Sex selective abortion - SNP review of Scottish law

[ArabellaSaurus]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2025/11/14/abortions-based-on-sex-legalised-plans-snp/

'a report commissioned by the Scottish Government recommends ...establishing an automatic right to an abortion and listing a set of scenarios where it would not be allowed.
The expert review published on Friday said any future legislation should not include any explicit prohibition on sex-selective abortion.
Prof Annie Glasier, who chaired the review, said that the group believed it was “unnecessary” and “potentially harmful” to explicitly prohibit the practice.

She said there was a lack of evidence of it taking place in Scotland, adding that enforcing it would also be difficult because it would require “intrusive and inappropriate questioning” of those seeking an abortion.
She also raised concerns that it would risk “racial profiling” women from particular communities where sex-selective abortion is thought to take place.'

The Review:

https://www.gov.scot/publications/review-abortion-law-scotland-expert-group-report/pages/5/

From the Telegraph article:

'Devi Shah, spokesman for the Stop Gendercide campaign, said: “It’s a heartbreaking reality that, here in the UK, many women face pressure from partners or family members to have a termination simply because they are expecting a girl.”
She added: “If sex-selective abortion is made legal, it will make it much more difficult for women to refuse pressure from relatives or partners to have an abortion based on the baby’s sex.
“There is clear evidence that women in the UK are coming under pressure to have sex-selective abortions, and that sex-selective abortions are already happening here in the UK.
“This situation would almost certainly worsen if sex-selective abortion were legalised in Scotland.”
The 165-page document – commissioned by <a class="break-all" href="https://archive.ph/o/6FHGZ/www.telegraph.co.uk/humza-yousaf/" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">Humza Yousaf, the former first minister – is only the first stage of the Scottish Government’s review into the laws and will now be followed by more evidence gathering on the issue.'

Relevant section of the Review:

'Sex Selective abortion

Several submissions made by faith-based and Pro-Life groups raised concerns regarding sex-selective abortion, noting that the availability of early and accurate sex determination through non-invasive prenatal testing (NIPT) increases the risk of such practices occurring. Some submissions argued that, while the existing law does not explicitly permit abortion on the basis of sex, its ambiguity and the broad interpretation given to Ground C allows for such practices to occur. They cited anecdotal evidence and media investigations suggesting that some women may be pressured into terminating pregnancies based on the sex of the fetus, particularly in cultural contexts where there is a strong preference for male children. Some submissions referenced international agreements and declarations that call on states to eliminate practices such as prenatal sex selection and female infanticide, arguing that the UK should align domestic legislation with these commitments.[84] Some submissions pointed to legislative models in other jurisdictions, such as the Isle of Man, where abortion on the grounds of fetal sex is explicitly prohibited except in cases involving sex-linked genetic conditions. On this basis, they called for legal clarification or explicit prohibition of sex-selective abortion, or regulatory safeguards to prevent misuse of prenatal testing technologies.
A further submission on this issue came from Professor Maya Unnithan, who led a study on Pre-Natal Sex Selection among British minority ethnic South Asian families (Pakistani, Indian and Bangladeshi).[85] In line with Government data,[86] the study had concluded that sex-selective abortion is not widespread in the UK. It offered a rare insight into the views of the women in those communities, who overwhelmingly recommended that concerns regarding sex selection should not be used to justify restrictive abortion laws. The study rather recommended further education and funded specialist support services for women facing pressure to have male children in instances of closely spaced pregnancies, unwanted pregnancies and also cultural expectations.
Members of the Advisory Group, including Abortion Rights Scotland argued that women should have the right to make their own reproductive choices and are best placed to make pregnancy decisions based on their personal circumstances. These may include risk of violence and abuse. They also flagged the lack of evidence to suggest women seek abortion based on the sex of the fetus, that it would not be possible to police such an offence against sex selection in practice, and that arguments in favour can be prejudiced against ethnic minority communities and attempt to allocate rights to the fetus at the expense of women. Furthermore, they refuted arguments that legislating against sex selective abortion is positive for gender equality, noting that this merely punishes women for structural gender inequality and that efforts should be redirected towards tackling root causes.'

I mean, it's logical that if you can abort due to disabilities, of any kind, you can abort for sex, or anything else you can think of really.

FWIW, although I think it varies by LA, many hospitals do not reveal the sex of the baby in utero.

Edited for clarity: I think 'if the mother wants to abort' being adequate grounds means that a specific 'grounds' can't really be excluded?

No woman must be forced to continue a pregnancy with an unwanted baby. And no woman must be forced to continue producing one baby after another, in hope of eventually achieving the 'correct' sex.

And the area in India which had no live births of girls is not a social experiment that should be allowed to replicate in the UK or in any civilised country.

