Tuesday 29 March 2011

Why Field and Dorries are wrong

Nadine Dorries and Frank Field will propose an amendment to the Health and Social Care Bill to ensure that women receive pre-abortion counselling from someone who does not ‘have a financial interest’ in providing the abortion.

In an interview on LBC radio on Friday evening (no link possible as it's subscription only) Dorries laid bare the assumptions behind this amendment. An interview with Michaela Aston of LIFE showed how eager anti-abortion organisations would be, in the event it became law, to exploit it for their own ends.

Assumption 1: Women seeking abortion all need Counselling (big C)

In fact women considering abortion all need different levels of support to ensure they are making the right decision.

At one end of the spectrum you will encounter women who have always been clear that they do not want to be pregnant and that they would have an abortion in the event of pregnancy. When they experience pregnancy this certainty remains and they are able to make a quick and unambivalent decision to end the unwanted pregnancy.

At the other end of the spectrum are women who are carrying wanted pregnancies, but whose health, circumstances or other factors mean that the continuing the pregnancy now carries serious risks for them. This may present an excruciating decision for the woman and she may require a great deal of professional and family/partner support during this time.(Antenatal Results and Choices – ARC – provides excellent support for women who have been given a diagnosis of fetal anomaly)

In between these two ends of the spectrum women experience the dilemma of unintended pregnancy in a range of ways. Some have sufficient support around them to have the conversations they need to have and to do the thinking they need to do about the pregnancy before they even reach a healthcare professional. Others may present to a healthcare professional needing either more clarification of health issues or additional support with decision-making.

‘Counselling’ with a BIG C may be useful for a woman who presents with a range of complex emotional problems, when pregnancy has brought pre-existing and unresolved problems to a head, when she is particularly conflicted by the decision, or when a health care professional is anxious that they sense deep-seated ambivalence about the choice she is making. Counselling may be experienced as overkill by women in more settled situations.

Women’s circumstances are all unique, and their knowledge levels, support systems, age, confidence and other personal characteristics will all impact on the difficulty or otherwise of making the decision. Women seek help, support and advice from a range of people other than health care professionals and may well have done absolutely all their thinking before they go to their GP to ask for an abortion referral. Ideally flexibility and responsiveness from healthcare professionals and organisations should provide women with the level of support they choose and need. (see EFC Best Practice Tookit: Pregnancy Decision-Making Support for how best to support teenagers)

Assumption 2: Women who get an abortion from an independent abortion provider such as bpas and MSI do not get sufficient counselling or accurate information about risks because those organisations have a vested interest in pressurising women to have an abortion

No healthcare provider wants a woman to undergo an abortion she feels ambivalent about. Abortion services traditionally have a relatively high ‘did not attend’ (DNA) rate because women are reassured that they can change their mind at any time and some do. Moreover, BPAS calculates that 20% of women referred to them for abortion - having used their consultation appointment to reflect again on their decision - choose to continue their pregnancy.

The idea that they have a vested interest in women having abortions is linked solely to the fact that they are paid for the abortions they carry out. It is an undeniable fact that, like brain surgeons, GPs, dentists, opticians and all other health professionals, abortion providers are paid to do the work they do. They are professionals not volunteers...

Like all health providers, abortion providers are obliged to ensure informed consent by outlining risks and side effects of procedures. This is the same for people providing abortions in NHS hospitals, in independent non-profit providers such as bpas and MSI, and in Harley Street. In fact, abortion is highly regulated in non-NHS settings.

Assumption 3: The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists which produces the guidelines for professionals providing abortions are not the appropriate body to do so because they too have a vested interest in promoting abortion.

The idea that the RCOG wants to promote abortion is, quite frankly ridiculous. The RCOG is engaged in developing and disseminating best practice across a wide range of areas relating to women's health, including: pregnancy and childbirth, maternal health, treatment for obstetric and gynaecological conditions and more. Abortion occupies a fraction of its attention.

The RCOG guidelines are evidence-based. They draw upon methodologically sound studies from around the world and UK experience to inform their conclusions and recommendations.

Abortion providers are included in the committee that creates the guidelines for professionals because it is normal practice to include medical experts on panels providing guidelines on a specialist area of medicine.

