The third reason, in terms of mental health, is generally interpreted generously to create a de facto elective abortion service, and almost all abortions – 98% in 2019 and 2020 – are performed to protect women`s mental health. [5] According to historian Sally Sheldon, while the abortion bill was passed on the basis of “the defence of public health and equality, the liberalisation of the issue of abortion, and therefore for the benefit of British women”, reproductive autonomy was not placed at the heart of the law. Sheldon points out that during the debates on the bill, which subsequently became the abortion law, reformers were firmly behind the idea that doctors were in the best position to decide whether an abortion was justified or not. The abortion law needed to be liberalized as a matter of urgency at the time of the 1967 abortion law. Women died because they did not have access to safe abortions, turned to unsafe abortions or drugs that would have caused abortions – a cheap option included lead, which poisoned many women. The 1967 law rejected the importance of reproductive autonomy and instead presented the public with a medicalized interpretation of abortion. Currently, more and more doctors have a liberal attitude towards abortion and more abortions are performed in the nonprofit sector, making abortions incredibly accessible. The 1967 abortion law creates a narrative of women needing paternalistic control. The requirement for physicians to act as guardians reduces women`s ability to make autonomous decisions. Women must justify the reason for their decision to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. Overall, the very idea of criminalizing abortion not only threatens reproductive autonomy, but continues to perpetuate the stigma associated with abortion.
What factors do doctors consider when deciding whether or not to perform an abortion? In 1938, R v. Bourne[22] allowed for further consideration. This case concerned an abortion performed on a raped girl and extended the abortion defence to the “mental and physical wreckage” (Lord Justice McNaghtan). Concerned gynecologist Aleck Bourne became a founding member of the anti-abortion group Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) in 1966.[23] The death of a person caused by an unlawful attempt to induce an abortion is, at the very least, manslaughter. [74] [75] These accreditation rules currently require two physicians to state the reasons for the abortion (both agree that at least one and the same reason is met) and provide other required information. Current regulations state that they can do this by filling out a specific official document – the HSA1 form. or by specifying the same information about signed certificates. The Abortion Act 1967 (as amended by the Human Fertilization and Embryology Act 1990) states that an abortion is legal if it is performed by a licensed medical practitioner (a physician) and is approved by two physicians acting in good faith, for one (or more) of the following reasons (each agreeing that at least one and the same reason is true): Shortly after the introduction of the Abortion (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2020, the newly restored Northern Ireland Assembly voted 46 to 40 to “oppose the imposition of abortion laws covering all non-fatal disabilities, including Down syndrome”.
[60] Following this vote, in February 2021, DUP MP Paul Givan introduced a Severe Fetal Impairment Abortion Grounds Bill (Amendment) to eliminate abortion grounds for non-fatal disabilities. It was considered in December 2021, but MPs decided – by a vote of 45 to 43 – not to present the main proposal of the bill at this stage. [61] When asked if too many women did not think deeply enough before having an abortion: In November 2015, Lord Justice Horner issued a statement of incompatibility under the Human Rights Act 1998 that Northern Ireland`s abortion law (particularly the absence of provisions for fatal foetal abnormalities or where pregnancy is the result of rape or incest) could not be interpreted in a manner that: Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, i.e. the right to respect for one`s private and family life, home and correspondence; the Convention also protects the right to life in Article 2. [85] In June 2017, the declaration of incompatibility was quashed by the Court of Appeal on the grounds that “the state must have a wide margin of appreciation” and that “the law in its current form has struck a fair balance until Parliament decides otherwise.” [86] [87] In June 2018, the UK Supreme Court ruled that Northern Ireland law was incompatible with the right to respect for private and family life, as the law prohibits abortion in cases of rape, incest, and fatal foetal abnormalities. However, the General Court did not reinstate the declaration of incompatibility, since it also held that the appellant did not have locus standi and that the General Court therefore lacked jurisdiction to issue a declaration of incompatibility reflecting its views on the issues of compatibility. [88] The Supreme Court`s judgments recognized that the Court did not have the power to declare the inconsistency, but contained a non-binding opinion that there was inconsistency and that a future case in which the applicant had standing was likely to succeed.