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.

@badpuma

The reason for the later abortion limit in a very small range of circumstances is to allow the parents more time to choose.

Someone upthread was saying that she was having her 20 week scan at 21 weeks and 6 days. If that scan disclosed Down's syndrome, the parents have 2 weeks to carry our further tests, get results, discuss the results with the dr and get counselling.

They have to guess whether their child would be a happy blessing like a op's or whether the baby would be more like my cousin's daughter who is profoundly mentally and physically disabled, non verbal, violent to her siblings and who will never live independently.

If forced to choose in a very tight timeframe, the outcome will be more aborted disabled babies, even those who could have lived full and largely independent lives.

And to account for very late diagnoses, which do happen

Yes I agree.

@mylovelyhorsechestnut

As a mother of a child who has Down's, all I want is for my child's life to be equally valued. By allowing babies with Down's to be terminated until birth, feels like another example of society saying children like mine are not seen as equal.

Throughout my pregnancy, even until I was 30 weeks, I was continually offered termination, even though I had said I wished to continue my pregnancy (my daughter has no life-limiting conditions, just down's, and I completely understand that other babies with a diagnosis of down's might also have other life-limiting diagnoses).

I am however fully in support of abortion, including TMFR for life-limiting conditions/where the baby would suffer, and I feel for any woman in this situation, it is truly a heartbreaking situation to be in.

However my daughter's diagnosis in her case is not life-limiting. Yes, she needs more help to reach her developmental goals, but she gets there in her own time, has friends and she is very much loved. I just wish I could protect her from the stigmatism that people with Down's syndrome face

When you received your downs diagnosis was it in utero? Was it clear from antenatal scanning that your daughter would have developmental delays only? Or was it a 'risk' that she could have had a much less independent life?

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 this is the case, then we don't need to allow complete, unrestricted abortion in law. That's great, it satisfies everyone.

I have great sympathy for women who discover their baby has a non-lethal disability whilst they are pregnant. We all hope for a healthy child, and it's devastating when that doesn't happen. But I must say I lean towards the view that you should not get pregnant in the first place if you are not prepared to accept the possibility that the child may have a disability, and to do your best to look after it whatever happens. What if there are better screening tests in future... would we allow 30 week terminations for deafness? Missing fingers? How far do we take it in our (understandable) desire to have a perfectly healthy baby?

I appreciate that depending on the disability, not everyone would have the mental/financial resources to care for a disabled child, but I see that as a reason for society to step in to help, rather than to terminate the pregnancy.

I wouldn't like to see a rigid cut-off date if any such law was implemented. There needs to be time after screening to allow parents to come to a decision carefully. So some discretion for medics would be best.

I do also see the campaigners' point that by having different rules for healthy fetuses and fetuses with Downs, we are basically saying that people with Downs are worth less. This is not acceptable.

But before a law like this could be implemented, we need better support during pregnancy, better/earlier screening, decent counselling during decision making, and better financial and mental support for parents of disabled children.

Guardian article on the case so far.

www.theguardian.com/society/2021/jul/06/downs-syndrome-sajid-javid-court-abortion-law-heidi-crowter?fbclid=IwAR1HIFR7Uq3P5jzBdEoFIy_u9HcbVr13BeHFvaNlcNbo4qCmYMeDOKQ3k84

Why are these cases/campaigns ALWAYS about less rights for all women , rather than more?

Why is it always about more hoops for women to jump through?

Why is it deemed fair to have more women with less right?

@bestguesstimate

I agree with as early as possible, as late as necessary. However, just throwing an idea out there, do you think monthly home pregnancy testing could become the norm for women who don’t want to become pregnant? Contraception isn’t 100%, unfortunately, so if say it was to fail, wouldn’t you want to know as early as possible? Pregnancy is sometimes finally detected four or five months, or longer, down the line. Doing a cheap home test could save a woman from ending up in a much more difficult situation where she’s contemplating a late/ later abortion. Some years ago I got into the routine of doing a home test every month, just for peace of mind. I now test maybe three times a year, just in case my pill fails.

This really isn’t the issue.

The issue is that many anomalies can’t be detected until the anomaly scan (funny that) at 20 weeks. Should an anomaly be detected, you often then need appointments with foetal medicine which take time to arrange, and further tests, and then to make a decision, plan the abortion and have it.

As far as other comments go...

Nobody is just suddenly deciding at 30 weeks pregnant that they don’t want to have their baby, especially as they’ll have to give birth.

Most late term abortions are much-wanted pregnancies, of babies whose short lives will be filled with pain and suffering. It’s a devastating experience for the mothers and I’m sick of it being thrown around like a big gotcha.

As for those 24 week preemies “thriving” - nobody seems to give much a shit about them when they’re disabled older kids. But hey, they made it out of NICU, right?

My twins are both disabled. I know another set of twins born at 25 weeks who are both severely disabled - severe brain damage, cerebral palsy, unable to communicate, no chance of ever living independently or having the lives that we all take for granted.

