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.

@Ghosttile

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.

Not everyone is offered amnio as so many people find out about non-fatal disability at their 20 week scan - then testing results and specialist appointments can take several weeks. If it is a rare genetic condition you may need to travel to a specialist fetal medicine unit in London or other major city ... and then suddenly you are over 24 weeks ...

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.

I think this is such an important point because so many people seem to think that late abortions are done selfishly because the mother hasn’t got the child they wanted.

[quote Rainy365]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[/quote]
Right, sounds like they're going for indirect discrimination then. They're arguing that the law as it stands increases stigma for disabled people who are already born.

I don't know how much the exception to the time limit for serious disability contributes to that stigma but supposing it does, this will not be unlawful if it is objectively justified - i.e. if it's a proportionate means to achieve a legitimate aim.

One obvious solution would be to remove the time limit for all pregnancies.

#TeamWoman is more team baby that it might seem too.

Because no baby(healthy or otherwise )should be born to and/or raised by a woman that did not want them or feel she couldn't cope with them.

Wanting that for a baby is not supporting that baby's rights.

@sinkgirl I'm saying I think that there should be laws put in place to ensure the financial and practical support is available, NOT that I think people should have to rely on help from family or charities etc. This should be in place before any law is changed.

Since you asked, my first child was born without disabilities, and I am pregnant again. I haven't had any screening tests, nor did I for dc1, because it won't make any difference. I got pregnant accepting that my children may be disabled, and I will care for them to the best of my ability if they are.

Indeed... you would only have an amnio in the first place if something had been spotted, which is often for the first time at the 20 week scan...
I had a CVS but in my case even that was a very difficult decision, which we could not make for 2 weeks. Then it was another 2.5 weeks for results...then consultation etc etc. There are also things that are only spotted at much later scans, and some of the 20 week ones are 'wait and see...'
The current laws are there for a very good reason.

I can quite easily see how that would happen Lunde.

I absolutely despise the narrative around this issue.

"Team woman" sorry to say folk, is one of the stupidest and least sensitive cathcphrases yet. As if people who are against late term abortion are anti-woman. Of course they're not anti-woman, and of course they are not setting out to make women's lives terrible. They think there are limits to when you can have an abortion. 5 months is a fuck of a long time to decide. Your daughters won't have to carry a baby they don't want to term, because they will have 5 whole month to decide to have an abortion. And we already have exceptions.

So, if you want to make abortions easier to access earlier on, good. If you want to increase the number of exceptions, fine. But to suggest that people who want to do either of these things instead of liberally allowing abortion whenever are team anti-woman is absurd. I kind of suspect you all know that, it's just easier to yell about how pro woman you are than engage with the actual issues.

@laddyandthetramp

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 people bringing this case oppose the current law, 'laddy'.

They're not happy that foetuses can be aborted for medical reasons past 24 weeks but healthy foetuses can't. They say that's discriminatory.

Do you think it's not discriminatory? Or do you think that termination for medical reasons should also not be allowed past 24 weeks?

From the tweets they are also using human rights as their argument - that viable foetuses are protected after 24 weeks and so should non-lethal babies. They have quoted infant life preservation act 1929 and article 2 of ECHR (which does not state when life begins).

It’s hard to get the exact points just from Twitter and I wish I could find an account that was more neutral reporting from court.

Sending so much love to all the parents with lived experience. Thank you for sharing your stories, they remind us that this is a real issue affecting real people and not just an ethics debate.

@ObviousNameChage

#TeamWoman is more team baby that it might seem too.

Because no baby(healthy or otherwise )should be born to and/or raised by a woman that did not want them or feel she couldn't cope with them.

Wanting that for a baby is not supporting that baby's rights.

Not to mention a life of chronic pain and medical intervention...

There's a real undercurrent in the arguments of people saying late term abortion should be illegal that the decision to abort is selfish and for the parents' convenience rather than doing what is painfully right for the child.

If you talk to anyone who's actually made the decision, that could not be further from the truth. Saying goodbye to your much wanted baby feels like the ultimate sacrifice and it mars your life beyond comprehension. When I lost my baby I howled for her, and there isn't a day goes by that I don't wish she were here. But my longing to be a mum does not trump her right to a pain-free existence. It is mercy, not selfishness. We are parents too.
We would not treat dogs the way hard line pro-lifers propose to treat humans.

@AgathaAllAlong

I absolutely despise the narrative around this issue.

"Team woman" sorry to say folk, is one of the stupidest and least sensitive cathcphrases yet. As if people who are against late term abortion are anti-woman. Of course they're not anti-woman, and of course they are not setting out to make women's lives terrible. They think there are limits to when you can have an abortion. 5 months is a fuck of a long time to decide. Your daughters won't have to carry a baby they don't want to term, because they will have 5 whole month to decide to have an abortion. And we already have exceptions.

So, if you want to make abortions easier to access earlier on, good. If you want to increase the number of exceptions, fine. But to suggest that people who want to do either of these things instead of liberally allowing abortion whenever are team anti-woman is absurd. I kind of suspect you all know that, it's just easier to yell about how pro woman you are than engage with the actual issues.

Have you even bothered to read the thread?

