|
In case you missed it, I am re-sending (below) my email from yesterday about “Lydia”.
It is a particularly distressing story about the huge pressures placed on a vulnerable woman to abort her baby against her wishes.
In fact, a BBC poll taken earlier this year indicates that 15% of British women report they have experienced pressure or coercion to have an abortion that they did not want.
|
|
|
What makes Lydia’s case especially scandalous (and tragic) though is the:
1. Extreme level of coercion which she underwent, leading to her very much wanted baby being aborted in the most awful of circumstances, circumstances which factored in a suicide bid by Lydia.
2. Abysmal level of care which she received from the abortion clinic responsible for killing her baby.
3. Shocking response that she received from the medical regulator who handled her complaint.
SPUC’s executive committee has agreed in principle to back a legal action on behalf of Lydia who does not have the financial means to do this herself.
Going to court will be the only way to seek justice for Lydia, but it will be costly.
(Legal costs for the preliminary stages of this case alone are expected to be in the region of £162K)
And it will only be possible to take this course of action on behalf of Lydia (and other UK women who meet with pressure to abort) if the funds needed can be raised through this special appeal.
Will you give £15 or £30 or £50 or £100 or £1,000 or more so that we can seek justice for Lydia via the courts and alert the UK public to the scandal of coercive abortion?
|
|
Dear Supporter,
This is a particularly disturbing account of coercion placed on a vulnerable woman to abort her unborn child against her wishes.
Sadly, cases of abortion coercion are NOT rare.
Coercion is something that impacts many thousands of pregnant women across the UK every year.
- A BBC poll published on 8th March this year found that 15% of British women had experienced pressure or coercion to have an abortion that they did not want.
Pressure from family and partners are the most commonly cited factors in these cases.
- A helpline run by SPUC’s charitable trust for those suffering after an abortion experience reports that 2 out of every 3 calls that it receives involve coercion of some sort from a partner or someone else close to the woman.
The case I am going to relay to you, however, is particularly concerning as it involves:
- A vulnerable woman
- A medical doctor, who was a family member, and knew the woman involved was vulnerable
- A major abortion provider, which failed abysmally in its duty of care to a patient.
As you will see, it appears that the woman in this case – who we will call “Lydia” in order to protect her identity and to ensure her safety – really had very little “choice” in the matter.
SPUC’s executive committee has agreed in principle to sponsor legal action on behalf of Lydia in a bid to highlight the appalling pressure placed on her and thousands of other UK women who share her fate each year.
But whether or not we proceed will depend on your financial help.
|
|
|
“LYDIA’S” STORY
Lydia’s case involves a vulnerable woman being coerced into aborting her unborn baby at around 21-24 weeks (approximately 5 months into the pregnancy).
Lydia underwent heavy pressure from her partner – who we will call Mr Y – and a number of his family members – including a medical doctor— who I will refer to as “Dr F”.
The involvement of this doctor is a key feature in this case.
Lydia and Mr Y had been dating for a period of time until their relationship began to break down.
|
|
|
SPUC has agreed not to reveal "Lydia's" identity
She says that from that point onwards, Mr Y’s family became increasingly involved in their relationship and were pressurising both parties to end the relationship.
Then, shortly after the parties broke up Lydia discovered that she was pregnant.
She informed Mr Y and indicated that she wanted to keep the baby.
After making her wishes clear to Mr Y, he agreed to accompany Lydia to a pregnancy ultrasound scan.
During the scan, Lydia was informed that she was around “20 weeks” pregnant and that the baby was healthy, despite an earlier diagnosis of endometriosis and adenomyosis (conditions which can make conception difficult).
Shortly after the scan and Lydia’s decision to continue with the pregnancy, she faced increasing pressure from Mr Y’s family members to terminate the pregnancy.
Indeed, Lydia received erroneous medical advice from Dr F under very pressurised circumstances in Mr Y’s home.
Misleading medical advice
Lydia says that she spoke to her NHS GP about her concerns regarding the coercive behaviour she faced from Dr F.
- This included Dr F citing alleged clinical studies and ‘research’ and the strong intimation from Dr F that Lydia’s baby could be born “deaf and disabled” due to her having previously contracted Covid-19, amongst other pre-existing health issues.
Lydia’s GP apparently advised her that they were not aware of any evidence to support Dr F’s assertions.
Lydia further alleges that Dr F and Mr Y had threatened her that if she did not terminate the late pregnancy, they would go to court to prove that she was not a fit mother or mentally stable enough to take care of a child.
- Lydia had no immediate family support whatsoever at this time (and still has none) to help her cope with the immense pressure that she was under
- She was cornered into making the decision all by herself and without adequate information as to what ALL her options were and was afraid for her safety and the safety of her baby.
Despite wanting to keep her child, Lydia states that she felt suicidal due to the unrelenting pressure she was facing on a daily basis from Mr Y’s family and the medical doctor.
Lydia attempts to take her own life
Lydia was made to believe that she would be a pariah and an outcast if she continued with the pregnancy and gave birth.
As a result, Lydia suffered a mental break down which led her to attempting to end her life.
Out of desperation, before attempting to end her life, she says that she called the abortion provider to cancel her clinic appointment which had been scheduled for the next 48 hours and informed them that she intended to commit suicide.
