| | | | | | |
GUARDIAN Thu, 02 Feb 2012 15:34:00 GMT
The breast cancer charity's withdrawal of support for Planned Parenthood will sacrifice women's health to anti-choice dogma
I was sitting on my friend Maggie's couch last January, watching, slack-jawed, as the first order of business in the new Republican-controlled Congress was not to create jobs, restructure the tax code or reform a corrupt banking system that crippled our nation.
No, the first order of business was trying to defund Planned Parenthood, an American institution that for 90 years has tirelessly provided affordable healthcare services to women, children and men. One in five women in America have used the services of Planned Parenthood.
I am one of those women. And 97% of what Planned Parenthood provides is low-cost, preventative healthcare and treatment like pap smears, birth control dispensing, HIV/Aids testing and breast cancer screenings.
Three percent of what they do is provide abortion services. Abortions that are 100% paid for by the woman who elects to have the procedure. A procedure that is legal in this country as of the publication date of this article.
The defunding legislation failed, but lit a fire in the belly of zealots in statehouses across America, resulting in a record number of states attempting to or actually imposing draconian laws leaving low-income women at risk of having no access to affordable healthcare.
It was personal for me. At 17, I found myself pregnant and alone; and after going to anti-choice zealots for guidance, I found only scorn and shame. It was Planned Parenthood that listened to me, which allowed me to make the choice I needed to make, which was to have an abortion.
I wanted to give back, so together with my friend Maggie, we formed a two-woman fundraising machine, reached out to Planned Parenthood and organized a tour to raise money and awareness for local affiliates. I piled my two dogs in a van. My pal Matt took 10 days off of work to protect me from hate-mongers like this, and do some filming, and the wonderful photographer Mindy Tucker volunteered her time to do a photo essay of the trip.
I did 16 fundraisers between April and December, bringing my comedy act into towns doing shows to raise money and share my story with hundreds of people each night who also wanted to preserve the quality care Planned Parenthood provides.
A lot of people shared their stories with me. People who had similar experience to mine and kept it a secret. Wonderful stories of appreciation for quality prenatal care they received, and equally appreciative stories of being able to have a safe haven where they could make that very personal decision to terminate a pregnancy.
I heard stories, too, from women and men whose lives were saved because they were able to get all kinds of cancer screenings; from cervical to testicular to thyroid. And many stories of breast cancer detection.
There were women who were able to get annual mammograms, catching it early so they could get treated and go on to live healthy lives. Heartbreaking and triumphant stories from women who had lost their jobs and the healthcare that went along with it, women working three part-time jobs that didn't provide healthcare, students who relied on Planned Parenthood because every extra penny went to books and tuition. Single moms who didn't have to choose between a mammogram and buying baby formula.
My dear friend Shannyn Moore lights up my life everyday because Planned Parenthood detected her breast cancer and helped her with the costs of her treatment.
For years, the Susan G Komen Foundation helped Planned Parenthood by providing funding to help them continue their efforts to provide breast cancer screening to women in need. Until this week.
The foundation has chosen to defunded Planned Parenthood because it claims it cannot fund an organization that is under congressional investigation. An unwarranted investigation led by Representative Cliff Sterns, a zealous Florida congressman who is more concerned.......
| | | | | | | | | | | |
GUARDIAN Fri, 27 Jan 2012 11:40:01 GMT
Menswear shows, haute couture and Joy Division meets Mickey Mouse. What a week in fashion it's been, says Simon ChilversCouture watch
A fake airport terminal complete with a fake plane interior featuring a logo double C carpet was the scene for the Chanel couture show. Givenchy was inspired by Metropolis and staged on a basketball court. Jean Paul Gaultier referenced Any Winehouse, and Dior still hasn't replaced John Galliano. Yes, it was haute couture week in Paris. Jess Cartner-Morley had the front-row perspective.Men, it's time to leather up
Paris menswear cemented the trends started in Milan for blockbuster coats, leather and man-power. Simon Chilvers and Helen Seamons broke down all the trends from both capitals, from Dior's baseball cap army to Lanvin's Michelin man silhouette via Thom Browne's American football shoulders and Jil Sander's dinosaur jumper.Wardrobe malfunction strategy
This week the Invisible Woman announced: "Now I am over 50 ... I am a cautious dresser. My aim is to get through life with as little embarrassment as possible." She recommended a well-placed safety pin and a cardigan on permanent standby, and lamented twisty tights. Readers shared her fears, and swapped tales of clothing catastrophes.Maternity wear
As a pregnancy bumps develop in size, what on earth are women supposed to wear to work? Amy Fleming draws on her own first pregnancy experiences, looks at the maternity wardrobe of Carla Bruni, and points out some shopping ideas items that may well plug such wardrobe gaps.And the rest of the week's fashion news ...
