Kate,

If we are going to allow advertisement for abortion, what about allowing advertisement for tube tying as that will solve the problem of unwanted babies more effectively?

Well, why not?

Suppose it depends a bit on whether you mean compulsory tube tying, though. That might be a harder sell.

How about mass sterilisation of anyone other than white middle class women? That would basically solve the problems you think society has, without the need to sell anything

People know abortion is available and legal, so why you want to sell it I have no idea – unless you think it is in and of itself a good and desirable thing to happen, rather than just a basic right

Denim, its not about selling, its about raising awareness. I don’t know if all women have heard of tube tying as a means of effective birth control once they have acheived the family size they want. I don’t think Pro Choice campaigners advertsie it loud enough.

“How about mass sterilisation of anyone other than white middle class women?” – Where did that come from?

I’m sold, where do I sign?

Hi Denim,

Think the point is that a lot of women DON’T know that abortion is a basic right, or how to access it. There’s a lot of misinformation out there – people don’t know what legal time limits are, or whether they have to pay, and all kinds of things. They are vulnerable to organisations that don’t let them know that legal abortion is an option, and who don’t refer women to abortion providers. Abortion Rights is pretty clear on that, and the science and technology committee report that I reference above also identified the dangers of post-conception service groups that either mislead women, or don’t make clear that abortion services are available. As Ann Henderson said to me on Saturday when I talked to her, AR supports the idea of advertising in the context of making sure as many women have as much information about as many possibilities as its available. It’s about clear and accurate information and that’s why the new referral rule has been proposed.

It’s also my personal experience (anecdotal) that people aren’t always sure exactly who to ask for abortion services if they do find themselves pregnant – some of us know that we can go to our GP and request a referral, but some don’t. I only know that because I’ve gone with a couple of people who just weren’t sure where to start. I suspect it’s not one you have down until you need to. if you’re 18, though, and in a small town somewhere, and not that keen to ask your GP because he’s a regular at church and knows yr Mum, maybe a few ads on telly would be helpful for guidance.

I don’t have a problem with abortion providers like Marie Stopes advertising their services, as it happens – why shouldn’t they be able to advertise along with everyone else? I do see abortion as a service. Dentists advertise, clinics advertise, text-to-chat-up-a-young-bird services advertise – why shouldn’t Marie Stopes?

Not entirely sure what your point about tubal ligation for everyone except the middle classes is – can you expand on it, and I’ll respond? Cheers, Kate.

Daniel – you are a caution.

Thanks for the detailed response, Kate. So this is a matter of educating people about their rights – whilst abortion is a service, I would hope you don’t want people to think about it in a purely transactional sense, i.e. reduce it to the level of buying a hamburger or sending a dirty text to a call girl.

I think it would be preferable to educate people about the benefits of something, which is not what you do with tube billboards. You run public awareness campaigns, introduce some of these things into sexual education at school, and so on. I think contraception is a much more important thing to educate people about than abortion. You could say sex is a service, but again, I think that would be reducing it to a mere consumptive act, where there is a customer (or customers), a supplier, and so on. It should be treated with a bit more reverence and social importance than that, otherwise it gets really easy for it to be used to abuse others (cf. the 60s and “free love” meaning that women had to spread their legs for any shag-haired man who wanted it).

Hi Denim,

Tis an interesting one. My own view is fairly basic – I do see abortion as a service, and even as a straight transaction – a service that women should be able to access easily and – literally – no questions asked (that means eliminating the requirement for two doctors’ signatures, allowing nurses and other health professionals to perform terminations, and increasing the number of places where abortions can be performed – all of these were proposed amendments to the abortion act last year that didn’t make it to debate at the HFEB’s third reading). Other pro-choicers take a slightly different view – Abortion Rights makes very clear, for example, that they view abortion as a serious procedure (I do as well – I just see it as more of a transaction), and that they don’t believe ads will or should portray it in a ‘romantic’ or ‘lightweight’ way at all.

Regarding preventative care and information – yes, completely agree that the emphasis ought also be on proper contraceptive advice, etc. So does the BCAP – the BCAP review I discussed in the original post also proposes that condoms should be advertised on telly before the 9pm watershed, so that young people get that information as well. I think a lot of us are on the same page in thinking that it is better to have all the resources you need to avoid unwanted pregnancy in the first place. Thing is, the reality is that people find that difficult to do at all times and unwanted pregnancy continues to be an issue. Safe, legal and free abortion needs to be accessible at all times so that women can control their fertility and lives, regardless.

