To draw your attention to this U.K. abortion law court case?

[Wouldloveanother]

Evening ladies
in light of Roe v Wade, it seems more important than ever that we are vigilant about abortion rights here in Britain.
there is an upcoming case at the Court of Appeal which seeks to repeal section 1(1)(d) of the Abortion Act 1967. Which permits later terminations for fetal abnormalities.
the hearing is on 13th July (next month).
very few posters seemed to be aware of it, so thought I would open it here for anyone who wishes to discuss.
thanks

Yes, absolutely agree with this.

Thanks for these stats - can I ask if they're easily accessible and where?
236 is far lower than even I had imagined.

@jott that happened to me, bad news only picked up at 23 weeks.

In that case then the counselling received by the woman and her partner would of course be different - but ultimately, I trust women to make the choice that’s right for them.

@HellyR ,the Office for National statistics website has all the figures.

@Sweetpea1989 , I'm so sorry you had to go through that. Life can be so unfair

I commented on another thread earlier this morning. My ds was found to have a fatal heart anomaly at 23wks and 3 days. I had a tfmr the day I turned 24wks and he was born 2 days later. If the law does get changed how would it stand anomalies only found later in a pregnancy that aren't compatible with life like in my situation

The issue isn't banning all late term abortions, it's the medical reasons for it. The campaign is to prevent late term abortions for down syndrome and cleft pallet which are both conditions completely viable to life. Woman who are knowingly carrying a baby with down syndrome are being hounded by medical professionals to terminate some just days before they are due to give birth which is obviously causing alot of distress. Also the law states that the abortion can be performed up to the point of the baby entering the birth canal.

What is the difference between terminating a pregnancy at 39 weeks and killing a baby that has been born with a disability at one week old? this is what I am having difficulty with too. However I'm not the one having to make that choice so I'd like the parents to decide if they are ok with that or not.

What is the difference between terminating a pregnancy at 39 weeks and killing a baby that has been born with a disability at one week old? this is what I am having difficulty with too. However I'm not the one having to make that choice so I'd like the parents to decide if they are ok with that or not.

@Babdoc when we got told that there was no surgery option for ds and that realistically termination was the only option, I did get told if I wanted to I could carry him to term and have palliative care for however long he would of had. DH and I declined that as we didn't feel it right for us or him. As it were it felt like he was becoming weaker and the only thing keeping him going was me. I miss him every day and I hope he's having a ball up there in heaven with my darling ddogs

Woman who are knowingly carrying a baby with down syndrome are being hounded by medical professionals to terminate some just days before they are due to give birth which is obviously causing alot of distress.

Bollocks

Why do these anti-abortion activists never try to lower the abortion rates by ensuring that women who have babies with significant disabilities have all the health, mental health and financial support and respite care they need to be able to care for a child with additional and complex needs, so they are able to make a positive choice to keep the baby, rather than taking the choice and autonomy away from women?

I trust women to make the decision which is right for her. As early as possible and as late as necessary. And for whatever reason the woman chooses. Because I trust women.

Incidentally, I know someone involved in campaigning for this case. He makes a heart felt argument about the merits of the case and how much he loves his daughter with Downs just as much as his other children, and that her life is just as worth while. In reality he's a misogynist who would like to remove the right to any abortion (or contraception) and this is a good wedge issue to try to get the ball rolling.

Beware of people using wedge issues to try to shift the discussion. They hook you in with "why is this baby's life worth less than the other" or "why is a viable fetus not a person". But the real question is "at what point should a woman lose the right to refuse to act as a human life support machine". In my view, women never lose that right.

but I think the argument is what does “medical reasons” cover?

you’ve got everything from incompatible with life to a downs syndrome or spina bifida occulta child whose disablities may be very mild, who could lead almost normal lives. Which I think is where some of the pro discussion comes from, who decides what level of disability is acceptable?

