I’ve long wondered about this

“The policy basically says that it’s normal for a baby with Down’s syndrome to be terminated right up until birth.
“The reason why this is important to me is because I have Down’s syndrome, I know what it is to have it, and my husband has it.”
Asked how she feels to have been given the go-ahead with her landmark legal battle, she added: “I feel amazing knowing that the case is going to be heard in the High Court.”

We’ve a certain contradiction in the law here.

Abortion is legal up until birth in cases of severe deformity. But only to 24 weeks in cases without deformity.

We have strict anti-discrimination legislation against the disabled. Hmm, perhaps in favour of the disabled.

So, abortion law is different for the disabled and the not so. This is discrimination that we have laws against.

Dunno about this specific case or any other but there is that contradiction there all the same.

This is known as petitio principii

Barrett’s body of rulings is not that large, making it difficult to extrapolate how she would rule on important issues if elevated to the supreme court. But we have ample reason to believe that Barrett, a conservative Catholic, is hostile to abortion rights and might overturn Roe v Wade when she had a chance. In addition to being a conservative Catholic, Barrett is a self-described legal “originalist” who almost certainly believes Roe was a legally shoddy opinion. (Even Ruth Bader Ginsburg was not that confident in the legal grounds for the ruling.)

The thing is, when considering constitutional law, what is being decided is whether abortion is a right. Rights stemming from the constitution and the bill of rights etc. Which is something that a judge on a constitutional court should have a view upon.

In the absence of rights as declared by said court then abortion becomes a thing of politics which is where it probably should be in my biased and unimportant view. Like it is all over Europe for example.

The very shouting about abortion rights and Roe is begging the question. Because the Roe question is whether it’s a right or not.

Jonathan Freedland is an ignorant twat

What will they do if that 6-3 court overturns Roe v Wade and bans abortion across the entire country?

Roe v Wade doesn’t make abortion legal and its absence wouldn’t make it illegal. The case makes abortion a constitutional right based upon a rather weird reading of the right to privacy.

You’ll note that here in the UK we do not have a constitutional right to abortion. We do have abortion. The French constitution does not announce a right to abortion – they have it too. And so on.

Abortion was legal in some parts of the US before Roe v Wade and becoming so in more of them.

If Roe v Wade were overturned – unlikely but it should happen because it was a shockingly bad piece of law even if excellent politics and possibly, dependent upon views, civil rights – then the legality or not of abortion would become a matter of democratic (no, not Democratic) politics in each state. Which is almost certainly where it should be too.

The legislatures – the mini-parliaments of each state – have the power to choose

Quite so. And why shouldn’t this be a matter of democracy?

Well, sorta, maybe

They’re coming for the eugenicists now:

Eugenics was the study of the selective breeding of humans to increase the occurrence of heritable characteristics regarded as desirable.

-ish. -ish-ish.

Even if that’s a possible definition it did very rapidly become the selective breeding of humans to decrease the occurrence of heritable characteristics regarded as undesirable.

Like stopping the inform the disabled, the weak, actually the proles, from breeding. And if we’re going after the eugenicists then where is this going to end. Marie Stopes? How about abortion of the handicapped? And the Fabian Society is gonna have some ‘splainin’ to do as well…….


A man who stabbed to death 19 residents at a care home in Japan for people with disabilities has been sentenced to death.

Satoshi Uematsu, a former employee of the Tsukui Yamayuri En (Tsukui Lily Garden) facility in Sagamihara, south-west of Tokyo, carried out the attack in 2016, in which residents were targeted as they slept.

Twenty-four other residents and two care workers were injured in what is one of post-war Japan’s worst mass killings.

The 30-year-old admitted to the rampage during hearings at Yokohama district court but pleaded not guilty on the grounds of diminished responsibility, with his lawyers claiming he was suffering from a psychiatric disorder at the time of the attack.

He was sentenced to death by hanging.