Assumption 4: Anyone who is not an abortion provider will give better support and information for women because they do not have a vested interest in ‘making’ a woman have an abortion

Some GPs will be able to provide good quality information and support with decision-making. In fact many women already go via their GP for an abortion referral and some will be getting information about abortion at that point. However, a significant number of GPs (at least one in 20% of GP practices) actively opposes abortion and may use their right to conscientiously object as licence to refuse to give accurate information and impartial support to a woman seeking abortion. This fact cannot have passed by the supporters of the amendment.

This amendment is part of a wider bill which is about giving GPs the power to decide on how much of the NHS budget will be used, it seems unlikely they will consider spending proper time counselling women about abortion the best use of their resources.

The anti-abortion charity LIFE's response to this amendment (via Aston on LBC) was little less than a licking of lips. Anti-abortion charities may well see this as an opportunity to 'help' GPs out by offering with their own particular brand of counselling via Crisis Pregnancy Centres.

Most independent pregnancy advice organisations or Crisis Pregnancy Centres (CPCs) originate from organisations that are very anti-abortion. While many different organisations run these centres and their practice varies enormously, the bottom line is that most people working for these organisations believe that abortion is at worst a moral abomination and at best harmful. Some are guilty of deliberately misinforming women about the risks of abortion, others of convincing women to continue unwanted pregnancies. There may be examples of CPCs that provide impartial, evidence-based advice and guidance, but as they are totally unregulated it is hard to know which of them do and which of them don’t.

No comprehensive study of Crisis Pregnancy Centres has been carried out in the UK, but this Channel Five news feature shows examples of particularly poor practice:

This report on CPCs from Ireland suggests they are not a reliable source of information

This report from United States outlines the many ways in which CPCs deceive women

This is an extremely ideologically driven amendment. Dorries admits its purpose is to reduce the number of abortions. It is probably just the first of a planned programme of legislative attacks on women's right to choose and access safe, legal abortion.
This is why we oppose these amendments.

Hoping that GPs will step up to provide good quality counselling around abortion is either extremely naive or extremely cynical. Encouraging women to attend (or even insisting they attend) counselling at a separate provider, and bypassing central booking systems, will increase the time it takes to access an abortion. Creating unnecessary delays for women is unethical as abortions are safer the earlier in pregnancy they are carried out.

GPs are likely to mitigate the additional costs of providing this counselling by relying on voluntary organisations like CPCs (see above) who may have the funding to provide this free of charge.

It is unlikely that full funding for professional counselling will be mandated in the bill or that Field and Dorries will call for proper regulation of those providing abortion counselling in Crisis Pregnancy Centres.

It is unlikely any provision will be made to protect women from 'conscientiously objecting doctors'

This amendment is not about improving health outcomes for women, but is an attempt to dissuade women from accessing abortion, and obstructing those who do want to have one.

By casting doubt on the integrity of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists this amendment aims deliberately to undermine a really important source of evidence-based information - information they would rather the public didn't access, as it does not support the anti-abortion case.

There are more effective and more ethical ways to try to reduce the abortion rate than making access more diffcult and time-consuming, or giving women misinformation about the consequences.

If Nadine Dorries and Frank Field’s main aim is to stop women having abortions wouldn’t they be better off putting in an amendment to the health and social care bill that guarantees funding for all women to have easy access to the full range of contraceptive methods, including the three methods of emergency contraception, free of charge, seven days a week and at a range of outlets?

Wouldn’t they be better supporting calls for statutory, comprehensive Sex and Relationships - teaching young people about fertility, contraception, emergency contraception, pregnancy decision-making and encouraging them to think about the risks, benefits and consequences of sexual relationships?

Only today news came out that in the UK there are many preventable deaths of pregnant women each year from pre-eclampsia as a result of lack of investment in maternity services. If you really cared about women wouldn't this be the issue you might choose to campaign on?

Thursday 24 March 2011

Youth Advisory Group Update

You may have seen our excitable tweets about the new Youth Advisory Group here at EFC. You might even have read the excellent blogs written by our Youth Advisors Ruth and Zalika. Well, the group has been running for a couple of months now so we thought it was time for an update on the great work our young volunteers have done so far.