Misogynistic eugenics should not be provided for in legislation in any country which has public funded health care.

I’ve always thought that banning abortion on the grounds of the sex of the baby was a little pointless nowadays. You can get postal blood prick tests from about 6 weeks that will tell you the sex of the baby, it’s not people finding out at the 20 week NHS scan and then aborting - hardly any women abort after that point and essentially all of them have significant health issues involved, either with the mother or the baby.
I had an abortion at 6 weeks and wasn’t really asked why (which I think is correct) - if I had found out the sex and was aborting on that basis, it would have been unbelievably simple to do and impossible for them to determine.

This. Have any of those in support of this suggested how they think life will continue if they stop all female births?

With the planet seething with billions of unwanted humans, far more than the resources of several planets could provide, the last thing any of us want is a single extra human, but above all, if it is unwanted. There are millions needing care, so any nurturing impulses can be redirected to the populations already born, and living without love or attention.

Amazing!

So far from sex being 'observed at birth', it can be tested for via maternal blood?

Yep the test looks for the presence of a Y chromosome in the mother’s blood, because some cells from the baby’s blood can get into it. That’s why a baby being rhesus positive when the mother is rhesus negative can cause problems - the baby’s blood causes the immune reaction in the mother.

(I’m sure that’s a very simplified layperson explanation but I think it’s the basic gist)

Nope, I don't see the equivalence. Disabilities can imply pain, discomfort and/or misery for the child or more work, expense and/or distress for the parents; girls are no more work than boys

China actually has a huge disparity between males and females because of this and this has caused numerous social problems

I've just found a UK site online offering a test at 7 weeks 'from £131'. Not going to link

It’s ridiculous that some local authorities don’t share the sex because of issues in some cultures. Like mentioned if some really want to know they can pay for private tests, scans etc. It’s something that makes people question the narrative about how great a multicultural society is.

If you're old you can get CVS at around 10- 12 weeks, which counts chromosomes looking for Downs, Edwards, Patau amongst other genetic abnormalities, you can find out the sex of your baby then. I had this with DS ( now 14) and took part in an NHS trial for NIPT.

If sex is 'assigned at birth' how do they do sex selective abortion? What if the unborn fetus identifies as a different sex?

I mean if the Scottish government is determined to trot bollocks about sex, how on earth can they have a policy about this?!

Yes. If you believe the former it's difficult to see how there could be any exclusions.

FFS. Have we not learned that if you don't legislate to rule something out, it's going to happen. And why is "sex selection" ok for any culture, no matter where they live.

Some can, but there is no requirement that be the case to justify the abortion. If you find out the fetus has an extra finger you are allowed to abort on those grounds.

Yes I’d agree with that. If someone believes, as I do, that abortion should be at the woman’s request (which when I had an abortion I basically found that it was, even though the law is yet to change to reflect that) it doesn’t really make sense in my head to say “a woman can have an abortion if she wants one, she doesn’t need to justify herself. Oh but also if it’s for reason X, she can’t”. I don’t think women should be asked to lay out their reasons, therefore I can’t really say that I think certain reasons shouldn’t be allowed.

It will be impossible to ban sex selective abortion, given the right to an abortion on request.

That means abortion will be available for any reason.

That's just unavoidable, really.

Just seems a bit strange the report apparently tried to justify sex selective abortion based on some weird ideas about cultural sensitivity.

This is a really interesting and worrying area.

Firstly I disagree that a law that should prevent harm should ever fail due to concerns over ‘racial profiling’. The right thing is the right thing, and some things are more important than causing offence.

Secondly, given the number of gender disappointment threads on here, and the fact we can now pay for the NIPT from week 9 of pregnancy, I suspect far more ‘gender selection’ abortions happen than we think - we will never know the true number.

Thirdly, I don’t think this is just an ‘Asian’ thing. There seems to be a strong culture in white women of wanting girls, to the extent I’ve read threads where women sobbed when finding out they were having a boy, or say they ‘can’t love their baby as they could only love a girl’. This seems to be getting worse over time, and I really think gender selection IVF and similar will become more commonplace (abroad) as women fly from the UK to ensure they ‘get their girl’.

Fourthly YES it should be illegal, for r the good of humanity frankly. We simply cannot encourage a human race with a large gender skew, it would be hideously problematic as China found out. It’s also extremely unpalatable to the extent I don’t think it’s compatible with a civilised society. Disabilities are different - they have a huge impact on the parent, far beyond that of a ‘typical’ child. The sex doesn’t.

But are they being forced? Presumably unless they’ve been raped (small minority) they’ve either wanted or allowed themselves to become pregnant. Nobody is ‘forcing’ them to keep having babies because they desire a certain sex either, they’re doing that to themselves.

The question is more about whether those women can force the state to intervene in their pregnancy.