Keira judgement and abortion rights

[Lotsofpots]

Long time lurker, who is hugely grateful for the education received through these boards.
Delighted with today's judgment. But it occurs to me that I struggle to reconcile this with my firm belief that young women have the right to an abortion without the consent of their parents.

Are these things reconcilable? Could this judgement impact on abortion rights?

It just felt disconcerting to see the language I use to defend abortion rights used by those arguing that young people should receive puberty blockers.

Could this judgement impact on abortion rights?

No, as abortions are a well-understood procedure with a well-understood aim, and the repercussions of not having it are well understood.

Whereas puberty blockers:

134. The starting point is to consider the nature of the treatment proposed. The administration of PBs to people going through puberty is a very unusual treatment for the following reasons. Firstly, there is real uncertainty over the short and long-term consequences of the treatment with very limited evidence as to its efficacy, or indeed quite what it is seeking to achieve. This means it is, in our view, properly described as experimental treatment. Secondly, there is a lack of clarity over the purpose of the treatment: in particular, whether it provides a “pause to think” in a “hormone neutral” state or is a treatment to limit the effects of puberty, and thus the need for greater surgical and chemical intervention later, as referred to in the Health Research Authority report. Thirdly, the consequences of the treatment are highly complex and potentially lifelong and life changing in the most fundamental way imaginable. The treatment goes to the heart of an individual’s identity, and is thus, quite possibly, unique as a medical treatment.

To repeat that:

very limited evidence as to its efficacy, or indeed quite what it is seeking to achieve

This is not remotely like an abortion.

I’m sorry - can you give examples? My understanding is that if a 12 year old is pregnant having to give birth would not only potentially damage her future but also her body may not yet be fully mature to handle it. If she is on blockers and then hormones she could never mature enough to be able to get pregnant or enjoy sex.

The fact of the matter is that abortion maintains the status quo (ie. having a baby is what would lead to life-changing issues) and is provably safer than pregnancy (especially in children).

This is the exact opposite of puberty blockers, where taking them will lead to life-changing issues, and they are not provably safer than not taking them.

Allowing a teen access to safe abortion provided they are Fraser competent enables them to avoid the life long effects of an unwanted pregnancy and forced birth.

It's the complete opposite of allowing a child to launch themselves down a medical pathway involving unlicenced, off label drugs with potentially life changing side effects (osteoporosis in your 20s) and irreversible changes due to cross sex hormones and surgery.

The two situations are not in the slightest bit comparable: in fact they are polar opposites.

The ruling here doesn't alter anything about Gillick competency, and the ruling agrees that an under-16-year-old could in principle consent to puberty blockers given sufficient understanding, just like any "treatment".

But the court ruled that's it's not clear that this could be possible in practice as there is not enough understanding of puberty blockers by anyone.

One day they /might/ be proved to be safe and to actually benefit - then a child could consent.

So for now any treatment must come via court to make a judgment.

The people arguing this ‘implication’ of Keira’s case (when it isn’t one) are those in the pro-experimental treatments for kids camp.

There is nothing to reconcile.
We can have abortion rights and do away with the notion of 'wrong puberty'.

@ChattyLion

The people arguing this ‘implication’ of Keira’s case (when it isn’t one) are those in the pro-experimental treatments for kids camp.

Absolutely but its good to have the opportunity to debunk that claim

Yes, it shows how little they understand or care about consent.. but then that much is all too clear

The people arguing this ‘implication’ of Keira’s case (when it isn’t one) are those in the pro-experimental treatments for kids camp.

I am somewhat worried that it's projection as usual and that a move towards opposing abortion rights, perhaps on the grounds of "gender equality" and the father having a right to participate in the decision, is on the medium-term horizon.

@allmywhat

The people arguing this ‘implication’ of Keira’s case (when it isn’t one) are those in the pro-experimental treatments for kids camp.

I am somewhat worried that it's projection as usual and that a move towards opposing abortion rights, perhaps on the grounds of "gender equality" and the father having a right to participate in the decision, is on the medium-term horizon.

If you read the judgement the judges have anticipated and rebuffed the objections that Mermaids and the Tavistock are putting out about how the PB judgement could affect other Gillick competency decisions . [ because as we all know Mermaids and the Tavistock care deeply about the well being of young people ].

They ( the judges) have made it quite clear that Gillick competency has been examined thoroughly over the years in other legal situations and judgements -they offer various different cases which have tested the ruling in the past - and are clear that the PB judgement falls into the category where a young person can not be expected (for various reasons) to understand what the long term implications of their treatment is. [In the case of PB this is reinforced of course by the fact that no one knows what the long term effects are for physical, emotional and cognitive development]

Contraception and abortion issues do not fall into this category.

^^ just agreeing with everything Viques already said very eloquently

Oh I know this judgement doesn't affect abortion rights. There are all kinds of complexities to puberty blockers that don't exist in the abortion case, no one needs to study statistics, or attempt to take an objective position on her own adolescent narcissism ,in order to judge whether abortion is the right decision for her.

What I mean is that I am concerned that the TRAs have latched on to "you want to take away abortion rights" so readily, given that everything they accuse us of is projection.

It's completely different. A young girl who has an abortion avoids all the risks and complications associated with under age pregnancy. So the decision to have an abortion does not have a permanent detrimental effect on her life that she needs to understand.

