HFE Bill Briefing

At the SPUC Hull and East Riding branch meeting last weekend, Father William Massie, parish priest of the West Hull parishes, asked me to write a short briefing explaining the proposed amendments to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill that, if passed, would result in more unborn children being killed through abortion. He is going to hold an MP letter writing session in his parishes during the teas and coffees after Mass giving people, many of whom may have never written to their MP, an opportunity to do just that. It's a great idea and I hope more priests will organise this kind of event. He and a group of parishioners travelled down to Westminster earlier this summer to lobby their MP, health secretary Alan Johnson.

Fr Massie wanted me to explain the Bill and the dangerous amendments (along with reasons they should be opposed) in layman's terms, so that "Joe and Josephine Parishioner" can write a simple letter to their MP. I thought it would be useful to publish this on my blog for the benefit of those who don't know much about the Bill:

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology (HFE) Bill is a government bill that will receive its third reading in the House of Commons as early as the end of this monthOCT. It seeks to extend licensing of more procedures that will harm or kill embryos created in the laboratory. The proposals include:

- allow scientists to create various types of human/animal hybrid embryos for research
- remove the need for a father so lesbian couples can have children through IVF
- gender selection of embryos after IVF if a sex-linked hereditary condition is suspected
- creation of "saviour siblings" in the hope of producing a baby who can be used as a tissue donor to treat the older sibling - but most "saviour sibling" embryos are discarded or destroyed


These points have already been debated and voted on by MPs. The only way they will not become law is if the Bill as a whole is defeated in the Commons at third reading, which is very unlikely, or that Gordon Brown resigns and calls an election immediately. This is also highly unlikely.


The key battleground now is over very dangerous amendments to the Abortion Act that, if passed, will open the floodgates for abortion to be even more "on demand" than it already is. Several new clauses to the Bill have been tabled by extreme pro-abortion MPs. The Speaker of the House, Michael Martin, will select the amendments that will form part of the Bill.
This briefing is to summarise these amendments are and give comments on why they are so dangerous to help you write to your MP with good arguments, urging him or her to oppose ANY of the amendments to abortion law, regardless of which ones are picked.


The New Clauses


1) Change the requirement of two doctors’ signatures needed to refer women for an abortion to one. It will also abolish the need for any legal ground for abortion before 24 weeks. This would leave women even more under pressure to have an abortion and would make it more widely available.


2) Allow nurses and midwives to carry out abortions. Nurses and midwives have not been consulted on the possible change. Abortion work is unpopular among doctors and other healthcare professionals will do doctors’ "dirty work". This may also be a cost cutting exercise for abortion providers.


3) Lower limit for social abortions to 20 weeks. This is unlikely to be selected as time-limit amendments were comprehensively defeated at second reading. It could end up as a "trade off" with another, more radical proposal to make abortions easier.


4) One doctor’s signature before 13 weeks, two for between 13 and 24, three doctors after 24 weeks. More than 90 per cent of all abortions happen before 13 weeks. This could lead to more early abortions and reinforce the misleading and incorrect idea that the moral status of the unborn child grows as age increases. The opposition to abortion should be based on an argument about when life begins (conception) rather than how well developed unborn children are.


5) Three doctors required after 24 weeks. See above.


6) Attempt to ban abortions for "non-serious" handicap, such as cleft lip and palate or club foot. Defining what is not a "serious" handicap could be a mistake. It would be seen to underline the "worthlessness" in society of those with more serious disabilities.


7) Wider range of abortion locations to include GPs’ surgeries, health centres and even school sick rooms. This would potentially turn every clinic into a killing factory. It will lead to greater pressure for women to opt for abortions immediately without any time to consult, reflect and seek advice. Who is responsible for disposal of foetal remains? Will they be found in the dustbin?


9) Allow abortions by drug to be administered anywhere (even in prisons, schools and refugee centres) within nine weeks of pregnancy. This would widen the use of the RU486 abortion pill which is much cheaper to administer than a surgical abortion. It could also apply to the morning after pill, which can also cause an early abortion. There would be a risk to the woman’s physical and psychological health by being sent home to have an abortion by themselves.


10) Wider range of abortion places for both drug and surgical abortions. Similar to new clause 7.

11) Outlaw misleading advertising by counsellors. A complicated amendment based on subjective measures. It needs further analysis but could result in pro-life (and pro-abortion) counsellors being sent to prison if they give what is deemed to be false information which causes or is likely to cause a woman to make a decision about an abortion she would not have otherwise taken.


12) No conscientious objection to birth control. This could mean that all doctors, nurses and pharmacists would be forced to provide and administer "emergency contraception" including the morning after pill, which can cause an early abortion. There would be no right for medics and pharmacists to opt out of doing this on ethical and moral grounds. This is contrary to basic ethical principles. The right to freedom of conscience is widely recognised in codes of ethics and international law.


30) Extending 1967 Abortion Act to Northern Ireland. This would virtually mean abortion on demand in the province, where abortion is still illegal in most cases. This amendment has been tabled by a group of extreme pro-abortion MPs, none of whom represents a Northern Ireland constituency. Opposition to abortion is something that unites people, politicians and churches across the province. To impose the Act would be a slap in the face of democracy, given that most, if not all, Northern Ireland MPs are opposed to such a move.