Bid in Lords to overturn move to decriminalise abortion for women

[IwantToRetire]

A landmark move to decriminalise women terminating their own pregnancies could be overturned as legislation is considered in the House of Lords.

In June, MPs in the Commons voted in favour of decriminalisation, with one saying it would remove the threat of “investigation, arrest, prosecution or imprisonment” of any woman who acts in relation to her own pregnancy. ...

But, with the Bill making its way through the Lords, an amendment has been tabled to remove the relevant clause. ...

https://nation.cymru/news/bid-in-lords-to-overturn-move-to-decriminalise-abortion-for-women/

Nine to twelve weeks is a long time, if you're in serious psychological distress.

I do think induced labour should be offered, as I've said, but I've gone over the reasons I think killing the foetus may be preferable – starting with, if it's alive, then the woman is still a mother. The child now exists, which, if it's a product of rape or incest in particular, could be very psychologically damaging.

If the baby is a product of an abusive relationship and she keeps it, it ties her to the father permanently. But regardless of that, she either has to raise a child she didn't want, who may be a constant reminder of trauma, or relinquish it, which would mean she now has a child out the world who may seek her out when they're older.

I also suspect many women wouldn't relinquish the child once born, and if they're seeking late term abortion because their lives are chaotic, they have drug addictions, are vulnerable, are in an abusive relationship, or other similar reasons, it may not be for the best.

@theilltemperedamateur It’s not a small concession, 9 to 12 weeks is a long time for the state to have assumed control over a women’s body. It’s still a serious breach of her autonomy in the same way as forcing her to remain pregnant at any other time in her pregnancy.

Calling it “not a big concession” is an attempt to minimise what is being forced onto a women.

I agree 9-12 weeks is a long time and the physical side effects or medical complications that can occur on the last trimester / labour are still many.

I'm also curious about the inconsistencies with consent and outcomes. A woman can decline medically advised induction or intervention and wouldn't be prosecuted or held responsible criminally responsible if her baby doesn't survive yet she can't choose to end the pregnancy even though the outcome is the same there. I know PP would rationalise that as 'passive' harm rather than active but if you're refusing care that's been evidenced will prevent a stillbirth it's hard to comprehend why one holds criminal responsibility when the other doesn't. We don't (or shouldn't) override their consent in their care but the outcome would be the same.

With the examples you give of drug addicted etc mothers some are advised the baby will be taken away at birth. I don't think it's common that those women would choose to terminate the pregnancy as many get pregnant knowing it's unlikely they'll be able to keep the child but if it were decriminalised I wonder if that might happen? I don't know if that's right or wrong, and it's hard to say either outcome is preferable. I don't know it it would be better for her welfare if the baby was dead as ill tempered asked, but I suppose I support a woman having full bodily autonomy with firm protections in place that they're making an informed decision of what's right from them and mental health support available. It's hard to argue that the baby would objectively be better brought into the world taken from their mother into care and lifelong trauma but also impossible to say they'd be better off not born. I think morality is hard to agree on when all options are bleak. If a woman were seeking a late term abortion of a wanted baby because of practical/ circumstantial reasons, ideally we'd live in a society where any support she needed financially or socially would be available for her to be signposted to.

I think every situation of late term abortion is always gonna be a horrible scenario, women are never going to be flippantly ending a pregnancy days before their due date because they just don't fancy being a parent, which is what some people jump to as why we need a ban in place.

The question of decriminalisation of late term self induced abortions isn't whether the pregnant women is morally wrong to do so - it's whether jailing her is a net benefit to society and women's reproductive rights, based on the consequences of making such an act subject to punishment.

Hard cases make bad law.

I'm not going to defend the current law, because my position isn't that it's perfect, but that it's just good enough (and there's no realistic prospect of changing it). Early induction for psychiatric reasons is already a thing. Women in chaotic situations with late-term pregnancy distress need all sorts of help (which they're probably not getting) of which access to abortion is only a part.

Decriminalisation for the woman is a compromise. But this conversation is making me think that face-to-face consultation has value not just to prevent inappropriate drug dispensing, but also to pick up individuals who need other sorts of help. The whole system is stretched thin.

Re women not getting support: that's part of a bigger picture of medical misogyny that MNHQ are now campaigning on. https://www.mumsnet.com/news/medical-misogyny