This is completely different to asking a child to understand the consequences of stepping onto the drug and surgery conveyor belt. Asking a child who has never had sex to weigh up the risk of never being able to achieve orgasm, and destroying their future fertility has such enormous, life changing consequences that it is too much for an undeveloped and inexperienced brain to properly consider. Especially if everyone they pay attention to is telling them that it is possible to change sex.

It needs to be remembered that this is an ideology that uses myths, untruths and false equivalences to persuade other. There is a reason that lobby groups have spent so much time and effort focussing on children who don't have the life experiences or wisdom to critically evaluate their beliefs.
Fortunately - as has already been pointed out - the judgement addresses in detail the issues around consent. But to read and understand it would mean trans advocates having to acknowledge that they have been on the wrong side of history in advocating for unethical medical experimentation on children. So they set the squirrels running like the abortion issue. It's worth reading the actual judgement - and quoting it relentlessly at all the gaslighters.

www.judiciary.uk/judgments/r-on-the-application-of-quincy-bell-and-a-v-tavistock-and-portman-nhs-trust-and-others/

I'd have thought the long term implications for a 12 year old carrying & giving birth to a baby are beyond the 12 year old's ability to give informed consent to. It's certainly the more dangerous option to continue with the pregnancy. This applies physically (long term physical adverse affects) and mentally (especially given the likelihood a pregnant 12 year old is a victim of rape and /or neglect. An abortion, which ultimately returns the body to the status quo, may even end up as less medical intervention for a 12 year old than continuing a high risk pregnancy.

It just felt disconcerting to see the language I use to defend abortion rights used by those arguing that young people should receive puberty blockers

Adherents of mainstream trans rights activism (mods and monitors I do not mean trans people by this term. Indeed, in my experience, often unlikely to be trans.) also appropriate the experience of people with disorders of sexual development and the struggle for racial equality. The arguments they submit here are similarly back to front. Disorders of sexual development only exist because of sexual dimorohism and people with dsd are not assigned a sex any longer because medics are able to find out their sex. Racial segregation was a way for the class with the power (white people) to retain power. Sex segregation is a way for the class with less power (females) to find safety away from the class with the power (males).

What is worrying is when you see organisations such as the Tavistock lack the critical thinking skills to unpick these back to front illogical claims. The Tavistock provide training as well as treatment. They used to be very highly regarded.

That's just one of the smokescreens being sent up to obfuscate the judgement.

Use of blockers for their original, well researched purposes is another.

It's despicable.

But, if you read the judgement itself the language used clarifies the matters. There is no issue because the judgement was based on the Tavi having no evidence, no research and no records of long term outcome to justify what they have been doing!

It's frankly scary (though admittedly not surprising) how far people are prepared to misrepresent in order to fit their narrative.

It's abundantly clear in the judgment that the court regards puberty blockers for GD as a unique situation.

Of course, theoretically there could be some other 'treatment' where a drug was prescribed with no evidence base, which had severe life changing side effects where there was no threat to life or even physical symptoms, and the entire raison d'etre of which was to prevent children reaching the state of emotional and intellectual maturity which would allow them to consent to the treatment...and if such a treatment were proposed no doubt the Bell ruling would apply.

Abortion isn't such a treatment though.

Does an abortion permanently impact on a girl's ability to have children later in her life, to be able to experience a sex life as an adult, to not suffer unknown lifelong possible side effects such as uterine atrophy and brittle bones, and reliance on medical care and medication? Is it an experimental procedure with no certainty of outcome? Does it have a possibility of negatively impacting on her IQ and ability to mature her brain as she grows up?

Is it in the best interests of a young girl to have a one off, well known medical procedure with a low risk medical outcome, or to go through a pregnancy and become a mother when a child herself with the risks of pregnancy, birth and the impact on her life and future?

It's not the same thing at all. This is follows the exact same process in putting the needs and the rights of a child under law to the forefront, and considering their objective best interests.

Thanks for this thread, it's useful to have the responses to this topic in an easy to find place, especially as I'm sure we've got a few new lurkers today. (Hello!)

Abortion maintains the status quo (ie. having a baby is what would lead to life-changing issues) and is provably safer than pregnancy, especially in children. This is the exact opposite of puberty blockers, where taking them will lead to life-changing issues, and they are not provably safer than not taking them.

Thanks, Treestumps.

Just to reiterate what DickKerr said, thanks to everyone for commenting and explaining. Stuck inside with a self isolating, potty training toddler so haven't managed to read the full judgement so it's really helpful to have it explained so clearly.

To be clear I don't see abortion and puberty blockers as in the same boat but I didn't feel I had compelling rebuttals to those who inevitably will use one to undermine the other.

Fairly confident that any attempt to use this judgment to restrict abortion rights would get a dusty answer from the courts. There is no equivalence with the subject-matter of this ruling.

Bit of an aside, but if a 12 year old is pregnant she has been raped: anyone under 13 is unable in law to give consent. ( I know the age of consent is 16 but if they are having sex with same aged partners and pass Frasier competencies they would not be prosecuted. Frasier is the law lord who developed the judgment based on Gillick: sorry if you all already knew this)

• 14-16 yr olds having sex with 14-16 yr olds,