Janice on 37 week abortions

[ResisterOfTwaddleRex]

It’s hard to believe we might be about to permit abortions at this stage. But apparently we are. I wish we’d stop uncritically adopting US arguments. As Janice says, what we have is settled. No good can come of this.

Binning old laws can have huge consequences

https://www.thetimes.com/article/6354fc89-2c78-47bd-a610-92550986e9a8?shareToken=3fdaded352ab155cbb6cfbe48e5cf3d7

https://x.com/timesradio/status/1932364290549325939?s=46&t=WHoOZ_3Kv5G6-FyQuvE0LQ

Third trimester abortion are almost exclusively terminations for medical reasons.

It would be brilliant if this passed.

We are not going to permit abortions completely. The rules on medical professionals are exactly the same regardless of whether this bill passes. Doctors will still be prosecuted if they provide abortion on demand beyond 24 weeks gestation.

The change means that we won’t prosecute women who were mistaken on their dates when accessing abortion pills or desperate enough to try to end a late term pregnancy without medical help. I can’t understand how it has ever been considered in the public interest to prosecute these tbh.

The change also means we can stop investigating women who have suffered still-births. No woman should have to worry about the police when dealing with such tragedy.

This.
👏👏👏

This is not about permitting abortions up to 37 weeks. It's about not criminalising pregnant women who miscarry or abort @ResisterOfTwaddleRex.

They should just reinstate the requirement for a scan before issuing the drugs.

Spontaneous pregnancy loss after 24 weeks is common: it's a waste of police time for them to have to treat every one as a potential crime, quite apart from being utterly heartless to the bereaved mother.

Having said that, I'm less pessimistic than JT about the unintended consequences. Most cases so far seem to be down to mistakes about dates. And an HCP (or coercive partner) who administers the drugs can still be criminally liable.

They don't have the resources. It would be fantastic if they did. But the problem is there are simply not enough appointments for scans etc in time

Well, that's appalling. Even if an accidental late termination is decriminalised, its still potentially medically dangerous, surely?

I don’t think we need to change the law so much as spend police time better. If a woman or midwife raises concern about abuse, someone being poisoned with abortifacients, investigate. Otherwise, why the hell would they pick that particular possible crime to investigate over all the others they ignore.

Yes, it is, it's very poor medical practice.

They should just reinstate the requirement for a scan before issuing the drugs.

I agree this is sensible. Issuing pills by post was always wide open to abuse - including where women (and girls) could unknowingly take them, where someone who wants to make decisions for them, could decide to do so (there has been such a case).

Spontaneous pregnancy loss after 24 weeks is common

Is this common? Or does it happen? I’m not aware it’s common.

We also need to interrogate the cases that the police have taken to investigation/charge stage. What is behind that? We don’t know. There’s been no analysis SFAIK

The public will never get behind 37 week abortions. Meddle with this at your peril. The pendulum will swing back. Hard. We are already an outlier in Europe and could end up with 12 week limits in the longer run.

Do you really think that the law is what is currently preventing women just casually aborting at 37 weeks pregnant?

The last year I can find stats for is 2022, where there were 251,000 abortions in England and wales.
260 were done after 24 weeks. That is 0.1%. And I wouldn’t be surprised if most of those were done close to 24 weeks, following an abnormal 20 week scan leading to a diagnosis.

The public will never get behind 37 week abortions. Meddle with this at your peril. The pendulum will swing back. Hard. We are already an outlier in Europe and could end up with 12 week limits in the longer run.

Nobody is advocating 37 week abortions. Some people are trying to misrepresent this bill probably to stir up the exact reaction you’re talking about. The thing to do is to fight back with the truth, not sacrifice an excellent bill for women out of fear.

Over 2,000 post 24 week losses a year in England (almost half a percent of births).

As previous poster pointed out, this does not provide greater access to abortion at 37 weeks as it will still be illegal for medical practitioners to provide one. But it does stop a loss becoming a criminal matter if there isn’t a suggestion of assault by others.

Issuing pills by post has some pros and some cons and needs careful monitoring to ensure the pros out weigh the cons. But it’s a separate matter to whether abortion should be a criminal matter for women.

There is always a backlash to feminism and the fight for women's rights. We can't let that stop us.

Literally anyone can go online and buy abortion pills to be mailed to them from out of country. Of course it’s safer if women have a scan before (and after) taking them, but not everyone is in a situation where that is feasible.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jun/16/abortion-law-injustice-mps-can-act-to-revoke-legislation-this-week

Guardian opinionator misses the point, conflates issue with right to choose and legal time limit debate 🙄

IANAL but am a doctor. My understanding is that it’s not illegal for women to have an abortion after 24 weeks gestation. The difference is that in order for it to be legal doctors would need to say there is a risk to the Mother's life or severe fetal abnormalities or risk of “grave” mental or physical harm to the mother in continuing the pregnancy.
Not meeting this criteria is what constitutes a crime under the Offences Against the Person Act.
Removing this from the statute book doesn’t mean that this criteria under Abortion Act is no longer required.

That's my understanding too. If the criteria set out in the Abortion Act are not met then a crime is committed by (as applicable) the mother, the doctor, and any other party involved whether with the mother's consent or not (eg coercive or deceptive partner). This change would remove liability only from the mother.

(The criteria are: 'on demand' up to 24 weeks; grave medical emergency at any time; or serious fœtal abnormality at any time; and two doctor's signatures, unless the medical emergency is so pressing as to make it dangerous to wait.)

IANAD, but I really don't see how this change would make abortion 'on demand' at 37 weeks even remotely possible, which is how it's being spun.

I don’t think this would make it easy to get an abortion at 37 weeks, but I am confused about how this would interact with e.g. the guilty verdict in the Constance Maarten case.

I don’t really understand why the proposed treatment would be different.

CM's been charged with gross neglect manslaughter of a child, a different crime.

I can see that the legislation used is different but I don’t see that the ethics are that different.

As far as I can see Constance Marten is also vulnerable.

They should just reinstate the requirement for a scan before issuing the drugs.

this seems necessary, if for no other reason than the woman’s health.

I agree with you about the ethics, but I was wondering whether an unassisted abortion would even be feasible that late. If not then the numbers shouldn't go up.

I don’t know - I’m imagining a situation where taking the drugs harms the baby.

I also wonder whether, even if this law were amended (iIt seems to apply specifically to abortion) other legislation could be used to prosecute the woman.

Does the law make a distinction if the baby is harmed before birth? I was under the impression that a third party could be prosecuted for harming a baby before birth?

Hopefully this will all be covered in the debate. My interpretation is that the intention is to relieve the mother, and only the mother, of criminal liability for anything done by her up to the point of delivery. But she would still be liable if she harmed the baby after delivery. Third parties would be liable throughout in the normal way, irrespective of consent by the mother.

It looks as if taking abortifacients in very late in pregnancy could just induce delivery (??). Whereas the types of abortions PP are catastrophising about on the other thread (involving fœticide) would require a doctor who would still be criminally liable.