{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.016202203499675955, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0032404406999351912, 'mean_word_length': 4.494661921708185, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
What happens now?


 The sole concern of the Royal Colege of Nursing (RCN) in its challenge of the legality of nurse involvement in induced abortions was the risk faced by its members in the event that they might be prosecuted for participating in illegal abortions. The Court of Appeal, earlier this month, declared the Department of Health and Social Security (DHSS) instructions to be an incorrect interpretation of the law. Just what degree of assistance by nurses is permissible is uncertain. What cannot be done is a delegation of the act which results in abortion. It is very possible that if Lord Denning had not himself been so opposed to abortion, he would not have found it beyond his powers of reasoning to argue that the connecting of the catheter to the drip, in accordance with the doctor's instructions, could be included within the notion of the treatment required to terminate the pregnancy. It is clear that judges do manage to perform amazing feats when they want to find their way around a narrow and restrictive statutory edict. To be fair to Denning, the line which he adopted in constructing Section 1 of the 1967 Abortion Act was not incorrect. It was the manner in which he chose to express himself that was so objectionable. Denning made it absolutely clear what he felt about abortion. He is entitled to his opinions, but they did not form a necessary part of his judgment. There must be safeguards, but if the law allows abortion it must be sufficiently flexible to include the use of new and improved techniques.
