We are senior clinicians and researchers who are or have been involved in the management of, or research about, terminations of pregnancy. Some of us also have dealt with a wide variety of presentations, including the types of cases recently described in coverage of so-called "sex selection" abortion, and commented on by persons including the prime minister, and the secretary of state for health among others. We also spend much of our working lives providing abortions to women who need them, or seeking to understand and illuminate more about how to create a policy framework for abortion provision that best meets women's need.
We are deeply concerned about the way the public discussion on abortion provision is currently proceeding (Anti-abortionists grow bold after making friends in high places, 23 March). There appears to be determined effort by some politicians and sections of the media to present a profoundly misleading picture of how abortion provision works, the nature of the law as it stands, and the experiences of women (who we see on a daily basis). Given the speed at which this is all proceeding, carrying with it, for the first time in decades, the genuine prospect of doctors who provide abortions being struck off the medical register, or maybe even subject to prosecution, we are very concerned indeed about how the abortion service will manage to carry on providing what is an already difficult and demanding area of medical practice.
The government should spend its energies addressing the genuine problems that impact on our work as clinicians, and which are the major problems for women requesting abortion: unnecessary restrictions on provision of early medical abortion, and problems with access to second-trimester abortions. In 2007 the Commons science and technology committee performed an extensive inquiry into the workings of the Abortion Act, providing a useful base for reform; we urge the government to review this work.
We also ask members of the public to recognise what is at stake here, and find ways of offering their support to those involved in the provision of abortion.
Professor Wendy Savage Department of Health and Social Science, Middlesex University
John Ashton Consultant in public health
Ed Dorman Consultant gynaecologist
Colin Francome Emeritus professor, Middlesex University
Malcolm Griffiths Consultant gynaecologist
Kate Guthrie Consultant gynaecologist
Lesley Hoggart Principal research fellow, University of Greenwich
Emily Jackson Professor, law department, London School of Economics
Ellie Lee Reader in social policy, University of Kent
Patricia Lohr Consultant gynaecologist
Alan Naftalin Consultant gynaecologist
David Paintin Emeritus reader in obstetrics and gynaecology, Imperial College Medical School
John Parsons Consultant gynaecologist
Kate Paterson Consultant gynaecologist
Sheila Radhakrishnan Consultant gynaecologist
Professor Sally Sheldon Kent Law School
Geetha Subramanian Consultant gynaecologist
• Your report on our schools talk has an air of shock at the mention of any potential risks of abortion, whether physical or psychological (Revealed: what children are being told about abortion, 24 March). Where such risks either do or may exist, it is not surprising that many will deny them and/or seek to silence those who raise them. In this highly politicised area, readers would be well advised to study the evidence from both sides carefully before coming to their own conclusions. In the case of breast cancer, it is at least established that carrying a first (early) pregnancy to term protects against breast cancer, and that was the clear context of the passage quoted from the website paper we sent you (www.spuc.org.uk/documents/papers/pike20120525).
There is also some apparent shock or disapproval at our speaker's reported claim that abortion after rape might be a source of trauma, or that a child of rape might be seen as something positive coming out of the experience. Many raped women do, however, feel this way, and a recent Irish survey found that over 57% went on to parent their babies after birth. Yes, our abortion laws do make unborn children non-persons, and yes, they do allow abortion up to birth for disability. Yes, that is hard to square with respect for disabled people. Yes, women do deserve better than abortion.
Supporters of abortion may not like to hear such things, but do they have a right to stop schoolchildren hearing them?
Anthony McCarthy Education and publications manager, Society for the Protection of Unborn Children