New RCOG Guidelines will lead to increase in the number of abortions

The national pro-life charity LIFE has expressed deep concern about the latest set of guidelines on abortion released this week by the RCOG.

Among its key recommendations is that women should be referred to an abortion provider within two days, and the maximum time between seeing the abortion provider and the abortion being carried out should be 10 working days. 

So the RCOG answer to the 200,000 abortions being performed every year is that we should speed up the process, not slow it down. How can this be a good idea?  Many women suffer psychological difficulties after abortion after being rushed into an abortion. That should be reason enough for health professionals to encourage them to take as much time as is needed to thoroughly explore the issue.

The Government has said that reducing the amount of abortion is ‘an absolute priority'.  But the RCOG wants women to be conveyor-belted ever faster into the abortion units.

According to the RCOG abortion does not cause psychological problems. It states that the evidence suggests that women are no more likely to suffer negative psychological effects if they have an abortion than if they don't. However, this flies in the face of what the Royal College of Psychiatrists said in 2008 and the latest number of that College's own journal reports. 

We have counselled thousands of women who suffered from the negative effects of abortion.  If the RCOG is so convinced that these problems are non-existent why does it recommend in the same report that “referral should be available for any woman who may require additional emotional support or whose mental health is perceived to be at risk”?

THE RCOG report also states that women should not be subject to compulsory counselling. We are not suggesting that they should be. What LIFE does suggest is that there should be a compulsory offer of counselling. This is necessary so that women are enabled to fully explore the decision they make.

The RCOG has done a U-turn and now categorically states that abortion is not associated with an increased risk of breast cancer; this, despite the fact that there have been no less than five studies from around the world in the last few years which show that it is.

The report has been partly prepared and peer-reviewed by representatives of the largest independent abortion providers.  Given the recent disclosure that independent abortion providers raked in £75 million last year from the taxpayer, can we really accept the impartiality of this report? Their input into the formulation of the new guidelines, and some of the confusing statements in the report, calls into question whether the RCOG can still be seen as an impartial organisation when it comes to the abortion issue.

END