The Court of Appeal has upheld legislation which allows the abortion of babies with Down’s syndrome up until birth, after a challenge by a woman with the condition.
Heidi Crowter, 27, from Coventry, brought legal action against the Department of Health and Social Care in the hope of removing a section of the Abortion Act.
Judges ruled last September the legislation was not unlawful and aimed to strike a balance between the rights of the unborn child and of women.
The case was reconsidered by the Court of Appeal at a hearing in July.
In a summary of the decision, by Lord Justice Underhill, Lady Justice Thirlwall and Lord Justice Peter Jackson, the judges said the Act does not interfere with the rights of the “living disabled”.
They said: “The court recognises that many people with Down’s syndrome and other disabilities will be upset and offended by the fact that a diagnosis of serious disability during pregnancy is treated by the law as a justification for termination, and that they may regard it as implying that their own lives are of lesser value.
Heidi Crowter talks to the media outside the Royal Courts of Justice in central London after they lost a Court of Appeal challenge
“But it holds that a perception that that is what the law implies is not by itself enough to give rise to an interference with Article 8 rights (to private and family life, enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights).”
Good, no one should be forced to carry a baby they don’t want to have. Especially if that baby will have additional needs that the parents don’t think they will be able to care for.
Downs isn’t an easy condition to care for, especially if your child is not very able and has other diagnosis like Autism and heart conditions.
She’s unhappy that a judge says her feelings don’t matter?
I’m angry she thinks her feelings trump reproductive rights of all the women and girls in this country. The arrogance of that is astounding.
You don’t abort a baby, you abort a foetus.
Quick scan shows Sky, Independent, Mirror to use the term “babies” in their headline and reporting, whilst the BBC, Guardian, Standard are using “foetus”.
The difference is important, because using the term “babies” makes the topic a lot more emotive.
A strange fight to take up for sure. Forcing more children to be born with downs syndrome against the wishes of the parents and at significant risk to the mothers life will somehow reduce discrimination against people with downs syndrome? Somehow I highly doubt that.
The problem with Down’s is that it is so variable. Some people with trisomy 21 are totally independent, hold down jobs, etc. Others need full time carers, which usually ends up with frail parents looking after them. It’s a spectrum and without knowing where someone may fall on it, who are we to judge people who shy away from the idea of bringing a potentially profoundly disabled person into the world?
You should not be forced to have a baby that’s gonna require additional needs especially since it’s not free to give that extra care
Down syndrome is a mentally & phsyically debilitating genetic disorder. No offence to anyone with down syndrome, but it definetly impacts quality of life. I wouldn’t want to bring a new life into this world (thank god I can’t), yet alone one that would be at such a disadvantage from the get-go.
How much funding is the American Christian group donating to her?
Playing devils advocate here:
so if people in the comments are saying this is ok, does that mean that they would be ok with removing the 24 week abortion limit on a foetus without Downs?
Good, it should be the pregnant woman’s choice and we shouldn’t restrict that.
How about thousands of other women that have a right to choose?
That’s very selfish of her
I will never understand why people are so eager to make life changing decisions for others by trying to limit access to abortion. If you don’t wish to have an abortion, then don’t get one, but it’s not everyone’s opinion.
In this particular case, Down Syndrome is a spectrum where the baby could need very little support or they could require 24/7 care. That’s certainly an enormous strain on the parents, family and wider community and frankly a lot of people would struggle financially. If you weigh up the possibilities and decide that you can cope with every possible outcome then more power to you, but many would not be able to cope and they should have the opportunity to make a decision to abort.
The problem is not downs itself but the fact it is visible and can be tested for. You can get a heads-up as it were , whereas with something like severe autism, you’re not going to find out until later. I don’t believe anyone with downs should be given less rights , and it’s worth noting that many downs people in the care system are under DNR .
Whew! This thread has been eye opening, I’ll tell you that.
Down’s syndrome can sometimes come with heart defects as well so it might be the case that a family are happy to proceed with the pregnancy but find there’s a heart defect and not want to continue, which is fair enough.
