Abortion Rights UK tweet about Keira Bell case

[Manderleyagain]

Abortion rights UK have tweeted about the case.
mobile.twitter.com/Abortion_Rights/status/1335165087166963712

"Let' talk about the Keira Bell v Tavistock judgement & the instructing solicitor Paul Conrathe, an activist lawyer with a LONG history of taking on anti-abortion cases.

This case has far-reaching implications beyond trans lives, it has the potential to rob young people to access abortion & conception."

" JUST FEW HIGHLIGHTS FROM Paul Conrathe CV

1990 Argues that the Abortion Act is amended restricting time limits from 28 to 24

2001 He sought an injunction on behalf of Stephen Hone to force his ex-girlfriend to continue an unwanted pregnancy.

Alliance Defending Freedom and its activities are concerning, There are also allegations that the organisation is pouring dark money into grassroots movements that oppose LGBT+ and sexual reproductive rights."

Short on any factual explanation of how this case will affect the legal situation for abortion access. Long on insinuation.

I glimpsed that tweet before it was taken down. I suspect they acquired some competent legal advice from somewhere. It is still to be had, despite conspicuous examples to the contrary. 🙄

Am I missing something? Is it standard to hire a Barrister on their political beliefs or for their competency for winning difficult cases?

I would have thought in some instances having a team made up of people with differing opinions but who can find unique angles and arguments to win is better than engaging a team that wholly agrees with the client and relies on the same ideological arguments because they believe they are righteous. Like a team who believes that 12 year olds having sex is a good example of that 12 yr old displaying competence.

(I realise that there are persuasive feminist arguments around fewer limits on abortion, but I do think our middling legal position of a 24 week limit helps prevent the British public falling into sort of political polarisation we see elsewhere)
That’s a really really good point! There’s idealism, and there’s middle ground that saves either extreme holding sway. Excellent point.

The critiques seem to be working on the basis that Gillick means a child can consent to all treatments or no treatments, if consent to one treatment is removed then consent to all can be removed. Like it's all or nothing with no middle ground.

In my understanding, Gillick is about informed consent. The ruling was that for this specific treatment, a child cannot be informed. Partly as the treatment is "experimental" and the full effects are unknown, or if there is data, GIDs failed to provide it for the ruling. And partly because the evidence available appears to contradict the "pause" narrative and instead indicates that puberty blockers used for gender dysphoria are the start of a longer pathway, with long term effects including loss of sexual function and sterility, and that these things are too far removed from a child's comprehension for a child to be able to consent.

If it's correct that for this treatment a child cannot be fully informed of the possible effects due to them being a. Not fully known and b. Beyond a child's frame of reference, then it would seem like prior to the ruling, Gillick was being breached and this ruling actually protects the Gillick framework?

Maybe I'm reading too much into it but my sense is that the declared implications on abortion and contraception have the undertones of a manipulative threat: give us what we want or women and girls lose their reproductive rights.

If there is evidence and data to show the treatment is the the best thing for these children then I just question why none of it was presented to the court. Stonewall and Mermaids seem to think the evidence is there, so why was it not provided. Either they failed to provide and let down the children, or the court ruling was correct and they're all arguing that these children do not deserve safe guarding and the highest possible standards of care to ensure that they receive the best and most appropriate treatments.

The judgement is crystal clear. This is about puberty blockers and puberty blockers alone. Abortion Rights, Jo Maugham and co are either terminally stupid or deliberately whipping up fear. Disgusting.

This.

Either they did not read the judgement or do not have the capacity to understand it. It's getting extremely depressing to see how irresponsible and downright thick so many of these groups appear to be.

It's just unbelievable that an abortion rights org is falling over itself to say that abortion rights have been weakened by this. Their one job is to robustly promote women's access to terminations. You need to understand the law and your rights to do that. They are obfuscating the law and thereby undermining their core mission - for what? to prop up experimentation on children without proper consent!

They are either so utterly brainwashed by feminine socialisation to 'be kind' that they prioritise that over their core mission or they are deliberately wicked. Those are the only conclusions I can reach.

It seems to be becoming increasingly the case that any organisation who reacts with a lot of passionate emotive drama rarely has any real grip on their brief or what they're talking about.

Herewatdthewoke
It struck me that was probably the reason they deleted. Their second tweet gave the impression that the high court has ruled in such a way that the laws which children/teens depend on for abortion access are now not clear. But that puts abortion rights UK in the position of promoting access to something they have just admitted might not be lawful.

I expect they had some proper legal advice. A more sensible position for them would be - the legislative & case law underpinning for girls to have abortions is secure. But anti abortion campaigners might try & use this new ruling so we should get our arguments ready.

An anti abortion campaigner trying to use a court of protection to prevent a girl having an abortion is going to get a judge who does exactly what this judgement requires: impartially weighs up the best interests of the child who is pregnant, taking on board lifetime impact as well as immediacy. It is never going to be in the best interests of a young girl to be forced to go through a pregnancy and birth.

At the moment it would not be some poor judge trying to weigh up the best interests of the pregnant child and the unborn child, although I have no doubt this will come. However I would imagine it would then legally go much the way the very distressing court cases have gone when separation of conjoined twins is of very high or fatal risk to the other twin; that it cannot be in the best interests of one child to be used as a life support facilitator at their own detriment for the benefit of the other child.

Is there any precedent for the judge in the case to come out and say no that's not right, abortion and contraception is not affected.

Or are they relying on the fact that uninformed, manipulative, or hyperbolic opinions are just that.

