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."

[AHellOfABird]

I linked it upthread, rosebud. It's a tough read.

[bridgetoc]

Pro life here, and I think this is totally unnecessary.

[Rosebud05]

Oh sorry missed that hellofabird.

Yes, distressing to read but reminder of the realities of late abortion (which aren't women giving birth to twins decides mid way through labour that she wants to abort one as per pp).

[FishWithABicycle]

Making something not a criminal offence is not the same as legalising it. The existing limits would still apply. If I understand correctly these proposals are just saying that in the rare and tragic cases where a woman is desperate and the circumstances are awful then using the criminal justice system isn't the right way to deal with things. I support this.

This is not the same as legalising abortion of a healthy baby at 39 weeks on the whim of a woman who has changed her mind. Criminal law is not the only tool we have to stop that happening.

[Tumblesnots]

I absolutely support RCM and BPAS. They are midwives and nurses and doctors who know what they are talking about because they care every day for women who need their help.

Let women decide what happens to their own bodies and let's make sure there are appropriate professional services available to care for them.

[DrunkenUnicorn]

Has anyone seen the documentary, 'After Tiller'?

Very very powerful stuff. It follows the three or possibly four doctors in America willing to do late term abortions. They were colleagues of Dr Tiller, a man gunned down as he left church by pro life nut jobs. What these Drs go thru in their belief they're helping women is harrowing.

It changed my mind about putting legal limits on abortion.

Imo it's between a woman and her dr, and has no place in law. Early as possible, late as necessary.

[HamaTime]

You can't on one hand say women can't have bodily autonomy in case they are being pressured into abortions my their menfolk, and then say female foetuses must be valued as women are as fully human as men.

Either women have bodily autonomy or they don't. If they don't then you can't fingerpoint at 'men' and 'other cultures' for not valuing female foetuses when they will grow into second class citizens without bodily autonomy.

[LifeIsGoodish]

If abortion post-24 weeks is decriminalised, how can any limit be imposed?

100% agree that what a woman chooses to do to her own body is her own affair, and that medical treatment should not be a criminal act, but there's not just the woman's own body at issue here.

After 24w there is a foetus capable of sustaining independent life. Would that foetus have to be killed in utero before the woman was induced? Because surely killing a late-term foetus is a crime? (Not murder, I think exactly.) So decriminalising late-term abortions would mean that killing a late-term foetus would also have to be decriminalised. Unless you didn't kill the foetus, but allowed it to die once 'born'. Neither concept is acceptable IMO.

[BeyondTellsEveryoneRealFacts]

I support

As early as possible, as late as neccessary

[MilkTwoSugarsThanks]

For me the issue is about whether the foetus/baby is dependent on the mother bothers me.

DS was born at 38 weeks, spontaneous labour, classed as term, not dependent on his mother, but the indication seems that I could have terminated his life about 8 hours before (just before my waters broke). Presumably at that point he was already not dependent?

[AHellOfABird]

Scarf, my understanding is that, in the case of abortion to term for disability, the foetal heart is stopped prior to the termination. I assume the same would happen here.

[OvariesForgotHerPassword]

I support BPAS and the RCM.

As early as possible, as late as necessary.

[AHellOfABird]

"If abortion post-24 weeks is decriminalised, how can any limit be imposed?"

Plenty of things aren't illegal but also aren't necessarily available.

[gonetoseeamanaboutadog]

No. I do not support RCM on this issue and their decision to support this was made without the support of the midwives themselves, which was patronising and wrong. Cathy Warwick has been high handed and sloppy. She should really not be sitting on both boards at the same time IMO, it's too much power.

Pro choice arguments often use the idea that a foetus is not yet a baby but here there's no defence for that. A society in which a BABY can be killed simply because it's on the wrong side of the uterus wall is chilling and disgusting.

[gonetoseeamanaboutadog]

Incidentally this service is already available for babies with downs syndrome... Doubly abhorrent.

