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.

Bumping this thread in light of today's terrible news about Roe v Wade.

While in the UK we are not in nearly such a dire and urgent situation, please can we keep a sharp eye on threats to our rights this side of the pond?

I started a thread a few days ago in the other feminist forum about institutional capture by the same group behind this court case:

www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/4539125-more-institutional-capture-pro-lifers-this-time

This is from a statement Mencap submitted to the appeal court in this case:

16. Despite the progress that has been made in both legislation and outcomes for people with disabilities, s1(1)(d) Abortion Act stands out as an offensive anachronistic anomaly in the legislative landscape. It conveys the powerful message that a life with a disability is a lesser life, even a life not worth living. It should have no place in a modern inclusive society that values all people. At Mencap we urge the Court to grant permission to appeal and ultimately declare that s1(1)(d) is incompatible with the human rights of people with disabilities, so that Parliament revisits this legislation.

www.mencap.org.uk/crowter-case-statement

A huge learning disability charity is campaigning to remove women's reproductive rights in the UK.

If Mencap want to reduce stigma then I suggest they start by changing their name.

The people behind this case have formed an organisation called National Down Syndrome Policy Group.

ndspg.org/

They have resurrected a long dormant 'all party parliamentary group' (APPG) on DS, headed by 'pro-life' SNP MP Lisa Cameron. Here she is getting a load of thank you letters from SPUC:

NDSPG are not a charity and they have no legal structure. Despite this they are acting as the secretariat for the APPG, providing administrative, financial (whose money?) and research support.

ndspg.org/appg/

Read around their site with a critical eye. Everywhere they list the issues they care about, 'maternity rights' is there. It was the first item on the agenda of the inaugural meeting of the APPG. They do not mean the maternity rights of women with DS.

They have lobbied Liam Fox MP (also staunchly pro-life) to introduce a private member's bill which has just passed into law as the Down Syndrome Act.

bills.parliament.uk/bills/2899

The Act does absolutely nothing.

Some guidance must be written and certain public authorities must say they've read it. Literally, that's it. Yet this is being presented as a huge victory.

It's been incredibly divisive in the LD community because it singles out one diagnosis when all face the same issues with access and quality of services, and because many feel it's a regressive step back towards a medical model of disability - the focus is on a diagnosis rather than people's individual needs.

The largest DS charity in the UK, The Down's Syndrome Association, knew nothing about this bill until its first reading.

www.downs-syndrome.org.uk/news/news-research/dsa-news/publication-of-the-down-syndrome-bill/

Reading around, my impression is that the main aim of the bill was simply to have something called a Down Syndrome Act so they can say that people with DS are a specific minority group who are recognised in UK law.

They've made a whole new (completely empty) law to use as a rhetorical device. This definitely will be used in the appeal of this case and in future actions that seek to limit women's rights to abortion. It's a known tactic. It's the same tactic that has been used in the US to lobby for a reversal of Roe v Wade.

2021 has been a breakthrough year for legislation in several states seeking to prohibit abortions based solely on a prenatal diagnosis of Down syndrome.

www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/down-syndrome-abortion-bans-gain-traction-after-court-ruling

This has turned out a bit long but I think it's important.

Add message

@LangClegsInSpace You have articulated what i couldnt. Heavy emotional blackmail will be used against any woman who wants a termination for the reason that she knows she wouldnt be able to cope.
And pro life MPs? Hah thats a good one. As usual the pro lifers show they couldnt give a shit about disabled people by cutting their benefits or making them hard to claim. Pro forced birthers.

Thanks for sharing this. I find these pro life arguments hard to believe, especially as a mother with disabled children myself, simply because there is no framework of support for us now they are here. If the life of the child is so precious, why is there nothing in place to support that child as s/he grows up?

A date for the appeal has been set - 13 July.

twitter.com/LizCrowterDSmum/status/1526171626357792770

@LangClegsInSpace

13th July is my tfmr sons birthday, its his 2nd birthday this year. Thanks for the heads up, I will be avoiding TV and Internet on his birthday because its hard enough that he's not here because he was so sick without having to see a late term tfmr debate.

Have only discovered this thread today, but the following by @QuentinBunbury really stood out for me
I wish people could get as outraged about women's rights, as they do about foetal rights.
#teamwomen

@Tigger85

What is Sally Phillips alluding to with ‘couldn’t be a worse climate for this case to be heard’. Roe V Wade or am I missing something else?

