Royal College of Midwives backs abolition of abortion law that could see women terminate unborn child at any point

[ThatsMyStapler]

Surely the majority of people needing/wanting a medical abortion do so for very good reasons, and also as quickly as is possible.

Royal College of Midwives backs abolition of abortion law that could see women terminate unborn child at any point

Telegraph Link

he Royal College of Midwives (RCM) is facing criticism after calling for abortion to be decriminalised, without consulting its members on the issue.
The union, which represents almost 30,000 midwives and health workers, has said it gives its “full support” to the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), the UK’s biggest abortion provider, in its campaign for abortion to be removed from criminal law.
Prof Cathy Warwick, chief executive of the RCM, is also chairman of the board of trustees of BPAS.
It is currently against the law for women to terminate a foetus after 24 weeks unless there is a medical reason to do so, while abortions earlier in a pregnancy are only legal if two doctors agree to it.
But the RCM is backing calls for the legal limits to be scrapped and abortion to instead be regulated in the same way as other medical procedures, at the discretion of doctors.

There is a petition to stop this, and they say;

"Your campaign is severely out of touch with what women actually think and want. A ComRes poll in March 2014 found that 88% of women favoured a total and explicit ban on sex-selective abortion, whilst another in October that year registered a similar figure of 85%. The March poll also found 92% of women agreeing that a woman requesting an abortion should always be seen in person by a qualified doctor. Whilst in 2006, a Guardian / MORI poll found that 47% of women wanted a reduction in the upper time limit, a 2012 Angus Reid poll found this number had increased to 59% of women."

Regarding disability, if it's life limiting or terminal, then I absolutely support abortion being available. I don't support abortion of foetuses with disabilities that are not life limiting when if the foetus was not disabled, the parents would keep it.

As a disabled person I find that highly offensive.

To the poster who said what if there is a risk to the mother's health, surely in this case if after 24w they would try and deliver early? This happened to my friend, she got severe pre eclampsia at 26w they had to deliver the baby early to save her life luckily both survived.

Good luck with the VIT today Buffy. Thanks for your reasonable posts. It's been interesting :)

I don't see what she is asking for as currently women can have very late abortions if medical reasons support that and she seems to be saying women should be able to have very late abortions if medically necessary so what is the difference?

ChristinaRosetti explained it quite clearly further back. The point has been lost amongst all the posts from people who are determined to post only about late term abortions. The RCM and BPAS simply want the decriminalisation of abortion for ALL abortions.

At the moment, any woman who takes steps to end her own pregnancy without the consent of 2 doctors can be prosecuted under the Offences Against the Persons Act 1861

The 1967 Abortion Act didn't 'legalise' abortion; it created loopholes to permit women, in some circumstances and with the consent of 2 doctors, not to be prosecuted for having an abortion

The decriminalisation of abortion would give all pregnant women the right to make decisions about their pregnancy, without fear of prosecution

This is NOT going to mean that women will be blindly terminating pregnancies at 36 weeks, or killing their babies in labour. It is simply wanting to give women autonomy over their own bodies and making abortion a MEDICAL decision not a CRIMINAL act.

Dallas that seems reasonable.

ExLt, it doesn't mean that women will be terminating babies at 36 weeks but it does mean that they could which is what people object to.

^Regarding disability, if it's life limiting or terminal, then I absolutely support abortion being available. I don't support abortion of foetuses with disabilities that are not life limiting when if the foetus was not disabled, the parents would keep it.

As a disabled person I find that highly offensive.^

I can see that it is highly offensive.
However, when having a baby I was at a point in my life where I was able to support it wholly (with me still working etc).

Had I been told at my 20 week scan that there were deformities/disabilities or Downs Syndrome I would have terminated without question or regret.
I simply did not feel emotionally or physically equipped to be the parent of a child with disabilities.

It is completely different once the baby is born however, from that moment they were my child and I know that I would alter my whole world for my children.
A foetus to me is not a child or a person.

I am truly sorry that that is an offensive point of view to some people, but it is an honest point of view.

Thanks, Dallas. I was just about to leave this thread as the actual issue up for discussion keeps getting well and truly lost, but shall persevere.

bumble what the RCM and BPAS are advocating is a situation where a woman at any point of pregnancy has access to support around making decisions about whether to continue the pregnancy and the necessary medical/social/emotional support in regard to whatever decision she makes. This should happen without fear of being prosecuted.

So yes, theoretically, a woman could approach an abortion clinic about terminating a healthy 36 week pregnancy and have access to these support services. She would still need the consent of two doctors.

In practice, women start making decisions about their pregnancy as soon as they realise or can face the fact that they're pregnant. This is one of the reasons that women approach abortion clinics post-20 weeks - because they've only just found out or have been prevented from accessing help before (domestic abuse situations etc). The actual numbers of women approaching services about late term abortion is very, very small. Their reasons for doing so are entirely personal to them, and should be respected as such, not made a matter for public prosecution because of some arbitary line in the sand.