You can also get people with DS who are super able and can live life almost independently and others who are very severely affected and have other conditions like autism.
Nothing is ever black and white and although I can understand this lady’s point of view, it’s not personal and not everyone is equipped to deal with a child with DS. Having a child with additional needs is a life long commitment (any child is a life long commitment but an adult with additional needs may need extra care for the rest of their lives).
Can you imagine having to abort so late into the pregnancy? The physical toll that will take on a person. No one would do that unless they felt it was really necessary.
i think people forget that if a parent knows they can’t handle a child with special needs but is forced to have one they will not adequately care for that child. that child will not get ALL the love and support they need. that child will not have a good quality of life. but of course that’s somehow preferred over aborting the child? they’re not choosing to abort because of ableism, they’re doing that child a favour, not subjecting them to an unfairly difficult life they had no choice but to live.
Having a robust social safety net, social housing and adult social care world make carrying a baby with Down’s syndrome a much more viable choice. It’s not a choice when you live in a disablist society that will punish the mother and child for being born. I want all women to have a genuine choice.
My sister was born with downs, she had a congenital heart defect (Atrioventricular Septal Defect) and spent her short life in hospital.
In hindsight whilst I couldn’t have imagined life without her in it for those short 6 months and I’m sure my mum couldn’t either.
The stress and strain it put my family through always made me question why they choose to go ahead. To this date my mum can’t talk about that year, it was a very difficult year, 3 surgeries, 200 days in hospital, and a sudden unexpected death just as things were beginning to look bright. No family should have to go through that.
I think it is up to the individual family to decide what is right for them in the circumstances.
Any attempt to change reduce abortion laws make me deeply uncomfortable. It makes we worry that it would open the door for groups trying to make the laws more restrictive.
I think there needs to be much more support for families with disabled children and more adaptation to accommodate disabled people within society in general. I think if this was in place people would be making different decisions
The answer is pretty simple. Abortions should be a legal and viable choice up to birth for all. Once you’re looking at third trimester abortions, you are looking at a case by case basis. Whether the life of the mother or baby is going to be at risk, or seriously impacted. Ultimately, Down’s syndrome is a disability and as such, it can be a factor in the decision making. It would be an infringement on the rights of the mother to take away that choice because of the type of disability the child has.
Much like the argument for euthanasia, late term abortions should be regulated, and safeguarding put in place for all people involved. But ultimately, the choice NEEDS to be there.
If you are pregnant and want to give birth to a child with Down syndrome fair enough. Others might not feel the same way though.
Wish we had a way of transplanting unwanted babies into the men who argue against abortion. How many would volunteer do you reckon?
Wait you can tell if babies are gonna have down syndrome during the first few weeks you can still abort? Jesus our tech has evolved 🤯
Worrying anti abortion rhetoric is starting to make its way over here.
Let me guess. A particular US charity is the one backing all of this?
I just had an abortion today. Trust me. It isn’t something people take lightly. It is a last resort. I couldn’t look after a baby, it would be in poverty for its whole life and without a stable home. If I gave it up for adoption it would be in an overcrowded care system vulnerable to abuse. It would forever live with a feeling of rejection because I gave them up. People generally don’t go into abortion clinics looking to kill something they don’t think deserves to live, in fact they usually are thinking about multiple people: partners, the potential child, themselves.
I have been in absolute agony from this treatment and emotionally destroyed crying for weeks. And mine was an accident.
Now imagine you’re an expectant parent at 20 weeks or so, way into the second trimester, delighted to be pregnant. And then you find out your infant will need full time care, may die before adulthood, may even be stillborn, will not be able to socialise properly. Both you and your partner work full time still only able to afford to rent a flat. Now you would have to equip it with a whole bunch of equipment. One of you will have to give up work. You will struggle even more. You know you would resent your child, and would have to see them struggle. You already had to compromise to have a baby in the first place. You can’t leave them in care. So the choice is between that or a horrific surgery and potentially weeks of bleeding. It’s not something they are going to do out of the interests of eugenics. Its a difficult personal choice.
Poor people deserve to have children and downs syndrome children are as worthy of personhood as anyone else. But a parent needs to want a child, and needs to have choice. Our country is littered with miserable, abused, neglected children borne of parents who went to term without considering any consequences.
Not one person is going to go through a late abortion lightly. Most will have been advised to do so. Both of my sisters had full term stillborn babies. It was devastating.
To choose to go through a late abortion to save having a child who is not going to be able to lead a healthy life is actually very brave.
The judge ruled against forced birth! Logic prevails.
And herein is the major issue: OECD societies who do not yet provide the level of support to Downs Families and the Disabled community at large. In a utopian society, a Downs Child would immediately be entitled to all the support they need from birth- differentiation in education, Support People for however many hours a day the family needs to have a life the same as their allotypical peers. Surgeries which are very common would be refined to the point of being completely safe and routine, and Social Workers and OTs/Speechies who be automatically included in the prep to ensure their clients have an easy experience. And scaffolding in place so that as they become older, they have the knowledge, skills and standing to direct their own lives and outcomes to lead an amazing life.
But we live in a world where Disability is treated like (and as a result turns into) a burden. Even Hawking – arguably one of the greatest minds of recent times – had major problems getting the standard of support he needed, so what hope does someone who has no recourse for self-advocacy have?
At the end of the day, I understand the why. And the choice should exist for the moment, BUT with the proviso that we as a species MUST move to make it unnecessary in the first place, instead of seen as the only option for families due to a society which cannot be bothered to truly care for its most vulnerable.
So, this is how they come for our abortion rights then. Whoever funded this is testing the water it seems. Be prepared for a fight.
If you don’t like it, don’t have an abortion. Why protest against the rights of other people?
I get the feeling that the woman here is a figurehead for a more sinister campaign. Like the Archie Battersbee campaign.
We need to strengthen and uphold abortion rights, not take them away. This isn’t the backwards USA
34 comments
The Court of Appeal has upheld legislation which allows the abortion of babies with Down’s syndrome up until birth, after a challenge by a woman with the condition.
Heidi Crowter, 27, from Coventry, brought legal action against the Department of Health and Social Care in the hope of removing a section of the Abortion Act.
Judges ruled last September the legislation was not unlawful and aimed to strike a balance between the rights of the unborn child and of women.
The case was reconsidered by the Court of Appeal at a hearing in July.
In a summary of the decision, by Lord Justice Underhill, Lady Justice Thirlwall and Lord Justice Peter Jackson, the judges said the Act does not interfere with the rights of the “living disabled”.
They said: “The court recognises that many people with Down’s syndrome and other disabilities will be upset and offended by the fact that a diagnosis of serious disability during pregnancy is treated by the law as a justification for termination, and that they may regard it as implying that their own lives are of lesser value.
Heidi Crowter talks to the media outside the Royal Courts of Justice in central London after they lost a Court of Appeal challenge
“But it holds that a perception that that is what the law implies is not by itself enough to give rise to an interference with Article 8 rights (to private and family life, enshrined in the European Convention on Human Rights).”
Good, no one should be forced to carry a baby they don’t want to have. Especially if that baby will have additional needs that the parents don’t think they will be able to care for.
Downs isn’t an easy condition to care for, especially if your child is not very able and has other diagnosis like Autism and heart conditions.
She’s unhappy that a judge says her feelings don’t matter?
I’m angry she thinks her feelings trump reproductive rights of all the women and girls in this country. The arrogance of that is astounding.
You don’t abort a baby, you abort a foetus.
Quick scan shows Sky, Independent, Mirror to use the term “babies” in their headline and reporting, whilst the BBC, Guardian, Standard are using “foetus”.
The difference is important, because using the term “babies” makes the topic a lot more emotive.
A strange fight to take up for sure. Forcing more children to be born with downs syndrome against the wishes of the parents and at significant risk to the mothers life will somehow reduce discrimination against people with downs syndrome? Somehow I highly doubt that.
