregnancy and she had delivered other healthy babies.

Second, what constitutes a "serious medical issue"? Who decides what falls into that category? Same for a "medical necessity"... Will we pass legislation that contains some terms and conditions or a list of what "issues" count and what don't? Or, if we're leaving it up to a doctor to decide, then what is the point anyway? That is exactly my point, these are decisions for individuals and their doctors, not congress and legislation.

I don't feel it should be unrestricted because I think it's OK, I just don't see how it can realistically and fairly BE restricted.
i meant "voluntary" as in "non-medical reason" - i should have clarified, sorry...

and, yes, i do realise that many women do choose not to have abortions, and keep their baby despite malformations/health problems... this has happened to a few friends of mine (physical malformations, Down's syndrome), and family too actually... another friend was diagnosed with breast cancer while pregnant and had to decide whether to have a termination so she could receive treatment for her cancer, or keep her baby and not have treatment - it was a devastating decision but she kept her baby, and sadly died very soon after her baby was born... i personally can't imagine opting for an abortion myself in my relationship with my husband, but god knows how i would feel if something horrible happened to me outside of my relationship and i found myself in a situation of not wanting to keep a baby... i certainly feel the option should be there so women have a choice in whatever situation they find themselves in... in the UK when i was born prematurely, the abortion limit was 28 weeks, my mum was about to miscarry me from 26 weeks onwards and had to stay in hospital on drugs and under close supervision til i could be delivered safely at 32 weeks, but i always remember her saying what struck her most was in the same ward there were people aborting healthy babies while she was fighting to keep hers at the same stage of pregnancy... it's an emotional thing for me, which is why i would hope not to have an abortion personally, but i do respect the fact that it is a necessity...

re. who makes the decision in terms of medical necessity, here in France the decision is made between the woman and her doctor as it should be...

i don't think abortion should be completely unrestricted solely because i do not agree with healthy babies being aborted late-term for no medical reason (affecting mother or child), for example if having a child is not "convenient" or whatever, that's all... there is plenty of time to decide on an abortion before a pregnancy gets to that stage, at least in France and the UK!
__________________
mama cass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2011, 01:07 PM   #205
Blue Crack Addict
 
Liesje's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: In the dog house
Posts: 19,557
Local Time: 12:58 PM
Yes, I know what you meant but I'm saying it's always voluntary is it not? If someone has a very valid medical reason to have an abortion but doesn't, they aren't forced by the state to do it. I'm just saying I don't like some of the terms associated with it (and I know they are not your terms) because they imply things they shouldn't, or are far too vague, or just don't make sense.
__________________
Liesje is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2011, 02:03 PM   #206
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
mama cass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 5,906
Local Time: 06:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Liesje View Post
Yes, I know what you meant but I'm saying it's always voluntary is it not? If someone has a very valid medical reason to have an abortion but doesn't, they aren't forced by the state to do it. I'm just saying I don't like some of the terms associated with it (and I know they are not your terms) because they imply things they shouldn't, or are far too vague, or just don't make sense.
yikes, if the State started forcing women into abortions then that would be getting into fascism wouldn't it? eugenics and all that... that would be extremely scary...

yeah i shouldn't have used the word "voluntary" at all for what i was describing - was just a literal translation of the French adjective "volontaire" for a non-medical abortion... (even though medical terminations here are also voluntary...)