Jo-ann Fortune wonders if the thrill has gone out of vintage shopping.
Hadley Freeman gets frank about jeans – she thinks they suck.
Simon Chilvers explains why David Hockney is his all-time fashion hero.
Paula Cocozza ponders Disney's Joy Division-inspired Mickey Mouse T-shirt.
Pastel heels are having a fashion moment this season - we pick the best.
Artist Andrew Salomone explains how - and why - he hacked a knitting machine.
Simon Chilvers
guardian.co.uk © 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
|
GUARDIAN Fri, 27 Jan 2012 13:12:39 GMT
With a fact-free campaign, Tory MPs are attempting to bring the worst of the US abortion debate to British politics
Just when you thought it was safe to go out, the right wing of the Conservative party have resurrected their fact-free campaign about abortion counselling.
It is important to stress that there are already full guidelines on abortion counselling from the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. The Royal College guidelines state: "Women should have access to objective information and, if required, counselling and decision-making support about their pregnancy options". Such counselling may include:
•Implications counselling: aims to enable the person concerned to understand the implications of the proposed course of action for themselves and for their family.
• Support counselling: aims to give emotional support in times of particular stress)
• Therapeutic counselling: aims to help people with the consequences of their decision and to help them resolve problems which may arise as a result)
Furthermore the Department of Health inspects and regulates abortion clinics, and their inspections have never thrown up breaches of the guidelines.
But, undeterred by the absence of evidence, the anti-abortion lobby has thrown itself into a campaign to promote the need for more abortion counselling. They spew out non-facts in support of a non-problem. But their campaign provides a handy vehicle to attack the motives of the doctors, nurses and clinics involved in providing abortions and to revisit what is fundamentally an anti-abortion case.
Nadine Dorries brought this issue to the floor of the House of Commons last year. Unsurprisingly, she was voted down. Opinion polls shows that the majority of the public are against her.
So, most people imagined that the issue had gone away. But the public health minister Anne Milton has been working behind the scenes to achieve a political "fix"that would enable the government to bring in the changes that the anti-abortionists desire without any more inconvenient parliamentary debate. The government had already made it clear that it believed it could bring in the changes without legislation, by simply changing the regulations. And Milton thought she could get cover for this by setting up an all-party consultation group on abortion counselling and promoting a phony "consultation". The "consultation" would, in theory, offer a range of options. But there was no doubt which option the Tory anti-abortionists preferred and which option they would ensure that the "consultation" was flooded with support for.
I originally agreed to attend the group in good faith. Although I knew abortion counselling already existed, I was interested in seeing if it could be improved. In particular, I was concerned about a range of faith-based counselling services. I also thought it might be possible to look at offering better counselling over a range of issues like still-birth and infertility.
But after a couple of meetings it became clear where the group was going and I have now withdrawn. Last night I had to debate the issue on television with Nadine Dorries. Nadine is parliament's leading anti-abortion campaigner and she has made no secret of the fact that she sees the abortion counselling issue as a way of driving down the number of abortions.
True to form, Nadine was ready with a barrage of untrue assertions. She claimed that the abortion clinics are just in it for the money; that the majority of people who attended the MP "consultation" meetings were pro-choice; that I had played no part in the meetings, even that I had slept through one. As she walked off the television set Nadine's high heels clacked triumphantly.