The problem with Down’s is that it is so variable. Some people with trisomy 21 are totally independent, hold down jobs, etc. Others need full time carers, which usually ends up with frail parents looking after them. It’s a spectrum and without knowing where someone may fall on it, who are we to judge people who shy away from the idea of bringing a potentially profoundly disabled person into the world?
You should not be forced to have a baby that’s gonna require additional needs especially since it’s not free to give that extra care
Down syndrome is a mentally & phsyically debilitating genetic disorder. No offence to anyone with down syndrome, but it definetly impacts quality of life. I wouldn’t want to bring a new life into this world (thank god I can’t), yet alone one that would be at such a disadvantage from the get-go.
How much funding is the American Christian group donating to her?
Playing devils advocate here:
so if people in the comments are saying this is ok, does that mean that they would be ok with removing the 24 week abortion limit on a foetus without Downs?
Good, it should be the pregnant woman’s choice and we shouldn’t restrict that.
How about thousands of other women that have a right to choose?
That’s very selfish of her
I will never understand why people are so eager to make life changing decisions for others by trying to limit access to abortion. If you don’t wish to have an abortion, then don’t get one, but it’s not everyone’s opinion.
In this particular case, Down Syndrome is a spectrum where the baby could need very little support or they could require 24/7 care. That’s certainly an enormous strain on the parents, family and wider community and frankly a lot of people would struggle financially. If you weigh up the possibilities and decide that you can cope with every possible outcome then more power to you, but many would not be able to cope and they should have the opportunity to make a decision to abort.
The problem is not downs itself but the fact it is visible and can be tested for. You can get a heads-up as it were , whereas with something like severe autism, you’re not going to find out until later. I don’t believe anyone with downs should be given less rights , and it’s worth noting that many downs people in the care system are under DNR .
Whew! This thread has been eye opening, I’ll tell you that.
Down’s syndrome can sometimes come with heart defects as well so it might be the case that a family are happy to proceed with the pregnancy but find there’s a heart defect and not want to continue, which is fair enough.
You can also get people with DS who are super able and can live life almost independently and others who are very severely affected and have other conditions like autism.
Nothing is ever black and white and although I can understand this lady’s point of view, it’s not personal and not everyone is equipped to deal with a child with DS. Having a child with additional needs is a life long commitment (any child is a life long commitment but an adult with additional needs may need extra care for the rest of their lives).
Can you imagine having to abort so late into the pregnancy? The physical toll that will take on a person. No one would do that unless they felt it was really necessary.
i think people forget that if a parent knows they can’t handle a child with special needs but is forced to have one they will not adequately care for that child. that child will not get ALL the love and support they need. that child will not have a good quality of life. but of course that’s somehow preferred over aborting the child? they’re not choosing to abort because of ableism, they’re doing that child a favour, not subjecting them to an unfairly difficult life they had no choice but to live.
Having a robust social safety net, social housing and adult social care world make carrying a baby with Down’s syndrome a much more viable choice. It’s not a choice when you live in a disablist society that will punish the mother and child for being born. I want all women to have a genuine choice.
My sister was born with downs, she had a congenital heart defect (Atrioventricular Septal Defect) and spent her short life in hospital.
In hindsight whilst I couldn’t have imagined life without her in it for those short 6 months and I’m sure my mum couldn’t either.
The stress and strain it put my family through always made me question why they choose to go ahead. To this date my mum can’t talk about that year, it was a very difficult year, 3 surgeries, 200 days in hospital, and a sudden unexpected death just as things were beginning to look bright. No family should have to go through that.
I think it is up to the individual family to decide what is right for them in the circumstances.
Any attempt to change reduce abortion laws make me deeply uncomfortable. It makes we worry that it would open the door for groups trying to make the laws more restrictive.
