America’s largest breast cancer advocacy group has been forced to make a self-abasing retraction of its plan to cut funding for Planned Parenthood following a huge outcry against the decision.

Yes, yes, I know the politics. If you’re against breast cancer then you’re in favour of all sorts of wimmins’ stuff like abortion and freebie contraceptives.

The thing is though, if you were really against breast cancer then you’d be in favour of all women bringing one pregnancy to term and then breast feeding. For that’s actually one of the (if not the) greatest risk factor for breast cancer: not having brought to term and breast fed.

So the slogan shouldn’t be about female choice or anything like that: should instead be you can only kill one if you’re already got one.

Something of a difficult sell I agree but logic over politics can lead you into some very strange places.

They had both previously given notice of conscientious objection to any involvement in abortions and said they were not expected to participate in such treatment. But in 2007 the health board introduced changes that meant patients undergoing medical terminations were cared for in the labour ward, where the women worked. They were not expected to administer abortion-inducing drugs but management said requiring conscientious objectors to provide care for patients through a termination was lawful.

What?

But in 2007 the health board introduced changes that meant patients undergoing medical terminations were cared for in the labour ward, where the women worked.

Bed 1, “Yes, a girl, we’re calling her Maisie, we’ve been trying for years to have a girl and now she’s only a day away!”

Bed 2, “Kill mine, cut it up, haul it out and burn the remains”.

Bed 3, “Weak uterus I’m told, have to stay here in bed for as long as I can to give the little chap as much chance as I can. He’ll be premature but maybe not too premature if I just stay calm and quiet and here.”

Bed 4, “19 weeks? Yup, that’s legal, get it out.”

The same ward?

Sirsly?

If we are to be truly utilitarian, the pleasure of a woman who is able to adopt a baby must be included in our calculations along with the relief of a woman who is able to abort one she doesn’t want.

Women who have abortions are at risk of severe mental health problems, new research has found.

Regular readers around here will know that I’m predisposed to believe such a finding.

However, this specific researcher, a Dr. Coleman, has form in the area:

The study said that abortion was linked with a 34 per cent greater chance of anxiety disorders, and 37 per cent higher possibility of depression, a more than double risk of alcohol abuse – 110 per cent – a three times greater risk of cannabis use – at 220 per cent – and 155 per cent greater risk of trying to commit suicide.

The long term complaint about her work is that she doesn’t control properly for the correlation/causation thing.

For example, we wouldn’t really be all that surprised if a mentally fragile boozy dope smoker was more likely to have an abortion in the first place than someone more mentally sound, sober and clear headed.

Heck, we wouldn’t be all that surprised if the latter were either less likely to have unprotected sex or to take better care of her contraception.

The actual truth of the matter no doubt Unity will be along to tell us in 30,000 words soon enough.

Quite apart from anything else, just such a surprise to have such a finding popping up right in the middle of the current political debate, isn’t it?

On the other hand, the British Journal of Psychiatry is not a paper mill, it’s a very respectable journal.

After receiving a letter from the centre, the hospital initially told the nurses that they would be excused from administering the abortion-inducing drugs but would have to remain working at the clinic.

The nurses’ lawyer, Neil Addison, wrote again to the hospital stating that the nurses would still be “morally complicit in abortion” if they continued to work in the clinic as nurses in any capacity. The hospital eventually conceded and the nurses were allocated to other duties.

Mr Addison, director of the Thomas More Legal Centre, argued that the NHS had wrongly denied the nurses their right as conscientious objectors not to take part in abortions, which is set out in the 1967 Abortion Act.

He also invoked the Equality Act 2010. In a move that is believed to be a legal first, Mr Addison claimed that the nurses’ belief in the sanctity of life from conception onwards was “a philosophical belief” protected under the Equality Act. Therefore any attempt to pressure them into working in the clinic would be illegal.

“This particular interpretation of the Equality Act has never, to my knowledge, been argued before,” Mr Addison said. “However since the courts have accepted that the philosophical belief in global warming is protected under equality legislation, there seems no reason why belief that human life begins at conception should not be equally protected.”

It’s extremely difficult to see that they don’t have a case as well.

Not having to perform or partake in abortions is expressely protected in law, under the Abortion Act itself. And if gorbal wormening is a protected belief then life at conception seems worthy of similar treatment.

And finally, it’s really quite difficult to insist that people must kill people (by their own lights of course) in order to keep their jobs as nurses: something which is normally held to be about aiding in curing people.