While I agree that abortion advisers should be free to advertise I do have to take issue with this:

“proposes that condoms should be advertised on telly before the 9pm watershed, so that young people get that information as well.”

I have no problem with them advertising condoms at any time of day or night but the idea that people having sex have never watched post watershed telly is somewhat ridiculous.

As far as I can remember, condoms aren’t currently advertised on TV even after the watershed. The only time I can recall seeing condom adverts is as part of something like (Carrot’s) Commercial Breakdown or maybe Tarrant on TV – generally taking the piss out of adverts from other countries.

I’m entirely pro-choice but I can’t agree with the idea that it’s just a transaction, any more than removing an appendix. Any medical procedure involves a risk and people need to discuss them with someone qualified to explain them.

This isn’t ‘patriarchy’ or ‘misogyny’ on behalf of a male-dominated medical profession (as it appears in Laurie’s articles), it’s simply responsible behaviour.

Otherwise, a good article and follow-ups.

Fair point, Shatterface. My own view is that abortion should be a transaction and as simple a procedure to access as possible – a procedure that people can access in their lunch hour if need be. That isn’t to take it lightly, though – it is in fact is to take the right of women to control their fertility at all times very seriously. They need a simple, cheap and very-easy-to-access, safe procedure available at all times if that right is to be realised. They don’t need a ten-day cooling off period. They don’t need two doctors to verify that a termination is justified. They don’t need to hear that abortion is somehow ‘wrong’ from a counsellor who has a personal line to push, and isn’t required to make that clear. They’re adult. Like all adults, all they need is information. They can make a decision based on that themselves.

Not sure if it is the patriarchy that demands we prioritise in favour of the unborn child and place our sympathies with the unborn child ahead of its mother – it’s my view that that trend (certainly in recent times) is less the work of the patriarchy (which I believe very strongly exists in some aspects of society) than the work of a rabid, politically opportunistic Christian right. Notions of patriarchy and a Christian right are not mutually exclusive, of course – I just think the pro-life movement of recent times has had its own specific energy and focus.

I think we’re probably in broad agreement there but I’m wary of using terms like ‘transaction’ because describing ANY medical procedure in purely financial terms reduces the debate to that of the libertarian Right.

Abortion’s a health issue and those who make use of it are ‘patients’ not ‘customers’. It’s not like anyone WANTS an abortion any more than they WANT any medical procedure, it’s just that for many women it’s the least bad option.

I think I mean transaction in the sense of an uncomplicated, straightforward exchange – easy to access, easy to obtain early on in a pregnancy, and not morally complex.

I personally don’t think money should be part of the picture at all – have always advocated for a free, publicly funded abortion service wherever you live and whatever your needs.

easy to access, easy to obtain early on in a pregnancy, and not morally complex

There’s nothing complex about killing unborn people. They’re foetuses and can’t fight back. You’re a selfish woman who would rather kill than have a child. Simple.

“There’s nothing complex about killing unborn people. They’re foetuses and can’t fight back. You’re a selfish woman who would rather kill than have a child. Simple.”

Fuck off Brian , go and get pregnant, simple.

There’s nothing complex about killing born people either. Just think about all of those brown babies that can’t fight back whilst our governments drop bombs on them or support nations that do.
Oops, no, sorry I forgot – it’s only fetuses that conjure up the romanticism.

“Fuck off Brian , go and get pregnant, simple.”

I’ve always loved the kindness and eloquence of pro-choicers.

All women who put women first are called selfish.

…as are women who put women’s needs ahead of those of children.

@18 – I’ve always loved the kindness and eloquence of pro-choicers. :)”

The anti-choicer Catholic priests are also full of kindness and eloquence, especially for little boys.

“There’s nothing complex about killing born people either. Just think about all of those brown babies that can’t fight back whilst our governments drop bombs on them or support nations that do.
Oops, no, sorry I forgot – it’s only fetuses that conjure up the romanticism.”

But killing unborn children can be prevented by using birth control that er, women in the 1960s hailed as liberating them from the alledged tyranny of “unwanted preganancy” (must be nice that, being unwanted before you’re even born, still we mustn’t stop women from being fulfilled in their careers, eh).