The trouble is that Nadine's performance is everything that is wrong with the social conservatives that are resurgent in the Conservative party. They rely on a smokescreen of emotion and personal attacks rather than evidence. And they..
| | |
GUARDIAN Thu, 26 Jan 2012 18:14:29 GMT
Vitamin D deficiency is being linked with sudden infant deaths and fractures in children. Is it time to start taking supplements?
Vitamin D is in the news again, and while the experts squabble over it, I'm off to buy myself some supplements. The chief medical officer for England has told GPs like me to advise those at risk to take supplements. And since half the adult population of the UK is lacking vitamin D in the winter months and deficiency is being linked to a growing list of health problems, I can't see a good reason not to take a small multivitamin a day – at least until the sun comes out. I'll stick to the recommended daily amount as you can have too much of a good thing, even vitamins.
Vitamin D is essential for bone growth and health, and deficiency can cause rickets in the young and a condition called chondromalacia in adults. You wouldn't think rickets still existed in the UK but it probably never went away and is increasingly recognised as a cause of fractures in susceptible children.
Recently two parents, Rohan Wray and Chana al-Alas, were accused of murdering their four-month-old baby who died two years ago from sudden infant death syndrome (Sids, also known as cot death). The baby, Jayden, was found to have multiple injuries and the parents were accused of shaking the baby to death. But pathologist Dr Irene Scheimberg, based at Royal London Hospital, found evidence of rickets in Jayden at postmortem and the judge directed the jury to acquit.
Since that tragic case, Scheimberg says she has discovered vitamin D deficiency in eight further cases of Sids and in 30 cases of children who have died of various causes and had postmortems. A colleague of hers, Dr Marta Cohen, working in Yorkshire has also found vitamin D deficiency in 18 out of 24 cases of Sids and in 45 babies under the age of one, who died of other causes. Both doctors are calling for further investigation into the implications of vitamin D deficiency and highlighting the need to be aware of rickets in cases of Sids, which can be mistaken for non-accidental injury.
This adds weight to those calling for widespread vitamin D supplementation in the UK. Advice from the chief medical officer for England, Sally Davies, was for at-risk groups – which includes pregnant and breastfeeding women, children aged six months to five years old, people aged 65 or over, people who are not exposed to much sun (the housebound, those who cover up their skin for cultural reasons and people who have darker skin, whose bodies are unable to produce vitamin D as easily) – to take vitamin D. But there have been calls to introduce supplements for all the population in Scotland, because of high levels of multiple sclerosis which may be linked to vitamin D deficiency. Ryan McLaughlin, 13, launched a campaign, Shine on Scotland, in response to his mother's diagnosis of MS, while Professor George Ebers of the Nuffield department of clinical neurosciences at Oxford University believes the evidence is now good enough to justify dosing the entire population with vitamin D. Professor George Ebers of the Nuffield Department of Clinical Neurosciences at Oxford University is quoted, saying that he believes the evidence is now good enough to justify dosing the entire population with vitamin D. Last month, his team published evidence of a link between MS and an inherited tendency that leads to vitamin D deficiency.
Scotland's chief medical officer, however, Sir Harry Burns, says in the same article he thinks there needs to be "broader scientific consensus" before change is considered. He warns that dietary supplements can cause harm and that we need to wait for good randomised studies in large populations. He wants to wait for the conclusions of a review of the evidence by the UK government's scientific advisory committee on nutrition in 2014.
But Ebers says that is too long. He reflects that there was evidence to support recommending folic acid supplementation for all pregnant.....
|
GUARDIAN Mon, 23 Jan 2012 12:00:01 GMT
The results of the latest study on global abortion are no surprise – the shock is policy-makers have ignored such data for decades
The astounding thing about the global abortion debate is not that some people have deeply held views about what a pregnancy is and when a human existence begins. After all, both of these questions are closely related to that most ubiquitous of philosophical questions: what is the meaning of life? The astounding thing is that policy-makers continue to ignore carefully amassed information about the actual outcome of programmes and laws related to sexuality and reproduction.
