---

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 71: 71: Before Clause 59, insert the following new Clause— ““Amendment of law relating to late abortion (1) In subsection (1) of section 1 of the Abortion Act 1967 (c. 87) (medical termination of pregnancy), paragraph (d) is repealed. (2) In subsection (2) of section 5 of that Act (supplementary provisions), paragraph (a) is repealed. (3) In paragraph (b) of that subsection, the word ““other”” is omitted.”” The noble Baroness said: The amendment would remove from the Abortion Act 1967 the discrimination built into it whereby a baby with a disability can be aborted up to birth, while a 24-week limit is in place for babies without disability. The amendment would effectively act as a disability equality measure. For instance, a baby with a disability could not be aborted at a stage of pregnancy later than when the abortion of a baby without disability is prohibited. Sometimes this is described as creating a level playing field. In order to achieve that, it is necessary to remove in its entirety the section permitting abortion for disability. There is no other way to redress the discrimination in the Act. The amendment does not impact on any other sections in the Abortion Act, so that in all other respects abortion up to the current limit of 24 weeks would not be affected. In reality, this would mean that no abortion for disability could be performed after the 24-week abortion time limit. A woman receiving diagnosis of disability of the baby could still access abortion before the 24-week time limit under Section 1(1)(a), on the basis that continuing the pregnancy would involve risk of injury to the physical or mental health of herself or any existing children of the family. Abortion could not, however, be authorised on the basis of the baby’s disability. The amendment would repeal Section 1(1)(d) of the Abortion Act 1967. Section 1 of that Act states: "““(1) Subject to the provisions of this section, a person shall not be guilty of an offence under the law relating to abortion when a pregnancy is terminated by a registered medical practitioner if two registered medical practitioners are of the opinion, formed in good faith—""(a) that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family; or""(b) that the termination is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; or""(c) that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated; or""(d) that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped””." The amendment would also repeal Section 5(2)(a) of that Act, insofar as it refers to Section 1(1)(d). Section 5 states: "““(1) No offence under the Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 shall be committed by a registered medical practitioner who terminates a pregnancy in accordance with the provisions of this Act.""(2) For the purposes of the law relating to abortion, anything done with intent to procure a woman’s miscarriage (or, in the case of a woman carrying more than one foetus, her miscarriage of any foetus) is unlawfully done unless authorised by section 1 of this Act and, in the case of a woman carrying more than one foetus, anything done with intent to procure her miscarriage of any foetus is authorised by that section if—""(a) the ground for termination of the pregnancy specified in subsection (1)(d)) of that section applies in relation to any foetus and the thing is done for the purpose of procuring the miscarriage of that foetus, or""(b) any of the other grounds for termination of the pregnancy specified in that section applies””." If Section 1(1)(d)— "““that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped””—" and Section 5(2)(a)— "““the ground for termination of the pregnancy specified in subsection (1)(d) of that section applies in relation to any foetus and the thing is done for the purpose of procuring the miscarriage of that foetus””—" were repealed, the amendment would right a tragic discrimination concerning babies in the womb. The law for terminations as it stands is 24 weeks, but if the foetus is thought to have a handicap, it can go full term before it is aborted. To me, that is unacceptable. With equal opportunities legislation, anti-discrimination legislation and human rights legislation for disabled people, I cannot understand why this legislation does not also protect babies before they are born. I am told that to kill a baby which is aborted late a lethal injection is administered such as is given to kill prisoners on death row in America. Because late abortions are so difficult to talk about, many people do not realise that this practice is allowed. As I said at Second Reading, the present law has been abused, with the abortion of babies with such minor disabilities as cleft palate or club foot. The noble Lord, Lord Darzi of Denham, has told me that it is now possible to operate on such babies in the womb and correct their condition. Surely something should be done now to put this injustice of aborting such babies right. How much pain does a developed baby feel in the womb? There are many aspects of life and death that we are not sure about. Have we become a society with anti-discrimination legislation that looks correct but in practice does not happen? The Bill before us has many complicated matters that are breaking new ground, but this discrimination against disabled babies could easily be rectified by accepting the amendment. I beg to move.