Formal minutes
Monday 29 October 2007
Members present:
Mr Phil Willis, in the Chair
| Mrs Nadine Dorries |
| Chris Mole |
| Mr Robert Flello | | Dr Bob Spink
|
| Linda Gilroy | | Graham Stringer
|
| Dr Evan Harris | | Dr Desmond Turner
|
| Dr Brian Iddon | |
|
The Committee deliberated.
Draft Report (Scientific
developments relating to the Abortion Act 1967), proposed
by the Chairman, brought up and read.
Draft Report, proposed by
Mrs Nadine Dorries and Dr Bob Spink, brought up and read, as follows:
PREAMBLE
This minority report seeks
to engage with three specific issues:
1. Whether the legal upper limit for abortion of
24 weeks should be reduced on the basis of the scientific evidence
about neonatal survival and fetal sentience.
2. Whether there should be a liberalisation of the
law on first trimester abortion, especially with respect to nurses'
involvement, premises or the requirement for two doctors' signatures,
on the basis of scientific evidence on safety for women of the
abortion procedure.
3. The implications of the above for the care, counselling,
support and provision of fully informed consent to women seeking
abortion.
We also wish to highlight misgivings about how those
giving oral evidence to the committee were selected and how ideological
and financial interests have apparently shaped what has been included
or ignored in written evidence submitted by specific organisations
and individuals.
We regret having to table this minority report but
we feel it has become imperative because of the failure of the
committee to properly engage with these key issues.
EVIDENCE SELECTION AND DESELECTION
Abortion is a controversial issue and whilst this
enquiry focussed specifically on scientific developments relating
to the Abortion Act 1967 almost all of those submitting written
and oral evidence have ideological or financial vested interests
in the abortion issue. Whilst this in no way precludes these organisations
and individuals giving evidence to the committee as interested
parties or implies that they are unable to present this evidence
in an objective and balanced way, it is important that the committee
ensures that all scientific evidence relevant to the enquiry has
been fully considered.
Those giving evidence can very broadly be considered
as occupying one of two camps:
1. Pro-liberalisation - Resisting a lowering of the
24 week upper limit or any clarification of the law with respect
to abortion for congenital abnormality and favouring liberalisation
of first trimester abortion with respect to nurses' involvement,
premises or the requirement for two doctors' signatures.
2. Pro-restriction - Favouring a lowering of the
24 week upper limit and reduction of abortions for fetal abnormality
and resisting liberalisation of first trimester abortion with
respect to nurses' involvement, premises or the requirement for
two doctors' signatures.
We are concerned specifically that:
1. Whilst the written submissions to the Committee
were essentially evenly divided between those coming from pro-liberalisation
and pro-restriction perspectives, those chosen to give oral evidence
did not reflect this. Of the 18 witnesses chosen, 13 were pro-liberalisation
and only 5 pro-restriction. This seems unfair given that public
opinion is very much in favour of reducing the number of abortions.
2. People were asked to give evidence who had not
submitted written evidence (see especially Drs Neil Marlow and
Maria Fitzgerald). This has led to loss of public transparency.
3. Some witnesses who have been given prominence
in the Committee Report included very few, if any, scientific
references in their written submissions (See especially Derbyshire
and RCN submissions).
4. Some key witnesses who would have given a contrary
view to the RCOG consensus, especially on upper limits, were either
ignored or not invited to submit evidence (see especially Professor
Stuart Campbell and Dr KJ Anand). It was also unfortunate that
there was no serious engagement with a wider range of non-directional
specialist counsellors with experience of both pre and post abortion
counselling.
5. The committee's expert advisors were not neutral
but brought to the committee vested interests and minds made up
on some of the key issues (such as upper limits).
6. The committee has given too much credence to the
RCOG and RCOG guidance, whilst not raising any questions about
the RCOG's impartiality. This should have been much more fully
explored.
7. The committee asked for people to declare interests,
saying that revealing them would not prejudice the committee;
but this was used to attempt to undermine in the national press
the credibility of witnesses who had given written and oral testimony.
