June 2

Unfortunately a video-link from Gibraltar with our witness Dr Vincent Argent, scheduled for the morning of Day 3, was not possible due to technical difficulties at the Court, and so he was not able to be questioned on his statement in defence of open access to abortion statistics.

Dr Argent approached the ProLife Alliance asking to give evidence on our behalf, notwithstanding his background in abortion which includes a brief period as Medical Director for bpas. He is in favour of full disclosure per se but also as an essential vehicle for better medical research into issues associated with pregnancy and fetal disability.

One has to ask, ‘If doctors such as Prof Campbell and Dr Argent are prepared to stand up in open Court and discuss abortion calmly, and both argue in favour of full disclosure of statistical information, and both are giving evidence on behalf of an organisation which is openly opposed to abortion, why is the Department of Health, far from being neutral, so determined that this information should be withheld?’

The ProLife Alliance, represented by Josephine Quintavalle, gave evidence on Tuesday. In the face of more scaremongering from a DH armed with random newspaper cuttings about isolated incidents of violence from anti-abortion individuals (including naturally the tragic murder of Dr Tiller), she asked why they had not included information about the tireless good work done by pro-life groups internationally in supporting women facing crisis pregnancies or trauma after abortion.

She also reminded those present that abortion is an illegal action if it does not conform to the exemption clauses of the Abortion Act, and that it is therefore unlike any other medical procedure. She stressed that abortion figures are a record of the termination of the lives of babies, not a record of the doctors who performed them, or even of the mothers who underwent them. It is surely a right for the public to know exactly why these lives were sacrificed.

The decision to change the method of reporting abortion statistics, as we well know, is a knee-jerk reaction to the Jepson Case, in which a doctor who had performed an abortion post-24 weeks for cleft palate self-identified following an absolutely legitimate police inquiry into the legality of said abortion.

Abortion statistics per se do not identify doctors or women, and it would be an impossible needle in a haystack exercise to unravel who had performed any particular abortion or those who had undergone them by any in-depth perusal of abortion statistics. Curiously no evidence of how this superhuman search could be achieved has been offered by the DH during the Tribunal Hearing.

The ProLife Alliance, in evidence, repeatedly noted that anybody in the UK wishing to get information on where abortions are being performed has simply to log on to the internet. A five-minute search will provide as much detail as one could wish for. In fact there is a sense of competition between the major abortion providers in the United Kingdom as to who offers the best deal. One provider even alludes to the quality of the sandwiches on offer.

June 3

The final day was left to the various parties to argue their case, which was more about the legal ramifications of data protection in conflict with freedom of information than about abortion itself. Anybody interested in more detail is welcome to contact us directly.

Some of the evidence was so secret that the ProLife Alliance was not even permitted to be in Court to hear it, and other evidence was either heavily redacted (blacked out) or given reluctantly only on formal guarantee that the ProLife Alliance would not reveal it to the public.

Witnesses who appeared over these last four days were:

Geoff Dessent DH

Further Spokesperson DH

Frank Nolan Office of National Statistics

Stuart Campbell FRCOG

(Vincent Argent) FRCOG not heard for technical reasons

Jane Fisher Antenatal Results & Choices

Natalie Tomecki on behalf DH

Vivienne Nathanson BMA

……………………………………………………………………………….

Long ago when the ProLife Alliance was fighting another freedom battle in relation to freedom of speech, trying to have its uncensored election broadcast shown on BBC TV, Cardinal Basil Hume wisely remarked, ‘If abortion is so horrifying that we cannot look at it, should we be doing it?’

7 million abortions since 1967. We need to know the truth.

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.

Babies are aborted post 24-weeks in the United Kingdom and not even worthy of an openly recorded number on a sheet of statistics.

Friday 29 May 2009

In a week with the public braying for full transparency in relationship to every dot and comma involving MPs expenses, it was extraordinary to sit in the Tribunal Court in London hearing arguments from the Department of Health as they defended the withholding of full disclosure of abortions statistics. Babies are aborted post 24-weeks in the United Kingdom and not considered worthy of even an openly recorded number on a sheet of statistics. Money is clearly a greater value in our society than vulnerable human life.

The ProLife Alliance is asking that information about abortions justified under Ground (e) of the Abortion Act be published openly, rather than in the current mode where any numbers under 10 for a specific medical condition related to the health of the baby are now suppressed. Many tables are amalgamated simply under totals and given a generic ‘other’ as the only specific description.

We are Additional Party to this case, which entitles us to be present and question witnesses. Civil liberties barrister, Mr Paul Diamond, is representing the ProLife Alliance and made a strong mark on the first day of this 4-day hearing.

The respondent to the DH is the Information Commissioner, ably represented by Mr Timothy Pitt-Payne, who is defending the ruling made last July in favour of the ProLife
Alliance when we requested the suppressed information under the Freedom of Information Act.

This determination to suppress information is primarily the result of the cleft palate case initiated by the Rev Joanna Jepson in 2002, when an attempt was made to get a police investigation into one post-24 week abortion for this condition.

