|
|
|
|
British High Court
Rejects Pro-Abortionist's Short-Cut Demand
Part Two of Four By Dave Andrusko British High Court Judge Michael Supperstone today rejected a challenge by Great Britain's leading abortion provider to loosen protections around the use of the two-drug abortion technique RU486. The British Pregnancy Advisory Service had taken the Department of Health to court for its refusal to buckle to BPAS's latest demand which would have increased the danger to women. The BPAS had argued that the language of Britain's Abortion 1967 law requiring "treatment" to be given in a hospital or a clinic should be interpreted to cover the prescription of the pills, but not the administration of mifepristone and misoprostol. This would allow women to self-administer the second set of pills at home, rather than in a hospital or a clinic setting. Health Secretary Andrew Lansley opposed the move. The chemical abortion technique is used in the first nine weeks of pregnancy and, according to published accounts, there are 70,000 such abortions in Britain each year. Judge Supperstone, sitting at the High Court in London, agreed with the Health Department's interpretation that the administration of both sets of abortion tablets amounted to "treatment" which must be carried out by a "registered medical practitioner" on premises approved under the Abortion Act. His decision, rendered Friday but made public today, was hailed by the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC). "Today's judgment is a victory for women," said Katherine Hampton, a SPUC spokeswoman. "If BPAS had won this case, it would send out the false signal that there is a 'safe' route to abortion. That could lead to more abortions, and more dead babies and more suffering for women. It would also have led to further restrictions on conscientious objection to abortion by doctors and nurses." Hampton also noted the wider significance of the decision internationally. "Chemical abortions are widely promoted in poorer countries, and any move to widen the practice here may adversely affect unborn babies and women around the world." Judge Supperstone ruled that Section 1(3) of the Abortion Act was "consistent" with the Health Secretary's submissions about the meaning of the concept of "treatment." He added, "Further, the section does make clear Parliament's decision that it is the Secretary of State, not the medical profession, who has the responsibility for approval of the place where the treatment may take place." Supperstone concluded that that the effect, "and indeed the very purpose," of BPAS' legal challenge would be that the Secretary of State's approval would no longer be needed to designate approved places. NRLC Director of Education Dr. Randall K. O'Bannon has explained in detail the many shortcuts the abortion industry has taken, elevating the risks to women (http://www.nrlc.org/News_and_Views/Oct10/nv101410part2.html). Among the most dangerous are: * Changing the respective dosages of mifepristone and misoprostol. * Promoted at-home, vaginal self-administration of RU486. "Generally, this seems to be one more example of the attempt to try to decrease the involvement of the clinic and its staff in the abortion," said Dr. O'Bannon. "Had BPAS succeeded, it would not only spare them the agony--and the trauma--of waiting on and watching the woman abort, but it would also reduce expenses and dump problems on the emergency rooms." It would allow abortionists "to abandon a woman at precisely the time when she faces the most medically risky and psychologically traumatic part of her abortion," he added. But what it would definitely not do, O'Bannon said, is increase safety. Please send your comments to daveandrusko@gmail.com. If you like, join those who are following me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/daveha. |