Debate contribution: Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill: Consideration Stage
Debate contribution by Ms Kellie Armstrong on .
- MLA
- Ms Kellie Armstrong
- Party at the time
- Alliance Party
- Date
- 4 November 2025
- Type
- Debate contribution
- Business
- Executive Committee Business
- Heading
- Deaths, Still-Births and Baby Loss Bill: Consideration Stage
- Assembly identifier
- Official Report component 5216346
Read the official Assembly record
Text
I thank the Member for giving way. This is an important discussion today about legislation that will have an impact on many people. We should have said — perhaps the Member will agree — that there is a triggering and upsetting use of language. As a former bereavement counsellor, I know that using the word "abortion" to someone who has miscarried, when it is on their medical records as a spontaneous abortion, is incredibly callous and cruel. Using such language in the Bill, when it already covers all forms of loss, is more about political point-scoring and harming women than it is about making good legislation.
106 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: 0.25 (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 (0.63).
- No identity-based framing was identified (0.56).
- 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 | 0.21 | No |
| Sectarian or communal antagonism | 0.04 | No |
| Cultural grievance politics | 0.15 | No |
| Dog-whistle messaging | 0.09 | No |
| Controversy escalation | 0.39 | No |
| Legitimate policy scrutiny | 0.63 | Yes |
| Overall judgement | 0.25 | At or below not-flagging threshold |
| Option | Probability |
|---|---|
| No identity-based framing (chosen) | 0.56 |
| Reports or questions it | 0.00 |
| Criticises or condemns it | 0.43 |
| Adopts it | 0.01 |
| Subject | Probability |
|---|---|
| Gender, sexuality, abortion and related social issues | 0.99 |
| Sexism, misogyny, ageism and other equality groups | 0.01 |
| No identity-related subject | 0.00 |
| Flags, emblems, symbols, names and memorials | 0.00 |
| Parades, bonfires and commemorations | 0.00 |
Assessed 21 October 2026 at 13:41 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.