Mr Geoff Dessent from the Department of Health had no hesitation in admitting that this was the reason why abortion statistics are now less explicit than they were in 2001. Another less significant case involving a mistaken case of an under-age abortion was also mentioned but in essence the decision not to let the public know in full the reasons why specific abortions are being performed (some 7 million to date remember) is essentially because of the cleft palate case and the media interest it elicited.

The Rt Hon Ann Widdecombe wrote a witness statement for the ProLife Alliance defending our good name as well as recording the debates in Parliament in 1990 when the unfortunate provision allowing abortion up to birth for disability became part of our Abortion laws. We were obviously keen to have Miss Widdecombe present in person during the hearing, but there was great resistance on the part of the DH to allow this. Her evidence stands on record, however, and we are most grateful to her for her tireless defence of human life.

Please contact the ProLife Alliance if you would like more details about the legal arguments, and do come to the hearing if you want to follow the issues more closely.

Forthcoming:

On Monday the director of Antenatal Research & Choices (ARC), Ms Jane Fisher, will be giving evidence, with focus on the tragedy for women when they receive diagnoses of abnormality, her worries about doctors being identified, and criticism of the ‘anti-abortion lobby and certain disability rights campaigners’. She notes that following the Jepson Case there is greater professional caution around the offer of post 24 week terminations. How extraordinary that caution in these circumstances could be interpreted as a negative!

The affiliation of ARC with ‘Voice for Choice’, who campaign so vociferously to liberalise the Abortion Act, does not appear in her witness statement.

Prof Stuart Campbell, famous for his extraordinary ultrasound pictures of the baby developing in the womb, will be called on Monday as witness for the ProLife Alliance. He will argue the medical and scientific necessity of accurate statistical information for general healthcare policy.

Reflection:

During this first day’s hearing one reflection keeps coming to mind; how often the DH team use the term ‘abnormal fetus’ when they are defending abortion for disability, but how the term changes to ‘normal baby’ when they were discussing pregnancies that would continue. Not one word of hesitation or regret was expressed by the DH team for the babies who would be aborted. Compassion in plenty for the doctors, however.

We must remind everybody that abortion statistics are not about the doctors who perform them or the women who undergo them; they are a tragic record of the babies who have been killed. At the very least we deserve the whole truth as to why these tiny victims lost their right to life.

………………………………………………………………………………………………

The hearing continues for a further 3 days.
9.45 am Monday June 1 at Procession House, 110 New Bridge Street, EC4 6JL (near Ludgate Circus)

Regrettably, the Observer does not include any prolife comment or opposition to euthanasia at all - it instead quotes a series of pro-euthanasia supporters. This pro-euthanasia bias constitutes scaremongering. It is no wonder 800 people are queuing up, if this is the pro-euthanasia diet they are being fed by the media.

Dominica Roberts from the ProLife Alliance was interviewed on LBC radio today at 11am. During the interview, she warned of the dangers of allowing assisted suicide which will inevitably lead to vulnerable people being pressurised. She also called for better palliative care services.

Several callers to the programme described their experiences of the inadequacy of the NHS, and cited this as a reason for supporting assisted suicide, while other callers argued that the callers’ bad experience of the NHS simply proves that improving nursing and palliative care is the answer. One caller contrasted the inadequate NHS care, with the superb care given in a hospice.

Clearly, this debate will go on and it is vital that everyone expresses their opposition by calling radio stations, writing to the media, and lobbies Parliament to demand that care for the terminally ill is improved and euthanasia remains illegal.

Time: 10:30 am
Dates: Friday 29 May, Monday 1 June, Tuesday 2 June, Wednesday 3 June
Place: Procession House, 110 New Bridge Street, London EC4V 6JL.

Background:
Since September 2004 the ProLife Alliance has been requesting from the Department of Health (DH) full disclosure of abortions statistics in relationship to terminations carried out under ground (e), the category dealing with abortion for disability, including those post-24 weeks and up to birth.

Prior to 2003 when the police were asked to investigate the legality of a late abortion for cleft palate, abortion statistics were becoming ever more transparent. Subsequent to that case, however, the DH reversed the trend and began to significantly suppress detailed information.

It is now impossible to identify precisely how many abortions have been performed under a number of categories of disability, including cleft palate. An unspecified category recorded as ‘other’ is sometimes the only detail available.

The ProLife Alliance turned to the Information Commissioner (IC) in January 2006, having failed to get any satisfaction from the DH. After further and considerable delay on the part of the DH, the IC reached a decision in July 2008 in favour of the ProLife Alliance and ruled that the suppressed data should be disclosed. The DH appealed the decision and it is this case which will be heard on Friday, 29 May, and next week on 1,2, & 3 June.

Witnesses for the ProLife Alliance include the Rt Hon Ann Widdecombe MP, Prof Stuart Campbell (Consultant Obs&Gynae specialist renowned for ultrasound pictures of unborn babies) and Prof Vincent Argent (Consultant Obs&Gynae specialist and a former bpas medical director).

