interpretation by doctors. The doctor adopt sensible Huntingford but is to decide whether a risk Bill will "serious' by "judgement' based on his clinical experience and point of view.
The relative criterion of the 1967 amenable . to largely because it is be replaced by weight of the prejudices of The proposers also say that the make the availability of abortion more 'uniform'. However, Black of 'uniformity' in the he power sherconstit consultants variations in NHS facilities through.
It is almost impossible to obtain NHS abortions in some parts of the country and this is very often because powerful local doctors are anti-abor'Uniformity' could be introremoving the dictatorial powers of consultants and Inore laculues avanable on lne Nro not by arrogating even more arbitrary powers to doctors.
Bill also seeks to severely curtail the actions of the charities provide abortion NHS fails. The proposers claim that there is a "financial incentive' to send people for abortion. This must be the only time that the Tory • Party has come out against 'financial incentIn practice the charities provide a service, at a cost, because the NHS is failing to carry out its proper task But the sponsors haye no intention of ensuring that the NHS expands to fill The proposers of the Bill claim to agree with the 'spirit' of the 1967 Act. If that is true then it is clear that the 'spirit' they have in mind is a points made have concentrated on self-contradic the thinking behind le Abortion [Amendment] Bill. The rea Issue is whelmer or Hot socry ben i to act in an even more repressive ma! towards women land, less directly men also] than it already does. Ta resounding answer from both wond and men must be a decisive "No!'.
29 Notember 1979 iee9