Late abortion figures for totals under 10 described as ‘statistics of little value’

Not unexpectedly the Department of Health marched into the Information Tribunal this morning circulating a page from the Daily Mail (not usually their favourite newspaper) reporting the killing of the American abortionist, Dr George Tiller. This was just the latest example in the DH’s scaremongering to fuel their totally hypothetical and absurd position that full exposure of abortion statistics could lead to violence, which completely ignores the reputable standing of the ProLife Alliance and the public’s right to know the truth.

Most of the morning was taken up with endless repetition of the wisdom of repressing abortion information in relationship to abnormalities, wherever the specific figures were under 10. This, it is argued, will ensure that cases such as the Jepson Case are never repeated. Note - not that a cleft palate abortion will not be carried out, but that it will not be legally challenged.

No matter how many times it is pointed out that the Jepson Case involved a legitimate inquiry into the possibility that an illegal abortion might have occurred, and that it was the subsequent police investigation (not nosy members of the public or media) that brought the issue into the public arena, the DH still imagines that this is a very convincing justification for the current suppression of information. Such a case must never happen again.

Their arguments are nonsensical. Curious members of the public (known as motivated intruders in statistical jargon) could look for weeks at the statistics for Ground (e) abortion, and never get any closer to identifying either women undergoing or doctors performing these abortions. The figures are simply numbers, with no gestational age or geographical reference attached, or any other specific identifying information. Needle in a particularly gigantic haystack comes to mind!

Mr Frank Nolan, Director of Census at the UK Office for National Statistics, spent most of the morning elaborating on ‘intruder’ scenarios and the rationale behind the new suppression philosophies, following evidence from Ms Jane Fisher of Antenatal Results & Choices. Prof Vivienne Nathanson from the British Medical Association shared Ms Fisher’s concern for the privacy of patients undergoing terminations for fetal abnormality, but included the doctors performing abortions in this solicitude as well.

It occurred to none of them that doctors are not always right or perfect, or that women
should in any way be challenged over decisions to end pregnancies because of fetal abnormality. And as to the unfortunate babies aborted post-24 weeks, it was decided that these were simply ‘statistics of little value’ in the great scheme of things; not even much use for medical research purposes or the like.

Prof Stuart Campbell, giving evidence on behalf of the ProLife Alliance, robustly defended the right and value of transparency in the reporting of abortion figures, and focused particularly on late abortions for cleft palate and Downs’ Syndrome. In both cases such abortions could involve taking the life of an already viable baby and might well be illegal under the current Abortion Act. He criticised any attempts to hide these figures, no matter how small. He remarked that during a period in his career when he was supervising large numbers of abortions in a London hospital, he never had any queries whatsoever from the DH regarding any of the abortions taking place in his department, and he doubted that the DH was scrutinising abortion practice in the UK as it should.

Forthcoming:

Tomorrow morning, Dr Vincent Argent, a former medical director of bpas, by video-link from Gibraltar, will also argue for full transparency in the reporting of abortion figures. He asked to give evidence on behalf of the ProLife Alliance, fully aware of our total opposition to abortion.

How extraordinary that two prominent doctors, not themselves opposed to abortion, defend the right of the public to full disclosure and transparency, whilst the Department of Health fights to the last to justify its decision to suppress the contested information.

Share/Save