This episode is unprecedented as far as we are aware in the proceedings
of Parliament and has brought the legislature into disrepute;
we will consider referral to the Standards Committee and the Speaker.
8. A number of the key institutions giving evidence
to the committee did not consult their grassroots members and
have not formally made their evidence available to their members
(especially RCOG and RCN).
9. The committee was inconsistent and selective in
its use of international comparisons; using them liberally with
respect to nurse and home abortion for example, but downplaying
or ignoring them with respect to fetal sentience, neonatal survival,
mental health, preterm delivery and breast cancer.
10. As this is the science committee we regret that
weight has been given in its report to evidence on both sides
that has not yet been published in peer-reviewed journals. These
'findings' should be removed from the report and should not be
used to inform Parliament (eg. EPICure 2, Dr Ellie Lee, UCLH neonatal
survival rates).
Neonatal survival rates
We were greatly concerned to read in the Guardian
on 27 October an article clearly aimed at undermining the
credibility of Professor John Wyatt, which contained detailed
information about Wyatt's evidence, which was passed by him to
the committee after his oral evidence session, and which could
only have been passed on to the journalist concerned by a member
of the Select Committee. There should be an enquiry about how
this information got into the public domain and as to whether
such a personal attack represents a serious breach of parliamentary
procedure given that witnesses were told by the committee that
any disclosure of personal interests would not prejudice the hearing
of their evidence.
There have been at least ten international studies
on neonatal survival of extremely premature neonates published
since the year 2000 which we can supply to the committee. The
most important points are that:
a) Survival is very variable from centre to centre.
b) Survival is higher with birth in tertiary centres.
c) Survival is higher with proactive management.
The EPICure study cannot appropriately inform policy
making about upper limits for the following reasons:
a) The EPICure baseline of assessing babies born at a particular
gestational age which show signs of life at birth, rather than
those live babies which are admitted to intensive care and receive
treatment, is misleading and does not give an accurate assessment
of the likelihood of survival with good neonatal care or provide
a good basis for international comparisons.
b) All pre-term births happen for a reason and are
usually indicative of a pre-disposing medical problem, either
with the mother, or the baby. To use survival statistics of babies
born prematurely to predict viability of babies aborted is not
comparing like with like. The majority of aborted babies, if left
to term, would be born healthy and so a direct comparison cannot
be made.
c) There are a number of peer reviewed studies which
demonstrate the significant improvement in survival rates of babies
born pre-term if neo-natal intensive care is provided at birth.
This exposes the weakness of the EPICure study which averages
out all births at all hospitals across the UK and takes no account
of the post code lottery of neonatal care which exists in the
UK. Outcomes for mother and baby will depend very much on clinical
decisions and the quality of care available in the hospital at
which the mother presents.
d) There have been concerns expressed in the press
by a leading neonatal paediatrician that the low survival of babies
born at 23 weeks is at least in part a result of doctors 'not
trying hard enough'. In other words, EPICure has itself become
a guideline for practice, which undermines its use as a measure
of viability.
Consciousness
We may never know for certain when foetuses first
start to feel pain and there is no clear consensus amongst experts
in the field.
There are two main schools of thought. The first,
represented to this enquiry by Fitzgerald, Derbyshire and the
RCOG, is that foetuses cannot feel pain until 26 weeks gestation,
because that is the stage of development at which mature neural
connections between the thalamus and cerebral cortex are first
present. The second view, expounded in a review article by Anand
et al published in Seminars in Perinatology in October
2007 (and also presented by the same author to the US Congress
in 2005), is that foetuses feel pain using different neural mechanisms
than adults and that these are present at earlier than 20 weeks
gestation. Both schools are however agreed that conscious perception
of pain cannot be inferred from observing anatomy, stress hormone
levels and movements alone.
