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.

*We are talking about legislation not consideration. Complicated scenarios end up being treated bluntly in law. Given a choice between 2 conflicting things, I'd rather the woman got the legal protection than the foetus, as the baby can't survive on its own, even if born at term. Protecting the foetuses "rights" is essentially inflicting impacts on others (the mother/the state) but that's not the case for protecting the mothers rights.
Plus as shown upthread 1) nearly all late abortions are because the baby has severe medical issues, 2) in the UK we already have protection in law to prevent the hypothetical capricious woman getting an abortion at 8 weeks, never mind 40 and 3) it would be nigh on impossible to find a doctor to do an abortion at 40 weeks for no good reason

So really, why are we spending much time on such an unlikely scenario?*

I think you were talking about legislation, not necessarily everyone. I was talking about the thinking which underpins legislation - it does not spring from thin air. Your argument about protecting the mother's rights not impacting on others is specious as it's circular - that is only true if you consider the fetus to have not rights, even at term. If you don't take such an extreme stance the of course there is an impact on others.

I could not disagree more about unlikely scenarios. Of course you would find some drs willing to do a 40-week termination. Not all drs are ethical and it would be naive to write our laws based on the assumption that they are. You might struggle to but some people will manage to. Legislation, in many instances, protects us from very unlikely scenarios.

You may also need to explain your 'no good reason' comment. If we let women get abortions whenever they want in a pregnancy, why on earth would the drs be asking them why? That would be completely inappropriate. Plus who gets to decide whether the reason is 'good'? Given your comments about babies 'not being able to survive on their own', a woman could just say 'I don't want to look after it' and that would be a good reason.

I do think the 'can't survive on it's own' comment is odd. Children can't for the first few years of life and yet, on the rare occasions when parents have stopped looking after their children and they have in fact died, there was outrage. Why would there not be if this were used as a rationale to abort an at-term fetus?

'I think you were talking about legislation, not necessarily everyone. I was talking about the thinking which underpins legislation - it does not spring from thin air.'

Okaaayyyy

This legislation is about putting one condition as not a reason to have an abortion after the 24 week cut off point.

The legislation currently says that

Abortions after 24 weeks are allowed only if:
the woman's life is in danger
there is a severe fetal abnormality
the woman is at risk of grave physical and mental injury

Which legislation are you referring to?

A PP wrote about her real life experience in the UK with this.

'in addition I will say that I worked for a health authority for a long time in a referral/outreach capacity. It was an inner London health authority so we had the full gamut of all types of engagement and challenges. And in all that time I encountered three instances of women seeking to access late term abortion, referred to us by social workers. It really is that rare. The three cases were particular and tragic. There was no good outcome for any party involved. It was difficult to access because although technically legal, doctors can refuse to provide termination and they overwhelmingly do at late term. It's not like a woman can just rock up at her GP at 30 weeks pregnant and access termination. Mostly, they're refused at that very point because a GP won't sign it off. That's why they'd come to us through social services who would have already done all of the very thorough and necessary investigations. Same goes for Marie Stopes etc. In fact more so there; it's is very difficult to access.

So ime this is one of those situations where everyone involved in decision making is already making complex and multi faceted decisions at every step along the way. And if they're involved at all they're experts, pretty much. It's kind of a self selecting group because most people won't touch it. So they can make good decisions and facilitate good outcomes based on their experience. And because the law is flexible it allows them to do this.

It's not codified anywhere that late term termination should be difficult too access. But through professional expertise and professional practice it has become so, without the need to legislate.

Once you start putting things in law and trying to define matters that are fundamentally subjective and go to the heart of the nature of human existence you lose the ability for people to exercise personal and professional judgement, which is exactly what is required in these situations imo.'

*'I think you were talking about legislation, not necessarily everyone. I was talking about the thinking which underpins legislation - it does not spring from thin air.'

Okaaayyyy

This legislation is about putting one condition as not a reason to have an abortion after the 24 week cut off point.

The legislation currently says that

Abortions after 24 weeks are allowed only if:
the woman's life is in danger
there is a severe fetal abnormality
the woman is at risk of grave physical and mental injury

Which legislation are you referring to?*

I'm sorry. I don't understand your question. As I said earlier, I am not talking about legislation. I am talking about the societal norms, judgements and expectations etc. that underpin legislations. I think there is some conceptual confusion and binary thinking in discussions about abortion and other issues where it is actually really hard to tease out the various parties rights. That is what I am interested in - and that feeds into various legislations. Why the okaaayyyyy? Sounds a bit PA?

Did you copy and paste the other mumsnetters post in response to me? If so can you explain how it relates to what I've said?

Abortion is ultimately banned in Scotland from 20wks due to no clinics or hospitals doing it.
you need to get referred to an English clinic

Does anyone know why?

The cnp was to reassure you that the post 24 weeks terminations here are not carried out lightly. It was related to this

'You may also need to explain your 'no good reason' comment. If we let women get abortions whenever they want in a pregnancy, why on earth would the drs be asking them why? That would be completely inappropriate. Plus who gets to decide whether the reason is 'good'?'

