But why are the provisions as drafted by Ms Mensch necessary at all?

Clause 9 – http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/2010-2012/0221/cbill_2010-20120221_en_2.htm#pt1-pb2-l1g9 – sets out very general obligations on local authorities to promote public health. Why wouldn’t abortion counselling potentially fall within the general obligation for “providing information and advice (clause 9(3)(a)), should a local authority consider that the provision of such counselling would be “appropriate for improving the health of the people in its area”?

And I still don’t see what evidence is being adduced that there is a problem needing to be solved in the first place, let alone solved in such a convoluted manner.

A tory woman with some sense. They should have her stuffed.

Bet she does not last long in the new right wing tory party.

Poor old Frankie he’s not sure which side of the coin anymore is he labour ish, or is he Thatcherist, hell of a condition Frankie mate.

Frank Field was never sure what he was.

This may be a valiant effort by Louise – and I admire that – but the approach is fundamentally flawed.

A woman can go to anyone she likes to talk about an unplanned pregnancy. Free speech, free association etc means we can not (and should not want to) stop ideological/faith based advisors peddling their myths & proselytising even though their victims are vulnerable. However we should insist on honesty and transparency of advertising such “services” and it should be unlawful to hide or disguises one’s directional approach or that they will never recommend abortion. That would be a worthwhile amendment instead!

The point is that when someone enters the NHS (or private medical care) it is grossly unethical to send a patient to someone giving poor quality advice (ie not based on evidence-based consensus guidelines – in this case from the RCOG).

So it would NEVER be right for the NHS to sign-post a women seeking a termination (or even wanting advice on pregnancy) to one of these directional groups, even if they were honest in their advertising.

Alas Louise has fallen victim to the BACP-myth. Anyone can join BACP if they pay a fee. There is no exam. It is not quality assurance. So the main point of the amendment is misconceived.

The NHS should refer and signpost patients only to reliable services who use the RCOG guidelines. Anything else is unethical.

There is an amendment down which specifies that (by Julian Huppert MP) which should be supported,

“The point is that when someone enters the NHS (or private medical care) it is grossly unethical to send a patient to someone giving poor quality advice (ie not based on evidence-based consensus guidelines – in this case from the RCOG).”

Tell me if I’ve misunderstood, but isn’t the benefit of this amendment that it ensures women are told in advance of taking up advice just what the “purpose” of those groups giving advice might be?

I forgot to say that there is no reason fro any Dorries-type or Mensch-type amendments here anyway. Before tampering with a healthcare system you need to identify a problem and be confident the new system would not be worse.

No evidence of a problem has been identified here, and no sign of any complaints or legal claims. In contrast there is a real risk of women being poor;ly served by advice services which do not stick to authoritative medical guidelines.

What Evan said. He should be in Parliament.

The proposers of these amendments assume that the women in question act alone, do not visit their GPs or try to learn about their options. It’s really as if all these concerned characters think women are cattle once they have a bun in the oven.

Mensch really should learn to shut up. This was entirely unnecessary, she could have just declared her voting intentions and her reasons for her choice.

Mensch is looking rather too excitable and enthusiastic with this and her previous gaffes. Being an MP is a whizard wheeze, after all. I’d prefer more sober reflection from my representative, but I’m stuck with Nick “Nice but Thick” Herbert.

Re: Evan harris comment BACP, you are not correct on that point. For anyone to join the BACP demands not only a fee but a recognised course and entry process of supervision and a certain no. of clinical hours. However, as with any organisation purporting quality there are people who do not reflect the values and standards the organisation intend.
On your other points absolutely agree!

Evan, a counsellor would never “recommend abortion”. The whole process is designed to enable the person being counselled to make their own decision, having worked through their own thoughts and preconceptions.
I did the training published by CareConfidential and I am beginning to think, from media responses, that their approach may be the least directive and most balanced of all.
No counsellor is without their own worldview. They are trained to suspend it in the interests of their client making a decision they can best live with. And worldviews also change with exposure to the world.
Louise’s amendments sound reasonable to me. The noise about there being ‘no problem to answer’ assumes that women who feel short-changed by their experiences of considering abortion ought to to queueing up to air their views. If the equivalent of 1 in 3 women have had an abortion (http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article7132322.ece), every time we open our mouths on the issue there will most likely be someone in the room who feels vulnerable about it. People on the receiving end do not speak out about it in great number. The fact remains that it must surely be better to separate counselling from organisations paid to provide abortions. This can be done whilst safeguarding against faith groups, if deemed necessary.

Ruth

The fact remains that it must surely be better to separate counselling from organisations paid to provide abortions.

I agree, and haven’t seen a good argument on LC against that.

BPAS seem a less than un-biased provider, when their annual statement to the Charity Commissioner says:

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.

They can only ‘grow the business’ by doing more abortions… how can counsellors remain neutral when their pay checks come through an organisation with that aim ?