Yes, I do agree with this But not allowing a woman to choose what she wants to do with her body doesn’t sit right with me under any circumstances really. You might not like it but it’s not your choice.^

The difference is that one concerns a foetus inside a woman, whereas in the other one concerns a baby not inside of anyone.

My heart goes out to any woman facing a decision about a late termination. It is extremely rare, but women in this situation deserve all our compassion and understanding. Thanks OP for highlighting this issue.

There are various co-morbid conditions associated with cleft palate and cleft lip and the severity of the cleft can vary enormously. A friend of mine has a child with a cleft palate, as a baby she had difficulty feeding, had frequent ear infections, and over the course of a few years had multiple surgeries to repair it. At the age of 8 she still has difficulty chewing/swallowing, her speech is not clear, and she still gets frequent ear infections which have caused permanent damage to her hearing. It is becoming apparent that she has issues with her development and is not progressing as expected so is undergoing testing to determine why, genetic abnormalities have been suggested although nothing pinpointed as yet.

Down Syndrome is another condition which can vary enormously from individual to individual, it also has its own co-morbidities and complications including heart problems, dementia, a higher risk of leukaemia, GI problems, spinal problems, immune system issues, and so on.

The reasons for a TOP are between the woman and her medical team and it is the woman's choice whether she continues with the pregnancy or not.

I'm pleased you don't know anyone this has happened to. And just because you don't doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

And are they forced to agree to a TOP? No. Because they have a choice and can choose to continue the pregnancy, they have as much right to that choice as the women who choose to end their pregnancy. One group should not be seeking to remove that choice from the other just because its not the same one they made.

I totally agree, I think it's up to the professionals to make it clear all aspects. However what is happening is that some women are only being told worst case scenarios and not the full facts. I think it's a very complicated matter.

Hit the nail on the head for me on this. Their mothers chose to continue their pregnancies (with 'chose' being the operative word, and that was the right decision for them), but they want to restrict the choices of other women in similar situations. I believe in the right of choice. As early as possible, as late as necessary.

The thing is - some of them didn’t. Or not exactly. I won’t name names as it feels unfair, but quite a few supporters of this campaign didn’t find out their child has disabilities until after birth. However, they had the prenatal tests, they just didn’t pick anything up. And quite a few will admit they had the tests again in subsequent pregnancies because they didn’t want another disabled child. And it’s very hard to query them about this - which we have the right to do as they’re trying to change the law which potentially affects us all - because it’s framed as querying the right of their child to be alive. When it isn’t, it’s querying why they feel they have the right to make decisions on behalf of other women, even if they didn’t make that decision themselves.

In my experience, certainly at the hospital where DS was born, they wouldn’t terminate beyond 24 weeks just for any medical condition - it had to be considered incompatible with life. Although the law may not forbid it, hospital rules may be stricter.

I was told I would not be allowed to terminate after 24 weeks “just” for Downs, there would have to be evidence of some other co-morbidity. I know this because an abnormality was picked up on my 20 wk scan (actually at 21wks) and we chose to watch and wait. Fortunately it turned out to be nothing. But the idea that women choose to terminate late in pregnancy for minor medical conditions is just not true. It will always be a terribly difficult decision - and one that women should be allowed to make.

I think it’s very possible for a few things to be simultaneously true here.

1. a woman’s right to chose is very important and should be upheld
2. women who have pregnancies affected by DS are often subject to outrageously out of date info (eg “your child will never walk or talk”) and pressure to terminate (ie repeatedly asking despite saying they are continuing with the pregnancy)
3. our society is pretty ableist and there is a stigma and fear around disability and in particular DS

2 and 3 aren’t more important than 1, but we should be able to acknowledge all of this.

For what it’s worth I don’t agree with the case but I think some of the reasons it’s come forward, i.e. poor maternity care and disability discrimination shouldn’t get swept under the carpet. They’re big feminist issues too.

So they should campaign about that Demigo