If you get your anomaly scan at almost 21 weeks and they turn round to you and say “we’ve detected what we think is a severe brain malformation but in order to understand the severity and potential impact you’ll need a referral to a foetal medicine. They can’t see you until you’re 23+7 so if that scan shows up something very serious it will be too late for an abortion because the law has changed. Or you can book an abortion now”...

What do you think would happen?

Most of these anomalies aren’t detected until the 20 week scan. Most require further testing then time to decide then arrange an abortion if that’s your choice - that is why the law is as it is. And there are lots of women’s heartbreaking stories here about having to make that decision, so bloody read them before making offensive and ignore at comments.

@AgathaAllAlong

I absolutely despise the narrative around this issue.

"Team woman" sorry to say folk, is one of the stupidest and least sensitive cathcphrases yet. As if people who are against late term abortion are anti-woman. Of course they're not anti-woman, and of course they are not setting out to make women's lives terrible. They think there are limits to when you can have an abortion. 5 months is a fuck of a long time to decide. Your daughters won't have to carry a baby they don't want to term, because they will have 5 whole month to decide to have an abortion. And we already have exceptions.

So, if you want to make abortions easier to access earlier on, good. If you want to increase the number of exceptions, fine. But to suggest that people who want to do either of these things instead of liberally allowing abortion whenever are team anti-woman is absurd. I kind of suspect you all know that, it's just easier to yell about how pro woman you are than engage with the actual issues.

But it's not 5 months to decide is it as a lot of disabilities are picked up at the 5 month scan. Then further tests and consulting have to be done, so it isn't a case of 5 months later deciding they don't actually want a baby, it's when they find their baby isn't as healthy as expected and may have severe disabilities.

@Mama1980, it is wonderful hearing your son has done so well. But you probably also know you were very (perhaps even exceptionally) lucky in this.

For every baby that ends up with a life as good as your son's, there is someone else with a baby born at 24 weeks with severe disabilities, or who never survived NICU.

We need to legislate for both these cases. You cannot just say 'well, I experienced the best case scenario', so we are arguing from that perspective.

Thank God, we have invested in medicine and medical training that is able to keep 24 week old babies alive. But we also need to provide appropriate care and support for parents whose baby does not have such a positive outlook.

[quote FeistySheep]@sinkgirl I'm saying I think that there should be laws put in place to ensure the financial and practical support is available, NOT that I think people should have to rely on help from family or charities etc. This should be in place before any law is changed.

Since you asked, my first child was born without disabilities, and I am pregnant again. I haven't had any screening tests, nor did I for dc1, because it won't make any difference. I got pregnant accepting that my children may be disabled, and I will care for them to the best of my ability if they are. [/quote]
You’ve had no screening tests - so no scans? No anomaly scan?

If the anomaly scan showed that your baby had a condition that would mean their life would be full of severe pain from the outset with no meaningful chance of quality of life, you think it wouldn’t matter to you? You’re making it all about you. And trust me, when you have disabled children, it bloody well does matter to you because THERE IS NO SUPPORT.

You’re daring to pass judgement on these mothers who’ve been through horrendous suffering to spare their child the same. You should be ashamed.

Does anyone know the timeframe for a ruling in this court case?

Finding out at 20 weeks (or later) would mean four weeks (or less) to decide, not five months. Earlier detection would be great but presumably an anomaly scan is scheduled at 20 weeks for a reason.

Your post is not sensitive to the women on here who actually went through this and explained this issue Agatha, since you mentioned sensitivity.

As Teaandakitkat said, thank you to everyone who has shared their personal experiences on this.

@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?

No. I know someone that had TMFR for spina bifida.

[quote FeistySheep]@sinkgirl I'm saying I think that there should be laws put in place to ensure the financial and practical support is available, NOT that I think people should have to rely on help from family or charities etc. This should be in place before any law is changed.

Since you asked, my first child was born without disabilities, and I am pregnant again. I haven't had any screening tests, nor did I for dc1, because it won't make any difference. I got pregnant accepting that my children may be disabled, and I will care for them to the best of my ability if they are. [/quote]
I think they call this "the privilege of ignorance".

Long may that continue for you @FeistySheep but don't presume to preach to other women when you haven't walked in their shoes, and haven't begun to comprehend the issues at hand.

You really should have your antenatal tests. Your unborn baby may need medical intervention for a condition before birth, termination issues aside. Will you avoid healthcare checks for your baby after birth too?

@sinkgirl We don't agree on an ethical issue, which is fine. I've been polite and at no time have I passed judgement on anyone who thinks differently to me. You said I'm making it all about me - I only answered your question about me because you asked it!

People go through many horrendous things. It's acceptable for people who have not been in their shoes to state their opinions on a situation/issue. Otherwise we would not be able to say we think murder is wrong unless we've had a murdered family member, etc, which would be ridiculous. Debating ethical issues (without pinning judgement on specific people) is what talk forums are for.

Worth pointing out that problems can be found at ANY point in pregnancy, not just the 12, 20 week scans etc...

The problem aswell is you dont know with Downs how severe it will be for the baby

for every heidi theres a baby with many more complications so how can she say she wants a ban on all abortions that are DS

@GoingGently I'm so sorry for what you've been through. Can't even imagine..