i think it's pretty clear-cut the situation in the UK/France as i know it, but maybe it's a cultural thing - abortions/medical terminations are so accessible as apparently compared to the US... as is access to the morning-after pill... basically i see it as, up to 12 weeks, a woman can choose whether to keep her baby or not, and then after 12 weeks if there is a medical reason, the option to terminate the pregnancy is still there, purely based on the woman's decision with her doctor... i guess it is pretty lax - there may be a given medical problem where one woman may choose to abort but another won't (e.g. limb/organ malformations, spina bifida, Down's syndrome, etc.), but they are free to make that decision themselves...
__________________
mama cass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2011, 03:23 PM   #207
pgv
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 12,979
Local Time: 06:58 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by mama cass View Post
yikes, if the State started forcing women into abortions then that would be getting into fascism wouldn't it? eugenics and all that... that would be extremely scary...
Seen this?
BBC News - Charity offers UK drug addicts £200 to be sterilised
Not actually relevant to the current debate and not forcing women into abortions either... feels rather like one step away, though.
__________________
pgv is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2011, 03:46 PM   #208
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
mama cass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 5,906
Local Time: 06:58 PM
oh yeah i do remember reading about that last year, in the Guardian i think...
__________________
mama cass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2011, 03:49 PM   #209
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
mama cass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 5,906
Local Time: 06:58 PM
couple of articles i read this weekend... the privacy issue is kind of worrying really... especially what with the apparent potential for intimidation/bullying...

An abortion ruling that puts the privacy of women at risk | Kate Smurthwaite | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

An abortion ruling that puts the privacy of women at risk
The decision to publish individual figures on late terminations will needlessly expose vulnerable women to public scrutiny

Share

Comments (244)

Kate Smurthwaite
guardian.co.uk, Friday 22 April 2011 10.30 BST
Article history
Following a recent ruling at the information tribunal that will allow late abortion figures to be released, vulnerable bereaved parents and their clinicians are being put at risk of being doorstepped by tabloid journalists, or forced into lengthy and expensive legal battles.

The Department of Health had argued that while data on the medical grounds for termination of pregnancies after 24 weeks should be provided, it was in the interest of patient and practitioner confidentiality to aggregate conditions affecting 10 or less cases. More detailed breakdowns would be made available, aggregated over five or 10 years.

Importantly, the challenge to the DH's stance does not come from a neutral academic research body in need of clearer data for medical research. It comes from the ProLife Alliance, an overtly anti-choice campaign group with a clear and stated agenda to completely end the provision of abortion services in the UK. Combined with information already in the public domain, the details released could help identify women having late-term abortions and make them vulnerable to harassment by anti-abortion campaigners and tabloid journalists. This is a travesty of justice.

Harriet S (not her real name), a woman in her 30s, told me: "You don't get to six or seven months of pregnancy with a child you're feeling kicking and then decide you're going to terminate for trivial reasons. There are extremely serious conditions, many of which are terminal. In my case, it wasn't a question of if the baby survived but of when it died." It's obvious how much her late-term abortion has affected her when she adds, "We had painted the nursery."

I've changed Harriet's name, of course, to allow her to tell her story without risk of being identified. But the ruling means that she, others like her and the clinicians who support these women could have their identities exposed.

In 2009, there were 136 abortions in the UK among women who had passed 24 weeks of pregnancy. Numbers are fairly consistent – around the 130 mark each year. The range of conditions involved is very wide, predominantly involving a variety of brain and cardiac abnormalities; most common foetal abnormalities, such as Down's syndrome, are typically revealed earlier in pregnancy at the 12 or 20-week scan. As such, many conditions will be listed with only one or two cases a year, effectively providing one individual woman's medical record.

Single tick-box categories fail to provide a real understanding of cases anyway. Many conditions may interact with other medical problems or known genetic issues within a family. Others exist on a spectrum, or can be symptoms of more serious underlying conditions.

When similar information was leaked in 2001, a court case was brought by Church of England vicar Joanna Jepson against doctors accused of performing a late termination on grounds of a cleft lip and palate. No mention was made of the fact that the condition exists across a wide range of severity and can indicate an underlying genetic problem. The details of the case were never made public but it was immediately thrown out of court on the grounds of "no case to answer".

In the wake of the Jepson case, some clinics felt compelled to establish ethics committees, leaving parents reeling from bad news waiting up to two weeks for permission to proceed with a termination. Ultimately, we are creating a situation where clinicians feel they have to justify their decisions on a case-by-case basis to the national media. There is also concern that reduced confidentiality will make women more reluctant to participate in medical research that could lead to earlier diagnosis and better preventative and therapeutic treatment options for serious medical conditions.