I think what irks more than the straightforward moral obscenity of destroying human life for the sake of conevinence, is that when it suits (child custody, access to benefits, special privelidges at work, etc) women claim that their needs are inseperatble from those of their children, whether the father wanted those children or not.
When it doesn’t suit (too young, would interfere with career, wrong bloke, was drunk etc) they claim the right to murder their children.

And trying to equate abortion with civilan causalties of war is just sick.

But Matt – why is it so wrong to put women first?

It’s a moral obscenity to relegate us to lives of poverty and unwanted motherhood as well. You seem to imply that sitting in a crappy flat with no income and a much-unwanted child puts a girl on some sort of moral high ground.

Why shouldn’t women be fulfilled in their careers? Let’s not forget that having a career isn’t only about personal fulfilment, either – it’s about being able to support yourself financially. I’d much rather be economically independent and secure (as much as you can be today) and in charge of my life than sitting at home with a kid I didn’t want and couldn’t afford – Saint Kate in your eyes, perhaps, but nothing much else.

Be fair to women.

Why is it so right to put them first, rather than the children ?

On “careers” – I’m sorry but I simply can’t see any equivalence between making women “economically independent” and making abortion free, unregulated and about as deeply considered as a lunchtime botox injection. If you make the choice to have unprotected sex then accept the risk that goes with it – including the “risk” of living at taxpayers expense in social housing. Society needs middle class women to have more children anyway, not fewer.

On motherhood – before Cosmoploitan/having it all/germain greer/ feminist utopia/ load of old 1970s cobblers/ the idea that being a mother at home represented failure was unheared of. You’re so lobotomised by feminism that you think a career is the only thing that can make you feel good about yourself. In 20 years time when you realise that a career isn’t all that (as everyone man or woman does between 35-45) you’ll see how ridiculous that really is.

@22 & 23
If I were Matt replying to Kate I would say that the child’s rights were to be priviledged over the mother’s because the situation both of them were in (unwanted pregnancy) was the result of the mother’s choices and actions, not the child’s. (I’m assuming this unwanted pregancy is not the result of rape.) But I don’t think rights are the main point.

For me, the important thing is to get the best possible outcome out of a bad situation. There is no good outcome if the mother really doesn’t want the child – either an unwanted baby is born or a baby is aborted. Neither of those is good since adoption of the child does not remove all the negative consequences. It is for the mother, in full possession of the facts and choices, to judge what outcome would be least worst for her and the foetus. She should then be able to act on that decision.

If the woman doesn’t want the child, she should’ve be on the pill. Putting women first basically means saying that the child is completely irrelevant.

A foetus might not be a person, but after a certain time it definitely is a child. If the woman was so careless as to not use contraception, why should she then be able to deny that child a chance at life? Who knows, it might be born and then be taken care of someone who actually gives a shit about it, rather than some spinster who hates kids and never wants any, and just wants to fulfil their own selfish desires.

This goes for both men as well as women.

I would much rather stay at home with a child then go out and work. As long as there is someone else to help me raise the child, man or woman it doesnt matter, so that I dont have the additional pressure of going out to work, then thats cool.

To quote The Thick of It, theres more to life than drinks parties at the foreign office and having Nick Robinsons phone number on speed dial.

By all means, go out and have a shitty, unfulfilling career if you want to. Just dont come back and moan about how hard work is. Again, this goes for both men and women. Men should be allowed to stay at home and tend to the kids if they so wish. The fact that women have been so concerned with trying to beat men, and compete with them, rather than find a balance in which a man can stay at home without being considered a loser, is sad.

And trying to equate abortion with civilan causalties of war is just sick.

Yeah, that is pretty sick. I was almost convinced by Kate’s arguments but in the end she just wants there to be more abortions because she has a strange belief that abortion is this positive, liberating force. More education should actually lead to fewer abortions. I am pro-choice but that choice must be given on the basis that it’s not a choice every woman should have to face, because they will have had proper education to use the goddamn contraceptives available to them.

Not all women hate kids and think kids are this burden that should be gotten rid of, so the woman can go out and do whatever she likes. But absolutely, if you don’t want a kid, that’s fine. If tomorrow, we all woke up and it was men who gave birth, I’m sure there would be no limits on abortion. But let’s just see it for what it is: a desperate, serious operation of extreme last resort. It is still taking a life. If the woman does not want to have to make that choice, she should make use of the fantastic range of contraceptions available to women in the UK.

