Proposed abortion law changes are not discriminatory

The letter raised important and thought-provoking challenges, and while the committee stands by its proposals, it is right that these aspects of the proposals are discussed and explored. It is an area which the committee has given much consideration; recognising that abortion in such circumstances is not an easy decision, nor one that anyone would take lightly. We have looked to other jurisdictions to see what we can do to make our abortion laws in Guernsey better and fairer to everyone. We are aware of the legal challenge being led in the UK by Heidi Crowter and will, of course, reflect on this case as it progresses. We think it is important to provide a response to the letter, explaining the proposals, the challenges, and the reasons why we feel the proposals will enable more compassionate abortion services in Guernsey.

The letter described the proposals as giving ‘unborn viable babies from 24 weeks in the womb less protection in law if they have a disability than those of the same age who are non-disabled’. The committee does not consider that this is true. The reason why this category exists is because some foetuses are so unwell that they are just not viable: they will not survive long after birth, if at all. Some women will – understandably – find it unbearable to carry a pregnancy to term, and then to give birth, if they know that their child is not going to survive. The committee feels that it would lack compassion to force a woman to do so.

That’s why this category exists. However, the definition is very broad, and we know that in the UK it has been used for Down syndrome and other similar conditions. It’s natural that some people may find this deeply hurtful and offensive. The committee has carefully explored whether it would be possible to define this category differently, for example by concentrating the definition on the fatal conditions described above.

However, the difficulty is this is likely to push us more towards defining ‘what kinds of lives are worth living’, not less – and that’s the opposite of what the committee or campaigners want. At the moment, it would take a careful, sensitive conversation between the pregnant woman and the health professionals who are caring for her to decide whether an abortion could be carried out under this category or not. This allows each pregnancy to be considered on its own terms. The committee considers this is the right way forward.

Abortions under this category are very rare, even in the UK. Earlier in pregnancy it’s harder to be certain if the foetus is seriously unwell and unlikely to survive. The committee considers that the later time limit gives women more time to think about what they need and to have more reliable tests done. In some cases, this can actually result in a woman choosing to continue with a pregnancy.

It isn’t true that the proposals have been put out during lockdown, without the public having a chance to have their say. They were published three months ago – well before lockdown started – and many members of the public have contacted the committee, and States members, to share their views. The committee has recently encouraged islanders to share their views on the proposals and will be sharing a summary in the coming weeks.

THE COMMITTEE FOR HEALTH & SOCIAL CARE