The alternative view supported by Anand et al argues
that the more traditional Fitzgerald/Derbyshire/RCOG view ignores
significant evidence, specifically that: a) sensory processing
in the human brain develops well before birth;b)the subplate zone
is functional well before the cerebral cortex develops; c) the
key mechanisms of consciousness are located below the cortex (in
areas that develop in early gestation); d) fetal behaviors suggest
memory and learning as the highest-order evidence for perceptual
function; and e) other lines of emerging evidence in the field
of neuroscience.
He argues that three major flaws beleaguer the scientific
rationale behind the RCOG viewpoint and other reviews purporting
to rule out fetal pain:
First, pain perception is presented as a hard-wired
system, passively transmitting noxious impulses until "perception"
occurs in the cortex. More than 40 years of pain research discards
this Cartesian view of pain. Second, it incorrectly assumes that
fetal pain must engage the same structures and mechanisms as those
used by adults. Ongoing development in these areas is then used
to support the argument that fetuses don't feel pain. A vast body
of research shows, however, that the fetus is not a "little
adult," that the structures used for pain processing in fetal
life are uniquely different from those of adults, and that many
of these structures or mechanisms are not maintained beyond specific
periods of fetal development. Third, it presupposes that cortical
activation must be necessary for fetal pain perception. This reasoning,
however, ignores clinical data that ablation or stimulation of
the somatosensory cortex does not alter pain perception in adults,
whereas thalamic ablation or stimulation does.
If cortical function is not a necessary standard
for adult pain perception, why must fetal pain be held to a higher
standard?
Current scientific facts, however, must inform this
debate and clinical practices in modern medicine must acknowledge
and respect an emerging personhood in the womb, essentially nuanced
by compassion for the mother's situation and health.
RCOG and fetal pain
We are deeply concerned that the Royal College of
Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) failed to give full information
to the House of Commons Select Committee. Parliament leans heavily
on the RCOG for guidance and the Committee's Report will be referred
to by MPs seeking to amend the law on abortion.
Since 1997, the RCOG has consistently denied that
fetuses can feel pain earlier than 26 weeks, without acknowledging
that amongst experts in this field there is no consensus. Professor
Anand is a world authority on the management of neonatal pain
and has put forward a cogent argument suggesting that the RCOG
position is based on a number of false or uncertain presuppositions.
The RCOG in response to comments by Anand in a Channel Four Dispatches
programme has issued a press release claiming they keep a 'watching
brief on new scientific developments and advancements in fetal
medicine, and continue to examine emerging evidence from the international
scientific community about fetal awareness and fetal pain' but
are 'unaware of the work of Dr Anand or any other work that contradicts
the basic findings of (their) review'.
For the RCOG to report the studies of researchers
who share their own official position, whilst ignoring research
published by other leading researchers with contrary views, is
at the very least misleading and at worst a serious abuse of power.
It seems bizarre that the RCOG has not made more of an effort
to find out more about contrary evidence before making such a
bold public statement. It surely owes both Anand and Parliament
a formal apology and explanation of why it has apparently 'cherry
picked' the scientific evidence to support its opposition to a
lowering of the 24 week upper limit for abortion.
Foetal Ultrasound and Professor Stuart Campbell
We are most concerned that no expert in foetal ultrasound
was called upon to give answers to questions posed in this section,
and that instead the committee relied on testimony from neurobiologists
and paediatricians. Why was Professor Stuart Campbell, who pioneered
this work, not called? This cannot be justified on the basis that
he did not submit evidence because Fitzgerald was summoned to
give oral evidence without submitting written evidence. This appears
to be a serious omission. We hope that the reason was not because
Campbell does not personally support a liberalisation agenda,
whereas both Derbyshire and Fitzgerald do.
Reasons for late presentations
We asked for evidence by Dr Ellie Lee should be removed
as it is based almost entirely on data from a study which has
not been published in a peer-reviewed journal.
Two doctors' signatures
We were not presented with any evidence that, in
the first trimester, the requirement safeguards the health of
women in any meaningful way. However we recognise that the requirement
for two doctors' signatures was originally intended to ensure
that an illegal abortion, outside the terms of the Act was not
being performed. This provision was for the legal protection of
the fetus and the doctors. Apart from anecdotal reports, there
is currently no hard evidence that the requirement for two signatures
is causing delays. Whether or not the requirement for two doctors'
signatures is removed is a matter for Parliament.