I wondered if JM or the GLP were contacting organisations like Abortion Rights and spinning the situation to build up support for his campaign. Hence he was able to say he knew of organisations who were afraid of speaking out. They then deleted it on the back of sensible legal advice? Maybe.

Everyone has made such excellent points. What these organisations are doing is spreading “fake law” and scaring people. It’s despicable. It’s worth noting the original gillick case was all about whether teens could consent to contraception even if they couldn’t legally consent to sex. The court said they could consent so long as they understood the treatment. No one is taking competency or the requirements of consent away from kids.

@HecatesCatsInXmasHats

I wondered if JM or the GLP were contacting organisations like Abortion Rights and spinning the situation to build up support for his campaign. Hence he was able to say he knew of organisations who were afraid of speaking out. They then deleted it on the back of sensible legal advice? Maybe.

He directly tweeted @ Abortion Rights asking why they weren't commenting in outrage at this imaginary problem of his.

Seems like they took his word without actually looking any deeper, then deleted when they realised he's talking out of his arse, as per.

He directly tweeted @ Abortion Rights asking why they weren't commenting in outrage at this imaginary problem of his.* Seems like they took his word without actually looking any deeper*.

Ah, thanks. So they didn't even need the hard sell then. That's just daft.

@HecatesCatsInXmasHats

He directly tweeted @ Abortion Rights asking why they weren't commenting in outrage at this imaginary problem of his.* Seems like they took his word without actually looking any deeper*.

Ah, thanks. So they didn't even need the hard sell then. That's just daft.

It makes him look duplicitous. And it makes them look reactionary.

The fact they've deleted the tweet, now makes them look stupid, and him look even more wrong.

I'm constantly amazed at how people don't realise the poor impression they are giving the entire world.

@WeeBisom

Everyone has made such excellent points. What these organisations are doing is spreading “fake law” and scaring people. It’s despicable. It’s worth noting the original gillick case was all about whether teens could consent to contraception even if they couldn’t legally consent to sex. The court said they could consent so long as they understood the treatment. No one is taking competency or the requirements of consent away from kids.

'Fake law' - thank you, Bisom, that's an excellent phrase.

Lot of it about.

Ah, thanks. So they didn't even need the hard sell then. That's just daft.

Sorry, I just double checked, and it wasn't JM personally tweeting @ Abortion Rights, he was quote tweeting someone else who was (but it still seems Abortion Rights took the word of Twitter first, muppets)

See what JM is comparing kids not being able to consent to sterilisation to

He really should take a step back before he tweets in on this again.

The spin they put on everything sickens me.

For Gillick competence to be threatened, GIDS would have to have been applying it.

The obvious fact is that they weren’t, and shockingly a group of judges have had to remind them of the duty of care to the children they are experimenting on.

mobile.twitter.com/SafeSchools_UK/status/1334796341319512064

I've just seen these screenshots shared by the safe schools alliance on twitter. Taken from a Facebook group for teachers. I'm especially concerned to see the suicide narrative being bandied about again - puberty blockers are a proven suicide prevention method apparently. This is irresponsible and dangerously misinformed. Sharing here as post also refers to gillick and implications for abortion and morning after pill.

@NotBadConsidering

It’s just as fair to say that being given puberty blockers at 13 is akin to continuing a pregnancy as it is to being allowed an abortion. Why is it automatically painted as the opposite? I mean just like at the comparisons between a 13 year old deciding to continue a pregnancy, or being made to continue a pregnancy like in some countries) and going on puberty blockers:

• An idealised view of what the future will bring.
• Failure of adults to protect the child from the trauma that led to that point and the medical implications from that point on.
• a decision driven by ideology in countries where children are made to continue.

It can surely be argued that Keira’s decision reinforces abortion rights for children under the age of 16, because it recognises that they cannot consent to the impregnation that got them there and continuing a pregnancy, despite what they or adults around them might think.

The reality is nothing will change with this because the two situations are not actually comparable because abortion and pregnancy aren’t experimental.

Agree with all of this and all pps that have shown that the judgement took pains to be PB specific, virtually in every sentence.

And agree that mentioning a few past cases that the lawyer has taken on in place of a proper argument is... feeble. They should have had the decency to retract properly, not just delete

I'm especially concerned to see the suicide narrative being bandied about again - puberty blockers are a proven suicide prevention method apparently.

It's making me so angry.

There is no proof that not taking PB's causes suicide. If there were so many children taking their own lives, it would be big news, there's no way we've somehow missed it being reported.

We'd need the number of suicides and evidence that that number has lowered because of PB's to prove they're an effective prevention. But the stats don't seem to exist, funnily enough (and thank God they don't).

Sadly, the only thing I've seen regarding suicide and puberty blockers is the teenager who took their life having actually been prescribed them by those shady bastards that are now abroad.

*prescribed hormones, sorry, from the shady bastards. Not necessarily PB's.

Sadly, the only thing I've seen regarding suicide and puberty blockers is the teenager who took their life having actually been prescribed them by those shady bastards that are now abroad.

Indeed.

And if the statistics were true, you would be seeing a suicide a week.

The Tavistock themselves said that suicide is extremely rare.

Questionable suicide statistics have been used to advocate for child transition.

Fortunately, more people are now asking all the right questions. And in this case, the judiciary.

Questionable suicide statistics have been used to advocate for child transition.
Fortunately, more people are now asking all the right questions. And in this case, the judiciary

Absolutely. The people pushing the suicide myth are beyond contempt. It seems they're deliberately inviting tragedy to try and make a case. They are the ones ultimately harming children. If they actually cared about kids, they wouldn't be telling them that they should be feeling suicidal.

It's disgraceful that no one has stepped in and put a stop to this.