I WAS glad to see that Catriona Stewart ("Caution is needed in debate on decriminalising abortion", The Herald, June 16) considered that even those "who are the most avowed pro-choice must have taken pause at the detail of the case". Those who are pro-life are also taking pause for different reasons.

The pro-choice supporters in the 1960s backed the 1968 Abortion Act. The intent was to eradicate back-street abortion where women would often terminate their pregnancies behind closed doors, alone and in pain without medical supervision or support with disastrous results. The case under discussion has highlighted how easy it is for women to access these abortion pills under false pretences with disastrous results. Decades after the 1968 Act we have situations where women terminate their pregnancies behind closed doors, alone and in pain without medical supervision and support. This seems to be a legal form of back-street abortion.

The conclusion of the US National Library of Medicine states: "The majority of the pregnant women who took MTP pills presented with serious complications in the form of bleeding, incomplete/missed abortion, and ectopic pregnancy. Restriction of the over-the-counter dispensation of abortion pills needs to be strictly implemented and knowledge of women regarding the unfavourable outcome of MTP pill intake without proper consultation needs to be improved."

Now those who are pro-choice are calling for decriminalising of abortion. Perhaps they should pause again and consider that if abortion really is healthcare as Ms Stewart states, then it is not very obvious care with this unregulated, haphazard, self-administration of abortificants.

Irene Munro, Conon Bridge.

• FURTHER to Catriona Stewart’s article we write to further examine some of the points raised.

Whilst the recent distressing and high-profile case in England has brought arguments for decriminalisation to the fore again, this is not a new debate. Decriminalisation – the removal of criminal sanctions and oversight for abortion – is advocated by the World Health Organization and has the support of all the relevant medical professional bodies, as well as a wide range of women’s and human rights organisations, and the STUC.

Although the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act does not apply in Scotland, abortion is in fact governed by criminal law in Scotland, in as much as there are restrictions on where and by whom and in what circumstances it may take place. Any abortion that does not conform to specific parameters is potentially a criminal act. The requirements set by law, the 1967 Abortion Act, are costly (involving two doctors in all cases), cause delays to access, and are recognised to be medically unnecessary. The vast majority of abortions now take place before 10 weeks and are done by prescribing abortion pills.

The WHO recommends that nurses and midwives should oversee abortion care. The reality of abortion today is worlds away from the dangerous abortions of the 1960s.

However, our strict regulation of abortion and the continuing criminality has not kept pace with these changes. Decriminalisation would re-frame abortion as healthcare and abortion would then be subject to regulation, like other forms of healthcare. Just as there are regulations that prevent anyone without the relevant qualifications taking out another person’s appendix, or carrying out brain surgery, there will be a regulatory framework governing abortion procedures.

The fact is that abortion care is healthcare. It is not a "more palatable" or empty slogan. NHS Scotland provides the abortion care services in Scotland, to be accessed freely and safely, allowing effective integration with other healthcare services. Investment is needed to continue to improve the health service which will benefit and improve abortion care services too.

We welcome a wider public and professional discussion on improving abortion services, and on decriminalisation.

Annie Ogletree, For Abortion Rights Scotland, Edinburgh.

• WELL done Kerry Hudson ("We need to talk about abortion. I know: I've had two", The Herald, June 21) for an excellent and forthright article. I completely agree that we need to be open and assert our rights as many of us have done for years, as social conservatives will take us all back to illegality and its obvious sad and brutal consequences where desperate women made to handle the situation will often find an emotionally and physically painful way out if they can.

Having had an abortion myself, because my partner and I were not ready for a long-term partnership and children, I never regret it and rarely think about it. We went on to have children as it happens. Others should have that same right to manage their life as they wish.

Susan Lane, Edinburgh.

Read more: HES must make up for years of neglect of our national treasures

Making a splash

HAMPDEN has seen many memorable performances over the years, both of the football and concert variety.

The match on Tuesday night was no exception ("Scotland rain supreme", The Herald, June 21).

I was amused when the Scotland football team's unofficial anthem, "Yes Sir, I Can Boogie'" rang around the ground during one of the several warm-ups. Fifty thousand voices were giein' it laldy, some fans even with their taps aff. At this point the Scottish players were practising passing balls around. Meanwhile the Georgians, without a football in sight, were limbering up in what seemed to be in time to the music.

Scotland’s players took to the conditions like ducks to water, and gave an outstanding performance in the circumstances.

Yes sir, we can boogie, but we can play good football too.

Alison Ram, Helensburgh.

Save us from this dirge

I FOUND out it was the birthday of the Prince of Wales today (June 21) when it was announced on BBC Radio’s Today programme, followed by the playing of the national anthem. A plea to King Charles, then: can you please commission something to replace that dreadful, dismal dirge? The words may be bloodthirsty, but at least France’s Marseillaise is jaunty and tuneful.

Doug Maughan, Dunblane.

Proper upset

WHILST I note Robin Dow’s exhortation not not write in response to his grammatical corrections (Letters, June 21), I’m going to anyway. I’m not sure where his definition of “iconic” comes from but my dictionary simply defines it as the adjective from the noun "iconic" meaning a likeness. However it’s undoubtedly become too prevalent like that other cliché, "state of the art".

That said I also get exasperated with grammatical misuse in the fourth estate, as in the headline “Wife beating thug spared prison” which appeared recently in a Dundee newspaper. I was curious to know what the woman in question had done to get spared, only to then discover that a hyphen had been missed out.

I’m reconciled to the fact that my irritation is simply one of the downsides of being learnt proper.

Robert Menzies, Falkirk.