Nobody should be forced to raise a disabled child when they know in advance. I’m now even more sure of that than I was before I had disabled children. I know adoptive and foster parents of severely disabled children who agree. The damage to and neglect of unwanted disabled children is far more of a concern to me than late term abortion.

@laddyandthetramp

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 this is the case, then we don't need to allow complete, unrestricted abortion in law. That's great, it satisfies everyone.

It also means that we don't need any restrictions on abortion, right?

@FeistySheep

I have great sympathy for women who discover their baby has a non-lethal disability whilst they are pregnant. We all hope for a healthy child, and it's devastating when that doesn't happen. But I must say I lean towards the view that you should not get pregnant in the first place if you are not prepared to accept the possibility that the child may have a disability, and to do your best to look after it whatever happens. What if there are better screening tests in future... would we allow 30 week terminations for deafness? Missing fingers? How far do we take it in our (understandable) desire to have a perfectly healthy baby?

I appreciate that depending on the disability, not everyone would have the mental/financial resources to care for a disabled child, but I see that as a reason for society to step in to help, rather than to terminate the pregnancy.

I wouldn't like to see a rigid cut-off date if any such law was implemented. There needs to be time after screening to allow parents to come to a decision carefully. So some discretion for medics would be best.

I do also see the campaigners' point that by having different rules for healthy fetuses and fetuses with Downs, we are basically saying that people with Downs are worth less. This is not acceptable.

But before a law like this could be implemented, we need better support during pregnancy, better/earlier screening, decent counselling during decision making, and better financial and mental support for parents of disabled children.

Yeah, well society doesn’t “step in and help”. Pretty sure it’s not a good idea to base laws on what we hope should happen rather than what actually happens.

But I must say I lean towards the view that you should not get pregnant in the first place if you are not prepared to accept the possibility that the child may have a disability, and to do your best to look after it whatever happens.

How many severely disabled children do you have?

I appreciate that depending on the disability, not everyone would have the mental/financial resources to care for a disabled child, but I see that as a reason for society to step in to help, rather than to terminate the pregnancy.

I have a lot of sympathy with this in principle but, as an individual, right now society does fuck all for disabled children and almost all mothers of disabled children are unable to work and many live in poverty. My choice wasn't society support Vs termination, it was give up my life Vs termination

But before a law like this could be implemented, we need better ... financial and mental support for parents of disabled children

Where I live in England there is nothing. You are not even guaranteed a place for the child at a special school, and if you get one it is likely to be inadequate, sporadic and can be withdrawn at a moment's notice.

Health care and mental health support is a daily battle to access. There are waiting lists years long to access inadequate assessments and non-existent resources.

There is no respite. All respite and care packages have been cut. School transport has been cut. There are NO residential places. None.

Parents cannot cope. Some of them, I see on MN threads in utter despair. Usually women, often in their own with one or more disabled children.

DLA, and PIP at 16, is one of the cruelest and stingiest systems of benefits known in our lifetimes.

Let's get real about this.

Can I ask a question? Is it any potential disability that allows.the possibility of late termination? It's not just downs syndrome?

So if this case is successful you won't be able to tfmr at all, even for a disability certain to be seriously challenging to quality of life?

It also means that we don't need any restrictions on abortion, right?

Nah, we still need restrictions to ensure the vanishingly small minority don't misuse abortion laws til birth for things like sex selection past 20 weeks of healthy fetuses.

I'm saying if it's true, as was implied that nobody does things like this, then nobody should oppose such restrictions (which would permit medical reasons only past 24w).

The thing is that abortion is not just about fetal health but also about maternal health. If we impose a strict ban on on all abortions over 24 weeks then the result will be dead women as well as doctors will be unable to act in the case of serious maternal complications.

I knew someone who had to have a late term abortion because her 20 week scan also revealed her to be suffering from uterine cancer.

I think the stigma only comes from people who have no understanding of the complexities of this situation, not from people who have chosen to terminate.

No mother who had terminated for Downs would ever judge you for keeping your baby. They might find it painful to spend time around your child, but only because it compounds their own trauma, guilt and loss. They would never 'stigmatise' your Downs child. I find the concept of their choice for their children stigmatising yours to be an odd one. There's not a parent who has been faced with this choice who has not contemplated either outcome. It's just incredibly complicated and painful.

In my view these debates only serve to add extra pain to those who are already suffering - on both sides. It's frankly irrelevant to anyone not facing a poor diagnosis. My fear is that politicising Down's syndrome and attempting to paint a rosy picture whilst denying the very real other side of the coin is incredibly difficult for women who've suffered a TFMR, and adds stigma on stigma. It probably makes life more difficult for parents of downs kids who are not ok too.

I am a TFMR mum myself, though my daughter's diagnosis was for a syndrome that my doctors had never heard of it's so rare. It's only usually diagnosed after birth so the only resources online are for families of living children. Like Down's it's a spectrum from 'not that bad' to catastrophic multisystem failure, profound learning difficulties, violence and cancer. I feel 'lucky' to have received a prenatal diagnosis but also lucky that I am able to live my life without seeing campaigns in the press and efforts to criminalise what was very much an act of mercy and love for my daughter. Whilst I have to remind myself that I made the right decision for me, it's practically destroyed me and I'll carry the burden of that loss for the rest of my life. I have no living children and don't know whether I'll ever succeed but made that choice to protect my daughter anyway. Part of that choice was wondering who on earth would care for her when I'm gone or no longer able.