You had concerns and so I thought that a bit of personal insight on how the reasons are deemed to be 'good' enough, and that when it happens it's not treated lightly, might reduce your concerns.

Oh sorry that was to Mardy.

I'm happy to discuss the societal views underpinning legislation. Just to check where are we discussing. UK? England? Elsewhere? Have been some cross purposes on here!

@dreamingofyou

Abortion is ultimately banned in Scotland from 20wks due to no clinics or hospitals doing it. you need to get referred to an English clinic

Because Scotland has devolved powers on this matter.

I could not disagree more about unlikely scenarios. Of course you would find some drs willing to do a 40-week termination. Not all drs are ethical and it would be naive to write our laws based on the assumption that they are. You might struggle to but some people will manage to. Legislation, in many instances, protects us from very unlikely scenarios

Yes—the case of Kermit Gosnell in the US is a sad example. He flew under the radar because those who were supposed to have oversight did not do their jobs. It was only uncovered when a woman died due to a botched abortion. The story is really, really awful and did not make much of a splash in international media, one guesses that they didn’t want to give pro-lifers ammunition (not a good enough reason imho). He still doesn’t believe he did anything wrong btw: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kermit_Gosnell

You may also need to explain your 'no good reason' comment. If we let women get abortions whenever they want in a pregnancy, why on earth would the drs be asking them why? That would be completely inappropriate. Plus who gets to decide whether the reason is 'good'?

Have you see the documentary ‘After Tiller’? I highly recommend it to anyone interested in these issues. The doctors do, in fact, act as gatekeepers and choose their clients, and one laments she does, in fact, consider whether someone’s reasons are ‘good enough’ for her (a state of affairs she doesn’t like, it should be said). But as she’s one of the few who will perform a late-term abortion, she gets to be picky about who she takes on as a client.

You had concerns and so I thought that a bit of personal insight on how the reasons are deemed to be 'good' enough, and that when it happens it's not treated lightly, might reduce your concerns.

I may be wrong but I thought some people were arguing for the idea that a woman should be able to have an abortion at any time in her pregnancy and not have to justify it (as early as possible, as late as needed). If that were the case then stories regarding what happens now are not really relevant as they tell us what happens at the moment and not what would happen if those changes happened. The example the PP gave (UK based) regards scenarios that are not 'as late as needed' but 'as late as 'experts' consider is needed', which (to me anyway) is quite different. I don't really have concerns - not sure what made you think I did but it is hard to get the right tone in written form.

I'm happy to discuss the societal views underpinning legislation. Just to check where are we discussing. UK? England? Elsewhere? Have been some cross purposes on here!
From my point of view - nowhere specific. There is no consensus in any one place anyway as, like other potential ethical issues, views are always split. I believe there is more commonality across the global regarding the pros and cons of women's/ fetus's rights than there is dissent, though there may be leanings towards different emphases in different parts of the world. My particular posts have meant to be about the idea that (as above) that a woman should be able to just say she wants any abortion at any stage (as late as possible). Personally I feel uncomfortable with a woman's choice being taken away and consider myself very largely pro-choice but also feel uncomfortable with very late abortions - beyond the point (for me) when the fetus would live, if delivered, without highly specialist care (unless needed for other medical reasons, but not expected given the gestation). I am aware that those positions are somewhat conflicting. Previous conversations on this thread have suggested that others also feel this tension. It's not specific to any country and (for me) it's not a specific conversation about any specific legislation though you are, of course, welcome to have that conversation.

Saving Down Syndrome? Is there a site for Saving Spina Bifida? Saving Polio? Saving Cancer? I didn't think I'd see the day in 2021 where people are advocating this. It seems fetishist to me, tbh

While I admit I’d terminate a child with Downs, it’s actually kind of vile to compare it to cancer. One is a human being, one is a fucking disease.

Down's syndrome is a syndrome. Not a person

feelingmardy - yes it always comes up. It's a different topic really and more of a point of principle. Not going to happen here any time soon.

The thread is more about what actually happens now. For me. This one about the law in England and Wales but these threads always cover a range of topics which is understandable.

Ok understand better now what you mean.

I think that discussing that would be interesting.

In terms of the abortion to term conversation the social views underpinning it I suppose need to be taken next to the legislation afaik not allowing it anywhere on choice alone.

I think it should be balanced by looking at the social views underpinning the view that abortion access should be very tightly controlled or even pretty much or actually illegal.

Plenty of legislation around the world of that type and also stats etc on impact on women and girls.

@NiceGerbil

Down's syndrome is a syndrome. Not a person

She’s comparing a person with a congenital condition to cancer or polio. Honestly ... it’s not a disease, it’s not something we can ever eradicate (unlike, one hopes, cancer)

I was recently shocked to find myself agreeing with Maria Miller in a parliamentary debate about a proposed amendment to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill which would have decriminalised abortion at any stage of pregnancy:

parliamentlive.tv/event/index/eacc6a97-9c80-4d44-b254-cfa537a2b1c5?in=18:10:03&out=18:12:07

It's not good enough to leave this to private members' bills and amendments. We need proper debate, preferably a public consultation, and a thoughtful review of the law.