And finally finally, while this seems to be about Catholic nurses the standard Islamic or Muslim view (which is very similar to the archaic Catholic view, absolutely not after the quickening at 4 months, maybe but probably not before that….the maybe and probably revolving around the reason. “I don’t want a child” on the probably not side, “I was raped by the Serbs” on the maybe side (that being an actual fatwa)) is an important thing to consider given the number of immigrants we have working in the NHS.

The plans have sparked controversy, with pro-life campaigners accusing advertising authorities of “trivialising” human life by treating terminations as a consumer choice like cars or washing powder.

They emerged as a report accused clinics of using “hard sell” marketing to push pregnant women seeking counselling into having terminations, in order to make more money.

Under the draft recommendations, drawn up by the Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice, which regulates TV and radio commercials, dozens of independent hospitals carrying out abortions will be able to advertise their services to consumers.

Until now, restrictions have meant abortion clinics can only advertise their services if they are not run for profit.

This is amusing, isn’t it?

All those screaming that private companies must not be allowed to cherry pick from the NHS, must not be allowed to profit from health care. So, you are all up in arms about private for profit companies being able to make money out of killing babies women controlling their fertility then?

If not, why not?

But to the specific point of advertising on TV: if it’s legal to do the act, which it is, legal to perform the service or produce the good, then I’d say it’s legal for you to advertise it. Simple freedom of speech would seem to require that. Why is the producer of one legal good allowed to tell people about their production and the producer of another not?

This does rather run into the problem that my view would therefore allow the advertising of booze, fags, dildoes and all the rest on TV. Which, of course, it would. And I have a sneaky feeling that those most likely to say that “Of course!” abortion clinics should be allowed to advertise would be those most against allowing baccy to be advertised. Which is an odd position to hold really: both kill people but one incidentally, the other the death is the very purpose. Odd to argue that only the one that intends to kill is the one allowed to advertise.

Still, the fact that there are restrictions on what can be avertised, on whatever grounds, makes their case for allowing the advertising of abortion clinics a little harder. For once the “it’s legal, go ahead” line has been breached, then what are the dividing lines between what can and cannot be advertised?

“What I like or approve of” isn’t a justification for such restrictions upon free speech really, is it?

So on what basis can we distinguish between “Come kill your baby with us, we really care” and “Have a gin M’Dear”?

Or even, why can’t the gin companies advertise a bottle and a hot bath in competition with the abortion clinics?

Yes, I know my views on abortion are well out of the mainstream. No, that’s not the point of this piece at all.

Much of the literature on sex selection has suggested that cultural patterns explain the phenomenon. But Hvisten dahl lays the blame squarely on western governments and businesses that have exported technology and pro-abortion practices without considering the consequences. Amniocentesis and ultrasound scans have had largely positive applications in the west, where they have been used to detect foetal abnormalities. But exported to Asia and eastern Europe they have been intricately linked to an explosion of sex selection and a mushrooming of female abortions.

Hvistendahl claims western governments actively promoted abortion and sex selection in the developing world, encouraging the liberalisation of abortion laws and subsidising sales of ultrasounds as a form of population control.

And if we hadn’t exported the technology we’d still be to blame.

Vide The Guardian and all points lefty vitriol at Georgie Bush, who insisted that no family planning aid could go to those who even advised, let alone performed, abortions.

I do wish that people would keep the story straight. Are we vicious meanies because we’ve offered foreign women the same freedoms that those at home have or are we vicious meanies because we didn’t deny them such freedoms?

But you simply cannot call yourself “pro-choice” and then bar people who do not agree with you from expressing their opposing view. It’s an oxymoronic position. People who defend such regressive behaviour, simply mirror that of the dictatorial hardliners they supposedly stand against. Then they wonder why they get called “feminazis”.

Quite.

A group which is opposed to abortion in all circumstances and favours an abstinence-based approach to sex education has been appointed to advise the government on sexual health.

The Life organisation has been invited to join a new sexual health forum set up to replace the Independent Advisory Group on Sexual Health and HIV.

Stuart Cowie, Life’s head of education, said: “We are delighted to be invited into the group, representing views that have not always been around on similar tables in the past.”

In contrast, the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) has been omitted from the forum despite its long-term position on the previous advisory group and 40-year track record in providing pregnancy counselling nationwide.

How terrible, eh?

Now, take a deep breath and look at the total composition of the panel:

The forum consists of representatives of the British Association for Sexual Health and HIV; the Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Health at the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists; the Association of Directors of Public Health; the British HIV Association; the Terrence Higgins Trust; Brook; the Family Planning Association; the Sex Education Forum and National Children’s Bureau; Marie Stopes International; and Life.

