ISSUES
: Abortion
Chapter 2: Abortion debate
36
of people surveyed by Amnesty last
year in Northern Ireland believed that
abortion should be made available in
certain circumstances.
This is by no means a mandate for
abortion on demand. But it is still a
sea change, says Amnesty’s Grainne
Teggert, and an acknowledgement
that abortion is not a black and white,
“pro or anti” issue.
“For years, no one talked about it,”
says Jenny McEneaney of the Belfast
Feminist Network, “but people are
talking about abortion now.
“Being anti-choice is the default in
Northern Ireland. But when you have
those conversations, you start to see
people changing their minds.”
Politicianshavebeenslowtoreflectthis
change in opinion through policy. The
justice department held a consultation
into fatal foetal abnormality, in light of
Ms Ewart’s story, and recommended
that abortion should be made legal in
this case.
But theDUP, Northern Ireland’s largest
party, and the nationalist SDLP are
still vehemently pro-life and reluctant
to be seen to make any concessions.
Despite being very sympathetic to
Ms Ewart at the time, First Minister
Peter Robinson of the DUP has
since backtracked and said that the
law doesn’t need to be changed.
Instead he offered to publish
long-awaited guidance on the
existing law, despite a previous
DUP health minister, Edwin
Poots, acknowledging in 2013:
“any changes around lethal foetal
abnormalities
would
require
amendments to criminal law.”
In fact, just two weeks ago, the DUP
tried to increase the criminal penalty
for abortion and close down the
Marie Stopes clinic. The motion was
outvoted by just 41 to 39.
After a year of lobbying politicians,
this is why Amnesty is supporting
legal action, echoing the landmark
1973 Roe vs Wade case that
legalised abortion for the first time in
the United States.
“Sometimes when you need radical
social change – and this is radical
for Northern Ireland – it’s usually
through the courts that it has to
happen,” adds Ms McEneaney.
Don’t Screen Us Out initiative to
protect babies with Down’s
D
on’t Screen Us Out, a
campaign
highlighting
concerns over the proposed
use of a new prenatal test for
Down’s syndrome, was launched
last week.
The new test uses NIPT (non-
invasive prenatal testing) to screen
a pregnant mother’s blood for tiny
fragments of DNA.
These fragments (cell-free DNA)
are then checked for abnormalities,
including
Down’s
syndrome,
or trisomy 21. The screening is
offered between 11 and 14 weeks
of pregnancy.
The Don’t Screen Us Out campaign,
led by international advocacy
group Saving Down Syndrome,
warns that the new test will “enable
a kind of informal eugenics in
which certain kinds of disabled
people are effectively ‘screened
out’ of the population before they
are even born”.
More lives lost
TheUKNationalScreeningCommittee
(UK NSC) has recommended that
the new screening procedure, also
called the cfDNA test, be added into
the NHS Fetal Anomaly Screening
Programme.
The test is touted as a safer option
than amniocentesis, which is the
current test recommended to women
who have a one in 150 or greater
chance of having a baby with Down’s
syndrome. Unlike cfDNA testing,
amniocentesis carries with it the risk
of miscarriage.
But critics of cfDNA testing point
out that more children will be found
to have Down’s using this new
method, which will lead to more
babies’ lives being lost. Currently,
nine out of ten babies who test
positive for Down’s syndrome are
aborted.
In a response to the UK NSC’s
consultation on cfDNA screening
published last October, Christian
Concern highlighted that this
new procedure could lead to
an additional 92 abortions on
the basis of a Down’s syndrome
diagnosis every year.
New campaign highlights
dangers
Don’t Screen Us Out encourages
people to ask their MPs to oppose
“There’s no way that it’ll pass through
the (government) Assembly.”
All eyes will be on Belfast’s High
Court next week, and a judgement
is expected after the judicial summer
recess. It won’t change things
overnight, but a ruling in favour of the
Human Rights Commission would
give women the option of getting
around the law, as the court could
compel a health trust to assist with a
termination.
But for Ms Ewart? This is personal.
“For some people this is a political
debate,” she said, “but for me, this is
my life.”
15 June 2015
Ö
The above information is
reprinted with kind permission
from
The Telegraph
. Please visit
for further
information.
© Telegraph Media Group
Limited 2016