Involvement of nurses
The involvement of nurses conflates two separate
issues: authorisation of abortion and prescribing drugs for abortion.
The two are different qualitatively and the case has not been
made for the former. Furthermore, references to nurses signing
the HSA1 form are outside the terms of this present enquiry. Witnesses
were not invited to submit evidence on this issue and the committee
should not therefore take a view on it.
Places where abortion can be carried out
Concerns were expressed by committee members and
in the press with regard to the safety of medical abortions completed
at home. Many of the women sent home may be very young, alone
and un-prepared for any of the following:
a) Uterine cramps and chronic pain, similar to pain experienced
during labour, which can last up to a number of hours.
b) Acute and prolonged chronic vaginal bleeding.
c) Emotional distress experienced during the home disposal of
the aborted baby.
We are also concerned with regard to potential consequences which
may occur and the need to access emergency services. A young woman
may be confused with regard to what is normal and to be expected
and at what point she would need to seek help. Our conclusion
is that all abortions should be carried out in a place of safety
and comfort with adequate pain relief and professional reassurance.
We also need to consider the impact that medical
abortions available at home would have upon both the attitude
of young women, particularly those who multi-abort, and the financial implications
both to the government in terms of cost, and abortion providers
in terms of revenue.
Medical abortions available at home could, in all
probability lead to an increase in the number of women seeking
abortion due to a more relaxed attitude developing toward contraception on
behalf of the young and sexually active.
Research needs to be undertaken to examine what
impact medical abortions have had in America and whether or not
they have led to a relaxing of attitudes towards contraception.
Given that gonorrhoea, syphilis, chlamydia, HPV and HIV are increasing
at an alarming rate no procedure should be adopted which would
exacerbate this situation.
An overall increase in abortions would involve the
government in additional cost and would, for the abortion provider,
involve a considerable increase in revenue, without any capital
expenditure being incurred on infrastructure in terms of beds
or facilities. This is because even though the cost would be less
than an abortion involving an anaesthetic and a surgical procedure,
the abortion provider would still provide a watching brief and
dispense the abortifacients.
The 2004 RCOG Guidelines
The debate on health risks associated with abortion
is fierce. A comprehensive and rigorous review of the evidence
on health risks for women, The Care of Women requesting induced
abortion, was produced by the RCOG in September 2004, and
is frequently quoted as the final court of appeal in parliamentary
debates. However for a variety of reasons there is reason to exercise
caution in regarding it as authoritative:
a) The document is now three years out of date and
many significant. more recent studies, especially in the areas
of mental health, fetal sentience, neonatal survival and preterm
delivery have not been included in the RCOG's written submission
to the committee, which by comparison is academically lightweight.
b) The RCOG in their written evidence have created
the impression that there is a strong consensus amongst experts
on some issues when there quite clearly is not. The most serious
example of this is with respect to fetal sentience, and we have
considered this in more detail in this minority report, but another
example would be the alleged link between abortion and breast
cancer. Overall the latest RCOG's written evidence fails to emphasise
or in many cases even mention views or studies whose findings
do not add weight to a pro-choice agenda.
c) The brief summaries on health risks of abortion,
which are used on patient information literature, do not fully
reflect the balance of evidence quoted in the document's more
detailed reviews. This is particularly so with regard to the links
between abortion and preterm delivery and abortion and breast
cancer, where the conclusions downplay the links in a way that
is not justified by the evidence reviewed.
