Vive La France!

[motorbiking]

Look at the two versions.

Original from 1967 with one sentence:

1991 amendment with two sentences:

All they have done is turn one sentence into two, but the meaning is exactly the same (obviously apart from the additional part about the 24 week limit).

its not the text in the abortion act that is key its the case law on viability and the effect of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990
So in the '67 act it was the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 which set the time limit at 28 weeks. The need for there to be a risk to life in the abortion act meant that the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 could be defended on that basis. it actually says no offence if you are saving the life of the mother

In the 91 amendment it had come to light that children could be born alive much earlier. There was also case law that it could not be 18-21 weeks. So the requirement for risk to the life of the pregnant woman is replaced with the 24 week time limit and now stands on its own grounds irrelevant of the time limit. It was the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 that broadened the scope and balanced the risk.

 

[noseall]

There is no requirement for a consultation of any kind.

Great news. It does not change this one iota...

Requirement for two doctors' signatures

84. The Abortion Act 1967 requires that an abortion under ground A to E is certified by two doctors, who must each sign a Department of Health HSA 1 form to give notification that the abortion has been approved and on what grounds, and an HSA 4 form for information including patient details, the method of abortion and gestation time.

85. A range of explanations have been given for the introduction of the requirement for two doctors' signatures:

• to ensure that the provisions in the legislation were being observed ;[96]
• to protect women;[97]
• to protect doctors from breaking the law ;[98]
• to demonstrate the medico-legal concerns of Parliament, namely that the 1967 Act did not make abortion legal but conferred upon doctors a defence against illegality—the two doctors are expected to police each other; [99]
• to show the seriousness of the decision to terminate;

By the way, it's in the Parliamentary report you refuse to believe.

 

[noseall]

Did you read the text in HSA1 (delete as applicable)

I Have/have not* seen/and examined* the pregnant woman to whom this certificate relates at

There is no requirement for a consultation of any kind.

Yes.

However it does not change this on iota....
Requirement for two doctors' signatures

84. The Abortion Act 1967 requires that an abortion under ground A to E is certified by two doctors, who must each sign a Department of Health HSA 1 form to give notification that the abortion has been approved and on what grounds, and an HSA 4 form for information including patient details, the method of abortion and gestation time.

85. A range of explanations have been given for the introduction of the requirement for two doctors' signatures:

• to ensure that the provisions in the legislation were being observed ;[96]
• to protect women;[97]
• to protect doctors from breaking the law ;[98]
• to demonstrate the medico-legal concerns of Parliament, namely that the 1967 Act did not make abortion legal but conferred upon doctors a defence against illegality—the two doctors are expected to police each other; [99]
• to show the seriousness of the decision to terminate;

 

[noseall]

It is approval for the abortion to proceed

Correct. It says so in the Parliamentary report right HERE...
Requirement for two doctors' signatures

84. The Abortion Act 1967 requires that an abortion under ground A to E is certified by two doctors, who must each sign a Department of Health HSA 1 form to give notification that the abortion has been approved and on what grounds, and an HSA 4 form for information including patient details, the method of abortion and gestation time.

85. A range of explanations have been given for the introduction of the requirement for two doctors' signatures:

• to ensure that the provisions in the legislation were being observed ;[96]
• to protect women;[97]
• to protect doctors from breaking the law ;[98]
• to demonstrate the medico-legal concerns of Parliament, namely that the 1967 Act did not make abortion legal but conferred upon doctors a defence against illegality—the two doctors are expected to police each other; [99]
• to show the seriousness of the decision to terminate;

I think MBK believes most of the report is truthful, except the bit that says the signing of the HSA1 form is giving approval (as above). Weird.

 

[noseall]

because I'm not.

It's so obvious to anyone who has read the act

And obvious to those that have read the Parliamentary report....

Requirement for two doctors' signatures

84. The Abortion Act 1967 requires that an abortion under ground A to E is certified by two doctors, who must each sign a Department of Health HSA 1 form to give notification that the abortion has been approved and on what grounds, and an HSA 4 form for information including patient details, the method of abortion and gestation time.

85. A range of explanations have been given for the introduction of the requirement for two doctors' signatures:

• to ensure that the provisions in the legislation were being observed ;[96]
• to protect women;[97]
• to protect doctors from breaking the law ;[98]
• to demonstrate the medico-legal concerns of Parliament, namely that the 1967 Act did not make abortion legal but conferred upon doctors a defence against illegality—the two doctors are expected to police each other; [99]
• to show the seriousness of the decision to terminate;

 

[motorbiking]

Are you suggesting that the words in a parliamentary report have legal precedent over an act of law?

Surely you are not that daft.

 

[JonathanM]

So in the '67 act it was the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 which set the time limit at 28 weeks

Yes, I knew that.

