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.

Liam Fox is the vainest politician I have ever met. And I say that as someone who has met Hamza Yusuf...

In reality all it will do is create more people who will be discriminated against, by forcing women to give birth to babies who will then suffer their entire lives due to the utter lack of any kind of support for them or their carers.

I couldn't cope with raising a child with downs syndrome. If someone else could, more power to them. But i couldn't due to circumstances, finances and other disabilities. If i found i was carrying a pregnancy and the baby was affected by downs, i would have to terminate. My husband is a carrier for cystic fibrosis and my dsc suffers with the condition. I couldn't cope with that either, so i was tested knowing that if i was also a carrier, i would not be able to continue a pregnancy with an affected child. The NHS would have offered selective IVF. By offering me the chance to avoid a child being affected by CF does that mean they are discriminating against people with CF?

Me wanting to be tested doesn't mean children with CF (or downs syndrome) aren't valued, worthy or loved. It means in my personal life, i could not cope with raising a child with severe disabilities. how would it be right for anyone else to force me to go through with a pregnancy that i couldn't cope with the resulting child, and then offer NO support to me or that child?

If society actually helped disabled people and didn't treat carers like the lowest of the low, and gave them respite, schools, healthcare - maybe more people would feel able to cope. The abortion rates for disabilities is more than likely a product of the society. How can individual women be blamed for that?

Late terminations are vanishingly rare. And DS os a syndrome, with many many variations. Some people with DS can live independently, others are unable to speak, eat and be doubly incontinent.

One part of the syndrome is heart defects. It can be a simple ASD or it can be tetralogy of Fallot.

This has the stink of Heidi Crowter et al all over it.

And if it's wrong to discriminate against a foetus because it has three of chromosome 21, why is it ok to do it to a foetus with three of chromosome 18 or 13. Using their logic, are they arguing the most vulnerable foetus doesn't warrant protection?

Why has she not been able to access before the date though? I assume the point about this amendment is that they would have had time to access an abortion before 24 weeks (in theory)

This has been explained upthread:

• NHS screening delays
• Uncertainty about dates
• Actually wanting time to think and consider
• Unexpected outcomes from screening requiring further tests, which take the pregnancy past 24 weeks

This amendment is about chipping away at abortion rights in the UK and nothing else.

Because it is not always apparent before then. Not everything shows on ultrasound.

This doesn't just impact British women, many women come to Britain (I don't think NI has a clinic yet) to access abortion.

Someone like Ms Y for instance. I know it is a wikki link but it is quite neutral in language.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ms_Y

Ah the image of DS as a happy, cute child playing the the woods. You never see the overweight, stubborn adult with DS who is aggressive and suffering early onset dementia. It's all not so palatable then! There seems to be a movement towards depicting DS as a 'mild' learning impairment where people can live independent lives with a bit of support and acceptance. This is absolutely not the case in my experience and even those who seem only mildly impacted can need high levels of support from their families to keep them happy, health and safe. This is a huge burden for parents and also siblings when the parents get too old to cope or die.

All of this needs to be factored in when choosing to have a child. I think there is a 'load' that a family can take before it begins to break. Having a child with DS is going to increase the load much more than most children. This could have huge ramifications for the parents and existing siblings. Society has little appetite to support families enough to lessen the load effectively. This is the reality of DS and why the abortion limit should be higher and the proposed amendment is very worrying. Who will pick up the pieces when all these children and adults with DS need lifelong support and the family unit can't cope?

I remember a while back noticing a small movement to try and rebrand DS as just a chromosome difference. As though the increased risk of leukaemia and heart defects are just cute quirks. I did wonder what the real agenda behind that was.

Ok.

what can we do to fight this?

my mp is pro life so I know she’s no help.
I am aware the funding of this campaign is from American pro lifers so this really is the start

Still no amendment laid in the parliamentary papers on Friday. I wondering if he’s going to lay anything at all or whether he was just running around making announcements to try to stir up anti-abortion feelings.

Looking like some quite irresponsible reporting from the Times presenting a not even drafted amendment as a done deal - don’t know if it was poor editing or an attempt to push an agenda.

Bpas is the main organisation that seems to be saying anything about it from a political/campaigning type perspective and arc (antenatal results and choices) is the main charity in the uk that supports women facing these situations personally (so are both organisations worth supporting).

I’ve not seen any direct response (other than the bpas one another posters pasted on this thread) - but please post a link if anyone else finds anything/anyone organising.

I don’t know much about the IPSO process- but I don’t know if it’s worth complaining about the times inaccurate reporting presenting an unlaid amendment as a done deal - especially in such a sensitive area which might cause additional worry/stress for someone facing Tfmr decisions around the time of reporting.

Looking at the IPSO website it looks like anyone can submit a complaint about inaccuracy of reporting - so I’ve put a complaint into them about the times article in the following terms (in case anyone else wants to put a complaint in as well). I don’t know if it will get anywhere but inaccurate reporting on abortion matters can only hurt women’s rights.

Name of publication(s)
The Times (News UK)
Down syndrome abortions to be banned after 24 weeks ,
Date of article
20/03/24
Article URLs: www.thetimes.co.uk/article/downs-syndrome-abortion-reform-wins-cross-party-support-xjjshjl6w

Clauses breached
1 Accuracy
The article headline (and a lot of the introduction to the article) present it as an already done deal that the law is going to be changed to prevent women accessing Termination for medical reasons after 24 weeks where the foetus has Down syndrome. This is not (yet) the case - the backbench amendment to the criminal justice bill has not even been tabled yet - never mind about winning a vote to make it into the Bill.

This kind of wild inaccuracy claiming the law is definitely going to be changed is especially irresponsible in such a sensitive area - where women might currently be facing very difficult decisions about whether or not to continue pregnancies in the face of a late pre-natal diagnosis. These kind of inaccurate headlines misrepresenting the legal position could add extra confusion stress and trauma for women already facing a very difficult situation.

I think a lot of the discrimination experienced by people with DS and families is in part because its possible to identity it before birth. I think that leads to at lot of negativity for parents often being told they should have aborted etc. I don't think any change in dates will improve this aspect of it, unfortunately.

I work with teens with a range of disabilities including DS, the support and care and life chances they have are so dependent upon their parents being able to fight for them. Our LA absolutely exploits parents who are less able to hold them to account. The idea that preventing abortion is in any way supporting the child is absurd.
Lots of politics around DS education at the moment, some of it well mes but not really always in the child’s interest.

I work with teens with a range of disabilities including DS, the support and care and life chances they have are so dependent upon their parents being able to fight for them.

Yes definitely. Also ime for the people who are able to hold down jobs, because there is a such a wide spectrum of DS, the support is really not suitable for them because it’s aimed at much less able people. They still need a level of support but are pretty much excluded from what’s available.

It has been moved now: https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/bills/cbill/58-04/0155/amend/criminal_rm_rep_0327.pdf

To move the following Clause— “Upper gestational limit on abortion where the foetus has Down syndrome In section 1 (Medical termination of pregnancy) of the Abortion Act 1967, at the end of sub-subsection (1)(d) insert “provided that, where that chance arises from a foetus having Down syndrome, the pregnancy has not exceeded the gestational limit identified in sub-subsection (a).”” Member's explanatory statement This new clause would introduce an upper gestational limit for abortions of foetuses with Down syndrome equal to the upper gestational limit for most other abortions. Peter Dowd

It should be noted that there is another amendment

“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.”