d) There have also been questions raised about the
bias of the RCOG. Amongst the development group and invited peer
reviewers for the 2001 guidelines (on which these are based) are
included representatives of most major abortion providers and
pro-choice pressure groups including BPAS, Marie Stopes, FPA,
ALRA, Birth Control Trust, Prochoice Alliance, All Party Parliamentary
Prochoice Group (APPPG) and Brook. There do not appear to be any
groups with an interest in restricting abortion amongst the authors
or reviewers. It is not clear where the various RCOG representatives
stand on the issues but it is difficult to avoid the conclusion
that this document has been produced by those with an ideological
and financial interest in abortion. The APPPG says that it is
'supported' by the FFP and presumably this involves a financial
element. The impression given is pro-choice organisations and
the RCOG are 'in bed together'.
e) The RCOG guidance is wide-ranging and gives advice
on issues in the fields of psychiatry, paediatrics and epidemiology,
but it is not apparent that the guideline development group contains
people with expertise in these areas.
The results of the RCOG review have been condensed
to form guidelines that are followed by nurses and physicians
in obtaining consent. The guidelines that are relevant to the
impact of abortion on women's health (chapter 5 of the RCOG report)
are discussed below and reproduced in full in Annex B of the Science
and Technology Committee Report.
Mental health
The RCOG guidance downplays the link between abortion
and mental health problems.
However, there are a substantial number of recent
studies which need to be incorporated in the RCOG guidance, and
the latter requires updating. Further research is needed but the
findings of the Fergusson study, published by a pro-choice researcher
who was surprised by the findings in 2006, means that women having
abortions can no longer be said to have a low risk of suffering
from psychiatric conditions like depression.
Pre-term birth
The RCOG guidance says that 'abortion may be associated
with a small increase in the risk of subsequent miscarriage or
preterm delivery'.
However, if one examines the detailed evidence quoted
by the RCOG the evidence for a link between abortion and preterm
delivery seems quite robust. The RCOG guidance states:
"Thorp et al (2002) appraised ten case-control
and 14 cohort studies relating to abortion and subsequent preterm
birth or low birth weight. Twelve of the studies showed a positive
association and seven showed a dose-response effect. Thorp et
al. highlighted the fact that large, recent cohort studies based
on register linkage consistently show a positive association.
More recent studies identified during development of this guideline
update have reported mixed findings. A French cohort study involving
12,432 women suggested that "a history of induced abortion
increases the risk of preterm delivery, particularly for women
who have had repeated abortions". A small Swedish case-control
study126 involved 312 cases of preterm birth and 424 controls
who delivered at term. A history of two or more induced abortions
was not associated with preterm birth, whereas a history of two
or more miscarriages was. Among those studies that suggest a significant
association between abortion and preterm birth, the elevation
in risk ratio is between 1.3 and 2.0."
In the quoted evidence only one 'small' Swedish study
does not support the link - so why is the RCOG conclusion so tentative?
And why do the RCOG and FFP written submissions to the S&T
Committee make no mention of a further major review (Rooney) and
two major European multicentre studies published since 2003 (EUROPOP
and EPIPAGE) which further confirm the link between abortion and
preterm delivery? EPIPAGE is mentioned by Sam Rowlands and CMF,
CORE, CARE, LIFE, SPUC mention EPIPAGE or EUROPOP or both.
Breast cancer
The evidence considered by the Guideline Development
Group regarding breast cancer risk focused on two carefully conducted
meta-analyses. These two reviews reached different conclusions
about the nature of any association. The first systematic review,
by Wingo et al. was included in the Cochrane Database of
Reviews of Effectiveness and met the quality criteria required
by the Cochrane. The conflicting review by Brind et al.
examined the same studies and concluded that induced abortion
was a significant, independent risk factor for breast cancer,
with an odds ratio of 1.3. These two meta-analyses were independently
assessed for the previous edition of this guideline and the methodological
assessor concluded that both were carefully conducted reviews
and that the Brind et al. study had no major methodological
shortcomings and could not be disregarded.
The subsequent review on long-term physical and psychological
consequences of induced abortion by Thorp et al. summarised
four previous reviews, including those by Wingo et al.and
Brind et al and concluded that a significant positive association
between induced abortion and breast cancer could not easily be
dismissed.
