Debate contribution: Baby Loss Certificate Scheme and Pathology Service
Debate contribution by Ms Kellie Armstrong on .
- MLA
- Ms Kellie Armstrong
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 15 April 2024
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Private Members' Business
- Heading
- Baby Loss Certificate Scheme and Pathology Service
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 4483141
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I will start by saying to anyone who has undergone a loss in pregnancy, at birth or just after their baby has been born that I am very sorry. It is a grief that is very hard to bear, and I thank Mr Robinson for the words that he has just spoken. That hit home to me: you will understand in a moment. I have spoken in the House before about being a parent who has lost multiple babies during pregnancy. I will not talk today about the pathology service, because I never got that far. Over the course of my 14 pregnancies, we did not have the opportunity to have the remains of the 13 who did not live checked out, because I lost my children before 24 weeks. At the time you leave the hospital, if you are lucky to go to the hospital, or you are at home, you maybe have a visit with a GP and that is it: it is over. "Empty arms" — I know the organisation very well — explains exactly how empty you feel afterwards. The fact that we have no recognition of our children hurts really hard. The new scheme that is being brought in by the UK Government is very welcome. It is part of their women's health strategy. It is designed to put a greater focus on women-specific health conditions, including fertility and pregnancy loss, and it covers gynae conditions such as endometriosis. The scheme will help women like me, who have experienced miscarriage and have nothing, other than a positive pregnancy test on your medical record, followed up by a negative pregnancy test. At times, you might have the word "miscarriage" used, and that is it. All my hopes and dreams for each one of those children live with me, and only with me. There is no formal recognition of them. I do not have a grave, and I never had a wake or a funeral. That is why it is very important and personal to me that we bring in this scheme.
I say this to you, Minister: please do not do what England has done and set the cut-off point at 2018. I lost my first in 1996. I had been married for six months and, boy, was that a shock to the system. I did not know anybody else who had gone through it. That baby sits in here every single day, and the other, subsequent babies sit in here every single day. There is an annual service of remembrance. We take it year about in Belfast and Derry. There is a service in St Anne's Cathedral and in St Peter's Cathedral in Belfast, and I stand beside women in their 80s, daddies in their 70s, people in their 50s like me and couples who are perhaps in their early 20s, all with the tears tripping them, remembering in the one place and the one space where we can all come together to remember our children. We take flowers to the front of the church, and the place is a mound of flowers. The smell of flowers is very strong. To think that we would have the opportunity for a certificate but that the cut-off point would be 2018 is very difficult for me to hear. I would print the certificate myself. I do not care, just as long as I could have something tangible: a piece of paper that says that one of my Armstrongs was here, even for a very short time. That is so important to me. Please do not take that away from an 80-year-old, please do not take it away from a 60-year-old and please do not take it away from somebody in their 50s like me. Let us do something really positive and really helpful for all those parents out there. I thank the Minister and the Executive for even thinking about taking forward the scheme, because the issue is so taboo that nobody wants to talk about it. This is something special that the House can do. It is something special that I will hold very dear if we can make it happen, and I thank you very much.
701 words. Text as published by the Northern Ireland Assembly.
Assessment
Jev’s structured answers met the documented threshold for “not flagged”.
- Overall probability that the activity is being used to promote, exploit or escalate an identity-based controversy: 0.03 (flagging needs at least 0.70; at or below 0.30 is not flagged).
- None of the five culture-war criteria was met (each was below 0.60).
- Assessed as legitimate policy scrutiny (0.90).
- No identity-based framing was identified (1.00).
- Subject area: Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues.
- The overall probability was at or below the not-flagging threshold.
This is an AI-generated assessment of the text, made against published criteria. It is not a finding of fact about the MLA or their intentions. The Assembly record itself is the fact.
Jev’s structured answers
| Question | Probability | Met? |
|---|---|---|
| Identity framing | 0.04 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.02 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.04 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.02 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.04 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.90 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.03 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 1.00 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.00 |
| Adopts it | 0.00 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.91 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.07 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.01 |
| Religion and belief (including people of no religion), churches, faith communities and religious prejudice (including antisemitism and anti-Muslim prejudice) | 0.01 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 10:00 UTC by jev-1.13.0 (requested as typesafe/jev) under rubric 2026.10-r9, methodology 1.9.
Disagree with this assessment?
Classifications can be challenged. A person reads every challenge, and any change is recorded publicly above with its reason.