The need for there to be a risk to life in the abortion act meant that the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 could be defended on that basis. it actually says no offence if you are saving the life of the mother

I'm struggling to understand that bit. Sorry.

As a reminder, there is no minimum risk criteria, this was changed in the 1991 amendment.

But this is the bit I was really interested in. What is the no minimum risk criteria that was brought in 1991? The wording in 1967 Act and the 1991 Act is the same, just laid out differently. They both say abortion is legal if:

continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated

 

[noseall]

I
agree except your last sentence.

What do you suppose they meant to write when they wrote this (highlighted) word....

Requirement for two doctors' signatures

84. The Abortion Act 1967 requires that an abortion under ground A to E is certified by two doctors, who must each sign a Department of Health HSA 1 form to give notification that the abortion has been approved and on what grounds, and an HSA 4 form for information including patient details, the method of abortion and gestation time.

85. A range of explanations have been given for the introduction of the requirement for two doctors' signatures:

• to ensure that the provisions in the legislation were being observed ;[96]
• to protect women;[97]
• to protect doctors from breaking the law ;[98]
• to demonstrate the medico-legal concerns of Parliament, namely that the 1967 Act did not make abortion legal but conferred upon doctors a defence against illegality—the two doctors are expected to police each other; [99]
• to show the seriousness of the decision to terminate;

Perhaps you think they were:
A. Lying?

B. Píssed?

C. Trying to appease noseall?

 

[noseall]

Are you suggesting that the words in a parliamentary report have legal precedent over an act of law?

Surely you are not that daft.

Nope. You are though repeatedly. And your repeated waffle does not change this....

Requirement for two doctors' signatures

84. The Abortion Act 1967 requires that an abortion under ground A to E is certified by two doctors, who must each sign a Department of Health HSA 1 form to give notification that the abortion has been approved and on what grounds, and an HSA 4 form for information including patient details, the method of abortion and gestation time.

85. A range of explanations have been given for the introduction of the requirement for two doctors' signatures:

• to ensure that the provisions in the legislation were being observed ;[96]
• to protect women;[97]
• to protect doctors from breaking the law ;[98]
• to demonstrate the medico-legal concerns of Parliament, namely that the 1967 Act did not make abortion legal but conferred upon doctors a defence against illegality—the two doctors are expected to police each other; [99]
• to show the seriousness of the decision to terminate;

 

[motorbiking]

So you accept the act of law has precedent?

Abortion Act 1967

An Act to amend and clarify the law relating to termination of pregnancy by registered medical practitioners.

www.legislation.gov.uk

yes

Subject to the provisions of this section, a person shall not be guilty of an offence under the law relating to abortion when a pregnancy is terminated by a registered medical practitioner if two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith

Can you find the word approval - nope neither can I.

 

[noseall]

Are you suggesting that the words in a parliamentary report

Are you suggesting they were lying in the parliamentary report when they say this...
Requirement for two doctors' signatures

84. The Abortion Act 1967 requires that an abortion under ground A to E is certified by two doctors, who must each sign a Department of Health HSA 1 form to give notification that the abortion has been approved and on what grounds, and an HSA 4 form for information including patient details, the method of abortion and gestation time.

85. A range of explanations have been given for the introduction of the requirement for two doctors' signatures:

• to ensure that the provisions in the legislation were being observed ;[96]
• to protect women;[97]
• to protect doctors from breaking the law ;[98]
• to demonstrate the medico-legal concerns of Parliament, namely that the 1967 Act did not make abortion legal but conferred upon doctors a defence against illegality—the two doctors are expected to police each other; [99]
• to show the seriousness of the decision to terminate;

Look at the bits in bold.

 

[noseall]

Can you find the word approval

Yup....
Requirement for two doctors' signatures

84. The Abortion Act 1967 requires that an abortion under ground A to E is certified by two doctors, who must each sign a Department of Health HSA 1 form to give notification that the abortion has been approved and on what grounds, and an HSA 4 form for information including patient details, the method of abortion and gestation time.

85. A range of explanations have been given for the introduction of the requirement for two doctors' signatures:

• to ensure that the provisions in the legislation were being observed ;[96]
• to protect women;[97]
• to protect doctors from breaking the law ;[98]
• to demonstrate the medico-legal concerns of Parliament, namely that the 1967 Act did not make abortion legal but conferred upon doctors a defence against illegality—the two doctors are expected to police each other; [99]
• to show the seriousness of the decision to terminate;

 

[denso13]

I actually said do some research, but you'd rather go with the content of your confused head again..

What bit was factually wrong? Insults do you no favours.

 

[denso13]

Are you suggesting that the words in a parliamentary report have legal precedent over an act of law?

No, but laws mean things, and the report captures the meaning nicely.

 

[motorbiking]

Is that the best you can do?

The Law says X and a report says Y, so the Law really means Y.

give your head a shake.