We all, both men and women, have a responsibility to children. It’s not about saying, let’s put kids first: it’s about recognising that life isn’t just about putting yourself first all the time, which is what Kate is arguing here.

People,

Let’s be sensible here, and honest if we can.

Prevention is certainly better than cure when it comes to unwanted pregnancy – that’s a no-brainer.

The part that is also a no-brainer, but talked about less in decent company, is that it’s never been quite as simple as that. We’re animals, dudes (some more than others) – and the drive to reproduce ourselves is extremely strong. Be honest about this. We roll around in the hay with each other all hot and heavy – particularly when we’re young, and discovering our new, bigger bits – and we learn the hard way, as it were, that 30 seconds of fun fumbling with the man of our dreams can have quite spectacular consequences. I think the RCOG report on care for women seeking induced abortion that I quote above acknowledges that instinct out and out – says something like despite contraceptives and plenty of education, and many, many people knowing perfectly well what goes where, we (men and women) have never quite managed to completely control our fertility. For that reason, legal and safe abortion is a necessary aspect of decent society.

Forget rape for a moment. Forget the extreme cases of unwanted pregnancy that pro-choicers often hang their argument on. Think instead about the unwanted pregnancies that are caused simply by the fact we’re all human. Perhaps everyone out there can put hand on heart and say at no point in their lives have they ever taken a risk while steaming round the backseat of Dad’s car with some girl or boy they really, really fancied. I certainly have played reproductive roulette in my life – particularly when I was a teenager, and in my ‘it’ll never happen to me’ phase. I suspect the only reason I haven’t had an unwanted pregnancy is that I’m probably infertile (another story).

Well – tough shit, I hear you say. We’re not just animals – we’re able to think and plan. Education is the key. Indeed it is – there are a lot of myths out there (can’t get pregnant the first time, withdrawal works, etc) that regularly require addressing. The thing is – mistakes will still be made. Remember that those mistakes were still made before abortion in this country and others was made legal – in times gone by, plenty of people got pregnant out of acceptable social sequence, even though getting pregnant meant you’d get chucked out of home and your job, or would have to marry the impregnanator against your will etc. Tens of thousands of women still die every year in countries where abortion is illegal (have got some numbers at home, but a quick google will get you there if you want to read them now). Women have died in Northern Ireland in the last 40 years (since the Abortion Act was enacted here). People take risks that may kill them.

Men and women have long known the awful consequences (death on a abortionist’s table somewhere on the wrong end of a filthy coathangers, etc) of unwanted pregnancy, but they’ve still taken the plunge, if I can put it that way. We’re not perfect, but we shouldn’t be punished for it. Ignorance certainly plays its part and education has an important role there. The fewer people who make mistakes, the better, of course. The numbers for abortion should go down, not up. Women are human, though. I think some of you want to forget that. You want us barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen, rather than in a position where we can put the odd mistake behind us. As I say – be fair.

Denim – I didn’t equate abortion with civilian casualities of war. That was another commentator above.

Kate, how would you ascertain wether a woman is choosing to have an abortion or is being heavily coerced by a controlling father, lover, abuser etc if he can just book an appointment for her for an abortion without questions asked? Now I am sure that there are still women being coerced to have abortions under the current system but at least they have a slight window of opportunity to break down and tell someone what they actually want.

Also, If you really want your baby but book an abortion because you cannot see a way of financially supporting it – is that really a fair choice?

how would you ascertain wether a woman is choosing to have an abortion or is being heavily coerced by a controlling father, lover, abuser etc if he can just book an appointment for her for an abortion without questions asked?

During the counselling session prior to the procedure, of course…

An abortion is still a medical procedure, even if we shift the legal presumptions on service provision to those of an on request service.

All women who request an abortion would receive counselling prior to the procedure being undertaken, at the very least to ensure that they’re able to arrive at their final decision to proceed on the basis of informed consent, and its at that stage that one would look for an indications of coercion or anything else that might indicate that an abortion may not be the right course of action.

Basic medical ethics and the duty of care still apply, so a request for an abortion, or for a particular type of abortion could still be declined if there were grounds to believe that the woman was being coerced, was legally incapable of giving consent or that the procedure presents an unacceptable degree of risk to the woman’s health.