In that context, one could only wish that the latest figures on induced abortion rates and unsafe abortion came as more of a surprise. The analysis, carried out by the US-based Guttmacher Institute and published in the Lancet, has two main conclusions: first, when governments fail to provide contraception for those who want it, abortion figures stay the same; and second, where abortion is illegal the procedure is predominantly unsafe. The foreseeable consequence – continued high levels of maternal mortality – also plays out in the data.
None of this is new or surprising, and we have, as one health advocate pointedly noted, known it for decades. The aggregate data, however, hides additional details the discerning policy-maker should take into account.
First, overall abortion and fertility rates present the consolidated result of millions of very personal decisions.
It is not an accident that abortion rates are higher and procedures more unsafe in poorer countries generally, and for poorer women everywhere. Because even though decisions about abortion are personal, the context in which they are made is not. In this sense, the frequency with which women and girls need abortions and the conditions in which they feel compelled to access the procedure is in many cases an expression of exclusion, stigma and discrimination.
This is most clearly illustrated by the seeming anomalies in the Guttmacher study. Take a country like India. Abortion is generally legal, and modern contraceptive methods are, in theory, available. Even so, the study found that two thirds of the 6.5m induced abortions that occurred annually in India were unsafe. The reason for this is the combination of available health infrastructure, poverty, moral condemnation of sex outside marriage and severe gender inequities in the labour market. This is the context in which the women and girls make their decisions. Those who are most likely to need an abortion – young or unmarried women, those pursuing education or those engaged in subsistence farming – either cannot afford a legal procedure or fear the stigma attached to going to a recognised clinic for care. As a result, they end up having unsafe abortions, not because the government doesn't allow legal care, but because it does not enable women to effectively access it.
Second, the 70,000 women who die annually as a result of unsafe abortion didn't just die because abortion was illegal in the country they live in. They died because their lives were seen as dispensable by those in charge. Maternal mortality caused by unsafe abortion is, in fact, entirely resource-specific. This is the very reason policy-makers can and do continue to ignore facts: the only women who die as a result of restrictive abortion laws are poor. Case in point: Mississippi, the US state with the highest poverty rate, also has incredibly restrictive abortion access and – not surprisingly – soaring levels of maternal mortality.
Finally, the study hides massive levels of complacency (or resignation), even among those of us who care. How is it that we don't ask for more informed positions from our policy-makers? Regardless of whether we identify as pro-choice or pro-life, or neither, we should all require some sort of plausible explanation for why the suggested solutions actually would generate the change we want. In this sense, if a.....
| | | | | | | |
GUARDIAN Wed, 18 Jan 2012 19:00:01 GMT
Bush theatre, London
After giving us one of those rare plays about a happy family, The Kitchen Sink, the Bush now returns to the more traditional dysfunctional kind. We even get, in this new play by Irish playwright Nancy Harris, that modish motif of modern drama, a disturbed child. But if the ingredients look familiar, Harris gives them a new spin in an unsettling, engrossing psychological drama.
Things bode ill from the moment Annie, an Irish nanny, turns up unexpectedly in the smart London home of the heavily pregnant Hazel. It turns out Annie has been covertly hired by Hazel's absent husband, Richard, to help out his hard-pressed wife. Given that Hazel, a former high-flying lawyer, is trying to cope with a troubled eight-year-old son and a house filled with olive oil impetuously ordered during a Sicilian holiday, the husband's action doesn't seem unreasonable. But when Richard, a plastic surgeon who has been on a charitable mission to Haiti, finally turns up, his presence only fuels the tensions already simmering in this deeply unhappy household.
What Harris writes about vividly are the problems of parenting. Hazel is a rich, multi-layered creation who sees motherhood as a strange forest she can't get out of, and whose idea of indulgence is to buy a pet tarantula for her son. But her boy, Daniel, also has a demonic side, while the young nanny arrives from Sligo toting all the baggage of a traumatic childhood as well as a jealous envy of the affluent English middle classes. Having created three such credible characters and raised so many fascinating questions about the fallibility of the maternal instinct, Harris's touch only deserts her with the figure of the husband. I can accept that his charitable work demonstrates what Conrad called "the latent egoism of tenderness to suffering" but not that, domestically, he would be quite such an emotionally obtuse berk.
