Two of the UK's leading judges have paved the way for a high court test case to examine the criteria necessary for an abortion to go ahead.
In a decision which focuses on the human rights of fetuses and could undermine a law which supporters insist has served women well for 35 years, Lord Justice Rose and Justice Jackson on Monday gave a Church of England curate permission to challenge a decision by police not to prosecute doctors who carried out an abortion on a fetus which had a cleft lip and palate.
Medical ethicists have warned that the case could have wider implications if as a result Parliament decides against setting new rules in other areas of medicine because it feels doctors cannot be trusted to follow them properly.
"It was quite clear in the 1990 parliamentary debate on amending the Abortion Act that the clause on late abortion must not be used for such trivial things as a cleft palate. If it [parliament] decides that doctors cannot be trusted to keep to the rules it is setting in areas such as this, then it may in future decide not to set new rules at all," Richard Nicholson, editor of the Bulletin of Medical Ethics, said.
The Reverend Joanna Jepson, curate of St Michael's church in Chester, believes the procedure at the center of the controversy, which was carried out late in the pregnancy, was "unlawful killing" and in breach of the abortion law. She has said her legal action is partly an attack on the cult of perfection, and she claims that the case raises the "increasingly worrying concern of eugenics in our society."
The termination was carried out after the normal 24-week time limit, which is only allowed in circumstances where the pregnancy is likely to result in the baby being born with severe physical or mental disability. What constitutes a "severe abnormality" is not fully defined by the law and allows doctors to exercise clinical judgment as well as taking the mother's wishes into consideration.
Jepson, who was born with a congenital jaw defect that was not corrected until her late teens, says a cleft palate is not a serious handicap and the law should not allow abortions for "trivial reasons."
The Cleft Lip and Palate Association backed her case, saying it would never condone a termination at 24 weeks if a foetus was diagnosed with a cleft palate and had no other medical complications.
The Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child also endorsed the young cleric's campaign, which it suggested could be expanded to include all disabilities.
"We would like to stress that we don't regard the right to life as dependent on any degree of handicap," the society's general secretary, Paul Tully, said.
But Jepson's critics are concerned that the case could wind up undermining the 1967 Abortion Act.
"We are flabbergasted that someone with absolutely no connection to this case can be allowed to bring an action like this. It is absolutely no business of hers," a spokesman for Marie Stopes International said.
"Two doctors in consultation with this particular woman reached a conclusion that it did constitute a serious handicap. It should not be for a disgruntled member of the public to question what should be a very private decision between a woman and her doctors. We too would like to see a change in the law, but one which would allow abortion on request, thus removing this whole questioning of women about their motives," the spokesman said.
The British Pregnancy Advisory Service also criticized the decision to allow the legal challenge to proceed.
"When the law was passed it was deliberately left vague for the decision to be made between the woman and her doctors," a spokeswoman said.
Jepson's initial application for a judicial review was rejected by a judge last month. But at the high court in London on Monday, Rose and Jackson reversed that decision.
Jackson said the curate had "substantial hurdles" to overcome in the next stage of her application for judicial review. But he added: "I am persuaded, having listened to the statements of counsel, that this case does raise serious issues of law and public importance."
The abortion at the center of the case was carried out in 2001 when the unnamed woman, from Herefordshire, was more than 24 weeks pregnant.
Richard Gordon QC, for Jepson, told the court the decision by West Mercia police not to prosecute was incompatible with a section of the Abortion Act which says that a post-24 week abortion can only take place if "there is substantial risk that if the child is born it would suffer from severe physical or mental disabilities."
The court was told that the force had taken advice from the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists which said a cleft palate was a good enough reason for the abortion.
But Gordon said a cleft palate could not be considered a "severe" disability within the meaning of the act.
Speaking after the hearing Jepson, who insists she is not anti-abortion, said: "My teenage years were difficult due to facial abnormality. I also have a brother with Down's syndrome."
"We both live positive and fulfilling lives. The baby in this case did not have this opportunity, despite the availability of excellent and routine medical help.
"I hope we shall succeed at trial and recognize once again the value and dignity of our common humanity, disabled or able-bodied, no matter what we look like," she said.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers