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 hope it will be their undoing. It's beyond manipulative, it's cynical and it's dangerous. Kids should never be made to feel that their choice is either potentially life altering drugs/surgery or suicide. I can't believe this narrative has been tolerated for so long with such little evidence.

I always feel a little sorry for Victoria Gillick: it must be so galling for her that she went to court to try to prevent girls under sixteen from having contraceptives made available to them with their parents' knowledge, and her name is now attached to the principle that girls under sixteen are allowed contraceptives so long as they can show they understand what they are for.

So her name has come to mean the opposite of what she wanted.

Unfortunately Abortion Rights is one of the groups that has been proud to be part of the trans narrative - ie they talk about people who need abortions!

Also there is this tendancy, which we have seen in response to some gender critical feminist campaigning, that if you work with or share a platform with someone (or a group) not deemed to be of the correct political adherence, then you are assumed to be suspect.

But from posts up thread it would seem that they had a quick reflex response without thinking it through (whether or not influenced by their own position on trans issues).

Not forgetting the WPUK felt it necessary to refer to the earlier cases the Barrister has been associated with.

But as they are employed by someone to argue their right to have those views, isn't that what their profession is.

What would be more worrying is to find out that no other Barrister would take the case, because they didn't want to be seen as anti trans.

Although as far as I know Keira Bell has never said she is against those who might want to transition. She is arguing that young people aren't competent to understand the medical implications.

And having an abortion (assuming it is done safely) does not have the same long term physical implications that trans medication (and possible later surgery) does.

The case reinforces the correct application of Gillick competence.

If a young girl can demonstrate that she understands the consequences of continuing a pregnancy or ending it, she can legally consent to a termination.

And fwiw the high court haven't banned pb. if that same child could demonstrate the same deep level of understanding around her future infertility and long term health complications, in theory, she could still consent to puberty blockers.

However, it will all be fine/it won't happen to me/I'll harm myself (and worse) if you don't let me have them, don't meet the standard for informed consent.

I watched Marcus Evans talking to Erin Brewer (link on the thread about Times/Tavistock articles).

In it, he describes the absolute certainty of a ‘trans’ child consenting to puberty blockers as a sign of their immaturity and inability to forward think, as it’s a massive step and a mature adult making a similar, potentially life and/or health altering decision would feel some trepidation and caution about it.

The abortion argument is a ridiculous one. Gillick itself is literally about contraceptive advice. Another 2008 case called Axon is about contraception, including abortion. Both cases are from the House of Lords, so a higher court than the High Court. The idea that a HC ruling would affect existing precedent is ludicrous. People who are saying this stuff (including lawyers) are scaremongering to the extreme.

The treatments can very clearly be distinguished. Abortion does not involve life long or irreversible consequences. Quite the opposite - continuing with the pregnancy would have lifelong consequences. Ending it would not.
The effects of abortion are well known and, other in a few rare cases, it does not have adverse effects on future health or fertility.
Abortion has a clear therapeutic benefit in terms of mental health and forcing a person who does not want to be pregnant to continue with the pregnancy amounts to a gross interference with autonomy. Where the physical health of the pregnant woman is threatened by pregnancy, abortion can be life-saving.
The issues for the patient to weigh up are nowhere near those for puberty blockers. It’s been standard practice since Gillick for doctors to take consent from under 16s for abortion. This won’t change at all post-Bell.

I’m honestly embarrassed on behalf of the seemingly well-educated people who are peddling this bullshit. Why a bunch of adults are so keen for young children to undergo gender reassignment is beyond me. The number of detransitioners will no doubt increase over the next decade as the effects of this stuff become clear. These people will have egg on their faces.

Also, while I think that PBs do offer relief for the child with GD, this is because the child has been sold a lie that changing sex is possible. That’s what Keira found out - that despite taking hormones and changing her body, she still wasn’t like a natal male. Giving blockers is just delaying the inevitable. At some point, the lie will become obvious and if you’re already down the path of surgery and CSH then you won’t be able to undo all the damage.

@BettyDuKeiraBellisMyShero

I watched Marcus Evans talking to Erin Brewer (link on the thread about Times/Tavistock articles).

In it, he describes the absolute certainty of a ‘trans’ child consenting to puberty blockers as a sign of their immaturity and inability to forward think, as it’s a massive step and a mature adult making a similar, potentially life and/or health altering decision would feel some trepidation and caution about it.

This is extremely true. Not hesitating shows you don’t understand it and haven’t thought it through. Loss of sexual function, fertility and a lifetime of medication and surgery are things that would make someone stop and think.

There are trans people and TRAs really spreading this 'Keira Bell ruling now, abortion rights next' narrative.

Many are basing their tweets on American Roe vs Wade ruling, rather than British law, but it's gaining a lot of traction.

A moment or two's logical thought shows the difference, though. It might make a slogan or two, but when there's no massive push to defund NHS contraception and termination services and when no judicial reviews about abortion access are forthcoming, it will all sound pretty hollow.

It all depends on the kind of far right, religious fundamentalist thinking and lobbying seen in the US. The kind of thing that might have had Roe v Wade overturned by a conservative packed supreme court in a theoretical second Trump presidential term.

