Late term abortion, high court

[Anycrispsleft]

I saw this on the BBC this morning - it's High Court review of the rules on late term abortions. The campaigners are seeking to remove the exception to the ban on post 24 week abortion that allows it in the case of "non-lethal" disabilities. The woman who is asking for the review wants the law to be changed on the grounds that it's discrimination against disabled people.

Apologies if this case has been covered before, I'm a newcomer to FWR having been radicalised by you people on Twitter. I just wanted to express this thought that occurred to me: the trans debate has shown me that whatever good-thinking progressives think, rights are sometimes like pie, in that giving one person more rights can mean less rights for someone else. And this is also like that, isn't it? There's a balancing of the rights of the foetus (not that a foetus has legal rights, at least not yet) and the rights of the mother. Until now I used to sort of shy away from this bit of the ethics of abortion. I am very strongly pro choice, but I always wanted to be able to justify that stance in a sort of objective way, considering the cases of the foetus and the mother as though I had no skin in the game. And I realised I can't actually do that, because I do have skin in the game, because I am a woman, I have two girls, and I want all of us to have control over our own bodies. It's not that I think I am objectively right. I want to win this. I don't care about the rights and wrongs from an academic point of view. I don't want my children to have to carry a child they don't want to term. Full stop. I'm sure others would be able to put this in a much more eloquent way but I feel like I've reached a new point in my feminism and I wanted to share it. I'm not neutral. I'm team woman.

It is signficant, that it is a free vote unwhipped by Parliament, which pushes one towards Parliament being the decision maker in this case.

We can see the views reflected in both sides here today reflected in Parliamentary debates with scrupulous care.

This can't be dismissed as outmoded legislation no longer in line with the present day

Fortunately I think the defence is looking strong. But it’s scary this is even in the courts.

We are not dealing here with legislation from another time, the question is whether it can be inferred that Parliament decided the judgement was appropriate not withstanding the consideration of the impact on various parties

Lord Justice Singh - what you are also saying, is whether the primary legislation is or is not compatible?

It is entirely care that this range of sensitive issues was considered with care by Parliament.

(*entirely clear ? )

@ElderMillennial

Then you don't know much about antenatal testing. Some serious things might not be picked up until a late scan. Even if something is picked up at the 20 week scan - you might wait nearly a week for an amnio. You then wait two to three weeks for the result. Culture failure, so it needs to be repeated. Another three weeks. Wait for counselling appointments. Well over 24 weeks by this point!

But I'm not talking about where a disability or problem is picked up. Some people PPs are for an abortion at any stage for any reason.

Do you even know what a late term abortion entails? Physically,emotionally and mentally?

No one will be doing that for shits and giggles. Even if abortions for (what others might consider )trivial reasons would happen, for a woman to willingly go trough it it means that something is very wrong in that woman's life. Having the baby is more likely than not to exacerbate those issues.

Mrs Justice Lieven, it could be said that the NIHC case is against you. As it was the same issuses, it was an issue intensely debated in the assembly.

Mrs Justice Lieven, you can have a position where you have a highly sensitive moral issue, but the court considers it is appropriate to intervene.

Parliament does not give reasons for what it does, and its collective will may contain a myriad of reasons. The correct approach is to see whether matters relevant to compatibility were raised in the process.

There is no requirement for Parliament to confine itself to the limits of rationality.

NIHC case presumably relates to Northern Ireland but not sure which court case

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-politics-56041849

They probably mean this case

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-47058629

Lord Justice Singh I have been wondering how margin and re G can have any room to apply, when one is dealing with what is the meaning and scope of a convention right.

Lord Justice Singh, the case about retention of DNA went to Strasbourg, where I lost, but I had won in the House of Lords

Lord Justice Singh, there can be room for different answers to be given in different states.

Strasbourgh is saying we are not prepared to extend Article 2 to the unborn.

Re G requires consideration by the courts of who the appropriate primary actor in the matter is

The really important is you don't suddenly have a Re G type case with the implication that the court can step in and start making primary judgements itself

I think this is the Re G case they are referring to:

www.familylaw.co.uk/news_and_comment/re-g-(children)-2019-ewca-civ-1779

@SinkGirl I understand. I just don't agree with you and that's ok. It doesn't warrant your rude and condescending tone.

You don't know what I know or what my experiences are so open your own mind a little and get over yourself.

... or this could be Re G

www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx?i=ed1989

I wish they'd be more specific!