Charlotte Gwinner's production, however, keeps you on tenterhooks, and is acted with great finesse. The witchy, high-cheekboned beauty that made Kate Fleetwood an unforgettable Lady Macbeth serves her equally well as the tensely intelligent Hazel, whom you believe in from start to finish. Denise Gough as the Sligo nanny also perfectly combines an air of professional competence with a sense of bottled resentment, and Mark Bazeley invests Richard with a patina of charm that disguises his patronage. As one of the two boys sharing the role of the son, Jonathan Teale is almost unnervingly good. Not for the first time, however, I wonder how child actors learn to cope with exposure to a world of such fierce adult passion; maybe they just mature more quickly.
Rating: 4/5
Theatre
Parents and parenting
Michael Billington
guardian.co.uk © 2012 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds
| | | | | | | | | | | |
GUARDIAN Wed, 14 Dec 2011 15:37:36 GMT
It is a disgrace that forced marriage is only a matter for civil law – I welcome Theresa May taking steps to change this
A 15-year-old girl is midway through her GCSEs when she is taken out of school. Little do her classmates know, she has been packed off abroad to marry a man she has never met, a man to whom she has been "promised" since birth. They never see her again.
This sounds like the stuff of a bygone era, of faraway places, even fiction. But, in 2011, here in Britain, the forcing of women or girls into marriage is a sad reality for thousands of people.
I have met some of the victims. They speak about wedlock being used as a weapon and the horrors to which this can lead, such as rape, abuse and unwanted pregnancy.
While the prevalence of such practices has come to light in recent years, many myths about forced marriage remain. For example, it is assumed that it is confined to certain religions; but there are Sikh, Muslim, Hindu and Christian victims. Some think forced marriage is a rare practice; but the government estimates up to 8,000 cases a year in the UK. Some assume forced marriage affects only adults; but figures show that more than half are under 16 and some are as young as eight. Some think the victims are solely women; but 14% of complainants are actually men. Some believe it's limited to certain countries; but Brits are being sent to Afghanistan, Egypt, Bangladesh, Iran and Turkey.
For me, there is one overriding myth about forced marriage: that it is illegal. In fact, to coerce, threaten or blackmail someone into matrimony is not in itself a criminal offence. This week, the home secretary, Theresa May, launched a consultation into making forced marriage a crime in its own right. I am delighted – after all, it is something I have been campaigning for and speaking out about over many years.
At the moment, legislation surrounding forced marriage is civil, not criminal. The Forced Marriage Act 2007 finally allowed courts to issue forced marriage protection orders when a victim, friend or local authority raises the alarm. A breach of such an order can result in up to two years imprisonment.
So why do I think it's so important to make forced marriage a criminal offence? The reason is simple: to send out an unequivocal message to communities across the country – to teachers, schoolchildren, parents, police, neighbours, people of all cultures – that this is against the law. That Britain's authorities will not tolerate such behaviour, and that forcing someone to do anything against their will, by violence or by coercion, is inhumane and unacceptable.
But the law does not back up society's abhorrence of such mistreatment. As a lawyer in the 1990s I remember having to improvise when it came to cases that involved forced marriage. I had clients in immigration hearings, women who had been forced to marry men abroad, and had to give evidence in order to sponsor their new spouse's entry into the UK. With their family sitting there in the public gallery, I knew women were unable to speak their mind. I often had to subtly tell the judge that I believed my client was acting under some level of duress.
However, we can't rely on every lawyer spotting the signs. We have to rely on the law being robust.
There are some who disagree with me. They say we should not interfere with other cultural practices or what is supposedly condoned by certain religions. But forced marriage is against the teachings of any religion or any civilised society.
To me, turning a blind eye to such practices is an inverse form of racism, motivated by not wanting to offend other cultures or appear racist. Others say that criminalising forced marriage will stop victims coming forward. But just look at the progress we have made in prosecuting domestic violence.
