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.

Having thought about this thread over the last few days

And posting the law which imo is sound.

I think the best place for this campaign to focus on would be the guidelines for practitioners around the application of the law.

To introduce ONE named condition to that wording is just obviously not the right approach to me.

It certainly opens the door to other names conditions from being added.

That will lead to complexity and ? confusion.

What if a child has 2 named conditions which together mean a very poor prognosis/ quality of life?

That sort of thing.

@NiceGerbil

I agree with everything you have posted.

I was told that some people chose to get a private scan to sex the baby and then request an abortion for social reasons at an NHS hospital, in order to get the boy babies they wanted

It shouldn't happen and I am glad that this practise is illegal and monitored. It is reassuring the numbers are low and hopefully this practice has/will cease.

But back in the early 2000's that was the official reason given for not telling us the sex of our babies on our NHS scans.

So if the foetus shouldn't have any rights until its independent. Where does it end. Newborns are dependant.

You can end its life 1 day before it is due to birth and that's pro choice but if you end its life one day after birth you have murdered your child. 🤔

@Believer99

So if the foetus shouldn't have any rights until its independent. Where does it end. Newborns are dependant.

You can end its life 1 day before it is due to birth and that's pro choice but if you end its life one day after birth you have murdered your child. 🤔

Noone would do that.

Trust women and the doctors they consult to do the right together. Over 24 weeks there are strict rules to be followed.

Noone aborts a healthy baby at term, that is a straw man argument.

@Believer99

So if the foetus shouldn't have any rights until its independent. Where does it end. Newborns are dependant.

You can end its life 1 day before it is due to birth and that's pro choice but if you end its life one day after birth you have murdered your child. 🤔

In England and Wales personhood starts at birth.

Take it up with your MP

They lost.

www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/23/woman-with-downs-syndrome-loses-uk-abortion-law-case

Judgment is here, haven't read it yet -

www.judiciary.uk/judgments/crowter-v-secretary-of-state-for-health-and-social-care/

I'm deeply relieved that they lost.

@pointythings

I'm deeply relieved that they lost.

Yes, so am I.

Although I can see where the young woman was coming from with her campaign the whole thing made me highly uncomfortable. A women’s right to make such decisions when done with proper medical advice and counselling should always be there and without judgement.

@pointythings

I'm deeply relieved that they lost.

So am I.

And so is the TFMR community.

(I’m a PP on this thread with a name change).

I actually felt physical relief when I heard this earlier. I’m so, so pleased. I’ve kept checking back on this thread and Twitter over the weeks to see if I had missed the judgement.

No doubt they will keep campaigning in some way (can they appeal?) but I wish they would get behind something that actually supports women/parents in this situation rather than trying to make things even harder for them at a potentially traumatic time of their life.

I'm reading through this thread. I am a TFMR mum.

My ds was born at 21+4 after a devastating anomaly scan which I faced alone (covid). I was "fortunate" that I was given a fetal medicine scan only 48 hours after my anomaly scan so was able to go from a vague "your baby has spina bifida" to "your baby boy had myelomeningocele spina bifida with Arnold Chiari 2 malformation, we can't see his cerebellum and his spinal cord is open at S2, his brain is being pulled into his neck and every time he moves, he does himself more damage". He was given a 30% chance of having any quality of life. That's if he survived to term. And survives birth. And survived the multiples of invasive brain, spine, bowel operations. That's without the breathing and feeding issues. That's if he wasn't taken by an infection. In the middle of a pandemic.

He was so wanted and so desperately loved. I was not prepared to out him though a short life filled with suffering, pain and struggle. I have no doubt he would have been a joy, but he would never have left an incubator in a children's hospital. I wasn't willing to play Russian roulette with his life. He was born living and stayed alive for a precious hour and a half. He has a birth and death certificate. Obtaining a birth certificate for a baby born prior to 24 weeks is hellish. I then had to ensure an inquest into his death.

TFMR or compassionate induction as it is quite often called, is healthcare. But not just for the mother, its healthcare for the baby too.

Yes, very relieved.

The gist of the judgment is that foetuses do not have rights because they are not persons (although they may have interests, which are not the same as rights).

The indirect discrimination argument - that the current law encourages attitudes that disabled people's lives are worth less - failed because the law is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

They have been given leave to appeal.

There's some interesting stuff in the judgment. The claimants relied heavily on the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) whose committee has made statements saying it's discriminatory to have different cut off dates.

