New restrictions on right to terminate for medical reasons

[Dandelionzebra]

Has anyone seen the article in the times saying an amendment to restrict the right to terminate a pregnancy for medical reasons is likely to be snuck in as an amendment to the criminal justice bill?

I couldn’t work out from the article whether the amendment had actually been tabled yet or was just expected to be tabled shortly.

The article was dressing it up as a disability equality issue for Down’s syndrome but gave no info about how it would actually work in practice (e.g. what about co-occurring conditions could they still mean Tfmr was available? What about if complications made it likely that the fetus with Down syndrome was incompatible with life, what about pregnancies with multiples where at certain advanced gestations it is decided to delay a termination to minimise risk to the other fetus).

Has anyone seen a response for bpas or any other groups? I can’t believe we’re still having to have the argument that late stage Tfmr is rare, usually heartbreaking for those involved but necessary.

Oh god I hope not.

Do you have a link to that article please?

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/downs-syndrome-abortion-reform-wins-cross-party-support-xjjshjl6w

it’s here but behind a paywall

I’ve tried to copy paste from the article below - but am on my phone so sorry if it comes out wonky:

MPs from all the main parties have backed changes to the law that would abolish rules allowing abortions up to the point of birth for a foetus diagnosed with Down’s syndrome.

An amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill being tabled by Sir Liam Fox, a former cabinet minister, would bring the law in line with the 24-week abortion limit for foetuses with no “serious disabilities”.
He said the change in the law would stop people with Down’s syndrome being treated as second-class citizens, a situation he described as an “absolutely utter travesty”.
The most recent abortion statistics published by the Department of Health and Social Care revealed that there were 859 abortions involving a baby diagnosed with Down’s syndrome in 2021, up by a quarter from the previous year.

Fox’s amendment has already been backed by a string of MPs from the Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats and Democratic Unionist Party.
It will be debated and voted on as part of passage of the Criminal Justice Bill, which is expected to return to the Commons after MPs return for the Easter recess on April 15.
Fox, a former GP and former defence secretary, will argue that the current law is contradictory to the Equality Act 2010, which defines discrimination as when a person discriminates against another because of a protected characteristic.
He hopes his campaign to change the law will get a crucial boost on Wednesday as he will ask Rishi Sunak to give his own support to the amendment at prime minister’s questions.

The irony is all of the fiercest critics of NIPT and the right to terminate, didn’t actually know their children had Downs in advance. Many of them even went on to have an amnio or NIPT in a subsequent pregnancy. Yet they want to withdraw that choice from other women.

There is literally no good that can come of forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy with a lifelong disabled child who will likely never be independent. Not for the kids, the mother or society.

You can still terminate before 24 weeks though, is that right?

I'm not convinced that terminating a baby with DS close to due date could be considered a positive (for want of a better word) thing. Although I do agree that provision and support for people who have DS leaves a lot to be desired, so I can see why a woman would want to avoid those difficulties.

I'm confused though - how can it be argued as discrimination against another person who has a protected characteristic, when a foetus isn't considered to be a person with rights, until it's actually born?

If it's focused on Downs Syndrome, that's good. People with Downs Syndrome can live great quality lives. It's ridiculous that they can be tfmr beyond 24 weeks, when the baby is otherwise healthy.

Is this just about downs syndrome or does this new law include other babies with disabilities diagnosed in pregnancy?

We can't adequately fund anything for children and adults with disabilities. Maybe fix that first.

That’s one of the reasons the court case trying to argue such terminations were discriminatory failed - because we don’t have foetal personhood (yet !) though I expect that this line of arguments is the first step like we’ve seen in the states of trying to establish that

The article doesn’t give any details about how the restriction is supposed to work- I don know if anyone’s found text of the amendment yet?

Downs syndrome is a spectrum. With a Downs pregnancy, you could have a child who will live independently and happily, or you could have a child who will need lifelong personal care and may be institutionalised. It's impossible to know.

And given the state of the NHS it is likely that some women won't be able to access the screening tests they need, and will go past the limit without the opportunity to make an informed choice.

Lastly, doing it this way is dishonest, patronising and patriarchal. Typical Tory behaviour. I am furious.

Realistically most tfmr’s for Down syndrome would occur shortly after the 12 week scan

where it happens later it tends to be either because it was missed at the earlier screening, or where parents decided to continue after a diagnosis but found additional problems at the 20-22 week anatomy scan that make it likely that the foetuses problems would be more extensive than first thought or where women were in difficult life circumstances that meant they missed normal early prenatal care

in any of those circumstances it is not fair or reasonable to force a woman to continue a pregnancy where she doesn’t feel it’s the right decision for her and her family

Exactly - sneaking in a measure to restrict women’s access to reproductive healthcare into a criminal justice bill that’s at a late stage of parliamentary passage (to minimise the opportunity for women’s groups to respond or organise) seems very low…

The party who know what a woman is - an incubator.

I am worried about what's happening in the States - not least because we tend to follow suit! I was horrified to learn that in some states a pregnant woman can no longer get divorced.

And yes, I would agree that where diagnosis is late, it's not fair to hold a woman to a 24 week window

But if there are other medical reasons in addition to the DS, that would still open up tfmr.

Your comment is incredibly ableist. Someone can need lifelong personal care and still have a fantastic quality of life.

Late aborting just on the basis of a DS diagnosis is eugenics.

Yeah, it's a cross-party move but whatever.

And some woman has to provide that lifelong care? What about her quality of life?

I'm comfortable with this change. I have volunteers with DS who have really good quality of life, 2 have paid work as well. If additional medical issues are identified then the limit would not apply anyway

That's worrying. I had a high risk flagged at 19 weeks and then further investigations, taking me to 21/22 weeks. Fortunately, DS was robustly healthy and there was no decision to make, but if there had been, that timescale feels horribly tight. Particularly given the current struggles of the NHS.

It's not that much of a reach to imagine a scenario where women have to carry a pregnancy to term, because they weren't able to access investigations in time.

I don't think you want to start permitting or disallowing abortion on potential future life of the foetus. That's the road to a full ban. Abortion is to do with the mother. Not the foetus.

The logical next step is stopping abortions based on the mental/physical health of the mother 'because I know some adults whose mothers were depressed/disabled and they had a great life.'

Nothing ableist about it. I am simply putting the woman and her rights first. Every woman should be able to choose whether or not she is able to give a good life to a child who may be non verbal, completely dependent, likely to develop dementia at a young age. This is about choice.

People like to romanticise Downs based on those who have a mild form, but every woman should be able to choose whether to take the risks that exist.

Most tfmr after 24 weeks are not for Downs, but forcing a woman to have a child with Downs when the diagnostic process fails is cruel.

ive not managed to find the text of the amendment- so I’m not sure whether/how robustly addition co-occurring conditions would be carved out. Even if there is a carve out where there are co-occurring conditions we shouldn’t underestimate the chilling effect on doctors and women worrying whether or not they’ll have fallen within the exception or found to have committed a criminal act for providing or accessing medical care