Responding to the MLAs contributions to Matter Abortion Regulations 31/03/2020

Responding to the MLAs contributions to Matter Abortion Regulations 31/03/2020

https://niassembly.tv/matter-of-the-day-abortion-regulations-tuesday-31-march-2020/

Mr Allister

Mr Allister suggested people have abortions on a ‘whim’ this is insulting to people who chose to have an abortion, and does not reflect the reality of certifications being required. Mr Allister said abortion would be uncontrolled ‘up to 12 weeks’ this is untrue, abortions must be certified by one doctor up to 12 weeks and currently the first set of pills must be taken under supervision. Mr Allister then alleged there would be abortion ‘effectively on demand’ up to 24 weeks. Again this is incorrect, after 12 weeks 2 healthcare professionals must certify that the criteria are met, namely that continuing the pregnancy would be a greater risk to the health of the pregnant person than termination.

Mr Allister commented that 79% of responses to the recent consultation were opposed to any change – From the NIOs own report 66% of those responses were linked to a single campaign. None of the professional medical bodies opposed abortion law reform.

Mr Allister then raised that the Assembly was not consulted. MLAs had the same opportunity to respond to the consultation as anyone else. This is a human rights matter, and therefore stays in the remit of Westminster.

Mr Givan

Mr Givan also raised the 79% response figure which we have already addressed. It is worth noting that reposes opposing any change were ruled out of scope.

Mr Givan suggested that abortion up to 24 weeks for any reason, we have already shown this is not the case under the regulations. Mr Givan then stated that abortion to term for disability was permitted. This is incorrect. Abortion after 24 weeks, around 2% of all abortions in worldwide figures, would only be permitted for severe foetal impairment or risk to life and health of the pregnant person. Disability is not a permitted reason.  

Mr Givan suggests’ that a ‘fine’ is not a serious enough penalty for healthcare professionals acting outside the regulations. This is not simply a fine, but a criminal conviction likely to lead to being struck off. It is intended to be a punitive measure, and we oppose any criminalisation of abortion. We would again state that Human Rights are not a solely devolved matter. Westminster had the power and duty to legislate. 

Mr Givan suggests his views are in line with the ‘will of the people’. The NI Life and Times Survey show this is he is mistaken the vast majority support abortion law reform, the 1000s who have travel for abortion also show that this attitude is nothing more than NIMBYism.

Mr Frew

Mr Frew again mentioned the 79% response figure, which we have addressed above, this is mainly from one coordinated anti choice campaign. These responses were not ignored, they simply did not engage with the questions at play.

Mr Frew suggests that he will try and reverse the introduction of regulations. This would be a breach of the Human Rights of those who need abortions. These regulations have been introduced by Westminster legislation, as the body responsible for upholding human rights. It is not in Stormont’s gift to overturn the primary legislation which repealed Section 58 and 58 of the 1981 Offences Against the Person Act.

Mr Frew says he does not want disabled people to fear for their lives – we are not sure why he thinks abortion regulations would make disabled people fear for their lives.

Mr Frew suggests that people were content with NI having a different law than in GB. If this was the case why did 1000 people a year travel to England for abortions they supposedly disagreed with?

Dr Archibald

Dr Archibald spoke broadly in favour of the regulations, saying there is no way to compassionately legislate for access where pregnancy is a result of rape, this is why a 12 week unrestricted period is introduced. We agree with the spirit of this point however we know that many people pregnant as a result of a sex crime, particularly adolescents, are likely to delay seeking an abortion, and are more likely to even be aware that they are pregnant until later term. 12 weeks is not long enough for them.

Mr O’Toole

Mr O’Toole also spoke broadly in favour of the regulations. He said now NI is a place where abortion can be access on par with the Rest of the UK and Ireland. Unfortunately this is incorrect as both jurisdictions have introduced telemedicine and home use of both sets of abortion pills, NI still has not. 

Mr O’Toole said this was a step forward for women and girls, we agree and would add this is a step forward for anyone who can get pregnant.