Hi Lilliput,

My point is that in any scenario, legal, safe abortion should be available. A woman being coerced into abortion shouldn’t also be forced to risk her life on a backstreeter’s table. Making abortion illegal, or more difficult to get won’t change the father’s attitude that you describe above. It’ll just put her further at risk.

Don’t think I’m arguing for women to choose abortion above all else if that’s not what they want. Good family planning services should offer all options, not sell one over the other. If someone needs a sympathetic ear because they’re unsure – and there are plenty of women in that category – they should get that support. The point of the BCAP’s referral rule is to make sure they don’t inadvertently end up with a provider that actively neglects to mention all options. There’s a difference between providing information, and pushing an angle or personal belief at someone who is, as you rightly imply, vulnerable.

Regarding wanting to keep your baby, but having to choose abortion for purely financial reasons – of course I don’t think that’s much of a choice. I’d prefer to see decent welfare provision (and ongoing education opportunities, etc) for women who want to keep their babies. I don’t believe a forced abortion is much answer for anyone. Force ain’t what choice is about. Unfortunately, the people who wish to restrict abortion access are usually also the ones who like the idea of cutting welfare. My point is, though, that abortion should be legal and safe and easily accessible so that if you have one, it doesn’t kill you.

Unity, I think that you and Kate have different views

” They need a simple, cheap and very-easy-to-access, safe procedure available at all times if that right is to be realised. They don’t need a ten-day cooling off period. They don’t need two doctors to verify that a termination is justified. They don’t need to hear that abortion is somehow ‘wrong’ from a counsellor who has a personal line to push, and isn’t required to make that clear. They’re adult. Like all adults, all they need is information. They can make a decision based on that themselves.”

And its a very tough concept. I was reading a past issue of Therapy Today and they were quoting Mary Stopes who offer one councelling session prior and post abortion. The uptake is less then 2 percent. It is unethical to force someone to have counselling – never mind that its counterproductive – so we depend on those two doctors to have the impetus to ask the questions that might divulge any coersion. I know most of the time they probably just sign – so I think its not getting rid of the two doctors – but making the doctors actually go through a set of questions and not just sign.

They’re adult. Like all adults, all they need is information. They can make a decision based on that themselves.

And a 16 year old girl can? Have you ever had kids of your own, or looked after those of others? All of those things you deride might actually impact upon the girl to not just spread her legs so often without any protection that she invariably ends up getting knocked up. Otherwise the abortion rate will soar, as girls (and women) will be like, yeah, so what if I didn’t take the pill? I’ll just get this little shit cut out of me, no probs.

Kate

Is it not possible to see abortion as always sad – the snuffing out of a potential life – without being called oppressive or anti-feminist? Sometimes abortion is the only option – but that doesn’t make it like have a tooth filling or something.

Why is a 12 week miscarriage a tragedy (“I lost my baby”) but an abortion just getting rid of an inconvenience. To trivialise it does no justice to the sense of grief many women (and their partners) feel post-abortion. To tell women that abortion is trivial only increases that sense of guilt and the pressure they feel to conform to a modern mondset of the disposability of everything (love, family, motherhood, community) on the altar of capitalism the mighty needs of the career.

Denim – not quite sure of the point here – I haven’t had children of my own (as I say above, I don’t think I can). I do have stepchildren who I have cared for greatly for the years I have been with them and live with some of the time. I’m not sure who you think I’m deriding – can you explain…?

Think the comment about a girl spreading her legs is unpleasant, mon ami. Let’s not forget that there needs to be a boy between those spread legs for a knocking up to take place. The only part of your commentary I haven’t warmed to is this inherent suggestion that it’s all up to a young girl/woman to be the responsible party, and heaven help her if she falls foul. Men have a responsibility, too – they’re just in the enviable biological position of not having to take it if they don’t want to. A boy has the option of leaving if a pregnancy doesn’t suit him. Abortion provides a much needed balance – it gives women the option of leaving as well.

And yes – I remember as a young woman dismissing the risk of pregnancy on a few occasions in the heat of the moment. I did spread my legs – young people do. I felt immortal – as though the bad things wouldn’t happen to me. That’s part of being young – it was part of being young before abortion became legal, and has remained part of being young long after. Life teaches you that perhaps you’re not above unexpected experiences after all. It seems that you feel that you’re in a position to judge women for having sex – your description of a young woman with her legs spread is quite telling, i think. Women and men have sex – it’s just that pregnancy happens to us.

casaubonian – regarding abortion as a tragedy, or always as sad – I think that’s a matter for the individual. Some people seem to take it badly while others seem to feel it is a procedure they have undergone and not looked back on particularly. My personal view is that it isn’t a tragedy in itself. It’s a procedure.