To date, the ProLife Alliance's tactics have included sending plastic models of foetuses to MPs, operating "helplines" intended to mislead women about the risks of abortion and holding vigils outside family-planning centres. It seems clear that any opportunity to launch a legal challenge on any aspect of abortion or to kick up a media storm will be seized upon.

Jane Fisher is the director of Antenatal Results and Choices (ARC), the UK's only non-directive organisation supporting women who are given diagnoses of foetal abnormality. She tells me that:

"ARC has regular contact with women who are given the devastating news late in pregnancy that their baby has a potentially lethal or severely disabling condition. Reeling from the shock of this news they face the life-changing decision about whether to continue or end their wanted pregnancy. It is a very traumatic time and they need to be enabled to make the decision that's right for them with an absolute guarantee of privacy and confidentiality. These are also challenging and distressing situations for clinicians. All parties involved in such harrowing circumstances need our trust, support and compassion, rather than suspicion or judgement."
This ruling will do nothing to advance the wellbeing of those involved in decisions around late termination. All it will do is leave them paranoid that whatever normality they've managed to find after the loss of a child could suddenly be ripped away.
__________________
mama cass is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-24-2011, 03:50 PM   #210
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
mama cass's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 5,906
Local Time: 06:58 PM
main article on the ruling

Late abortion figures must be released, High Court rules - Telegraph

Late abortion figures must be released, High Court rules
Detailed statistics on the number of late abortions of "less than perfect" foetuses must be released, the High Court ruled yesterday, despite fears over the safety of the women and doctors involved.

The decision will force the Government to publish individual figures on how many abortions are carried out after 24 weeks on foetuses with physical abnormalities Photo: REX
By Stephen Adams, Medical Correspondent 6:45AM BST 21 Apr 2011
271 Comments
The decision will force the Government to publish individual figures on how many abortions are carried out after 24 weeks on foetuses with physical abnormalities, including some relatively minor problems such as a cleft palate or club foot.
Anti-abortion campaigners welcomed the decision last night, saying it was a step towards redressing the "outrageous" imbalance between the rights of the mother and the unborn child.
Family planning groups described it as "deeply worrying and unethical", saying women could be identified by their publication and doctors could be "harassed".
The hearing followed an Information Rights Tribunal, which in October 2009 decided that "sensitive" abortion statistics should be released to the Pro-Life Alliance, which had been pressing for them since 2005. The Department of Health took the matter to the High Court.
James Eadie QC, for the DoH, argued on Monday that publishing the figures could lead to "awful" consequences for patients.
But Mr Justice Cranston ruled that the tribunal had made no error in law in concluding that the risk of identification was "extremely remote" and dismissed the department's bid. He also said the release of the material to the alliance was necessary to inform the public debate.
Abortion on "social grounds" is only allowed in the first 24 weeks of pregnancy, but it is legal to abort a foetus right up to birth if there is a "substantial risk" of it being "seriously handicapped".
The health department stopped publishing a full breakdown of figures for the previous year in 2003. The last set of statistics, for 2001, showed that a foetus was aborted after 24 weeks because it had a cleft palate, a defect surgeons can in most cases remedy.
The Rev Joanna Jepson, a Church of England curate who was born with an overhanging upper jaw, complained to police. The Crown Prosecution Service decided not to prosecute, saying doctors had acted in good faith, but the case led the department to stop publishing detailed data.
Since 2005 it has published figures for categories in which the number of abortions is 10 or more, the same year the alliance lodged a freedom of information request culminating in yesterday's ruling.
Last night the department did not rule out taking the case to the Court of Appeal. Mr Justice Cranston gave it leave to appeal. A spokesman said: "The department will consider the implications of this judgment and the options available."
Josephine Quintavalle of the alliance said the organisation was "over the moon". She hoped it would lead to a reduction in late abortions of foetuses which were "less than perfect".
Sexual health charities called for an appeal. Simon Blake, chief executive of Brook, said: "The potential for women, particularly young women, to be identified is deeply worrying and unethical."
__________________

__________________
mama cass is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:58 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com