Proceeding contribution from Baroness Primarolo (Labour) in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 20 May 2008. It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HC) and Debate on bill on Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords].
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords]
With respect, I have given way quite a lot, and I need to conclude my points. I shall now turn to the measure preventing abortion on the grounds of gender, race or sexual orientation. That is unnecessary, as abortion on the grounds of gender alone is already illegal and it is not possible to determine the race or sexual orientation of a foetus. New clause 7 seeks to require doctors to provide set information to women and introduce a five-day waiting period. The fact is that every woman's circumstances and level of understanding are different, and the information and support provided should be impartial and tailored to the woman's individual needs. I think the Committee would agree that forcing a very young girl whose pregnancy is due to sexual abuse to receive information on the development of the foetus—which the doctor would be legally obliged to do if this amendment were accepted—would be very distressing and, to many of us, unacceptable. This new clause would also effectively introduce a five-day waiting period, which would affect over 98 per cent. of women, causing further delays and unwanted stress and anxiety. As has been mentioned, new clause 8 would require that information and counselling be available, but that is required now. The professional regulatory bodies lay down statutory guidance to health professionals on what information should be provided in order that the woman is properly informed. Tonight every Member present has to make a series of difficult and complex decisions on highly sensitive issues, and I recognise how challenging that is for all of us, including me. In reaching a decision, it seems to me that each Member must assess the evidence that has been presented and vote accordingly. However, in doing so, first, they must be satisfied that the scientific evidence has changed, and we have heard that the consensus regarding medical evidence has not changed—there is no new evidence. Any reduction in the time limit will have a greater impact on teenagers and the very vulnerable who do not recognise their pregnancy, giving them untold additional anxiety and challenges. The Committee has the right, of course, to do this, but in doing so it must ask itself, ““Is there any real evidence for a change, or is it just that Members of the House are against abortion?””
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 476 c249
- Session
- 2007-08
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Children's rights Abortion Cohabitation Absent parents Counselling Women Fertility Homosexuality Human rights Human embryo experiments Eligibility IVF Discrimination Fathers Parents Married people Single people Women's rights
- Legislation
- Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill (HL) 2007-08
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2025-10-21 14:48:12 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_474673
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_474673
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_474673