Uematsu told the court last month he would not appeal against his sentence, no matter what it may be, newspaper Mainichi reported.

Police said Uematsu, described by neighbours as polite and helpful, was motivated by a deep-seated hatred of people with disabilities. He told police after his arrest that society would be better off if disabled people “disappeared”.

Certain of the Fabians – the Webbs perhaps – would be arguing for a medal for such actions.

Presented without comment

The percentage of conceptions leading to a legal abortion among all women resident in England and Wales increased from 22.7% in 2017 to 24.0% in 2018, the highest percentage since records began in 1990.

In 2018, the conception rate for women under 18 years was higher in the 50% most deprived areas in England, while the percentage of conceptions leading to a legal abortion was higher in the 50% least deprived areas in England.

Not really, no

On the front page

Abortion Argentina set to become first major Latin American country to legalise termination

The article:

Argentina is on track to become the first major Latin American country to legalise abortion.

Argentina has had an on/off relationship with termination for decades. Sometimes from helicopters.

Well, we could think that eugenics is behind us, yes

This week, one old and discredited technological fix has reared its head: eugenics, the pseudoscientific belief that humans can be bred to “perfection” in the same way we breed cattle or domestic pets for particular traits. Developed by Charles Darwin’s cousin, Francis Galton, in the 19th century, it was promoted by politicians and intellectuals in Britain, before becoming the justification for millions of involuntary sterilisations globally, mainly of the poor and disabled, and the Nazis’ devastating programme of “racial hygiene” that culminated in the Holocaust.

One might think that such a morally and scientifically vacuous ideology would be behind us by now,

Leave aside whatever opinions you might have over the moral worth of abortion. Think about it just for a moment. The current system states that a foetus (gob of meiotic cells, human being, whatever) with an extra chromosome 21 may – and in many places should – be killed at a much later stage of development than one not so blessed with genetic abundance.

Whatever we might call this, a slaughter of the innocents, just common and garden good sense, this is quite clearly eugenics and it’s a common, even cornerstone, part of our current society.

That is, we’ve not really left it behind, have we?

There’s an alternative explanation here

However, a recent paper takes a different perspective, examining instead the financial impact of women seeking abortions but being denied them. Looking at those seeking abortions in the US close to a gestation limit after which abortions are not allowed, the study considered years of detailed credit reports of two groups of women – one that had abortions because they were under the gestation limit and the other made up of women who were denied one because they were just over it.

The effects were huge. Those denied an abortion were 81% more likely to face bankruptcies or evictions than before being denied an abortion, and 78% more likely to be in arrears on debt. Giving birth is of itself a cause of financial distress but the research shows it is greater for women denied an abortion, possibly highlighting the economic impact on women of being able to control the timing of when they give birth.

Maybe those who can’t count can’t count?

Possible a correlation between those who cannot count 3 or 6 months from conception with those who cannot the months of rent to be paid, the credit card bills piling up?

Not that I say it must be this. But we would expect a correlation between those who cannot organise life and those who cannot organise life…..

That’s a chunk of the electorate locked down then

I don’t think Trump believes this for a moment but:

And to all of the moms here today: We celebrate you, and we declare that mothers are heroes. (Applause.) That’s true. Your strength, devotion, and drive is what powers our nation. And, because of you, our country has been blessed with amazing souls who have changed the course of human history.

We cannot know what our citizens yet unborn will achieve, the dreams they will imagine, the masterpieces they will create, the discoveries they will make. But we know this: Every life brings love into this world. Every child brings joy to a family. Every person is worth protecting. (Applause.) And above all, we know that every human soul is divine, and every human life –- born and unborn –- is made in the holy image of Almighty God. (Applause.)

Together, we will defend this truth all across our magnificent land. We will set free the dreams of our people. And with determined hope, we look forward to all of the blessings that will come from the beauty, talent, purpose, nobility, and grace of every American child.

That’s a solid chunk of the electorate locked down for the autumn.