But look - it didn't happen. It isn't going to happen there. It never was going to happen here. Our system doesn't work like that. GC people here are a right mix of right and left and people like me - older, more-left-than-right wave 2 dyed-in-the-wool feminists are not in some secret league with southern Trump-supporting Bible belt far-right conservatives. There is no dark money. Not in my pocket, not in any feminist's. Not for this. Not in the UK.

My overriding problem is that I have no political home any more. That and the fear that everything the suffragist and suffragettes and all the feminists since fought for since - all the gains women have made - are suddenly at risk from a quirky lobby group that is impervious to logic and in denial about biological reality. And the terror about what's happening to children and young people for whom safeguarding seems to have failed utterly.

I hope the pendulum has completed its outward swing and is poised to come back.

Books and academic articles and dissertations and theses will be written about all this, soon, and people will scarcely believe what they read and what was risked.

Presumably you haven't read the judgement? I'm certain ARUK haven't.

This goes back to Datun's point about the poor impression these organisations give to the world. Abortion Rights should have made it their business to understand this judgment for the benefit of the women who seek their help. If they were a serious minded organisation with integrity (and with a grown up in charge of their social media comms) they'd have corrected the misinformation being shared (including mistakenly by themselves) about this. They might even have put out a statement about the fact that this won't impact abortion rights. But they haven't, they've simply deleted a reactive tweet that stoked the flames of a fake news furore (way too much alliteration there, apols) and are now sitting back. That's not the best thing to do for stakeholders who might be concerned about this. It's poor practice.

It won't gain traction because what it illustrates is those who are sharing how they don't like the finding of this judgement have nothing more than drama, exaggeration and plain made up stuff. Those running around screaming that the sky will fall either haven't read or haven't understood the judgement. That simple. What posters like this are in fact doing is training the general public to start reacting as they do to a teenager having a wobble where you say "can you do the washing up" and you get the slammed door and the "You hate me for x!" screamed back. This behaviour does not help credibility.

if that same child could demonstrate the same deep level of understanding around her future infertility and long term health complications, in theory, she could still consent to puberty blockers.

Considering the number of adults in what ought to be reputable organisations with some basic common sense who are demonstrating that even some adults don't seem to be able to even listen to or understand information from an objective judgement when it involves facts they don't like...… it's doing a lot of work in proving that a child would be even less well equipped for this.

Yes, it's weird that these people (including lawyers and abortion charities) are peddling the idea that 'Gillick Competence' actually means 'under 16s can consent to anything'. When it means that 'children can consent to certain things, if they understand it fully', doesnt it?

The Keira Bell case applied the Gillick Competence principle to come to conclusion that it did? If a minor can demonstrate that they have been given all the facts about what a pathway of puberty blockers could potentially mean, with statistics, side effects, what happens if they do go onto cross sex hormones, and demonstrate that they fully understand the consequences of all of that etc then potentially they would be allowed them. They are not 'banned' for kids.

But that is a far cry from what seemed to be happening which was 'these reversible drugs are a pause to give you some thinking time'.

Why do these people think you can't get a tattoo until you are 18?

As an aside I got a terrible tattoo when I was 18, that I am now stuck with forever. Luckily it's in a place that I can hide it, it didn't make me infertile, didn't give me bone issues, didn't mean I would be on medication forever, didnt affect my brain development. It's just a small crap pattern on my skin.

And Michael Cashman offers this gem
twitter.com/mcashmanCBE/status/1335315078984429568?s=19

That's a proper gem from Cashman.

They're coming for lesbians and gays already.

I call this tweet 'Cashman's circular firing squad.' There's no one left at the end of it.

I wonder why Abortion Rights UK did delete that Tweet so quickly?

Cashman appears to have completely lost it.

Read the frigging judgement, engage the brain and calm down, for pete's sake.

This behaviour does not help credibility.

Nope. Motivations are being exposed left, right and centre.

There is not a person in the land who believes a 10-year-old can understand what a future orgasm is, or the implications of permanent sterility.

All this raging and gnashing of teeth is hopelessly, and profoundly, revealing. To everyone.

It is, finally, legitimising dissent. It's stopped people being afraid.

It is, finally, legitimising dissent. It's stopped people being afraid.

I think you are right. Look at the comments on this Amnesty U.K. Facebook post. People just aren’t down for the NHS using controversial experimental drugs on gay and autistic children and teenagers and they aren’t afraid to say it.

www.facebook.com/AmnestyUK/photos/a.398583814394/10158816950469395/?type=3

Oops. Trying that link again: www.facebook.com/AmnestyUK/photos/a.398583814394/10158816950469395/?type=3

Bollocks.

Made an archive, seeing as direct linking seems impossible. Hope this works!

archive.md/nPUNa

Maybe Abortion Rights deleted because they have a mix of libs and rads involved and the rads told them they’d got the wrong end of the stick?

Or maybe Abortion Rights tweeted before they’d read the actual judgment and realised they were wrong. Which would have made them notice the Twitter fearmongering about Gillick that continues shit stirring about this, completely inaccurately.

In which case it would be a good public service announcement if Abortion Rights could please tweet about the inaccurate shit stirring and remind everyone that gillick and Axon are both perfectly safe, because Bell affects neither. That would be a good use of Abortion Rights’ expertise. Will stay hopeful for that one while not actually holding my breath.

A lot of these people are coming across as deeply unpleasant and a bit thick