Clik here to view.
As organisations working to promote women's health and equality, we strongly oppose the government's appointment of an anti-abortion group to advise it on women's sexual health, particularly at the expense of organisations with decades of experience in providing counselling and advice (Anti-abortion group drafted in as sexual health adviser, 25 May).
Extensive evidence shows that the approach advocated by organisations such as Life, at best, does not work and, at worst, may seriously damage women's health and wellbeing. We do not understand how Life, an organisation promoting abstinence over education, met the criteria for membership based on "evidence of improving sexual health".
We are also concerned how Life will provide evidence-based advice on issues such as teaching sexual consent and healthy relationships – advice which should be the cornerstone of quality sexual health education. We believe that electing an organisation which diametrically opposes current policy to act in an advisory capacity to the government directly undermines the government's own legal position on abortion.
If politicians are to make critical decisions that impact the health and sexual lives of women, it is essential that those with the necessary expertise are consulted.
Zoe Palmer Manager, Women's Health and Equality Consortium
Holly Dustin Director, End Violence Against Women Coalition
• What the "pro-life" lobby fails to be honest about (which is why their influence is increasingly dangerous) is that – unlike the "pro-choice" lobby – they seek to remove from women their ability to choose a course of action best suited to their own circumstances and conscience.
I am a Catholic. I am against abortion. But – as the mother of a girl – I'm fervently "pro-choice". As much as it's every woman's right to choose not to terminate a pregnancy, it's also her right to choose the opposite action. Every person has the right to complete sovereignty over their own body, and the right to deal with whatever consequences exercising that choice involves. "Pro-choice" only advocates a woman's right to a termination if that's what she chooses and, unlike "pro-life", seeks neither to coerce or legislate (or coerce via legislation) over a person's ownership of their reproductive destiny.
Medically speaking, allowing choice is ethical; removing it is not. Along with the abolition of the death penalty and the creation of the NHS, the 1967 Abortion Act stands out as the most ethical, humane piece of legislation in British history. It's about time we of the "liberal left" grew a backbone and defended it as such.
Sinead Connolly
St Athan, Vale of Glamorgan
• Well said, Deborah Orr (Feminists shouldn't try to stifle debate about abortion, G2, 26 May). What kind of "forum" is it if only one kind of view is tolerated? What is wrong with listening to the view that sexual abstinence might have a greater part to play in our nation's sexual health? For Yvette Cooper to say Life "is now advising the government" (Report, 26 May) is disingenuous; even including Life, those on the advisory panel against abortion will be in the minority and will not have the power to greatly influence the advice the panel gives the government. Including a wider range of opinions can only be a good thing.
Adeyemi Banjo
London
• Some people love to construct conspiracy theories (Softly, softly is working, 26 May). But there is no conspiracy behind the amendment Nadine Dorries and I have tabled. It has one simple aim. It is to ensure that advice about abortion is given separately from the body that picks up a fee if the pregnant mother proceeds with an abortion. I would suggest to Clare Murphy that when she goes on about vested interests and accuses others of lacking transparency in their intentions, she should look in the mirror first.
Frank Field MP
Labour, Birkenhead
• The inclusion of the anti-choice lobby group Life in the government's new advisory group on sexual health highlights the wider issue that, in its stated pursuit of "balance", the government is ensuring that those with extreme views that get a seat at the table. US-style abstinence groups and other religious evangelicals represent only a tiny minority of views in this country, yet they're being propped up as if they are sexual health experts, rather than exposed as the political lobbyists they are.
Naomi Phillips
Head of public affairs, British Humanist Association