For me, it's not enough to say, as some do, that the law currently protects people from forced marriage because it criminalises its components – like kidnapping, assault and false.....
|
GUARDIAN Sun, 11 Dec 2011 00:06:35 GMT
The revenue generated by working mothers would far outstrip the cost of free nursery places for all, says IPPR
Free nursery care would raise millions of pounds for the government by enabling mothers to return to work, according to a report by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR). The thinktank says the increased tax revenues that would result would outstrip the cost of providing care for all pre-school children.
Many women, especially those on low to middle incomes, stop work after having children because of the high cost of childcare in the UK. In the 34 developed nations that make up the Organisation for Economic Co-operation & Development, a couple who are both earning average wages spend 12% of their income on childcare. However, in the UK that figure is 27%.
At just over 60%, the employment rate of women with children in the UK is much lower than in many other OECD countries – it ranks 19th behind countries such as Iceland, Sweden and Denmark, which tend to have affordable, high-quality childcare provision.
The IPPR estimates that the cost of universal childcare would be £6.7bn, which could be funded, it suggests, by restricting tax relief on pension contributions to the basic rate. Money could also be raised by means-testing winter fuel payments, free travel passes and television licences for pensioners.
Each mother returning to work full-time on an average wage after a year's maternity leave would make the government £20,050 a year over four years, the IPPR analysis shows. The cost of their childcare over that period – until the child starts school – is estimated to be £14,000 (taking account of the fact that there are already 15 free hours available for three- and four-year-olds); the mother's gross income would be £103,500 and she would accordingly pay £34,050 in national insurance and income tax.
When the fact that many mothers return to part-time work or do not earn enough to pay income tax or national insurance is taken into account, the net gain from an additional mother returning to work would be £4,860.
Families are under added pressure from the rising cost of childcare – up by 4.8% since last year, according to the Daycare Trust – and from other living costs, while wages remain static.
One couple feeling the squeeze are Emma and Darren Trappett. Emma, 33, was made redundant from her administration job while pregnant. She wanted to find another job after the birth of her twin daughters, Jessica and Sienna, but found the cost of a nursery plus travel was more than she could earn.
Darren works on the railways and the couple have an annual combined income of around £30,000. Emma said: "I have a degree and marketing qualifications and would love to have a job if childcare wasn't so expensive. Most of the jobs available are in care homes or as Avon ladies, so they don't pay enough to cover all the costs. Even though it's wonderful bringing up my daughters and very rewarding, you do lose a sense of your self-worth after a while. I think I'll have to wait until they are at school before I can work."
Introducing universal childcare would have to be combined with improved economic growth and rising levels of employment to ensure jobs for those women returning to the workforce, says the IPPR.
Nick Pearce, the institute's director, said: "At a time of severe fiscal constraint, it is vital for Britain to focus resources where they will make the most difference – in helping families with the cost of living and strengthening the public finances over the long term."
A separate report by the Resolution Foundation looks at the potential for raising living standards by boosting female employment, especially in less well-off households. From 1968 to 2008, women's work drove more than a quarter of all income growth in families with low to middle incomes. In more recent years it has become even more important, counterbalancing flat wages and falls in male employment. Yet in the 1990s and 2000s the number...
| | | |
GUARDIAN Fri, 09 Dec 2011 00:01:03 GMT
Study finds no evidence of trauma and depression, but unwanted pregnancies do carry heightened risk
Having an abortion does not increase a woman's chance of developing mental health problems, according to a large study that challenges anti-abortion groups' claims that termination causes trauma and depression.
The research, commissioned by the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges and funded by the Department of Health, should reassure women that they are at no greater risk than if they give birth, the authors said.
The biggest study worldwide of the relationship between termination and mental wellbeing is published and concludes: "The best current evidence suggests that it makes no difference to a woman's mental health whether she chooses to have an abortion or to continue with the pregnancy."
The research undertaken by the National Collaborating Centre for Mental Health (NCCMH) at the Royal College of Psychiatrists assessed 44 studies from 1990-2011 which examined data on hundreds of thousands of women at least 90 days after an abortion.
The researchers found that an unwanted pregnancy does involve a heightened risk of mental health problems, but added that the rates were no different whether they had an abortion or give birth.
