The British Parliament commissioned this study by the Science and Technologie Committee of the House of Commons. Much like the study that Repugnican Prez, Saint Ronnie the Reagan, directed the office of his once almost sainted Surgeon General Dr. Koop, to carry out. Of course, that was never released by St. Ronnie the Reagan, since the almost sainted Dr Koop was an honest man who refused to lie about the findings. And then Dr. Koop came out in favor of CONDOMS TO PREVENT AIDS!
And then, Oh MY! Didn't the Religi Right kick Koop's stinkin' ass out of the Saint's Club quick!
Oh, and the Koop study was finally released to the MSM by the Democraticly controlled US House of Reps with little fanfair anywhere and no recognition by anyone on the part of the radical religious right and in their militant anti-abortion campaigning.
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY COMMITTEE
COMMITTEE OFFICE, HOUSE OF COMMONS
7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA
Tel. Nos. 020 7219 2793-2794 (Fax. No. - 0896) email: scitechcom@parliament.uk
PRESS NOTICE
No. 66 of Session 2006-07
31 October 2007
PUBLICATION OF REPORT
SCIENTIFIC DEVELOPMENTS RELATING TO THE ABORTION ACT 1967
The Science and Technology Committee today sets out its conclusions on scientific developments which ought to be considered in any new Parliamentary debate relating to the Abortion Act 1967.
Aren't you glad (you use Dial? No.) the Parliament of the UK has such a committee? Dont you wish everybody did??
The Committee decided to hold its inquiry in order to inform parliamentary and public debate after it was ruled that abortion would fall within the remit of the Human Tissue and Embryos Bill, which is likely to be presented to the House in the 2007/8 session.
Would such a report have even been consider by the Repugnican fools controlling the US Senate and House when the Partial Birth Abortion Ban (PBA) was last passed by the US Congress; signed into law by TGDSOBGWB and found to be constitutional by a mostly Repugnican appointed and majority Catholic Supreme Court of The United States(SCOTUS)?
The Committee makes clear that its conclusions and recommendations are restricted to those issues capable of scientific evaluation and recognises that other factors also come into play when abortion law reform is being considered by Parliament.
Just the FACTS, Mam. We want just the facts!
The Committee concludes that while survival rates at 24 weeks (the current upper limit for abortion) and over have improved since 1990, survival rates (viability) have not done so below that gestational point. The Committee concludes that there is no scientific basis - on the grounds on viability - to reduce the upper time limit.
Wait a minute! Did this scientific committee say that SURVIVAL RATES HAVE NOT IMPROVED BEFORE 24 WEEKS SINCE 1990???!!! But, but, but...
The Committee supports the removal of the requirement for two doctors signatures before an abortion can be carried out. The Committee is concerned that the requirement for two signatures may be causing delays in access to abortion services and found no evidence of its value in terms of safety.
And they think the requirement of two doctor's signatures might delay some abortion to beyond the date of viability? and "found no evidence of its value in terms of safety."? Well, CRAP! What IS wrong with Kansas?!
And this "committee" didn't even find that it was dangerous for nurses and midwives to provide first trimester abortion!
...
On the issue of foetal pain, the Committee says the evidence suggests that while foetuses have physiological reactions to stimuli, this does not indicate that pain is consciously felt, especially not below 24 weeks. It further concludes that these factors may be relevant to clinical practice but do not appear to be relevant to the question of abortion law.
No fetal pain before viability? Well, there goes another straw man!
While new 4D imaging techniques are a useful tool in diagnosis of foetal abnormality, there is no evidence they provide any scientific insights on the question of foetal sentience or viability.
But...but..., they do so much "good" in promoting psychological pain and suffering in the ubnsuspecting girls and women who are lured into Crisis Pregnancy Centers (CPCs)and shown one of these remarkable pictures made on these remarkably expensive machines furnished to the CPCs by the hundreds of millions of dollars granted by the Bush adminstration to these lying, manipulating sacks of shit working in these places!
Any debate on the impact an alteration to the upper time limit would have on those women who present late for abortion would be better informed if there was improved collection of information relating to the reasons why women come forward at this late stage and about how many women travel overseas for late abortions.
It also recommends that the clinical guidelines on abortion provision, including health risks associated with abortion, should ultimately be taken over by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE).
Maybe we should have such a committee in this country.
Chairman of the Committee Phil Willis said: "Abortion is a complex issue. Legislative decisions are informed by ethical , moral, religious and political views, case law, scientific and medical evidence. As a Science and Technology Committee, we have focused on the science, and have done so rigorously.
"In our inquiry we have attempted to sift the evidence on scientific and medical developments since the last amendment of the law in 1990 and since the 1967 Act.
"We urge all MPs and the public to study the evidence we have taken and the conclusions we have reached."
The Report was published electronically at 0001 on Wednesday 31 October 2007, and hard copies of the Report can be obtained from TSO outlets and from the Parliamentary Bookshop, 12 Bridge Street, Parliament Square, London SW1A 2JX (020 7219 3890) by quoting the appropriate HC number from Tuesday 6 November 2007.
For media inquiries please call Laura Kibby on 020 7219 0718. For any other information please call Ana Ferreira, on 020 7219 2793. Previous press notices and publications are available on our website.
Let's see, this was released very early yesterday morning. Probably aabout the same time the latest pics of Britany Spears without undies came out. Has anyone seen this news story in the American MSM yet?