Further to her call to the abortion provider, the police arrived at the scene and managed to talk Lydia out of her suicide attempt before taking her home.
Notwithstanding these tragic events, Mr Y’s family continued to pressure, threaten and coerce Lydia to terminate the pregnancy.
In a final bid to get her to go through with the abortion, Mr Y contacted Lydia’s wider circle of friends in the hope that she could be convinced to abort her child.
Lydia capitulated and attended the clinic for her abortion consultation.
She says that she informed the nurses and doctors about her mental health status as well as her reasons for terminating the late-term pregnancy – namely pressure and coercion from Mr Y’s family.
She made it clear that she did not want the abortion to happen.
- Nevertheless, the abortion provider commenced Stage 1 of the two-stage abortion process which involved inserting ‘rods’ into the cervix to induce dilation.
The very next day, Lydia attended the abortion providers clinic and Stage 2 of the abortion process was undertaken.
- This involved the surgical removal of the 5-month-old baby from her womb using ‘vacuum suction’ or ‘scraping out’ of the baby’s body parts.
|
|
Lydia was transferred to a waiting room and given medication to take home before being discharged without anyone from the clinic checking who would be picking her up post-surgery.
The records obtained for that day not only show that Lydia was very distressed before the abortion procedure started, but also after it was completed.
The records also show that she told clinic staff that she did not want to abort her unborn baby and that her ex-partner and his family had pressurised her into it.
A formal complaint to the Regulator
Lydia subsequently lodged a formal complaint with the body which regulates doctors in the UK setting out her experiences.
After waiting more than a year, Lydia finally received a letter in response to her complaint.
Astonishingly, the regulatory body decided to take NO action.
By making this decision, we believe that the regulatory body failed in its duty of care to protect the public and especially those in Lydia’s vulnerable position.
Many troubling questions remain over the treatment of a vulnerable patient accessing an abortion provider.
For consent to be valid and legal, it must be voluntary and informed, and the person consenting must have the capacity to make such a life-altering decision.
These principles apply to ALL medical procedures, as well as abortion.
Clearly a woman’s consent is not valid if it is given under duress or pressure from another person.
The Department of Health and Social Care’s Required Standard Operating Procedures require abortion clinic staff to identify patients who require more support.
This includes women with a pre-existing mental health condition or where there is evidence of coercion.
- Lydia had a pre-existing medical history, suggesting that at the time of the abortion, she was unable to make an informed decision
- NO psychiatric assessment was carried out prior to the abortion in order to determine whether Lydia had the capacity to make such a life-altering decision.
(This is despite the abortion provider’s staff having prior knowledge that Lydia was suicidal as a result of the pressure and duress)
|
|
Should we be surprised by the rushed and hurried fashion in which the abortion provider carried out Lydia’s abortion and the apparent failure in its duty of care towards its patient?
Sadly NOT. Abortion providers’ record in this area is, frankly, appalling.
Bonuses for abortions
In 2017, the Daily Mail newspaper featured the scandalous way in which one major abortion provider treated its patients as cash cows:
"Inspectors found evidence of a policy – in place across all 70 clinics in the country – whereby staff were told to call women who had decided not to have an abortion and offer them a new appointment.
According to the [regulator’s] report, staff felt 'encouraged' to ensure women went through with abortions because it was 'linked to their performance bonus'.
They also uncovered a document referring to a 'company-wide focus' on women who weren't going ahead with abortions, who were referred to as 'Did Not Proceed' patients.
Critics […] blasted the 'conveyor-belt culture pervading the industry'."
|
|
But tackling the UK’s colossal abortion coercion problem through the courts does NOT come cheap.
In economic terms, the cost of fighting the UK’s abortion holocaust runs in to the millions each year for SPUC.
The bill for the “Lydia” legal action could run to £162,000.
And that ONLY accounts for the principal stages.
The final bill could be significantly larger.
|
|
And, of course, there are no guarantees of success in the courts.
Nevertheless, pursuing legal action has some important advantages over other less costly pro-life strategies.
SPUC legal cases often get reported widely, even in the mainstream media.
So, regardless of the final outcome, the publicity that the case will generate will help draw much-needed attention to one of the gravest injustices ever perpetrated against unborn babies and their mothers in the UK.
And with 15% of British women reporting that they have experienced pressure or coercion to have an abortion that they did not want, what more vital task could there be than combatting the scourge of abortion coercion, the horrific and largely unspoken phenomenon which is afflicting countless women (and their unborn babies) today?
|
|
That’s why I urge you please, support this pivotal legal action TODAY.
|
|
Will you give £20 or £30 or £100 or £1,000 or £5,000 today and enable a strong legal action on behalf of Lydia and women like her who are coming under immense pressure to abort their babies?
Your gift will not only help combat this grave injustice against women.
It will also ensure that SPUC’s pro-life mission in schools, in the UK parliaments and assemblies, and on the streets of Britain, will continue to bear fruit and save precious lives.
|
|
Frankly, your donation could be the difference between pursuing a potentially ground-breaking and life-saving legal action on behalf of unborn babies and their mothers, or not.
Can I count on your generous support today?
Yours in defence of life
|
|
John Deighan
Chief Executive
|
|
|
|
