BPAS SINKS TO NEW LOW WHERE WOMEN’S WELFARE IS CONCERNED
The British Pregnancy Advisory Service, the largest private abortion provider in Britain, is seeking approval for a trial run of home abortions from the Department of Health. With disregard for women's health and welfare to go along with its total disrespect for early human life, the organisation is trying to convince the government that the pain and anguish experienced by many of its patients would be lessened if they were left to perform their own abortions.
At present, the law requires abortions to be carried out in an NHS hospital or approved private clinic for safety reasons. Under the pilot scheme proposed by BPAS, women up to 9 weeks pregnant would administer the abortion-inducing drug, the RU-486, themselves at home. The foetus, by 9 weeks recognisable as a miniature version of a baby, would then be expelled from the uterus and flushed down the lavatory.
"It would be painful and might involve extensive bleeding, cramps and nausea," Ann Furedi, Chief Executive of BPAS, said of the early term abortion. "This is an unpleasant procedure and many women become very distressed in a clinic. They would prefer to be at home."
Of course, the description of the chemical abortion procedure in the section of the BPAS website aimed at women contemplating abortion does not describe it as "unpleasant", nor is there a warning of the extreme distress it can cause. The fact that BPAS only admits the reality of the effects of abortion when it suits its own agenda exposes its hypocrisy and heinous contempt for the very women it professes to help.
Under these plans, women would be left alone to cope with the side effects of abortion, which can include heavy bleeding, severe cramps, nausea and diarrhoea. In a hospital or clinic, medical professionals are able to administer analgesia to patients to help relieve the painful uterine contractions which occur during an abortion. In a home abortion, women will have to fend for themselves.
As if the side effects of abortion-inducing drugs were not awful enough, a home abortion could seriously jeopardise a woman's health. If complications such as haemorrhaging arose, or the abortion was not completed properly, the consequences could potentially be devastating as there would be no doctor on hand to provide urgent medical attention. The telephone advice service suggested by BPAS would be inadequate in a real emergency. Furthermore, the gruesome task of aborting their own baby and disposing of its body would undoubtedly be an incredibly traumatic experience for most women that could possibly lead to lasting psychological damage.
There are additional safety fears over the use of the RU-486 drugs. In 2001 pharmaceutical sales of the drug were banned by China who cited safety reasons - this coming from a country notorious for its one child policy which has led to mandatory surgical abortions. Several women worldwide have died after taking the abortion drug and it has led to life-threatening conditions such as blood clots in others.
Leaving aside the serious medical implications of the proposal, does Ms Furedi really think the extreme distress that - by her own admission - many women feel upon having an abortion will be miraculously cured by a change of scenery? Or could there be a more sinister motive at work here? Could the organisation perhaps be attempting to save the cost of keeping women in its clinics, in order to corner an even larger section of the abortion market than the 80% they currently occupy?
This insult to women, disguised as an "innovation of service" by Ms Furedi, is an outrageous attempt to de-prioritise the health and safety of those who are at their most vulnerable. Though Student LifeNet believes there are better choices than abortion, at the same time women should not be left without back-up when taking abortive drugs. BPAS' flagrant disregard for the welfare of women must be stopped.
Click
here for our press contact details
