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.

[PerryMenno]

^^and if induction isn't possible or preferred, c section.

[ohmustyou]

The idea that c section early then adoption is an alternative to tfmr shows compete ignorance around why TFMR after 24 weeks occurs. The depth of suffering for those women and their families. The tragedy of those situations. It's a rather sweet ignorant position... But hurtful to those who have bravely terminated a pregnancy late on for the sake of the baby, their own bodies, their mental health, and their families. It's never done lightly.

[IcedSpice]

@user1477391263

It really does happen. I was also surprised when I learned about this, but there you are.

The typical scenario involves a young woman with a history of things like depression, substance abuse and toxic relationship. Sometimes she’s with the father of her child and sometimes she isn’t. Or she is with him and then he gets sent to jail. Or she takes up with a new boyfriend who is not the father of the fetus and wants to keep him (or he pressures her because he wants her to get rid of it).

Around half of abortions after 20 weeks in the States involve the above (the rest are for medical reasons). I don’t know about the UK, and would imagine the figure is lower, but I bet it’s not zero.

https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2013/11/who-seeks-abortions-or-after-20-weeks

Thanks for raising the dead post, but again - her choice, not yours

It really does happen. I was also surprised when I learned about this, but there you are.

The typical scenario involves a young woman with a history of things like depression, substance abuse and toxic relationship

So let's add to this tragedy and pop an unwanted baby in the mix.

As early as possible and as late as necessary.

[IcedSpice]

AND ALWAYS #TEAM WOMEN

[IcedSpice]

@user1477391263

Your link states the below stats, you simply cannot assume such an extrapolation. If you do that, then the Andrew Wakefield study on 12 kids proves vaccines causes autism (clue it doesn't)



METHODS: As part of a larger study, 272 women who received an abortion at or after 20 weeks’ gestation and 169 who received first-trimester abortions at 16 facilities across the country in 2008–2010 were interviewed one week after the procedure. Mixed effect logistic regression analyses were used to determine the characteristics associated with later abortion (i.e., at 20 weeks or later). Causes of delay in obtaining abortion were assessed in open- and closed-ended questions; profiles of women who received later abortions were identified through factor analysis.




www.gov.uk/government/statistics/abortion-statistics-for-england-and-wales-2021/abortion-statistics-england-and-wales-2021


The proportion of abortions that are performed at under 10 weeks has continued to increase since 2011. In 2021, 89% of abortions were performed under 10 weeks, increasing from 88% in 2020 and 78% in 2011. The percentage performed at 20 weeks was 1% in both 2020 and 2021. (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 276 such abortions in 2021. (Table 5).

[pointythings]

@IcedSpice thank you for pointing out that you can't extrapolate from the US situation to the UK. Some people on here need lessons in research and how to comprehend it.

[ohmustyou]

References to "viability" are always made by people who have never seen the suffering of an ill neonate at under 30 weeks. Or an anencephalic foetus. Or even seen the suffering of an otherwise "well" neonate at 24 weeks.

An elective c-section at 25 weeks is not an alternative to TFMR, and to suggest it is in any way shows compete ignorance and misunderstanding of the suffering here.

[LangClegsInSpace]

Update from Heidi Crowter's twitter account (29/08/23):

I am sending the court papers to the European court of human rights. I think that UK courts were wrong to reject my case so we're going to European court!

https://twitter.com/HeidiCrowter95/status/1696583499354874029

Their original case was that foetuses have personhood and human rights and therefore could be directly discriminated against because of disability. This was rejected by UK courts. I don't know if they can argue this again in ECHR or whether they are restricted to the indirect discrimination argument for living people with disabilities - i.e. that having a different cut-off date for abortion devalues the lives of already born disabled people.

There is a straightforward argument against the indirect discrimination claim - it is a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim to allow women to end their pregnancies if the baby would be born with severe disabilities and this outweighs any detrimental effect on the status of already living disabled people.

If they are allowed to argue once again in the ECHR that foetuses have human rights and so can be directly discriminated against then we are in choppier waters.

[sashh]

I feel so sorry for Heidi, she doesn't actually understand the issue. When she's interviewed I wish the interviewers were not so 'soft' around her.

[LangClegsInSpace]

They can't not be 'soft' around her though can they? That's why she's so useful to the anti-choice campaigners.

[sashh]

@LangClegsInSpace

I think a journalist should ask some hard questions, last time she was in court I tweeted a couple of questions and people told me to leave her alone, let her have her day in court.

I did get a PM from someone claiming to be her sister who said she was being used.

When I have seen her interviewed her only reason for wanting to change the law is, "because it makes me sad". Making someone sad is no reason to make / change laws.

I actually hope if the law changes it changes to allow abortion for any reason at any gestation.

The number of late abortions is tiny and not something someone wakes up one morning and says, "I know I'll get an abortion".

It also bothers me that she is unlikley to ever become pregnant so is highly unlikley to be in the situation of needing an abortion.