After an interactive training session (with lots of fruit tea!) the advisors have been using their knowledge and enthusiasm to advise us on our work as well as to create content on the topic of young people’s reproductive health. They’ve commented on a resource we’re developing, acted as ambassadors for EFC at a sexual health event and are now working on their own advocacy film about abortion. The film will bust some common myths about abortion and the group are interviewing their peers and sexual health professionals to present a range of views and experience.

Of course we’ll post the film up on our YouTube page as soon as it’s finished but for now here’s a little teaser with EFC Youth Advisor Ruth debunking the myth that abortion leads to infertility...

Monday 21 March 2011

Myth Busting Monday: 'Abortion is a bloody, ugly, brutal, painful procedure'

This week we're borrowing another myth from the brilliant Scarleteen article How to (un)Pack for a Real Discussion About Abortion. Thanks again to Heather Corinna at Scarleteen for giving us permission to reproduce this extract. Be sure to visit the site for more information about sex, contraception, relationships and more: www.scarleteen.com.

I spent a lot of my childhood in a hospital: my mother was a nurse and a single parent, the hospital was often my after-school hangout, and I was a curious kid. I probably saw more blood and guts than most children do for that reason. I was also an adventurous child who got injured a lot: I severed two of my fingers when I was seven, scraped the mush of them off the sidewalk, and carried them rather casually back to our apartment. (Some of my ability to do that without flinching was likely shock, mind you, but some was probably because I was used to dealing with or seeing injuries.) I also personally have seen blood and violence in my personal life outside medical situations, and have lived through a few incidents of brutality, as have other members of my family. And I have observed a number of abortion procedures, both in the first and second-trimester. I’ve also had a termination myself, and did so only with a local anesthetic.

Certainly, to some people, any surgery seems or looks bloody and brutal, especially those who get queasy around this stuff. Too, not everyone can manage emotions well around blood and other things involved in surgery and healthcare.

However, ANY surgical procedure usually involves blood. Most involve pain or discomfort, either before, during and/or in recovery from the surgery, and when a surgery is not painful, it’s usually because anaesthetic and/or sedation was used: some abortion providers offer both, others just one. Are abortions more bloody than most other procedures? No. More bloody or physically (or emotionally, though that, varies very widely from women to women and birth to birth) intense for a woman than childbirth? Not usually. I have to wonder sometimes if the people who call abortion things like bloody or brutal have ever witnessed a birth or even listened to honest accounts of birthing.

Are most women I have observed in horrible pain during their abortions? No. All of our pain thresholds vary, so what a woman experiences varies, but again, we’re not talking about a birth here (birth is usually painful, but we hardly suggest that's a reason women should not give birth), and remember, too, that most abortion procedures only take a few minutes, not hours and hours. Most abortions are not highly painful procedures, and pain can also be managed with medications, as with any surgery. While like other aspects of abortion, experiences of pain vary, some women even report that their monthly menstrual cramps or some sex they have in their lives had has been more painful than an abortion was.

I have yet to see an abortion procedure I’d describe as brutal or violent. As someone who has observed procedures first-hand, I’m always amazed by how many people who have NOT done so will tell me how things happen, or how awful everything is, apparently forgetting that of the two of us, I’m the only one who actually knows and has experienced how abortions are performed.

Monday 14 March 2011

Myth-Busting Monday: 'Pregnancy is safer than abortion'

Every Monday EFC busts myths and take names, cutting through the misinformation, disinformation, and straight up nonsense to bring you the facts.

Statistically legal abortion is safer for women than carrying a pregnancy to term and giving birth. This fact has been in the news recently thanks to the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists’ recommendation to healthcare professionals that: ‘Women should be advised that abortion is generally safer than continuing a pregnancy to term’.

Recent RCOG Guidelines ‘ The Care of Women Requesting Induced Abortion’

Friday 11 March 2011

Why people love EFC

Sometimes at Education For Choice we're too shy to blow our own trumpet. Luckily here are some testimonials from friends and colleagues of Education For Choice who wanted to blow our trumpet for us.