Weird to be agreeing with Rebecca Long-Bailey

Rebecca Long-Bailey’s Labour leadership bid risked being derailed by a row on abortion, as it emerged that she objected to the current law on late terminations.

Labour MPs accused the pro-Corbyn candidate of holding “absolutely toxic” views after she said she disagreed with the exemption allowing abortions on disability grounds after the 24 week limit for healthy foetuses.

Quite apart from anything else it seems to breach the Disabilities Act*.

We’re not allowed to discriminate – either for or against – those in wheelchairs for example. Except we can kill those who might need a wheelchair because of spina bifida when we can’t kill those who might not. Sure sounds like discrimination to me.

*Or whatever it’s called.

Don’t think this is true you know

Our happy ignorance had a lot to do with the victories of feminism. Germany’s women’s movement started in the 1970s with the fight against section 218 of the country’s criminal code, which punished abortions with jail sentences of up to 10 years – for both the woman and the doctor. That’s why it was such a big thing when 374 film stars and other famous women declared “We’ve had abortions” on the cover of Stern magazine in 1971. Because the law didn’t mean fewer terminations; only more women dying of abortion by coathanger. Women like my great-grandmother. I am yet to meet a German person who does not have a section 218 victim in the extended family.

Willing to agree that legal abortion will lead to fewer dying of coathangers. Can’t see it possibly being true that legal abortion leads to no more abortions tho’. That’s most certainly not the experience here, is it?

And the idea that every German family – however extended – has someone who died from an illegal abortion is absurd. The overall death rate of all women of reproductive age from all causes isn’t high enough for every family to have a victim is it?

This works both ways love

Most of us will be familiar with the “12-week” rule – the longstanding social convention that dictates that women mustn’t tell anyone they’re pregnant before the 12-week mark, “in case something happens”. It’s time to talk about the insidious effect it has on women who suffer a miscarriage early in their pregnancy.

An estimated 650 babies are miscarried every day in the UK, with the vast majority occurring during the first trimester. Most of these losses will be suffered in silence, because it’s considered so socially unacceptable to reveal that you’re pregnant before 12 weeks – let alone that you were pregnant, but now you’re not. It’s baffling that in 2019 we seem so wedded to an anachronistic superstition……

Yes, but we’ve also got rather a lot of people saying that in the early stages it is nothing but some gob of meiotic cells that can – possibly should – be done away with. With no more consideration than a blowing of the nose.

Anti-Cakeism sorta demands that either it’s something to be mourned and not killed or it’s a nothing that can be excised at will but not noted.

Right decision – eventually

The Court of Appeal has blocked a mentally ill woman’s abortion after the Catholic church warned it would infringe her human rights.

Three senior judges overturned a ruling made on Friday that the woman, who is in her 20s and 22 weeks pregnant, should have a termination against her wishes because it was in her best interests.

Very twisted reasoning here

Trans people need to fight to protect abortion, this ban impacts us too


….but we face our own particular set of challenges on top of access to abortion. This includes access to sperm banks and freezing eggs to be able to pro-create, as hormone therapy and especially genital surgery can render people unable to conceive or get pregnant. Making sure trans people have access to this is therefore a reproductive rights issue.

So artificial conception is the same thing and cause as unconception?

America’s abortion war on women

It’s really not quite that simple:

Moreover, as tempting as it is to think of Ivey, the executioner’s friend, as a monster who happens to be female – in which the worst qualities of Agatha Trunchbull, Dolores Umbridge and Margaret Atwood’s Aunt Lydia manifest as a homely-looking 74-year-old – she runs a state in which a majority of both sexes oppose abortion rights.
Nationally, the slight gender differences on abortion choice have been related by one US pollster, Celinda Lake, to religious faith. “Women are more religious than men, and so women are slightly less pro-choice than men.”

Yes, yes, however. Democracy. Isn’t it supposed to be the people who make the law?