[DemelzaRobins]

Indeed - (speaking generally) there's something extra irritating about people who can never get pregnant (or are very unlikely to) who wants to take away women's healthcare choices in pregnancy. I nearly died last year due to a pregnancy - I had a ruptured tubal ectopic. Pregnancy isn't some rosy idyllic state, it can go very wrong and be extremely dangerous to the pregnant woman.

I also feel there's a lack of consideration of the needs of pregnant disabled women when discussing abortion access. It feels like some people see it as women's rights versus disability rights and don't consider that disabled women may need access to abortion to protect their own physical or mental health. Or may even be at higher risk of pregnancy complications leading to a need to abort or at higher risk of becoming pregnant with a child with a serious disability.

[AngryGreasedSantaCatcus]

I actually hope if the law changes it changes to allow abortion for any reason at any gestation.

This. This would stop any discrimination issue and make things easier/safer for everyone, rather than make them worse for everyone.

[sashh]

I also feel there's a lack of consideration of the needs of pregnant disabled women when discussing abortion access. It feels like some people see it as women's rights versus disability rights and don't consider that disabled women may need access to abortion to protect their own physical or mental health.

So true.

Women with various types of dwarfism face a lot of challanges in pregnancy, often their lung function is compromised by the uterus expanding.

[LangClegsInSpace]

There's a new message on Heidi Crowter's fundraising page.

The good news is that ECtHR has refused to hear their case so that's it for their legal action, they can't take it any further.

The bad news is that Liam Fox is tabling an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill that would do the same thing:

Times share token:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b9e145bc-f52e-49ec-8b08-44d8e70f9d2a?shareToken=64258f7f45318f346aab07ff1bbe32a7

BBC:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68617513

There are already two other amendments concerning abortion tabled in the bill:

Diana Johnson -
Removal of women from the criminal law related to abortion
For the purposes of sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act
1861 and the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, no offence is committed by
a woman acting in relation to her own pregnancy.

Caroline Ansell -
Abortion: gestation limits
(1) In section 1(2) of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, for “twenty-eight”
substitute “twenty-two”.
(2) In section 1(1)(a) of The Abortion Act 1967, for “twenty-fourth” substitute
“twenty-second”.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-04/0155/amend/criminal_rm_rep_0322.pdf

[QuentinBunbury]

Yes - it's a bit alarming really
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/02/28/decriminalising-abortion-will-fuel-diy-warns-miriam-cates/

[Dandelionzebra]

@LangClegsInSpace

There's a new message on Heidi Crowter's fundraising page.

The good news is that ECtHR has refused to hear their case so that's it for their legal action, they can't take it any further.

The bad news is that Liam Fox is tabling an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill that would do the same thing:

Times share token:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/b9e145bc-f52e-49ec-8b08-44d8e70f9d2a?shareToken=64258f7f45318f346aab07ff1bbe32a7

BBC:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68617513

There are already two other amendments concerning abortion tabled in the bill:

Diana Johnson -
Removal of women from the criminal law related to abortion
For the purposes of sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act
1861 and the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, no offence is committed by
a woman acting in relation to her own pregnancy.

Caroline Ansell -
Abortion: gestation limits
(1) In section 1(2) of the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929, for “twenty-eight”
substitute “twenty-two”.
(2) In section 1(1)(a) of The Abortion Act 1967, for “twenty-fourth” substitute
“twenty-second”.

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-04/0155/amend/criminal_rm_rep_0322.pdf

Thanks for posting the times share token - we were talking about this article on the other Tfmr thread but I could only cut paste the text not generate a share token. It’s a pretty misleading headline when several days later he’s not even tabled the amendment never mind it becoming part of the bill!

[Thelnebriati]

The same Liam Fox that almost always votes against increasing disability benefits for people who have a long term condition?
He also thinks people who have a spare bedroom should be penalised, including many disabled people who need to occasionally offer that room to an overnight carer.

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/10213/liam_fox/north_somerset/divisions?policy=6673

[MyCosyDuck]

@Aroundtheworldin80moves

The reason I'm against time limits on abortion, is giving mothers (and fathers!) time to make an informed decision. It should be something thought about not decided on within a couple of days due to a time limit approaching.

Definitely Early as Possible, late as necessary.

Your FAS is 20,weeks, right? Limit in England and Wales (I'll get to Scotland in a mo, but that's relavent too) is 24 weeks.

You have 4 weeks to decide, more or less if you want to go to term with a baby which has lefe ending issues. In England and Wales, that is. And the option of a surgical TOP is open to you.


In Scotlans - and keep in mind this is happening in thr BRITISH ISLES. Not some hold in buttf**k, USA - if you want an abortion for the reasons outlined in the above paaragraph, and you feel a surgical abortion is best option for you? Fuck you. You have to go to England to have this. Not just Newcastle or somewhere near, or Leeds. No. Double fuck you, you have to go to London.
The SNP bans surgical abortion for women over 18 weeks gestation for any reason. You can stay in Scotland for it, but you have to go through induced Labour.

Really interesting story on BBC Radio Scotland in 2017. Been long deleted now, but here is a relavent article:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-40257828