Sexual Health Organisations

"Education for Choice is a unique, brave and reputable organization that has helped to empower young people and improve their health and well-being. Their unwavering focus choice encourages young people to develop important critical thinking skills and helps to improve their knowledge and awareness about safe and legal abortion – an issue that is often overlooked by other educational sources. Education for Choice’s approaches and tools has been extremely useful to IPPF in its work to improve access to abortion-related services and education. Access to safe and legal abortion is still one of the most controversial issues in our work in sexual and reproductive health and rights. The contributions of Education for Choice to de-stigmatize abortion are making a real difference in and outside the UK. We fully support Education for Choice and their work."
Doortje Braeken (Senior Adviser Adolescents/YoungPeople, International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF,2011))

"Because it is young people's right to get high quality education about the range of pregnancy choices. Outrageously they don't always get that and EFC campaigns tirelessly to change that. They also combine excellent work with young people with skills and confidence building of professionals that work with them. That is why I support EFC."
Simon Blake (National Director, Brook, 2010)

“I heart Education for Choice because it is always honest and truthful, 'tells it like it is'
about pregnancy choices, and engages respectfully with what young people
Ann Furedi (Chief Executive bpas, 2010)

“I heart EFC because they are the only UK organization whose mission is to ensure that
young people and their educators have access to clear, accurate, evidence-based
information on abortion. Their work is vital.”
Jane Fisher (Director Antenatal Results and Choices, 2010)

“Education for Choice is unique in the UK and possibly even globally in recognising
that young people, and especially young women, need to know about abortion just
as much as they need to know about sexual relationships, contraception and
sexually transmitted infections. Challenging the stigma surrounding the provision of
information on all of these topics, they provide young people with information and
education that supports their autonomy and their ability to take charge of their
health and lives, and training for the teachers and others who are charged with their
education in these matters.”
Marge Berer (Editor, Reproductive Health Matters, 2010)

“The SRE elements of PSHE should include education about choice, and awareness
campaigns on sexual health should address issues of abortion as a choice...the
education programme led by EFC provides an excellent model for this.”
Government’s Independent Advisory Group on Sexual Health and HIV, 2004.

EFC Patrons

“As well as providing an excellent model of good practice and quality resources,
Education For Choice campaigns tirelessly to end the appalling and deliberate
misinformation of young people that’s going on in schools and counselling centres
around the country. Education For Choice is a small, but extremely effective
organisation doing a vital job. I’m happy to offer them my support.” Polly Toynbee,

“It is essential that young people receive unbiased, evidence based objective
information about contraception and abortion to enable them to make informed
choices at the beginning of their sexual lives. Unfortunately the messages they
receive via the media and music business tend to separate sex from its
consequences so unplanned pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease occur
more often than they need to...Education for Choice fulfils an important role in
giving young people the information they need”
Wendy Savage, MBBCh MSc Hon DSc FRCOG

Training commissioners and professionals

“Providing Education For Choice training has changed the way staff in a range of
agencies feel about being able to deal with the issue of termination...it has
increased staff confidence and knowledge and improved support for young
people. I would recommend EFC training for anyone working in sexual
health.” Teenage Pregnancy Coordinator, Hull

“It was lovely to have someone be balanced about the issue.” Counsellor, Taunton

“I feel much better equipped to support a young person around options when
pregnant.” Connexions PA, Manchester 

“(It gave students) a sense of responsibility and the realities of teen pregnancy. The
speaker was very thorough and clearly motivated. The students responded very well
and were thinking! I know the workshops were successful, not only because the girls
have told me, but because they are still talking about it in the corridors. Well done
and thank you!” Head of PSHE, Charles Edward Brooke Girl’s School

Young people (students aged 14-19)

“I enjoyed talking about it and actually having the chance to express your opinions”

“I enjoyed the workshop because it provided me with helpful information”

“Something I will change as a result of the workshop is use protection and be more

“I learnt about the choices that have to be made when dealing with pregnancy.
I enjoyed talking about abortion because maybe it will help me or I could tell
someone who doesn’t know about abortion”

“I would really think about it before I have sex because I don’t want to to take the

“I enjoyed learning about the good points of pregnancy”

“I learnt that it is important to think forward before having sex”

“Something I will change as a result of this workshop is…be more serious about it”

“Something I will change as a result of the workshop…is to think about my actions
that might take place and their consequences

Guest Blog: EFC Youth Advisor Ruth's take on 'Bieber-gate'

Thanks to my cousins I know that Justin Bieber’s favourite colour is purple; his favourite food is spaghetti; and his favourite TV show is Smallville. Thanks to Rolling Stone, I now know that he doesn’t believe in abortion.