Mr Butler

Mr Butler says it is important to consider the views of parents, particularly women – we would remind him that the majority of people who have an abortion are already parents. He suggests there needs to be sympathy for instances of fatal foetal abnormality, rape and incest. We agree, the UN CEDAW committee has called for action on specifically these circumstances, but sympathy without material action is pointless in these situations. As previously highlighted there is no way to compassionately, or ‘sympathetically’ legislate for pregnancies resulting from a sexual crime.

Mr Butler says the consultation was not adhered to – we have dealt with this previously, responses demanding no change to the law were not in the scope of the consultation.

Mr Butler, we would argue that denying care is ‘draconian’, not the regulations.
Mr Butler brings up that this is an issue for all sides of the community – it is, there is no significant difference in the number of people seeking an abortion from any one community background. 1 in 3 women worldwide will have an abortion, from all walks of life.    

Again we will remind the MLA that abortion for disability is not a permitted reason for an abortion under the regulations.

Mr Butler mentions Conscientious Objection – the regulations allow for conscientious objection on the same grounds as in GB. 

Mr Muir

Mr Muir spoke broadly in support of the regulations, noting that the Assembly had a chance to make legislation permitting abortion on more limited grounds and didn’t. Mr Muir also highlight the need for home use, which is particularly needed because of the current COVID 19 restrictions. We agree that the inability to travel has already cause real difficulties for people, none more evident that the attempted suicide of someone denied an abortion in NI and unable to travel to England.

Ms Bailey

Ms Bailey spoke broadly in support of the regulations. She noted that while there is access for many up to 12 weeks, there are still many barriers to be addressed. Ms Bailey called for the Health Minister to introduce telemedicine similar to measures in England, noting that abortion pills are on the WHO essential medicines list. She also pointed out that telemedicine protects health workers during this pandemic.

Ms Bailey said the green party ‘do not think it should ever have been a criminal matter, and we believe that any woman should be able to access an abortion as early as possible and as late as necessary.’ And we agree with this position.

Ms Bailey also mentioned the tragic situation brought to light on Monday.

Mr Carroll

Mr Carroll spoke about the reality of denying abortion care, that of the woman who tried to take her own life when unable to travel and refused care locally. We agree with Mr Carroll that  ‘abortion is fundamentally a healthcare issue. It is not a criminal issue’ however we must point out that unfortunately there is still a criminal sanction for healthcare professionals who act outside the regulations, which will likely lead to unnecessary bureaucracy for medical staff to ‘prove’ they were acting in good faith.

Mr Carroll is right that not everyone in served by the new regulations, including people in domestic violence situations and rural areas. He also called for telemedicine and home use of abortion pills, referencing WHO guidance that abortion pills are safe.

Mr Caroll points out that the NI Life and Times survey, previously referred to in our rebuttal, consistently shows support for choice and abortion law reform. 

Mr Lunn

Mr Lunn welcomed the regulations with some reservations. He particularly welcomed the 12 weeks unrestricted period as a way of providing services for people pregnant as a result of rape. Mr Lunn took issue with one element of the regulations, that of abortion for severe foetal impairment saying this was ‘immoral’. In response we would say that this wording allows for healthcare professionals to use their knowledge and expertise in helping people make an informed choice. The wording of fatal foetal abnormality is too restrictive. 

Mr Buckly said this issue transcends party lines. Indeed in there are supporters of change who have spoken publicly in every NIA party, except the DUP and TUV. Likewise the need for abortion care is not restirced to community background.

Mr Buckly rolls out the debunked idea that 100,000 people are alive in NI because of the restrictive abortion law. We ask what about the hundreds of thousands who are documented as having travelled for abortion, and the unknow numbers using abortion pills bought online or more dangerous methods?  Mr Buckly suggests he values life from beginning to end, does he value the life of the person who tried to take their own life on Monday because they were refused an abortion? Does he value the lives of the 1 in 3 women who will have an abortion?

Mr Buckly talks about protection of the most vulnerable, does this include the 12 year old who travelled for an abortion under a police escort pregnant as a result of rape by a family member?

Mr Buckly ends with a threat that the DUP will take action to roll back the regulations.