In August 2003, the American College of Obstetricians
and Gynecologists (ACOG) concluded that, "Rigorous recent
studies argue against a causal relationship between induced abortion
and a subsequent increase in breast cancer risk". This conclusion
was shared in a Lancet-published 2004 meta-analysis by
Valerie Beral and colleagues from Oxford University.
Dr Joel Brind and Dr Greg Gardner submitted detailed
evidence to this inquiry that claims there is a causal link between
breast cancer and abortion. They are critical of Beral's meta-analysis
because it omitted some studies which they considered valid and
included others that he considered invalid. Dr Sam Rowlands made
a similar accusation of Dr Brind's submission, pointing out that
several key papers were missing.
In view of this ongoing disagreement it seems to
be an over-interpretation of the evidence to suggest as the RCOG
does that 'induced abortion is not associated with an increase
in breast cancer risk'. Our more cautious conclusion is that 'a
causal link between abortion and breast cancer has been claimed
by some researchers and denied by others. More research is needed.'
Summary of maternal health effects
There was evidence presented that ground C is always
met for first trimester abortions. However this assessment did
not take into account the long term risks of preterm delivery,
mental health and possibly breast cancer.
We recommend the Government funds the RCOG to review
its 2004 guideline as soon as possible, but that the RCOG consults
more widely, hears evidence from both sides of the argument where
experts disagree, and ensures a more even balance of pro-choice
and pro-life advisors.
RECOMMENDATIONS
We recommend:
1. That in the context of conflicting expert evidence
on fetal pain and viability, this lack of consensus should be
fully acknowledged in the report and the committee should adopt
the precautionary principle giving the fetus the benefit of the
doubt, until a clear consensus emerges.
2. That given the evidence regarding upper limits
and health complications for women, there should be new 'right
to know' provisions so that women are given all the information
they need about fetal development and the degrees of risk associated
with abortion in relation to psychological harm and pre-term birth.
Women should also be informed with regard to the conflicting expert
opinions regarding a link to breast cancer and should be given
time to consider the options available - in order to empower women
and enable them to make a fully informed choice.
It is imperative that MPs have an opportunity to
examine original scientific documents rather than relying wholly
on reviews of those documents in written and oral evidence submitted
to the committee. We have therefore referenced further material
which has a major bearing on the debate. Specifically:
1. Recent published peer-reviewed scientific research
and literature reviews.
2. Correspondence drawing attention to the above.
3. Relevant press articles.
Fetal sentience
Anand KJS et al. Neurodevelopmental Changes of Fetal
Pain. Seminars in Perinatology. 2007; 31:275-282
Neonatal survival rates
Hoekstra RE et al. Survival and long-term
neurodevelopmental outcome of extremely premature infants born
at 23-26 weeks gestational age at a tertiary centre. Pediatrics.
2004; 113: e1-e6
Riley K et al. Changes in survival and neurodevelopmental
outcome in 22 to 25 weeks gestation infants over a 20 year period
(abstract). European Society for Pediatric Research, Annual
Scientific Meeting. 2004
General Reviews on abortion complications
Thorp JM et al. Long-term physical and psychological
health consequences of induced abortion: review of the evidence.
Obstetrics Gynecology Survey. 2003; 58: 67-69
Abortion and preterm delivery
Rooney B, Calhoun BC. Induced abortion and risk of
later premature births. Journal of American Physicians &
Surgeons. 2003; 8: 46-49
Moreau C et al. Previous induced abortion
and the risk of very preterm delivery: results of the EPIPAGE
study. BJOG. 2005; 112: 430-437
Ancel PY et al. History of induced abortion
as a risk factor for preterm birth in European countries: results
of the EUROPOP survey. Human Reproduction. 2004; 19: 734
- 740
Abortion and mental health
Fergusson D et al. Abortion in young women
and subsequent mental health. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry. 2006; 47(1): 16-24
Reardon DC et al. Psychiatric admissions of
low-income women following abortion and childbirth. Canadian
Medical Association Journal. 2003; 168 (10): 1253-6
Coleman PK et al. State-funded abortions versus
deliveries: a comparison of outpatient mental health claims over
4 years. American Journal Orthopsychiatry. 2002; 72,1:
141-152
Coleman PK et al. A history of induced abortion
in relation to substance use during subsequent pregnancies carried
to term. American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology.
