Thank you to @LangClegsInSpace for posting the link to the judgement. It is, indeed, worth a read, not least because of sections like:
The essence of the claim is that it is impermissible to differentiate, as the 1967 Act does, between pregnancies where there is a substantial risk that, if born, a child would be “seriously handicapped” (the terminology used in that Act) and those where it would not. The Claimants focus on cases of Down’s Syndrome (“DS”) but accept that their arguments would apply to any case where there had been found to be a risk of “serious handicap”.
Whilst Ms Crowter claims - and may believe - this is about protecting the dignity of people with Downs, this is in fact an attack on the right of women who find out they are carrying a foetus with severe abnormalities to terminate post 24 weeks. Even where those abnormalities are severe, profound, or are incompatible with life.
A number of people on this thread who have had a TFMR have spoken very articulately about why that option is necessary. Awful, tragic, but necessary. Others have posted links to accounts which say similar.
That option is not, as @cloudacious says, "unnecessary, unused, partial and offensive". It is absolutely necessary and used, albeit not typically for Downs. I understand why Ms. Crowter finds it offensive and distressing. It is distressing, most notably for the mothers who end up choosing it as the least awful option. Ms. Crowter's distress does not outweigh the right of those mothers to make decisions about their body and their pregnancy.
It's an aside, but you know what I find "partial and offensive"? The truly awful care we give to people with additional needs. I knew one family with a profoundly disabled teenager who subjected the mother to what in any other circumstances would be domestic violence. Except how do you call it that when the perpetrator is non-verbal and is unable to understand what they're doing? He was 6ft, strong, slept two or three hours a night and needed constant supervision. She was a tiny slip of a thing, with a haunted expression and frequent visible bruising.
Social services stepped in, finally, when he pushed her down the stairs, breaking her arm and fracturing several ribs. By 'stepped in' I mean 'put the mainstream sibling into care' because mum couldn't provide a safe environment. The additional needs child stayed home, because no placement could cope with him.
So imagine the mother: cast on her arm, broken ribs. One child taken away because the environment is unsafe. Having to provide 24/7 care for the child who injured her - who is likely to injure her again - because his needs are too severe for services to support him safely. Changing his nappy one handed whilst he throws punches at her.
That can be the reality of having a profoundly disabled child in this country. If Ms. Crowter chose to campaign to rectify that appalling lack of a safety net then she would have my total support. The lack of support families in similar situations recieve is deeply, profoundly offensive. 200 odd women a year making very difficult decisions in very distressing circumstances is not.