More institutional capture - 'pro-lifers' this time.

[LangClegsInSpace]

This post is about the right to abortion, the activities of the ‘National Down’s Syndrome Policy Group’ and the Downs Syndrome Bill, presently before the UK Parliament.

makingrightsmakesense.wordpress.com/2022/01/21/a-cunning-fox/

The Bill has passed now, it's just waiting for royal assent. The next thing to happen will be the consultation.

Also relevant is the APPG group on DS, resurrected by NDSPG in 2021. They approached Dr Lisa Cameron MP (SNP) to chair.

ndspg.org/appg/

Here is Lisa Cameron sharing the love with SPUC. 'SNP MP Dr Lisa Cameron receives pro-life thank-you notes':

Also relevant is the abortion act judicial review being brought by Heidi Crowter and Maire Lea-Wilson. They lost but have been given leave to appeal. Long thread here:

www.mumsnet.com/talk/feminism/4289660-Late-term-abortion-high-court

It's all the same people.

ndspg.org/

What is the Down Syndrome Bill for?

Really interesting analysis. Thank you for pointing the way to it.

The bill achieved royal assent yesterday. 'Pro-lifers' are all out in the comments.

The Down Syndrome Act does nothing. It basically says the secretary of state must consult and write some guidance and certain public bodies must say they've considered it. That's it.

What's it for?

In light of the Roe v Wade news I'm bumping this thread.

Please can we all keep a close eye on threats to abortion rights in the UK?

This is from a statement Mencap submitted to the appeal court in support of Heidi Crowter's case:

16. Despite the progress that has been made in both legislation and outcomes for people with disabilities, s1(1)(d) Abortion Act stands out as an offensive anachronistic anomaly in the legislative landscape. It conveys the powerful message that a life with a disability is a lesser life, even a life not worth living. It should have no place in a modern inclusive society that values all people. At Mencap we urge the Court to grant permission to appeal and ultimately declare that s1(1)(d) is incompatible with the human rights of people with disabilities, so that Parliament revisits this legislation.

www.mencap.org.uk/crowter-case-statement

A LD charity is campaigning to remove women's reproductive rights. If they want to reduce stigma I suggest they start by changing their name.

The US Ambassador (or the Chargé d'Affaires who is filling in between appointments) hosted a big party the other day to celebrate the passing of the Down Syndrome Act. Which is a bit weird.

twitter.com/USAmbUK/status/1524313751540928512

As well as being an ardent pro-lifer, Liam Fox has always been very keen on the 'special relationship'.

There are two other very committed anti abortion campaigners in the APPG as well as Lisa Cameron - Lord Alton and Lord Shinkwin, both of whom have introduced bills attempting to lower the time limit. Lisa Cameron is also a member of the pro-life APPG.

appg-ds.org/members/

I predict that if Heidi Crowter's case fails, which I suspect it will, we can look forward to a new bill attempting to lower time limits.

Thanks for this

It is not true it does nothing - it does something very significant - it sets up a hierarchy amongst individuals with learning disabilities/genetic conditions whereby resource's and attention are directed towards DS and away from other conditions.

I'm not sure it would be lawful for public bodies to actually do that, Lovelyricepudding.

EHRC say - Treating a disabled person with a particular disability more favourably than other disabled people may be lawful in some circumstances.

They go on to give examples of specific exceptions like occupational requirement and positive action.

www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/disability-discrimination#lawful

This suggests to me that unless it falls within a particular exception it would be unlawful direct discrimination. I don't think there's any relevant case law yet.

As it is, no extra money is being provided and the DSA just says public bodies must give 'due regard' to whatever guidance is produced, so their safest bet is just to say 'yes, we have read and considered it' and to carry on as they were.

But it is now law for public bodies to give due regard to guidance about DS but not about other conditions (due regard means slightly more than just reading and considering - you have to have reasons for not following, though the reasons don't need to be strong ones). So either being required to do so by a specific act of parliament sets up a lawful exemption or this act sets up an equal requirement for all conditions despite not stating this. Many other organisations, like Unique, are concerned about this bill and were not reassured on this point despite correspondence on this.

I'm just going by legal opinions I've read, e.g.

www.specialneedsjungle.com/whats-point-downs-syndrome-bill-parents-view-legal-opinion/

I can understand why people are worried though, it's incredibly divisive and it's being hailed as 'groundbreaking', a 'world first' etc. All sorts of claims are being made for what it will apparently do.

A date has been set for Heidi Crowter and Maire Lea-Wilson's appeal - 13 July

twitter.com/LizCrowterDSmum/status/1526171626357792770

The appeal hearing is this morning. It should be live streamed on this channel from 10.30:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjSA-JNvLMuYFVKowGrS76w/featured

Let’s call them what they are, forced birthers. They don’t care about life or they’d do anything to help life after embryo stage. These people are almost always against anything that accomplishes that.