This is nonsense. Abortion isn’t a “basic right”, it’s still a hotly contested issue and according to a poll commissioned by the Observer in 2006 (not known as a pro life friendly paper by any means) a plurality of women favour sweeping restrictions on the abortion time limit.
Of course the croesus-rich pro choice side are pleased by the BCAP’s proposals, which are so ludicrously biased to that lobby – privileging pro choice propaganda while suggesting unreasonable restrictions on pro life adverts – that it’s difficult to see how it can command public confidence.
Only an abortion extremist will say that awareness about how to access the procedure should be raised when there is widespread concern about the already high number of abortions and the increasingly young age of aborting women.
These insane proposals are further evidence, as though any more were needed, of the crippling weakness of the Pro Life lobby. Hardly surprising, when self-appointed whackos like Josephine, excuse me, Countess Quintavalle and that mad MP of hers are at the helm.

Are all you pro lifers nocturnal?

Only an extremist would refuse to see that this article is about information, not promotion.

The referral rule will be in place to make sure that women are given all the information they need – not put in a position where they’re faced with a counsellor who refuses to let them know that abortion is an option. As I say above, nobody particularly wants to see an increase in the number of abortions performed – but that doesn’t mean women who need them should be denied them, simply because someone with an agenda decides they should be denied.

Abortion exists and it should. That doesn’t mean to say good sex education programmes and easy access to contraception shouldn’t exist alongside it. There is a rational view here – try and see it.

Kate

Is abortion ‘good’, sometimes ‘good’, or always ‘bad’ (note the scare quotes), but sometimes necessary. I am trying to understand your position.

Thanks!

Hiya,

To be honest, I don’t really have a personal moral position – I think abortion is ‘good’ if abortion is what someone wants, and ‘bad’ if they don’t, but the procedure itself I don’t think in terms of good or bad. I think of it as a very acceptable medical procedure that gives women an important way out of a pregnancy if they want to get out of it. My sympathies are with women, ahead the unborn child.

I think it’s ‘bad’ to remove or threaten the option of legal abortion, because it forces motherhood on people who don’t want it, and it often creates great danger – women seek abortions whether abortion is legal or not, and still die in their thousands in places where it is not legal. Bottom line is, the option of legal, safe and free abortion should be available in all societies that respect and value women.

Does that help? Cheers, Kate.

Unity, I think that you and Kate have different views

No, I don’t think we do.

I think you may be getting a tad confused by the different contexts in which we both have used the word ‘counselling’.

What Kate was specifically referring to was the anti-abortion lobby’s misuse of the term as cover for attempts to talk women out their decision to have an abortion.

What I’m referring to is counselling in strict clinical/ethical sense, which entails presenting women with accurate information and giving them a non-judgemental sounding board off which the can bounce any concerns or anxieties they might have while the figure out for themselves whether they’re ready to go ahead with the procedure, and I can be pretty much certain that that’s not something that Kate would have any objections to at all.

I should point out that Red Maria’s ‘Observer Poll’ wasn’t commissioned by the Observer at all.

What being reported on in that article is nothing more than a push-poll commissioned by an anti-abortion group.

Exactly right, Unity.

That’s interesting Unity. It wasn’t mentioned in the report and by rights it should have been. Do you know which group commissioned it?

What Kate was specifically referring to was the anti-abortion lobby’s misuse of the term as cover for attempts to talk women out their decision to have an abortion

I’m not aware of LIFE, the main pro life group providing abortion counselling, using counselling as a cover to talk women out of abortions.

Mind you, I do think there is a problem with Pro Lifers romanticising unplanned pregnancies and trivialising, or disregarding their very real costs for women. I don’t suggest that happens in LIFE counselling but such attitudes do seem to be privately expressed.

How tired I am of hearing people like Quintavalle mewing that they have “compassion” for women in crisis pregnancies (yeurgh), or hearing her one of her lieutenants coming out with patronising bollocks about “support” for women

Not all liberals are pro choice
http://www.democratsforlife.org/