Ah, see? The views of the BPAS on anything at all will be indistinguishable from those of Marie Stopes or the FPA. So what we’re actually getting is a broadening of the views being put forward without any loss of views being put forward.

And yes, this is the right thing to do in a democracy: all views should be represented, remember? Life may be a bit odd (their views on condoms seem to be less than scientific) but there are quite a number of people who don’t think that abortion is the solution to anything (other than the question “How can we kill kiddies?”) and shouldn’t their views be represented?

But true for a certain value of “true”.

I don’t actually agree with it for as is well known, my views on this subject are well outside the mainstream (for the avoidance of doubt, killing people is wrong except in immediate self defence or the course of a Just War and yes, this is killing people).

But it is a very nice piece of logic there.

Now, anyone know where I can buy some ferrets? I have a business idea.

Dizzy.

The second Abortion Support Network ‘Pro Choice Happy Hour’ will be:
Monday 1 March
7-10 pm

Yes, I know, they’re having a booze up to raise money for Irish women who come over to have abortions.

Yes, I know, I’m very out of step on this subject.

But really, “happy” and “abortion” are simply two words that don’t strike me as going together well.

I understand, if disagree with, those who say that it’s making the best of a bad lot, the least bad of available decisions.

But an abortion happy hour?

If proof were needed that there is something seriously wrong with both our moral values and sex education system, it comes with the new that of the 195,000 abortions performed in this country last year, more than one third were repeats.

No, not even our beloved NHS is that bad and incompetent at hoicking babies out of wombs prematurely.

Nor do those babies get a second chance: that’s rather the point of abortion you see.

What you mean is that of the abortions that take place each year one third are to the second (or third, or fourth) baby being carried by a specific woman.

Anti-abortion activists were reinvigorated ahead of the opening of the healthcare legislation debate in the Senate today by their success in garnering support in the House of Representatives over an issue that was widely regarded as having lost its political potency with the election of a pro-choice president.

At the core of the strategy by the Catholic church and Christian evangelists is a campaign to rally churchgoing voters to pressure members of Congress to ensure that new healthcare laws bar government funds from paying for abortions.

Isn’t that actually the point about democracy? That such issues get thrashed out in the legislature? And the majority wins?

As a purely personal aside I’ve a lot of sympathy for the argument as well. To tax someone, to insist that they pay (even in part) for what they regard as repugnant, well, we do it all the time actually. You’re not allowed to refuse to pay for the Army for example. You’re not allowed to refuse to pay for that part of the NHS which conducts abortions. So once the majority has spoken you just have to knuckle under and get on with it. But one is very much allowed to protest, attempt to influence, the decision before it is made. Otherwise, what’s the point of the whole structure of an elected legislature?

If not to determine what actually is the majority?

Some 12,000 abortions a year were performed legally, to prevent the woman from ‘being a mental and physical wreck’.

But the great majority were not, leading each year to some 70 or more registered deaths from criminal-abortions.

That’s from David Kynaston’s latest book from the Mass Observation archives…..a pretty reliable source.

Unsafe abortions kill 70,000 a year

And in the article:

There were 41.6m terminations worldwide in 2003

The facts we might take away from this being that unsafe abortions kill 70,000 a year and safe abortions kill 41,600,000 a year.

Update: thinking a little more about this. The unsafe abortions will of course have killed 140,000, the safe 41,600,000.

Thus, if our desire is “not death” then we should prefer unsafe abortions to safe ones. For there’s a great deal more “not death” about them.

Proof yet again of the economist’s saw that there are no solutions, only tradeoffs.

The subject here is the always contentious one of abortion…..and Down’s and testing for it. The tests themselves, specifically amniocentesis to confirm the diagnosis, carries a risk of causing miscarriage.

A total of 366,000 women in England had one of the four tests last year. Of those, 18,300 were deemed high risk and 14,640 decided to then have an amniocentesis test. Those tests identified 1,112 babies with Down’s and, in 92.8% of those cases, the woman had a termination.

The miscarriage risk is about 1%. So to find those 1,112, there are 140 or so who are not Down’s who die in the process of finding the 1,112.

No comment from me on right or wrong here, just the observation that it really is true that there are only trade offs.

A chance gathering in my kitchen: three people. My wife, who has some gypsy blood. Eddie. A friend who is Jewish. And the realisation that, under Hitler, all three would have been bound for the ovens. Down’s syndrome, any more than Jewishness or gipsyhood, is not something that needs to be wiped out for the good of humanity.