Of course she won’t want people realising that this is actually a pro-life/anti-abortion case and not an equal rights one. Hopefully the overturning of Roe V Wade so recently might make some people wake up to that. I’ve certainly pointed it out on my own channels.

You don't seem to realise health issues can emerge late in pregnancy leading to long term adverse effects on the mother.

The appeal hearing is this morning. Apparently it will be live streamed from 10.30 on this youtube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjSA-JNvLMuYFVKowGrS76w/featured

Not sure why the link didn't work, try again:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjSA-JNvLMuYFVKowGrS76w/featured

Crowter & ors (claimant (in the court below)/appellant) v The Secretary of State for Health & Social Care (defendant (in the court below/respondent)

This is an appeal against the Order of Lord Justice Singh and Mrs Justice Lieven
dated the 23/9/21 that dismissed the claim for judicial review.

The Appellants sought a declaration of incompatibility under section 4 of the Human Rights Act 1998 in respect of section 1(1)(d) of the Abortion Act 1967. They contend that section 1(1)(d) is incompatible with Articles 2, 3, 8 and 14 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which are all “Convention rights” as set out in Sch. 1 to the Human Rights Act.

The essence of the claim was 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 Appellants focus on cases of Down’s Syndrome but accept that their arguments would apply to any case where there had been found to be a risk of “serious handicap”.

https://www.judiciary.uk/you-and-the-judiciary/going-to-court/court-of-appeal-home/the-court-of-appeal-civil-division-live-streaming-of-court-hearings/

I feel Heidi is being used, I don't believe she understands the issues.

I agree. She's been used for anti abortion campaigning since she was a small child.

Their counsel raised the point that abortion for disabled foetuses is allowed after 24 weeks even for conditions that can be diagnosed much earlier, but these are the same people behind the 'Don't screen us out' campaign against early trisomy screening.

I agree. The tweets coming out of court are clearly not her.

The judges don't appear to be buying the argument that the language of the abortion act causes stigmatisation of disabled people.

Thanks for sharing the link. Did you watch all of it? I only just looked and see there is about 5hrs of footage! I watched random short sections but find it hard to understand some of the legal speak.

I did note at the end he said don’t expect the judgement very soon. Sounds like we are in for a long wait. I’m really worried about this.

I dipped in and out. It was a very dry hearing, which is usual at appeal stage - it's all technical legal points and references to case law which makes no sense unless you know the cases or have the written arguments in front of you.

The appellant's counsel had the most ponderous, boring delivery. It was really hard to stay awake, let alone follow what he was saying.

The respondent's counsel was much livelier and obviously knew her stuff but goodness me, the judges interrupted her a lot.

I'm not that worried though, I think it's very unlikely they will win.

This thread is a reasonable summary

https://twitter.com/neilmcrowther/status/1547269507835744262

The wider agenda (APPG, DSA, NDSPG) worries me more.

Don't know why links aren't working.

Copy and paste:

twitter.com/neilmcrowther/status/1547269507835744262

I had it on in the background for the first couple of hours.

I tweeted some points and got told to 'Let Heidi have her day in court' and when I said she doesn't represent all disabled people I was told, ' would never do that'.

Changing the law because it makes a woman with DS 'sad' is not a good way to make laws.

Oh I also suggested that making all abortion available to term would also make the law fair I wasn't popular.

I think I saw a bit of that.

As if Heidi 'having her day in court' has no effect on anyone else! As if women should all just stay quiet while HC argues away our rights!

It's a tricky one because she is vulnerable and that account is in her name even though it's not her tweeting most of the time. It's another manifestation of 'be kind'.

I think whoever is using this young woman is pretty disgusting. Heidi cannot understand the circumstances of when a woman decides she needs a TFMR for diagnosed chromosomal abnormalities.

Weirdly I just thought about this case for the first time in months and so looked it up to see if I missed the outcome. Found out the decision is actually this friday. That is a very long wait (no idea if normal but still feels a long time).

She has lost. IMHO quite rightly.

news.stv.tv/world/woman-loses-downs-syndrome-abortion-case-at-court-of-appeal

They lost. No details yet.