Pro lifers in the UK are seeking transparency—that’s the big new buzz word, isn’t it?— about eugenic abortion in the UK, and apparently the government is trying to squelch the news. From the story:
They have accused officials of using restrictions that are more heavy-handed than those used in terrorist trials, to exclude them from a tribunal which will decide whether statistics on foetuses aborted because of disabilities will be published.That’s always the excuse. But they just don’t want the truth out—to the extent that the government doesn’t even want them allowed in the hearing:The hearing next month will decide whether figures on the number of babies aborted for disabilities such as cleft palate and club foot should be published.
While abortion is only legal in the first 24 weeks of pregnancy if carried out on social grounds, it is legal to abort a foetus which has a serious risk of physical or mental abnormality, right up to birth. In 2005, after a public outcry over the termination of a foetus with a cleft palate at 28 weeks, the Department of Health (DoH) stopped publishing abortion statistics if fewer than 10 cases were carried out. Details of abortions on foetus with club feet, cleft lips and palates and webbed fingers and toes were no longer published.
The Information Commissioner has ordered the release of the figures, requested by the Pro-Life Alliance campaign group, but the DoH is resisting, claiming that the data could lead to women who have late abortions being identified.
During discussions about restrictions at the hearings, Government lawyers referred to procedures used in terrorist trials, when lawyers are not allowed to discuss the most sensitive evidence with their clients, before going further, to request that the alliance are entirely banned from proceedings.Well, such acts are best done in secret. It keeps the collective conscience from being disturbed and the national self image from being tarnished.
Julia Millington, from the alliance, accused the Government of a “serious misuse” of the judicial process to shield the debate from scrutiny.