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.

@SoftSheen

BernadetteRostankowskiWolowitz

By the time the foetus has reached 24 weeks the woman has already become a 'breeding vessel' (or as I prefer to say, pregnant). If she has entered freely and willingly into a sexual relationship, then she hasn't been forced to become pregnant. She will have to give birth one way or another, the choice is between giving birth to an aborted foetus or waiting a few more weeks to give birth to a live baby.

Better to support women by (1) Providing better access to contraception (and relevant education), (2) providing access to early abortions if necessary, (2) providing much better support to disabled children and their families (both and pre-natally and postnatally, and onwards).

But without number 3 in particular, that many families who already have living children with disabilities fight for day in and day out, what do you propose happens to mother and child after the mother has been forced to continue an unwanted pregnancy? The baby is born alive - what happens next?

An exception should be created for where a baby will die shortly after birth due to disability, or be very disabled and have little quality of life, but let's call it what it is - compassionate euthanasia to stop a child being brought into the world to suffer.

Tbh late abortion is in uterine euthanasia. (I should add I support euthanasia and late term abortion in some cases, so not intending to judge).

But that's basically what it is. The fact that you can't see the fetus dying (as it's in the womb) doesn't make it any less so in my view

As I say, I'm not judging and would abort a severely disabled fetus to spare it from future suffering.

SowingBees 💐

For those wanting statistics, here is a document from 2019: assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/891405/abortion-statistics-commentary-2019.pdf

• Abortions over the gestational age of 24 weeks account for only 0.1% of all abortions

• Ground E abortions (those which are performed for foetal anomaly at any gestation) account for 2% of all abortions

Women who go through a late term abortion do not make the decision on a whim. They will have likely gone through weeks of stress, heartbreak, probably invasive, unpleasant tests in the mean time.

They will have agonised over the decision for probably weeks, fallen in love and bonded with their baby, felt the movements, watched their body change to accommodate them. It will be the hardest, most painful decision they will ever have to make, and no one ever believes it will be them that has to make it.

They don't go through a late term abortion because their baby is unwanted. Their baby is deeply loved and desperately wanted and they will be making the decision because they truly believe that it is the best decision for their baby.

We do not bring children into the world to suffer, and being a parent is about doing what you believe is right for your children. If your child is going to live a lifetime of pain and suffering, it may be that the kinder option is to terminate. It is terrible to take away that choice from parents who are advocating in the best interest of their innocent child.

Parents who make that decision choose to carry the burden of it for the rest of their lives, so that their child will never have to endure it.

D&E is not recommended generally after 24 weeks. The mother still has to give birth to them.

I am firmly pro choice. As early as possibly and as late as necessary.

I think we also need to consider the care pathway.

Anomalies may not be picked up until the 20 weeks scan.

It may not be possible to get an amniocentesis or follow up investigation straight away.

Results can take weeks to come through

The likely impact on the child's life may not be apparent straight away.

There may be delays in referrals.

This could easily push you past the 24 weeks cut off, but even before that, there is not an abundance of doctors who will perform a second trimester abortion.

@Thelnebriati

If you want to set a limit on late abortion then first you have to remove all impediments to obtaining an early one. And I don't see that happening.

I agree with this

I have sympathy with the idea and emotion behind the campaign but I am firmly Team Woman and pro choice.

Sorry if I’m being dense here, but what does ‘as early as possible’ mean in this context? Are there some places that won’t let you have an abortion before a certain gestation?

@SnottyLottie

Sorry if I’m being dense here, but what does ‘as early as possible’ mean in this context? Are there some places that won’t let you have an abortion before a certain gestation?

Its means as quickly as can be arranged.

@Akire

This isn’t about the right to abortion as such. It’s saying when all other babies have limit to which they are viable we extend same curtesy to babies with Downs. I think there is a difference between a genetic illness where baby will die before or shorty after birth and late term abortions. We don’t go to special baby care and say well all these babies who are born early with life changing disabilities so might as well turn off their machines. Once they are born we fight everything for them. It’s a horrible decision but when we have tests and information it’s a fair to say decide by 24 weeks.

To pick one particular disability after thousands of possible outcomes that by chance we know about pre birth against all those prem babies or starved at oxygen at birth disabilities like cerebral palsy. If I was adult with Downs I’d feel like I want change it to. My disabilities acquired in adulthood so lucky for me.

This, 100%.

@SnottyLottie

Sorry if I’m being dense here, but what does ‘as early as possible’ mean in this context? Are there some places that won’t let you have an abortion before a certain gestation?

No unnecessary delays and red tape, for example enforced waiting periods or hoops to jump through. Sometimes pro-life campaigners try to make it difficult for women to obtain abortions in the first place by placing barriers and delays in front of them.

The parents are the ONLY people qualified to make decisions on behalf of their baby in ANY situation. No exceptions.

Unless you've been there, you really do not know.

The worry with saying "permitted in cases where the baby will have a poor quality of life" is then you have to start quantifying existences. What is "worth" living with?

It's too open to interpretation, emotion and pressure.

@GoingGently

The parents are the ONLY people qualified to make decisions on behalf of their baby in ANY situation. No exceptions.

Unless you've been there, you really do not know.

Yep. As a parent who has had a TFMR, everyone has an opinion and thoughts on what they would do but the truth is you don’t know unless you’ve been there. It is completely blindsiding.