[PinkyOfPie]

Can people please er their facts straight before posting nonsense? Babies who are terminated are not born alive and "left to die" and frankly the example of a woman in labour with twins wanting to abort the second is ludicrous. The law is not proposing doctors to abort bakes the very second it's demanded, the baby would be born before the decision making process took place.

It would also be nice if people saying "I'm pro life" would elaborate on their reasoning for that and why they believe woman should be criminalised for having abortions

[PinkyOfPie]

A society in which a BABY can be killed simply because it's on the wrong side of the uterus wall is chilling and disgusting.

A society in which women are forced to have children they don't want, can't afford, or have as a product of rape/domestic violence etc is far more chilling and disgusting. Not your uterus, not your business.

[RedToothBrush]

After 24w there is a foetus capable of sustaining independent life. Would that foetus have to be killed in utero before the woman was induced? Because surely killing a late-term foetus is a crime? (Not murder, I think exactly.) So decriminalising late-term abortions would mean that killing a late-term foetus would also have to be decriminalised. Unless you didn't kill the foetus, but allowed it to die once 'born'. Neither concept is acceptable IMO.

1. Medics are still bound by medical guidance, codes of conduct and ethics.
   They would have to be able to fully justify any late term abortion in medical terms or they would be legally responsible still - just under different rules. 24w remains relevant to medics as a result. Its just not law but a cut off point to which they are still bound by their professional conduct.
   
   
2. If a woman is self harming in order to induce an abortion, she clearly needs help not locking up.
   
   
3. If anyone was to force a woman to have an abortion against her will, then I think it is classed as grievous bodily harm against her person (This also includes any doctor being fully satisfied that this was the wishes of the woman - rather than her being forced by someone else - and is bound legally by profession).
   
   Hence why decriminalising doesn't really change much except protect the most vulnerable women under 2 who are clearly in need of help rather than locking up.
   
   All other possibilities are actually already covered legally by other things.
   
   To me it seems like its simply an acknowledgement of mental health and decriminalising mental health issues.
   
   I'm sure someone else can probably explain it better / clarify this though.

[KittyandTeal]

Needascarf the baby wouldn't be born alive.

A termination after 20 weeks involves an injection into the baby's heart to stop it beating before labour is induced.

I know this because I have done it t 22 weeks. My baby had trisomy 18.

Those who think that the service already being available for trisomies (like Down's syndrome) is wrong possibly need to look a bit more about the effects of trisomies on babies and children. Not all babies with trisomies like Down's syndrome will be born and have a life like those children we see with Down's syndrome in our playgrounds. It is a spectrum and sometimes a doctor will give a T21 diagnosis that is nt survivable by the baby, they will die later in utero or just after birth. This is the kind of diagnosis I was given, a late still birth or very early neonatal death. Not all trisomies are the same.

I support the decrimilisation of women. The 32 reasons for late termination I a really tough read but gives perspective to the kinds of reasons women generally seek late terminations (excluding medical reasons)

[Elendon]

I support RCM and BPAS.

As early as possible and as late as necessary.

This is a medical procedure and should be decriminalised.

[Solasum]

I do support a woman's right to choose. But the thought of a hospital battling to save a prematurely born baby at the one end, while terminating the life of a healthy child of the same gestation at the other sits very uneasily with me.

[bumbleymummy]

I do not support this.

Good post gonetoseeamanaboutadog.

[KittyandTeal]

Sola I agree, it doesn't sit easy with me either.

There is a part of me that shouts 'I'll have it' but I know that's my thing, not a judgement of someone who has a termination. In the same way that every baby with a trisomy has an individual story and prognosis, every woman wanting a termination has a different reason and story. It is not my place to say one reason is more valid than another.

[MyCatIsTryingToKillMe]

I support RCM and BPAS. Anyone who thinks woman are all suddenly going to leave a termination until 35 weeks is buying into the prolife propaganda.

What really needs to happen, as PP have stated, is quicker access to abortion. The weeks of faffing around waiting for appointments causes unnecessary delay and trauma to all involved.