2002; 187,6: 1673-1678
Abortion and breast cancer
Brind J et al. Induced abortion as an independent
risk factor for breast cancer: a comprehensive review and meta-analysis.
J. Epidemiology and Community Health. 1997; 50:465-467
Brind J. Induced Abortion as an Independent Risk
Factor for Breast Cancer: A Critical Review of Recent Studies
Based on Prospective Data. Journal of American Physicians &
Surgeons. 2005; 10(4): 105-110
Brind J. Induced Abortion and Breast Cancer Risk:
A Critical Analysis of the Report of the Harvard Nurses Study
II. Journal of American Physicians & Surgeons. 2007;
12(2): 105-110
Carroll PS. The Breast Cancer Epidemic: Modeling
and Forecasts Based on Abortion
and Other Risk Factors. Journal of American Physicians
& Surgeons. 2007; 12(3): 72-78
Abortion and maternal mortality
Gissler M et al. Pregnancy associated deaths
in Finland 1987-1994. Acta Obstetrica et Gynecologica Scandinavica.
1997; 76:651-657
Gissler M et al. Injury deaths, suicides and
homicides associated with pregnancy, Finland 1987-2000. European
Journal of Public Health. 2005; 15, 5: 459-463
Reardon DC et al. Deaths associated with pregnancy
outcome: a record linkage study of low income women. Southern
Medical Journal. 2002; 95: 834-841
Gissler M et al. Pregnancy-associated mortality after
birth, spontaneous abortion, or induced abortion in Finland, 1987-2000.
American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology 2004; 190(2):422427
Fetal abnormality
Wyldes M, Tonks A. Termination of pregnancy for fetal
anomaly: a population-based study 1995 to 2004. BJOG 2007;114:639-642.
Correspondence
Anand KJ. Letter to the Times newspaper (unpublished)
Anand KJ. Evidence to US Congress.
RCOG. Press release. 18 October 2007.
Anand KJ. Letter to the RCOG (unpublished)
Relevant press articles
Some numbers in abortion debate just can't be relied
on . GuardianUnlimited,
Premature babies die as doctors 'won't even try'
to save them. Sunday Times.
Brutal truth of DIY abortion. Sunday Times'
Motion made, and Question
proposed, That the Chairman's draft Report be read a second time,
paragraph by paragraph.—(The
Chairman.)
Amendment proposed, to leave
out the words "Chairman's draft report" and insert the
words "draft report proposed by Mrs Nadine Dorries and Dr
Bob Spink".—(Dr
Bob Spink.)
Question put, That the Amendment
be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 1 |
| Noes, 6 |
| Dr Bob Spink | | Mr Robert Flello
|
| | Linda Gilroy
|
| | Dr Evan Harris
|
| | Dr Brian Iddon
|
| | Chris Mole
|
| | Graham Stringer
|
Ordered, That
the Chairman's draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by
paragraph.
Paragraphs 1 to 166 read
and agreed to.
Summary read and agreed
to.
Glossary read and agreed
to.
Annexes A and B read and
agreed to.
A Paper was appended to
the Report as Appendix 1.
Motion made, and Question
put, That the Report be the Twelfth Report of the Committee to
the House. - (The Chairman.)
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 6 |
| Noes, 1 |
| Mr Robert Flello | | Dr Bob Spink
|
| Linda Gilroy | |
|
| Dr Evan Harris | |
|
| Dr Brian Iddon | |
|
| Chris Mole | |
|
| Graham Stringer | |
|
Resolved, That
the Report be the Twelfth Report of the Committee to the House.
Ordered, That
the Chairman make the Report to the House.
Written evidence was ordered
to be reported to the House for printing with the Report, together
with written evidence reported and ordered to be published on
9 October 2007.
[The Committee adjourned.
| 
