Vive La France!

[carmanmemoranda]

The only 1 in any doubt is the solicitors clerk.

Everyone knows he's not a lawyer

 

[denso13]

"Form HSA1 must be completed, signed and dated by two registered medical practitioners before an abortion is performed under Section 1 (1) of the Abortion Act 1967. "

"The form must be completed by both practitioners certifying their opinion, formed in good faith, that at least one and the same ground for abortion in section 1(1) of the1967 Act exists (Regulation 3, Abortion Regulations 1991, SI 1991/499.). The certification takes place in the light of their clinical judgement of the circumstances of the pregnant woman’s individual case"

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a755bd240f0b6360e4737e3/2013_C_Guidance_note_for_completing_the_HSA1_and_HSA2_abortion_forms.pdf

 

[denso13]

The only 1 in any doubt is the solicitors clerk

A clerk would know better.

 

[motorbiking]

Select committee report is not case law. If you have case law quote the case law.

Nothing in the abortion act exemptions is dependent on the doctors completing their paperwork.

 

[noseall]

A clerk would know better.

Have a look
HERE

Go to 84. The rest of it makes interesting reading.

 

[motorbiking]

I love how the forum trolls try to find every scrap of information to prove their case except the actual statute.

What is wrong with the statute. It’s very clear and I thought easy to understand. Hey ho.

 

[noseall]

Select committee report is not case law. If you have case law quote the case law.

You need to read it, before you make yourself look a bigger tw@.

Here you go

If you can struggle past 84 without crying, the rest makes interesting reading. It just about blows all you have wrongly blathered on about for the last hundred pages, out of the water.

 

[motorbiking]

Still waiting for the case law. Do you have a reference?

 

[JonathanM]

See the difference?

There is no difference, they've just taken the same words and re-arranged the sentence.

No requirement for there to be a risk to life only that it is lower than giving birth.

There wasn't in the original act either. The original said "risk to the life of the pregnant woman" "or [risk] of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated".

It's exactly the same, just with the sentence structured differently.

 

[denso13]

What is wrong with the statute. It’s very clear and I thought easy to understand. Hey ho.

You'll find this easy to answer then

What if, in the opinion of two registered medical practitioners, the criteria in the act are not met?

 

[denso13]

Still waiting for the case law. Do you have a reference?

What if, in the opinion of two registered medical practitioners, the criteria in the act are not met?

 

[noseall]

Do you have a reference?

Yup here

Go to 84.

 

[noseall]

Everyone knows he's not a lawyer

The bloke is an idiot.

Read here.. Read 84

 

[noseall]

Direct. Not paperwork required for the defence to be valid as long as the opinion was formed in good faith.

WRONG.

 

[noseall]

Ah so it doesn’t explicitly have the word approval after all.

It does here, go to 84