I thought they may have been referring to abortion ground G in the abortion act but not sure . This would be a valid reason for abortion after 24 weeks.

“ G. To prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman (section 1(4))”

Annexe A
assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/313459/20140509_-_Abortion_Guidance_Document.pdf

They might be trying to say the courts can’t intervene in abortions taking place under the ground G (so they can’t with ground E (section 1 1d) ?

Obviously this had been discussed extensively here.

I would agree that extending abortion rights for all women would be a better way to achieve equality.

As early as possible
As late as necessary
For any reason or none

But the alternative may be subjecting an innocent child to a lifetime of pain and suffering, and that is also horrific, probably more so.
I don't object to terminations for medical reasons. I actually know someone who had a late termination due to a severe abnormality which meant her baby would have lived but probably in severe pain. She had to go abroad as tfmr was not allowed where she lived. It was awful and her decision was unbelievably brave. What I was objecting to was people saying there should be no cut off at all even for healthy pregnancies. I disagree. There has to be a point where you say no even if it is only a miniscule number of cases.

I think as early as possible and as late as necessary. I think that the information and counselling women receive around fetal abnormalities should be reviewed and women who wish to continue with a pregnancy given better support.

I agree @Zerogravity

@Rainy365

They might be trying to say the courts can’t intervene in abortions taking place under the ground G (so they can’t with ground E (section 1 1d) ?

No, I think they're referring to a case.

It's really difficult to follow without a list of which cases they're citing and what points they are drawing from them. The case can be about something completely different but there can be a point of law in the judgment that is applicable to this case.

They're back from lunch ...

There is a special need for care when relating to Committees, as they are not acting in a Judicial way.

It doesn't matter what the position is in relation to persons. there appears to be no consideration whether or not person should, or should not include fetus.

Judge Singh - the legislation sends out a signal to society that people like him that they should not have been born

(this is the indirect discrimination claim which does not involve giving human rights to foetuses)

One needs to see the provision that we are dealing with in its new and proper light.

The government do respect and wish to promote the rights of people with disabilities.

The correct approach is to place the emphasis on women's choice.

So far as specific conditions - Parliament was entitled to make this choice, and cast it in this way. It answered questions as whether it was feasible possible or wise to make a list. What to choose legislatively, is it appropriate as a subject matter for that sort of list.

Parliament has left those concepts of serious risk and severe handicap to be defined by doctors, with all those safeguards of the two stage tests etc

There are links between fetal abnormality and fatal abnormality and there is a poor dividing link between the two, and it is formidably difficult to draw this line

It is our case as you know that the legislative language of the type that we have is at least in part due to the complexity of decision making in these cases

Adopting this approach of allowing it to be interpreted by clinicians seems to be consistent with other states.

Of course it is possible to have a debate about particular conditions, and no one could possibly deny that those with Down syndrome can and do lead healthy fulfilling lives bringing joy to those around them.

But equally there are serious conditions that come with that diagnosis as Prof T indicates

Not every family is well-equipped to deal with those consequences

Lord Justice Singh This case does raise some very difficult questions about our society and how the law responds.

Lord Justice Singh - Is there any evidence of experience in other countries about what would happen to childern who were not wanted, and what would happen to the mother

Lord Justice Singh - what would happen is the law is required to be changed? What would happen to those sorts of babies who were not wanted?

Associated with the womens right to choose there is, in effective forcing a woman to continue with an unwanted pregnancy to term

This isnt in any sense offering a view about the value that those with disabilities lead, this is about something fundamentally different, the desire to criminalise womens choice

The law sets out a legal test, substantial risk seriously handicapped and so on, and requires there is approval by two clinicians, there is nothing wrong with having a relatively generally expressed provision that has to apply across a range of cases

There is guidance from the RCOG and BMA and that can be taken into account by the clinicians. And could be taken into account by a prosecutor.

The clinicians who are involved in this exercise will be aware that there are criminal law provisions in the background

Gestational limits - there are a series of issues here. It's plainly within parliaments margin to leave it without time limit. But true it is that increasingly improvements in diagnostic testing that some conditions will be capable of being tested at an earlier and earlier stage

Most of the women in this situation are going to be longing for a child, and this decision will be awful for them

There may be a number of reasons for women coming to these decision late. There may be difficulties assessing it's seriousness, time needed for discussion, all of that justifies having no time limit. not meaning that women will not be making the choice as soon as possible