Nobody should be stigmatised for a choice they have made, especially when everybody makes that choice out of love. The outcome of that will look different for different people. We have to allow for people to do whatever is right for them and their families in these devastating situations.

[quote Lunde]We are talking about a very tiny percentage of abortions
88% are carried out before 10 weeks
2% are carried out after 20 weeks
0.1% are carried out at 24 weeks and beyond - "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"
www.gov.uk/government/statistics/abortion-statistics-for-england-and-wales-2020/abortion-statistics-england-and-wales-2020[/quote]
Well said. You’d think that we’re talking about 90% of all abortions being carried out at 24 weeks, when in reality it’s only 0.1% .
As early as possible as late as necessary. I support a woman’s right to choose, at any time.

@GoingGently, thanks so much for saying what I wanted to say so much more eloquently. From a fellow TFMR-mum, who just wanted to be sure that they could give their child a base level quality of life

@Teaandakitkat

Can I ask a question? Is it any potential disability that allows.the possibility of late termination? It's not just downs syndrome?

So if this case is successful you won't be able to tfmr at all, even for a disability certain to be seriously challenging to quality of life?

From what I’ve seen on Heidi’s Twitter they are wanting non-lethal conditions to be removed from the clause that allows late term abortions, but said

“For the purpose of my clients the court does not need to go as far as that. For them it would be sufficient for Down syndrome should not be a sufficient reason for the destruction of viable human life“

So they would accept just Down syndrome as a ruling.

@FeistySheep

I have great sympathy for women who discover their baby has a non-lethal disability whilst they are pregnant. We all hope for a healthy child, and it's devastating when that doesn't happen. But I must say I lean towards the view that you should not get pregnant in the first place if you are not prepared to accept the possibility that the child may have a disability, and to do your best to look after it whatever happens. What if there are better screening tests in future... would we allow 30 week terminations for deafness? Missing fingers? How far do we take it in our (understandable) desire to have a perfectly healthy baby?

I appreciate that depending on the disability, not everyone would have the mental/financial resources to care for a disabled child, but I see that as a reason for society to step in to help, rather than to terminate the pregnancy.

I wouldn't like to see a rigid cut-off date if any such law was implemented. There needs to be time after screening to allow parents to come to a decision carefully. So some discretion for medics would be best.

I do also see the campaigners' point that by having different rules for healthy fetuses and fetuses with Downs, we are basically saying that people with Downs are worth less. This is not acceptable.

But before a law like this could be implemented, we need better support during pregnancy, better/earlier screening, decent counselling during decision making, and better financial and mental support for parents of disabled children.

I do hope you get to continue living your life in blissful ignorance, and you're never faced with any of these hard realities

@Teaandakitkat

Can I ask a question? Is it any potential disability that allows.the possibility of late termination? It's not just downs syndrome?

So if this case is successful you won't be able to tfmr at all, even for a disability certain to be seriously challenging to quality of life?

The challenge appears to be to t he availability of abortion for any 'non-fatal' medical conditions or disabilities. I don't know if they are interpreting non-fatal as living for days, weeks, months or a normal lifespan but it isn't limited to Downs.

Just wanted to add: @goinggently and@somanyncs and any other TFMR mums on this thread or reading this thread, I am thinking of you all, it's such a tough thing to go through. None of us made this decision easily or lightly and we need to be kind to ourselves.

The whole case doesn’t make sense to me. With amnio you can know for sure whether the foetus has Down’s syndrome well before 24 weeks. Amniocentesis is usually carried between 15 and 20 weeks. If women wanted to have an abortion solely because of a diagnosis of Down’s syndrome, they would be doing it before 24 weeks.

Women having abortions after 24 weeks because the foetus has Down’s syndrome are likely to be having them because they have discovered the foetus has Down’s syndrome and a heart defect (heart defects are common with Down’s syndrome.) They may actually have waited until beyond the 24 week limit to see the severity of the defect.

@BernadetteRostankowskiWolowitz

The only reason a woman should need for an abortion is "I do not wish to continue this pregnancy"

Anything else on top - fine. But this should be the bar.

👏👏👏

#TeamWoman

As early as possible, as late as necessary. For any reason.

And no, if you are 'I'm pro choice but..' - you are NOT pro choice.

Just for people who misunderstand the process. You can't just walk in and say you want an abortion at 20+ weeks, because the foetus isn't the right gender, it misses a finger, etc. Doctors have to sign off on this, and they have to believe that either the mother is suffering extremely (mental or physical health), or that the foetus is seriously unwell. Unless you have a completely unconscionable doctor (who is able to find a similarly unconscionable colleague, as two signatures are required), you are not going to be able to access an abortion for a foetus missing a few fingers.