I think there needs to be much more support for families with disabled children and more adaptation to accommodate disabled people within society in general. I think if this was in place people would be making different decisions
The answer is pretty simple. Abortions should be a legal and viable choice up to birth for all. Once you’re looking at third trimester abortions, you are looking at a case by case basis. Whether the life of the mother or baby is going to be at risk, or seriously impacted. Ultimately, Down’s syndrome is a disability and as such, it can be a factor in the decision making. It would be an infringement on the rights of the mother to take away that choice because of the type of disability the child has.
Much like the argument for euthanasia, late term abortions should be regulated, and safeguarding put in place for all people involved. But ultimately, the choice NEEDS to be there.
If you are pregnant and want to give birth to a child with Down syndrome fair enough. Others might not feel the same way though.
Wish we had a way of transplanting unwanted babies into the men who argue against abortion. How many would volunteer do you reckon?
Wait you can tell if babies are gonna have down syndrome during the first few weeks you can still abort? Jesus our tech has evolved 🤯
Worrying anti abortion rhetoric is starting to make its way over here.
Let me guess. A particular US charity is the one backing all of this?
I just had an abortion today. Trust me. It isn’t something people take lightly. It is a last resort. I couldn’t look after a baby, it would be in poverty for its whole life and without a stable home. If I gave it up for adoption it would be in an overcrowded care system vulnerable to abuse. It would forever live with a feeling of rejection because I gave them up. People generally don’t go into abortion clinics looking to kill something they don’t think deserves to live, in fact they usually are thinking about multiple people: partners, the potential child, themselves.
I have been in absolute agony from this treatment and emotionally destroyed crying for weeks. And mine was an accident.
Now imagine you’re an expectant parent at 20 weeks or so, way into the second trimester, delighted to be pregnant. And then you find out your infant will need full time care, may die before adulthood, may even be stillborn, will not be able to socialise properly. Both you and your partner work full time still only able to afford to rent a flat. Now you would have to equip it with a whole bunch of equipment. One of you will have to give up work. You will struggle even more. You know you would resent your child, and would have to see them struggle. You already had to compromise to have a baby in the first place. You can’t leave them in care. So the choice is between that or a horrific surgery and potentially weeks of bleeding. It’s not something they are going to do out of the interests of eugenics. Its a difficult personal choice.
Poor people deserve to have children and downs syndrome children are as worthy of personhood as anyone else. But a parent needs to want a child, and needs to have choice. Our country is littered with miserable, abused, neglected children borne of parents who went to term without considering any consequences.
Not one person is going to go through a late abortion lightly. Most will have been advised to do so. Both of my sisters had full term stillborn babies. It was devastating.
To choose to go through a late abortion to save having a child who is not going to be able to lead a healthy life is actually very brave.
The judge ruled against forced birth! Logic prevails.
And herein is the major issue: OECD societies who do not yet provide the level of support to Downs Families and the Disabled community at large. In a utopian society, a Downs Child would immediately be entitled to all the support they need from birth- differentiation in education, Support People for however many hours a day the family needs to have a life the same as their allotypical peers. Surgeries which are very common would be refined to the point of being completely safe and routine, and Social Workers and OTs/Speechies who be automatically included in the prep to ensure their clients have an easy experience. And scaffolding in place so that as they become older, they have the knowledge, skills and standing to direct their own lives and outcomes to lead an amazing life.
But we live in a world where Disability is treated like (and as a result turns into) a burden. Even Hawking – arguably one of the greatest minds of recent times – had major problems getting the standard of support he needed, so what hope does someone who has no recourse for self-advocacy have?
At the end of the day, I understand the why. And the choice should exist for the moment, BUT with the proviso that we as a species MUST move to make it unnecessary in the first place, instead of seen as the only option for families due to a society which cannot be bothered to truly care for its most vulnerable.
So, this is how they come for our abortion rights then. Whoever funded this is testing the water it seems. Be prepared for a fight.
If you don’t like it, don’t have an abortion. Why protest against the rights of other people?
I get the feeling that the woman here is a figurehead for a more sinister campaign. Like the Archie Battersbee campaign.
We need to strengthen and uphold abortion rights, not take them away. This isn’t the backwards USA