Prof Vivienne Nathanson from the BMA is among the witnesses for the Department of Health.

For further information:
ProLife Alliance : 020 7581 6939

End

————————————-
ProLife Alliance
PO Box 13395
London
SW3 6XE

Tel: 020 7581 6939
Fax: 020 7581 3868
E-mail: info@prolife.org.uk
Website: www.prolife.org.uk

The long-standing inadequacies of abortion reporting, however, have not altered. The new statistics yet again record incidences of missing ages, missing gestations, missing postcodes, and missing grounds.

It is totally unacceptable that a health procedure, which is illegal if not performed within the full conditions laid down in law, is being reported so inadequately.

We draw particular attention to the issue of so-called sensitive fields, whether related to age of those undergoing abortion or the actual grounds for abortion, where it has been decided to withhold any figures that go below 10.

We note that yet again under Table 9 which deals with abortions for disability, which can be performed up to birth, relevant details of some of the medical conditions for which abortion is being justified are lumped together without any specific identification of the congenital or chromosomal disability in question.

The ProLife Alliance is adamant that there should be full disclosure of all statistics relating to abortion, and after an exchange of correspondence initiated in 2004 was successful under the Freedom of Information Act in obtaining a ruling in our favour against the Department of Health. The DH have challenged this ruling and a Full Tribunal Hearing is scheduled for Friday 29 May, and 1st, 2nd & 3rd of June to determine the issue.

Abortion is a criminal act if not performed within the terms of the Act and no information should be withheld from the public in relationship to abortion practice in the United Kingdom.

The Government should be conducting a full inquiry into the adequacy of abortion reporting, rather than conducting expensive legal procedures to justify further withholding of information.

“ … there were procedures structured in which made things easier for me, for instance during the scan, not having a viewing monitor was quite appropriate. Staff also went out of their way to help me make the most of my day’s worth of childcare, and I was able to have the consultation and the termination on the same day. Here’s yet another example of your excellence: the sandwich I requested was slightly off-menu, and it was made perfectly. It was so nice to receive. … the aggregate impact of you getting so many details so very right is what made the experience as positive as possible. …”

2. A woman who herself had an abortion alerted the ProLife Alliance to the above comment, which she found particularly upsetting. She was deeply traumatised by the operation and has written at length about her experience. These are some of her reactions:

‘I feel totally betrayed by the system that insists women have the right to choose. I am angry that the sonographer told me that it was best not to look at my baby during the scan, as I was undecided … Nobody warned me of the psychological toll – the guilt, the self-hatred, the constant crying, the inability to see or be around pregnant women, the loss of appetite, inability to sleep … Had I seen my baby on the screen during my scan I do not believe that I would have, could have aborted it.’

Is abortion really just a question of aggregate impact and the right sandwich filling …

This decision is horrifying but sadly inevitable in a country where abortion is legal on demand (up to 18 weeks in Sweden), which means that a woman can request abortion for any reason whatsoever.

The huge disgust that people have for abortion on gender grounds should prompt the complete rejection of any law which allows abortion to be a matter of individual choice.

The Swedish judgment, unpalatable as it is,  should at least alert us to the dangers that lie ahead for other European countries. As appalling as the situation is currently  in the UK,  our society likes to think that abortion on grounds of gender is illegal, hence the stories of Asian women travelling to India to abort baby girls. But the ProLife Alliance has already warned of the very real possibility that social sex selection abortions are taking place in the United Kingdom given the ease with which first trimester terminations are performed.

Yearly abortion figures are due to be published next week and we demand that the Department of Health undertake a thorough review of the practice of abortion in the United Kingdom, rather than continuing its current practice of withholding information about abortion from the public domain.

Date: Thursday July 2nd 2009
Venue: London Metropolitan University, 16 Goulston Street, E1 7TP
Cost: £65 (includes light lunch and refreshments); Sponsored places available at £25.

Speakers include:
Baroness Jane Campbell, former Disability Rights Commissioner
Lord Alex Carlile Q.C.
Baroness Mary Warnock, DBE, FBA
Dr Philip Howard, Gastroenterologist, St George=92s Hospital
Sally Chidzoy, BBC Journalist
Dr Gillian Craig, MD, FRCP. Vice Chairman Medical Ethics Alliance

Barristers and solicitors are entitled to claim 6 CPD points for attendance.

Booking form and conference flyer available here

Further details:
Dr Jacqueline Laing: Tel: 0207 320 4930
Email: j.laing@londonmet.ac.uk

Applications:
Claire Keefe: Tel: 0207 320 4950
Email: c.keefe@londonmet.ac.uk

____________________
Dr. Jacqueline Laing
BA LLB (ANU) DPhil (Oxon.)
Barrister, High Court of Australia
Solicitor, England & Wales

Director of Juris
London Metropolitan University
16 Goulston Street
London E1 7TP
Ph: 020 7 320 4930 (direct)
020 7 320 4900 (dept.)
j.laing@londonmet.ac.uk
____________________