Thursday, 2 June 2011

Human right to terminate unwanted pregnancies endorsed by Court of Appeal

Right to Life's legal action, taken to the Court of Appeal, to essentially challenge the threshold at which abortions were being permitted (too easy and women weren't really going to have impacts on their mental health if they were forced to give birth to a child they did not want) has failed.

The Court of Appeal, with a 2-1 decision, have agreed with the High Court's ruling, that "unborn children" do not have a right to life. Somewhat odd and emotive way to describe an unwanted pregnancy, but finally, a definitive ruling from the top Court against Right to Life. This has been going on for a while - the High Court decision was in 2008.

So what do Right to Life have to say? Nothing yet. Their home page is focussing on their next big fight - removing the rights of young women to make decisions about their own fertility, and increasing parental control.

Family First, however, are ready with press statement in hand. Apparently this ruling shows the need for women to be "fully informed" about the dangers of abortion. And Mr McCroskie is loving the "unborn children" line alright:

Just when does a child obtain a right to live? 30 weeks? 40 weeks? In the birthing room?”
“Abortion can harm women – yet groups seeking to decriminalise abortion refuse to acknowledge this, seeing the right to abortion more paramount than the long-term health and welfare of the women.
No, Bob, speaking for myself, I think the rights to make choices over fertility are critical to the long-term health and welfare of those who are pregnant and to our children. And, like most not actively trying to stop access to abortion, I don't think access to abortion is too easy now - quite the reverse for far too many people, in fact.

Significant accuracy point, Bob. Abortion isn't criminal now.

Just what would you be writing in your "information packs" to pregnant women about abortion if you can't even get this right?*

*This is one of those situations where my colloquial rage has got the better of my legal accuracy, and thanks to commenters for pointing this out. Access to abortion is defined under the 1961 Crimes Act, and processes governing abortion under the Contraception. Sterilisation and Abortion Act 1977. This means, legally speaking, Bob is dead right. I stand by my intention in these sentences though, which is that "information packs" about abortion from Family First will be featuring every piece of "information" they can to deter people terminating unwanted pregnancies.

But my apologies for the inaccuracy.


Monday said...

Good news, I think - though a different decision would have (hopefully) forced government to make changes to the existing law which is an ass. Abortion is still a criminal act in this country, with exceptions regarding the health of the mother, so Bob is actually right on that one (and only that one) point.

LudditeJourno said...

Ha ha, thanks Monday.

Lucy said...

Love the dom post article on this. Biased much???!?!?!?

Psycho Milt said...

Same owner as the Sunday Star Times, which has also been peddling the odd "Won't someone think of the unborn children" story lately...

Scar said...

removing the rights of young women to make decisions about their own fertility, and increasing parental control.

Can we please watch it with the erasure of trans men? It's not just (cis) women who get pregnant.