The judgment includes the text of a joint statement between UNCRPD and the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) in relation to abortion rights:

“A human rights-based approach to sexual and reproductive health acknowledges that women’s decisions on their own bodies are personal and private, and places the autonomy of the woman at the centre of policy and law-making related to sexual and reproductive health services, including abortion care. States should adopt effective measures to enable women, including women with disabilities, to make autonomous decisions about their sexual and reproductive health and should ensure that women have access to evidence-based and unbiased information in this regard. It is also critical that these decisions are made freely and that all women, including women with disabilities, are protected against forced abortion, contraception or sterilization against their will or without their informed consent. Women should neither be stigmatized for voluntarily undergoing abortion nor forced to undergo an abortion or sterilization against their will or without their informed consent.

States parties should fulfil their obligations under articles 5 and 8 of CEDAW and CRPD Conventions respectively by addressing the root causes of discrimination against women and persons with disabilities. This includes challenging discriminatory attitudes and fostering respect for the rights and dignity of persons with disabilities, in particular women with disabilities, as well as providing support to parents of children with disabilities in this regard. Health policies and abortion laws that perpetuate deep-rooted stereotypes and stigma undermine women’s reproductive autonomy and choice, and they should be repealed because they are discriminatory.

In order to respect gender equality and disability rights, in accordance with the CEDAW and CRPD Conventions, States parties should decriminalize abortion in all circumstances and legalize it in a manner that fully respects the autonomy of women, including women with disabilities. In all efforts to implement their obligations regarding sexual and reproductive health and rights, including access to safe and legal abortion, the Committees call upon States parties to take a human rights based approach that safeguards the reproductive choice and autonomy of all women, including women with disabilities.”

(my bold)

ShushShus I'm so sorry

shushshush I can’t begin to imagine how hard that must have been, and I think the element from your point of view and others going through the same has very much been forgotten in all this.

I have never heard the term compassionate induction but as someone who has never faced it it does seem a much nicer term (if there can be)

ShushShushShush thank you for sharing your story. I have a friend who has a similar story, except she was diagnosed at 26 weeks. This case was always intended to chip away at UK abortion law - I'm glad it's failed and I hope the appeal will also fail.

Glad this failed although I'm not without sympathy for the young woman who brought the case.

Thanks once again to the women who shared their difficult stories on this thread.

I understand what Heidi Crowter is saying. I can see how she feels. She's saying her life has value, and so has anyone's, whether they live with a disability or not, and I don't disagree. But still, I believe it was the right judgement, and if there's an appeal, I hope it goes the same way. The best answer to anything relating to abortion rights is "I trust women".

I think Heidi is being failed and exploited. Someone has interpreted/misinterpreted the legislation to her, and is using her to erode women's autonomy. It's complete bollocks- Heidi did not do this alone, and those who encouraged her need to take a good hard look at themselves.

"Viability" at 24 weeks is a complex one, too. There's a reason pregnancy is the length it is, and why we don't just grow new humans in incubators. If you believe that there's a queue of people wanting to adopt babies with all the complications of being prem, ask yourselves why you haven't adopted one of these babies, rather than getting pregnant? Have you witnessed the torture many prem babies go through, only to die anyway because they're prem? Adoption isn't an easy answer. Viability isn't the same as living the life you deserve.

The law as it stands in England and Wales largely works for women, and for fetuses. However, to make Heidi 'feel' better, perhaps the law should be that termination can happen until birth if both the woman and two doctors agree- removing other criteria. The number of 'late' terminations will remain vanishingly small. Heidi has been used, and it disgusts me.

@duffmcstockings

As early as possible. As late as necessary. Only way, I am afraid.

Even as someone who welcomes the decision, has no desire to change the current UK law and is grateful that the UK has one of the most liberal regimes in the world (although I didn't have to tahr advantage of it), that fatuous slogan sets my teeth on edge.

It’s not fatuous, it conveys very simply a serious commitment to supporting women’s rights to choose on abortion.

Shush sorry for your loss.

Bumping this because there was a preliminary hearing today and they have been given permission to proceed to appeal.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/court-of-appeal-high-court-peter-jackson-down-s-syndrome-department-of-health-and-social-care-b2031285.html

Heidi's twitter says they have permission to appeal on grounds of discrimination.

twitter.com/HeidiCrowter95/status/1501217599539064834

In the initial hearing they argued indirect discrimination - that the current law encourages attitudes that disabled people's lives are worth less. They lost because the judge said that allowing women to terminate up til birth in the case of disability was a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim. I assume they are now going to argue that it is not a proportionate means.

The other argument - that foetuses should have legal personhood and all the human rights that go along with that - appears to be no longer a threat, so that's good news, at least.

Video of the hearing available here:

www.judiciary.uk/publications/crowter-ors-claimants-applicants-v-the-secretary-of-state-for-health-social-care-defendant-respondent/