And that's where we differ mango. That child was alive and deserved to live. The only thing that changes is your perspective.

We don't prosecute people for what they could do Bumbleymummy. Just because someone could do something it doesn't mean they will do something. There is no reason to believe that women will start to abort at 36 weeks just because they could - I have more faith in womankind than that.

goneto this is exactly what the RCM and BPAS are arguing for. For each individual woman to make her own choices about pregnancy and be supported to do so without fear of being prosecuted.

So you may make different choices to Mango, or to me, and that's fine.

Christina, "what the RCM and BPAS are advocating is a situation where a woman at any point of pregnancy has access to support around making decisions about whether to continue the pregnancy and the necessary medical/social/emotional support in regard to whatever decision she makes."

They already do have this. Even at a later stage of pregnancy if a woman's health is at risk, including her mental health, a doctor can authorise an abortion. What people are recognising is that, at a certain point in pregnancy, it's not just about what the woman wants. There is another human entity involved that most people feel deserves some recognition.

If doctors are going to refuse to perform late term abortions then how does it benefit these women anyway? They would have the same access to services now. I suspect that there will always be someone willing to make money by offering them though.

exLt, given that there have been recent prosecutions for women self-terminating pregnancies at later stage, I don't have that blind faith in woman kind. Whether we think someone will carry out an act or not is irrelevant. Most of us will never commit certain crimes - regardless of whether it was breaking a law or not but we still have the laws in place because some people might.

bumble no - women do not have the legal right to make their own decisions at any point of a pregnancy under current UK law.

They need the consent of 2 doctors for an abortion at any stage.

The difference, which has been explained numerous times in this thread, is that under the current system, women are being given get-out to do something that would otherwise be illegal. By removing the aspect of illegality, it becomes a healthcare issue like any other, as it should be. If there was a conflict between what a woman wanted and what her doctors thought was right, it would presumably go to the Court of Protection like other such matters do all the time.

Christina, I think we all know that if a woman requests an abortion in the UK up to 24 weeks then she is given it.

As early as possible and as late as necessary - and a decision made solely between a woman and her doctors.

I'm originally from Ireland and the current abortion law there makes me never want to move back.

Unfortunately that's not true bumble.

There are many, many examples of women who have been refused abortions. Have a look at the last thread on this topic and you'll find plenty of women giving their experience of being refused an abortion in the UK.

I haven't seen that thread but I won't argue with you. Given that the current law is incredibly broad and, as an earlier poster pointed out,lenient in comparison to most countries in the rest of Europe then I do wonder on what grounds they refused but I don't want to derail the thread.

I think it's a bit dishonest to try to bring the discussion away from the other issues that could arise from these changes eg the potential of late term abortion of healthy pregnancies, simply because the subject makes people uncomfortable and makes the changes sound less appealing. You have to look at the issues in their entirety, not just the ones that you think sound reasonable.

Sorry - I haven't worded that as well as I'd like - I'm rushing because I have to head off for a bit!

Discussing access to abortion isn't 'bringing the discussion away' - it is the discussion.

As you point out yourself, the current legal situation hasn't stopped some women from terminating a pregnancy without medical assistance. How far along the pregnancy was is irrelevant to the actual reasons the woman was prosecuted - it's the act of self-termination itself that is illegal.

Christina, it's the comments about the discussion getting 'lost' because we're talking about late term abortion. That's part of the 'access to abortion' discussion.

"How far along the pregnancy was is irrelevant to the actual reasons the woman was prosecuted - it's the act of self-termination itself that is illegal."

I disagree. There was a case recently in NI where the woman terminated her pregnancy at around 10-12 weeks. She didn't get a jail sentence whereas the woman who terminated late, did.

It would seem that when the law changed in Canada, late term abortions did not increase. As would appear to be the case elsewhere.

DawnDonna, someone talked about that earlier on the thread. Apparently, many Canadian doctors refuse to perform late term abortions and women travel to the U.S.

It would seem that when the law changed in Canada, late term abortions did not increase. As would appear to be the case elsewhere

From what I read of the Canadian situation the lack of a time limit resulted in doctors playing safe and not carrying out late abortions. I even found reports that Canadian doctors were referring women to the US. Compared to Canada there actually seems to be more likelihood of getting a post 24 week abortion in the UK.

The law may allow late term abortions so that a doctor is not prosecuted if he needs to perform one.
That does not mean they are obliged to perform one, and they may refer you elsewhere.

The woman was still prosecuted bumble. She could have been given a jail sentence as may the next woman prosecuted for a self-induced early abortion.

One of the reasons that (a few) women travel from Canada to the USA for abortions in late pregnancy is that one of the centres in the New Brunswick area that previously provided abortions was closed down, causing 'unconstitutional restrictions on access to abortion' according to the State Premier.