By Dave Andrusko
There are abortions myths, abortion illusions, and abortion distortions. They come together when someone argues the case that [fill in the blank] is a “compromise,” because there is no position that will satisfy everyone, let along the ‘extremists.’
Such is the tact taken by Daniel Sokol, writing in British newspaper, The Guardian newspaper, under the almost amusingly inaccurate headline, “Why the Abortion Act deserves to live: The 1967 Act is a delicate compromise that has survived nearly half a century.”
Not being a native, I can only speculate what the motivation was for the article. As we’ve discussed a number of times over the past month, the Abortion Industry—caught flat-footed disregarding the paltry requirements that are necessary before abortions are performed—have adopted the position that the best defense is a good offense.
Two separate investigations discovered that some abortionists were routinely approving illegal sex-selective abortions and that abortions clinics were routinely falsifying their paperwork. Abortionists do not have to see a woman seeking an abortion in person, but they must certify that they are aware of her circumstances and why she wants to go ahead with the abortion. Inspections undertaken by the Care Quality Commission discovered that as many as a fifth of clinics were pre-signing consent forms for the abortionists.
That’s the context for a wave of sympathetic stories that suggest there is some great movement to fundamentally alter the abortion laws. Alas, that is not true. Sokol’s piece is a variation on a theme.
He insists that the 1967 Abortion Act both reflects the “moral pluralism,” which “is a feature of British society” and is “rooted in the real world”–“a pragmatic way to resolve the tension between the rights of the pregnant woman and the rights of the unborn child.”
The only problem is that while the law ostensibly places limits on the end-point at which abortions can be performed, in truth it does nothing of the sort. Under the 1967 Abortion Act, abortion on “social grounds” is legal through 24 weeks but (under “Ground E”) is legal until birth if there is a substantial risk of “serious” physical or mental abnormality.”
Obviously, the sole limitation would be a strict definition of “abnormality.” Eight years ago it was discovered that a 28-week-old baby diagnosed with a bilateral cleft lip and palate was aborted, brought to light by Church of England curate Joanna Jepson which initiated a lengthy battle between pro-lifers in England and a recalcitrant Department of Health.
This finally cumulated last year in the government explaining what babies were aborted for what reasons under “Ground E.” The report revealed the precise numbers, gestational ages, and types of disability of babies aborted between 2002 and 2010 in England and Wales.
In 2010 alone, 482 babies with Down’s syndrome were aborted, including ten who were over 24 weeks of age. According to the Department of Health a total of 2,290 babies were aborted in 2010 for “medical conditions.”
The point simply being that for Sokol to write that “The Abortion Act is a delicate compromise, seeking to respect female autonomy while affording some protection to the foetus” and that “it is a wise piece of legislation on a divisive and complex issue” is preposterous times ten.
Your feedback is very important to improving National Right to Life News Today. Please send your comments to firstname.lastname@example.org. If you like, join those who are following me on Twitter at http://twitter.com/daveha