Professor Tim Kendall, director of the NCCMH, said that about a third of women who have an unwanted pregnancy suffered depression and anxiety compared to 11% to 12% of the general population.
An unwanted pregnancy may cause mental health problems, a woman may already have problems before becoming pregnant, or it could be a combination of the two, he added.
The review had looked at only the mental health aspects of abortion, not the ethics of abortion or its physical consequences, Kendall added. Research should now concentrate on helping women cope with the impact of an unwanted pregnancy.
Women with a history of mental problems were more likely to experience problems after a termination, and other factors such as being pressured by a partner to have a termination could also increase the chance, the researchers found.
Tracey McNeill, the vice-president of Marie Stopes, which performs 66,000 abortions a year in Britain, said the review reinforced its belief that having an abortion has no greater effect on a woman's mental health than continuing with a pregnancy.
She said: "In our experience, for every extra week a woman carries an unwanted pregnancy, it can represent an extra week of distress. This is reinforced by the review's finding that while abortion does not have a disproportionate impact on mental health, having an unwanted pregnancy does.
"This coincides with our strong belief that all women should be able to access non-directive counselling, then be able to exercise their right to be referred for an abortion without delay, if this is the option they have chosen."
Dr Kate Guthrie of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists said it had revised its guidelines to take account of these findings. "The recommendations highlight the need for service providers to inform women about the range of emotional responses that may be experienced during and following an abortion."
Anne Milton, the public health minister, said the findings of "this important review" would be considered when the Department of Health updates its sexual health strategy next year. "What is clear is that having an unwanted pregnancy has implications for people's mental health and wellbeing", she added.
Anthony Ozimic, of the anti-abortion Society for the Protection of Unborn Children, dismissed the study's findings as predictable, accused its authors of ignoring key studies and said evidence showed that abortion involved an increased risk of depression and post-traumatic stress.
"Clinical case studies and stories written and told by many women confirm empirical findings of the psychological harms of abortion," he said.
"Prior mental health may influence mental health after abortion, but does not begin to...
|
| Full List of Pregnancy articles |
|
|
RoadFish.com Encourages Texas Ranger Outfielder Josh Hamilton to Adopt...
Flu Story: A Pregnant Woman’s Ordeal
New Goal for the Obese: Zero Gain in Pregnancy
The secret to coping without an ill colleague
Komen Struggles to Defuse Planned Parenthood Crisis
Susan G Komen Donation Cuts: What Does Planned Parenthood Actually Do? [CHART]
Pfizer Birth Control Recall: Could Women Who Get Pregnant Sue?
In Komen fallout, abortion-breast cancer myth is resurrected
Nonprofits react: Dr. Susan Love says she's saddened by Komen decision
Komen officials say it's not about abortion
Success for London 2012’s International Inspiration Programme as it...
Turning Point Centers Attains Accreditation From The Joint Commission
Billing Buddies is at Northwestern College of Chiropractic Homecoming...
LOCOG Reveals Details of Olympic Flame Lighting and Arrival in UK
New Children’s Book View Domestic Violence through Young Girl’s Eyes;...
Pfizer Recalls 1 Million Packets of Birth Control Pills
'Morning-After' Pill May Be New Option to Treat Painful Fibroids
Contraceptive pill recalled in US
Pfizer Birth Control Recall for Pregnancy Risk: Are You Affected? How to Tell
Pfizer birth control pill mix-up sparks pregnancy fears
Arizona MMC Offers Walk In Visits for Arizona Medical Marijuana Card...
Professional Development Resources Marks 20th Anniversary
Birth control ‘packaging error’ leads to recall
Birth Control Recall: List of 1 Million Pills that Don’t Prevent Pregnancy Recalled by Pfizer
Pfizer recalls 1 million birth control packets over pregnancy concerns
Susan G. Komen cuts ties with Planned Parenthood
Watch: Pfizer Recalls Birth Control Packets
Birth Control Pills Recalled After Mixup
Pfizer Recalls 1 Million Birth Control Pills
Susan G. Komen Cancer Charity Halts Grants to Planned Parenthood
Birth control pills that may not work recalled