And those people quibbling about things being 'only' cleft palates etc are really showing their ignorance.

These are often markers for much more profoundly life changing multisystemic syndromes, which can sometimes only be diagnosed after birth, or beyond when a baby fails to develop. Also carrying a baby with a high chance of late term stillbirth is not something that women should be condemned to.

Speak not of what you do not know. Nobody has a late term termination for fun. It is an absolutely hellish nightmare to be in, particularly when the outcome is uncertain. Do not confuse 'choice' with freedom to live a carefree life. There is no such thing if you've ever been in this position.

Please, just be grateful that you don't understand and leave it there....

I just don't believe any woman is capricious enough to get to 30 weeks pregnant then just decide she can't be arsed any more. I trust women who want late abortions that they have strong reasons for that

This exactly. If you are making that decision dso late in the day then you have good reason and that should be respected.

I am pro-choice for the woman whether that is to continue or terminate a pregnancy. By giving rights to a fetus it is taking away rights from the woman.
Her body, her life, her choice.
As early as possible as late as necessary

@azimuth299 obviously not but there could be a few (or even 1). Of course I wouldn't want her leaving hospital with a baby but I also wouldn't want her killing a fetus at almost 40 weeks either.

If 'most' people wouldn't choose to have an abortion at 40 weeks why would we be saying 'as late as necessary?'

I'm not being obtuse. I've never discussed this topic before. I thought I was pro choice and thpught I'd fully support a women to do as she choose but I couldn't support a women to have an abortion the day before her due date.

@AMistakePlusKeleven for you, me too

If 'most' people wouldn't choose to have an abortion at 40 weeks why would we be saying 'as late as necessary?'

Because there are some women who have to take this path. It may not even be a choice (or at least a free choice). It may be the only option for them.

Who are we to try and prevent this?

@FelicityPike

Having seen babies in the NICU born at 24 weeks and thriving, I’m pro-choice but I think there should be a limit unless medically recommended.

This post refers to a lady called Heidi who wants late term abortions (after 24 weeks) banned even if the foetus has life limiting disabilities and/or the mother is at risk. Heidi has Downs and was born with kidney failure, pneumonia and needed open heart surgery, as well as loads of hospital visits throughout her childhood (she was in a lot of pain).

Not all parents are physically and emotionally able to bring a child into this world who is suffering and in loads of pain. We should NEVER force a woman to give birth. Women don’t choose late term abortions for the fun of it. It’s already a stigmatised, traumatic decision.

I'm trying to work out what their legal argument is.

I found this on a pro life site which is the most detailed discussion of the case I can find:

However, a problem arises in that the law does not recognise an unborn baby as a legal person. Whilst those of us who are pro-life recognise the personhood of an unborn baby, a non-person cannot be discriminated against in the eyes of the law. It is thus highly unlikely that a court would find Ground E to be direct discrimination.

If a baby is a non-person legally, a more plausible argument is that the law is indirectly discriminatory. Allowing abortion for disability up to birth perpetuates discrimination against people with disabilities who have been born. The law sends a message; it tells people with disabilities that ‘because of this characteristic you have, your life is not as valuable.’

care.org.uk/news/2021/05/the-law-must-stop-discriminating-against-people-with-downs-syndrome-this-case-could-change-that

However from the live tweets via Heidi's twitter:

I am inviting you to go where Strasbourg has not had the occasion to go, but not to where Strasbourg has specifically ruled against you going.

Strasbourg refuses to say that the unborn child is not a person and therefore that Article 2 doesn’t apply.

Which very much suggests they are arguing for legal personhood of the foetus.

[quote TheNameTheWebsiteForgot]@azimuth299 obviously not but there could be a few (or even 1). Of course I wouldn't want her leaving hospital with a baby but I also wouldn't want her killing a fetus at almost 40 weeks either.

If 'most' people wouldn't choose to have an abortion at 40 weeks why would we be saying 'as late as necessary?'

I'm not being obtuse. I've never discussed this topic before. I thought I was pro choice and thpught I'd fully support a women to do as she choose but I couldn't support a women to have an abortion the day before her due date.[/quote]
Well you'll be pleased to know that it doesn't happen then. The woman randomly deciding to have an abortion for no reason while in labour doesn't exist.

If you want to reduce abortions, then I suggest that you campaign for cheaper childcare, support for disabled people and domestic abuse victims and stronger poverty reduction.

I had a very late (30 weeks) termination for medical reasons. It was that late because I really really didn't want to terminate and the medical information came slowly and was unclear and difficult to interpret. I knew from the start that the baby had some issues but the extent of them wasn't clear until 30 weeks. We didn't get a final diagnosis until the post mortem - a rare genetic syndrome which, as is common with syndromes, presents in a number of ways. My baby would have had a variety of permanent physical differences, plus issues with almost every major organ, plus severe development delays.

The late termination was horrific and I had PTSD for over a year afterwards but I never regretted it.

I think the thing to focus on is the total lack of support for parents of disabled children. I had the termination for a number of reasons, including the likely quality of life for my baby but also including my quality of life. I see what the mothers especially of disabled children go through and it's pretty awful. I don't want to be a full time carer and have my entire life revolve around that. I might have made a different decision if childcare and school was there for disabled children.