In an interview with the magazine the teen sensation was asked to share his views on everything from health care to premarital sex. When pressed on the issue of abortion, Bieber said: “I really don’t believe in abortion. I think [an embryo] is a human. It’s like killing a baby.” When asked whether he believed this even where a woman is pregnant as the result of rape he answered: “I think that’s really sad, but everything happens for a reason. I guess I haven’t been in that position so I wouldn’t be able to judge.” Rolling Stone has since corrected the quote, admitting that they had edited it incorrectly. Despite this, the quote still stands in the print version currently circulating on newsstands and has been reproduced in thousands of publications and online forums all across the world.

The resulting furore has many strands to it. Some have questioned why he was even asked for his opinion on this matter in the first place. Bieber is a self-professed Christian, raised by a born-again mother and is somewhat of a poster boy for the abstinence movement. It looks as though Rolling Stone were seeking to court controversy – something they are no stranger to - and manipulated him to this end. It’s easy to feel sympathetic towards the young singer as it seems as though he was a mere pawn in the hands of Rolling Stone. In an interview with a teen singer, we so have to wonder why they felt these questions needed to be asked, and why he was in a position to comment on them.

Some have gone further and questioned why he, a sixteen-year-old boy, has expressed a view on this, suggesting that his gender should have precluded him even having an opinion on the issue. There is something of a societal expectation that abortion is an issue for women, and women alone. To continue to reinforce this view alienates half the population, many of whom will experience an unplanned pregnancy with their partner. Men need to be able to hold an opinion on the matter, as it affects them too. Often the only time men’s voices are heard in the abortion discourse are from politicians and activists seeking to impose their own religious and ethical views on women. To exclude young men from the abortion debate can only lead to these types of views being held and lacking any real underlying facts and principles.

More concerning than all of this is just how much influence he actually yields. I don’t wish to be condescending about how easily influenced young girls are, but I only have to look at my cousins obsessively filing away Justin Bieber facts to feel even slightly worried. For many of his young fans this might be the first time they’ve even heard the word “abortion” before. Their teen hero has just told them it’s wrong. And what do they have to rebut it with? Young people are not being provided with the information about unplanned pregnancy and abortion they need to be able to make an informed choice about their beliefs and opinions.

This is exactly why Education For Choice is so important. My cousins and all the other young girls out there hanging on his every word should be able to make an informed choice about their sexual and reproductive freedoms. They should know that Bieber’s view is only one way to think. They should be able to separate the myths about abortion from the truth. They should be able to talk about it freely in a non-judgmental atmosphere. They should know their rights. EFC is the only UK charity dedicated to ensuring all young people can make and act on their own, informed choices about pregnancy and abortion, and this is exactly why I volunteer with them.

Monday 7 March 2011

There can be common ground between pro and anti-choice movements - another Myth-Busting Monday

Every Monday EFC busts common abortion myths. Todays Myth-Busting Monday explores the concept of a common ground between members of the pro-choice and anti-choice movements that some people are on a quest to discover. While the prospects for finding the legendary common ground look bleak in the US it may not be too late in Britain, if only we could agree on just a couple of things...

Pro-choice advocates have been on the back foot in the US for some time. Many are tired of the war of attrition against abortion rights being waged in state legislatures around the country; they are concerned for the wellbeing of women attending clinics who have to run the gauntlet of angry, aggressive protestors and of those who stand in silent vigil and in judgment on them;  they are fearful for the lives and safety of clinic staff and for the future of reproductive health services. The response of some, including Obama, has been a call for an exploration of the ‘common ground’ in the abortion discussion, posing the possibility of a new kind of discourse on abortion. Explicit in this concept is the hope that a new kind of conversation could take place between pro and anti choice groups, one that is safer and more respectful of the others’ views; that shuns the polarisation of the debate; that is kinder and more productive; most importantly, one that would marginalise and disempower the crazy and scary outliers of the anti-abortion movement.

Recently some 'self-defined' pro-choice advocates in the US have been falling over themselves to try to make concessions to the anti-abortion lobby: calling for abortion to be ‘safe but rare’; challenging the common pro-choice wisdom that later abortions are necessary and legitimate; calling out their own colleagues for not sufficiently addressing the moral dimension of abortion, and thereby damaging the ‘pro-choice brand’; and, importantly, colluding in the use of  the term 'pro-life'. There has recently been a conference to bring together abortion providers and pro-choice advocates with anti-abortion lobbyists and activists to help increase mutual understanding. Many in the pro-choice movement are asking whether it is possible to be pro-choice and simultaneously to be prepared to concede chunks of women's abortion rights. Others are asking what they are getting back in exchange.

