Ian Hunter

@AdamPollock Bury St Edmunds is where St Edmund is buried. Obviously.

So many people in the replies saying, “We’re English, we don’t name towns and cities after people”. How do you think the city of St Albans gets its name? Or Bury St Edmunds? English history is Christian history. This is why we need a town called Aethelstan.

@Free_ByTheSea Just me?

😱Listen to this cold hearted nutter - ex CEO of our country’s largest abortion provider - sharing her views regarding in utero babies. “All the time it’s in the woman’s body, it has to be subject to what she feels is going to be best for her, her family, and indeed the unborn child.” But what a distressed woman ‘feels’ can be very ignorant and misguided. This ‘expert’ must know that it most certainly is NOT best for a mother to take an abortion pill at home in an advanced stage of pregnancy. It’s bloody dangerous (I use this swear word deliberately) for the mother even if she ‘feels’ otherwise. As for what’s best for the unborn child..If the child had a voice I’m pretty damn sure they’d say killing it wasn’t best for it!

@Free_ByTheSea Love him or hate him, JRM has the patience of a saint dealing with this lady.

@WarrenPeace_75 @Frances_Coppola @Lizardwizarde Final thought: the Abortion Act provides a defence to the doctors who prescribe mifepristone if they are “of the opinion in good faith” that the pregnancy has not exceeded 24 weeks. So if they are deceived but believe her in good faith, they have a defence. Goodnight.

@WarrenPeace_75 @Frances_Coppola @Lizardwizarde I take it back: you DEFINITELY don’t understand how the law works. I’m done with this. Anyone who thinks manslaughter is relevant here can’t be taken seriously. Goodnight.

Any doctor who aborts a baby at nine months for reasons other than the very exceptional cases specified in the 1990 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act has committed a crime. The new law doesn't change this.

@WarrenPeace_75 @Frances_Coppola @Lizardwizarde I don’t think you understand how the law works. You don’t need a force field to protect you from prosecution by the UK crown. You just need to be overseas and not care.

@HuntersofPutney @Frances_Coppola @Lizardwizarde Being outside the UK isn’t a forcefield. If you supply into the UK, UK offences bite: importation, unlawful supply, aiding/abetting. And exculpating the woman doesn’t make everyone else evidence‑proof. OAPA wasn’t the only source of criminality

@WarrenPeace_75 @Frances_Coppola @Lizardwizarde But none of this matters. All of these are offences that apply only to people other than the pregnant woman. She can procure an abortion without any healthcare practitioner or other person in the jurisdiction being complicit. And she herself is free of liability.

@HuntersofPutney @Frances_Coppola @Lizardwizarde Assisting, encouraging, conspiring, unlawful supply, gross negligence, child destruction — all still live. Deceit may defeat mens rea in a particular case; it doesn’t repeal the Medicines Act or the Abortion Act conditions.

@MadelaineLucyH @jtheleast Why do you think these cases have to involve mutilation? The actual, real (albeit rare) cases haven’t.

@jtheleast Do I think a woman mutilating herself (with a serious risk of her own death) in secret should be punished? No. Do you want to punish people who try to commit suicide?

Ok lads, let’s practice some theory of mind. You are a lady who discovers she is pregnant because her period is late. So roughly 3-6 weeks pregnant. Uhoh! You absolutely don’t want it. Do you; a) take a pill as soon as possible to end the pregnancy b) wait for the morning sickness, the visible swelling, stretch marks, and difficulties with mobility and weight before getting round to an invasive and painful surgical late-term abortion 97% of women do A. The other 3% are dealing with horrendous health complications and fetal abnormalities.

@AnnaRMatson That’s not how inheritance works.

Then how come autism isn’t diagnosed with a genetic test?

@jtheleast It’s quite hard at times to distinguish those who are genuinely ignorant from those who are simply pretending.

I think what's most upsetting about the abortion debate is out of literally any discussion I've known, it's conducted with both the most willful dishonesty and genuine ignorance. Tests the limits of democratic discourse.

@MadelaineLucyH You imply that the behaviour that is being legalised is so awful - involving knitting needles or knives or similar - that it can’t possibly happen. Whereas the actual, real (albeit rare) cases where it has happened are very similar to lawful abortion, other than the obvious.

@MadelaineLucyH But what Sarah Catt did at 39/40 is almost identical to regulated abortion care, except that she did it by deceiving the prescribing doctors as to her gestational status. Why is that behaviour being made lawful?

Comparing a woman mutilating herself in desperation to access a late-stage abortion to legal, regulated abortion care is like saying we should ban all cosmetic surgery because someone injected cement into their face at home and died. They are not the same thing.

@MrTCHarris He looks so very uncomfortable throughout this. Delightful!

You can tell from poor Zack's face that he's utterly perplexed by the idea that men and women are biologically different, but also doesn't want to contradict a BAME person because that's ray-cist. Oh, the life of a party leader!

@WarrenPeace_75 @Frances_Coppola @Lizardwizarde “General criminal law”? 🤔 You are going to have to try a bit harder than that. Medicnes regulation will regulate those in the medical and pharmacy professions. In these situations, they have either been deceived or are outside the jurisdiction.

@HuntersofPutney @Frances_Coppola @Lizardwizarde Yes, I’ve read it. The Abortion Act sets conditions for lawful treatment the offences sit in OAPA, the Medicines Regs, and general criminal law. Removing maternal liability doesn’t erase those. Your argument only works if you pretend OAPA was the sole source of criminality.

@WarrenPeace_75 @Frances_Coppola @Lizardwizarde Others who assist the pregnant woman could be liable. Ironically, that makes her more vulnerable, as they will ensure she does iron her own. But in any event, the idea that doctors can still be prosecuted for offences in the type of situation I outline is for the birds.

@WarrenPeace_75 @Frances_Coppola @Lizardwizarde It’s a lovely idea that an online pharmacy outside the UK can be liable under UK “Med Regs”. Fraud? But it’s the pregnant woman who would commit a fraud, if anyone, by lying to a doctor. I thought this legislation exculpates her and prohibits it being investigated?

@WarrenPeace_75 @Frances_Coppola @Lizardwizarde My point is that there is a clear pathway through which a pregnant woman can procure abortion medication (either by lying to a UK doctor, or by buying it online from overseas) and there will be no criminal liability for anyone. Do you disagree with that? If so, why?

@WarrenPeace_75 @Frances_Coppola @Lizardwizarde The Abortion Act doesn’t provide for any offences on the part of doctors or anyone else. I don’t want to sounds rude, but have you read it? You said above that there were other offences that are relevant. What are they, please?

@WarrenPeace_75 @Frances_Coppola @Lizardwizarde If doctors are risking life imprisonment by prescribing mifepristone without a f2f consultation, someone should let the BMA know, as their members should be warned…

@WarrenPeace_75 @Frances_Coppola @Lizardwizarde It would be great to have details of that other criminal offence, by the way.