In NI abortion is now decriminalised up to 12 weeks - i.e. you can simply request an abortion within that timescale for any reason or none.

In the rest of the UK abortion remains criminalised at every stage. The Abortion Act merely sets out a legal defence to what would otherwise be a criminal act. It starts with the words, 'Subject to the provisions of this section, a person shall not be guilty of an offence under the law relating to abortion ...'

From the earliest weeks of pregnancy, you need two doctors to agree in good faith 'that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family'

In practice, most women seeking an early termination can get one but not always. There is scope for doctors to be obstructive and quibble about this balance of risks and sometimes they do, in the hope of delaying things past the time limit. The requirement for two doctors' signatures in itself can cause unneccessary delay.

The UK is an outlier. Most western countries allow abortion on request.

This is what is meant by 'as early as possible' - when a woman has come to a firm decision that she does not want to continue with a pregnancy then no unnecessary obstacles or delays should be put in her way. The later the termination, the more traumatic it is likely to be. The state of being pregnant when you don't want to be is traumatic every single day.

This is a separate argument from time limits.

Most western countries have decriminalised abortion within time limits - except Canada, where abortion is fully legal at any stage of pregnancy, regardless of the reason. That has been the law there since 1988 and there has not been a flood of women seeking late term abortions just because.

The latest stats I can find for Canada show that just 1.19% of abortions take place at or after 21 weeks.

www.arcc-cdac.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/statistics-abortion-in-canada.pdf

I'm not aware of any problems that this law has caused in Canada in over 3 decades. So when I read posts that suggest women would take advantage of such a law to abort their babies at or near term for no good reason then I call bullshit. I think those posts display a deep contempt for women.

TL;DR - Abortion should be decriminalised and we should have a full government consultation/inquiry with a view to reforming the law in this area, taking into account international perspectives.

Whatever the outcome, still a very hard NO to foetuses having legal personhood and human rights.

Used Up with advances in gene editing and whatnot maybe one day it could be.

Who knows.

That would be fought tooth and nail though as well. It would be seen as eugenics I'm sure (and I can understand that tbh).

'It's not good enough to leave this to private members' bills and amendments. We need proper debate, preferably a public consultation, and a thoughtful review of the law.'

I wrote to my MP a few years ago before the NI change in law.

She replied and said that she has concerns that any opening up of changes/ debate can go otherwise to the way you might hope.

I think this is s fair point.

Yes of course it should be decriminalised. And available until X weeks without barriers.

In practice though in England and Wales it works as if on demand. I haven't heard of issues with access.

I looked up the stats the other day and early abortions are increasing - loads before 10 weeks now.

I think that shows access is fast as well.

My concern with opening it up is that as a PP has pointed out a lot, 24 weeks is pretty late for countries where it's legal. 12, 20 numbers like that are common.

As medicine improves so the argument to restrict it to 'viability' (even if in practice the earlier it is viable increasingly includes babies with issues that will impact their whole lives etc).

In general the world seems to be getting more religious and more right wing. The demographics of religious belief have changed over the last decades I would bet.

Abortion is also (along with anti vaxx) a target for targeted misinformation from Russia. We know from brexit and Corona that misinformation works. It's targeted. And the internet polarised.

Also anti-abortion orgs based in the USA are active here now in various forms and they are well funded.

So I would rather stay as is. The realty of our services is they work. And the risk of opening it all up is IMO v high.

Govt stats

These look good to me

'The proportion of abortions that are performed at under 10 weeks has continued to increase since 2010. In 2020, 88% of abortions were performed under 10 weeks, increasing from 82% in 2019 and 77% in 2010. In comparison, abortions performed at 10-12 weeks decreased from 9% in 2019 to 6% in 2020. The percentage performed at 20 weeks and over decreased from 2% in 2019 to 1% in 2020. (Table 3a.iii).

The legal limit for a woman having an abortion is 24 weeks gestation. This is the point at which the fetus is viable outside the mother's body. Abortions may be performed after 24 weeks in certain circumstances, for example, if the mother's life is at risk or the child would be born severely disabled. Abortions where gestation is 24 weeks or over account for a very small number of abortions (0.1% of the total). There were 236 such abortions in 2020. (Table 5).'

@dreamingofyou

Abortion is ultimately banned in Scotland from 20wks due to no clinics or hospitals doing it. you need to get referred to an English clinic

Scotland has the same 24 week rule as England. It’s just because Scotland doesn’t have the practitioners to do it. Theres not being enough doctors trained to do it and a lower population makes it harder for doctors to become proficient in what is an incredibly rare procedure (less than 2% of all terminations in Scotland).

Sorry wrong stat at the end. I don’t think it is as high as 2%…

langclegs great post

Hypothetical- if you ban abortion after the point of viability, say 24 weeks, does that mean that a woman who no longer wishes to be pregnant/have a baby at that point can give birth? Because that's the only way I see a balance if you believe that the fetus has rights. So, it has the right to life, but it doesn't have the right to use the woman's body?
I'm also in the early as possible, late as necessary camp and trust women to make their own choices.