What has been marked during this time is that while the pro-choice movement has searched for a language that is conciliatory, there have been no discernible changes in language from the anti-abortion lobby. There has been no decrease in false advertising by crisis pregnancy centres; no support for women to receive evidence-based information on pregnancy options; no acknowledgement of a moral dimension to the pro-choice position; no fewer threats to abortion providers; no support for politicians properly to invest in support for parents who are poor, young, single or otherwise disadvantaged. Most markedly there has been no support for making abortion rarer by lobbying for funding of contraception services. In fact, as we have seen with attempts to defund planned parenthood’s sexual health and contraceptive services in the past week, quite the opposite is true.

If there can be any common ground surely it is that of information and pregnancy prevention. If the anti-abortion movement is not willing to support provision of contraception and can't even agree on the need for evidence-based medical information on which women can reflect in the decision-making process, many feel it is hard to see where else the two movements can meet.

Luckily the abortion debate in the UK is less heated. Maybe the anti-abortion lobby here would like to make some concessions to avoid it becoming so, and to join us in calling for brilliant evidence-based education and information on pregnancy prevention and abortion, and well- funded sexual health and contraceptive services for all. Then I will truly believe in the legendary, and elusive, ‘common ground’.

Tuesday 1 March 2011

Myth Busting Monday (aka Tardy Tuesday) – ‘Pro-Life = Pro-Women’

Anti-abortion groups are increasingly employing discourse about women’s health to support their arguments against safe, legal abortion. This blog looks at how anti-choice orgs have moved from focusing on fetal rights to a supposed concern for women’s mental and physical health to bolster their campaigns.

Radio 4’s PM show (listen from 43.15) featured a discussion on leaflets being distributed by anti-abortion organisation The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) to GPs across the country. SPUC claim that over 1,000 GPs have requested their ‘Abortion: Your Right to Know’ leaflets and GP Dr Greg Gardner asserts his reasons for stocking the pamphlets. He claims they provide women with useful information on the ‘possible physical complications’ of abortion including an ‘increased risk of breast cancer’.

Before we move on let’s just have a little mini myth-bust on this claim that women need to know about the increased risks of breast cancer following abortion. The myth that abortion causes breast cancer has been debunked by Cancer Research UK, Breakthrough Breast Cancer and The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG). Which brings us on to the RCOG. During the radio discussion Dr Gardner claims he requested SPUC leaflets because there is a ‘dearth of accurate information for women considering abortion’ and that they need ‘proper information about potential long-term harms’. He doesn’t seem satisfied by the medical guidance put forward by the RCOG – a body dedicated to women’s health, which, in order to produce guidance for medical professionals and patients assesses and evaluates existing research in each relevant field.

Gardner’s claim that he proffers SPUC leaflets to provide women in his surgery with clinical information is, as Ann Furedi of bpas (also on the show) claims, ‘staggering’. Furedi goes on to make a point we really wish didn’t have to keep being made – that there are two separate discussions to be had here. One about the rights and wrongs of abortion; moral issues such as when life begins which are open to debate, and clinical evidence and information on the physical and psychological risks of abortion. As she points out, this medical information would surely be better obtained from reputable health organisations such as the RCOG rather than a campaigning organisation such as SPUC with a politically motivated agenda.

Clearly SPUC wish to dissuade women from having abortions. They have a right to present the viewpoint that abortion is immoral, or discuss their belief that human life begins at conception. However, we object to any obstacle which stands in the way of women’s access to evidence-based information on their health. When anti-abortion organisations make misleading claims related to medical information, those who support evidence based education and healthcare should be alarmed. When SPUC tell young people in schools that abortion causes breast cancer or infertility, ‘facts’ which hold no weight in the scientific/medical community; or when they use family doctors to relay this message, our ability to make an informed choice is compromised. Why can’t SPUC accept that abortion isn’t going to give a woman breast cancer, or make her infertile without relinquishing the belief that it is wrong?

Transcript of EFC presentation on facts and ethics