The Association of Lawyers for the Defence of the Unborn
 |
| Newsletter No 4 Winter 1979-80 |
The Association of Lawyers for the Defence of the Unborn
M. N. M. BELL, M.A.Cantab.) Chairman
T. G. A. BOWLES, M.A.(Cantab.)Hon. Secretary
40 BEDFORD STREET
LONDON
WC2E 9EN
Winter 1979-80
Number 4
News and Comment
Progress Report
Membership and aims
We are pleased to report that the number of members of the Association continues to increase steadily, and this has been particularly noticeable since we started advertising in the "Guardian Gazette". There are now nearly 500 lawyers who have signed our membership form, which now states,
"I hold all abortion operations to be wrong, whose purpose or one of whose purposes, is to kill the unborn child”.
"Wrong" may be a loose word, but it is apt, because in a just legal system, where every human being was equal under the law, abortion would be recognised as a crime meriting the same sanctions as murder. The act of taking the life of another human being must be an offence of equal gravity against the rights of that human being, whether it be done 9 days after life begins or 90 years.
Finance
Our finances remain satisfactory, largely because of generous donations which are given by many members joining the Association. However, it remains true that we could carry out our work of educating the profession far more effectively if we had more funds available. We would be grateful if any member who has a few pounds in the bank would consider sending us a donation, whether large or small, to enable us to maintain our work through 1980 at the same level as we have done in 1979. Please send donations to Miss Gabrielle Hanley, 3 Woodfield, St. Helens Crescent, Norbury, London SW16 4LD.
Evening Conferences
A most successful evening conference was held at Manchester in October 1979. It is hoped to hold a similar conference in London in the first half of 1980, and we would be grateful to hear from any member who would be interested to help in organising such a conference.
A meeting for all our members who are students or articled clerks has been arranged for the 2nd February at 40 Bedford Street. We hope that all such members of the Association, of whom there are nearly 100, will make every possible effort to attend. The purpose of the meeting is to plan how we can as an Association make the maximum impact on those studying law in this country.
Solicitors in the Association
There are now a very large number of towns in the country where we have solicitor members of the Association. We would naturally like to have such members in every town, and to help achieve this we are publishing a list of the towns where we already have solicitor members, on the back of this newsletter. We hope that this will also be of use in facilitating the organisation of local meetings, which we hope will be held more and more frequently. Naturally if any members would like to know the name and address of colleagues in nearby towns we will be delighted to supply this.
A Father's right to protect his Child
Mr. Gerard Wright Q.C., whose opinion on the rights of the father of the unborn child appeared in our No. 2 Newsletter, has kindly offered to draft a model set of pleadings with notes on procedure taken from his own experience, for the use of solicitors and Counsel involved in trying to prevent an abortion. These would obviously be invaluable to any member involved in such proceedings, and we would ask members to communicate with Mr. Wright direct if they would like to have a copy.
Abortion (Amendment) Bill
Members will be aware that Mr. John Corrie M.P. has introduced an amending bill into the House of Commons. This Association has appointed a sub-committee, of two barristers and two solicitors, which has prepared a set of amendments to the draft Bill. These have been submitted to Mr. Corrie, and to some other members of the Committee which is considering the Bill.
We feel that in certain places the provisions of the Bill could be very much strengthened to the advantage of the unborn child, and in particular we would deplore any suggestion in the Bill that the handicapped child should be placed in any way in a worse position than the healthy child. An article on the way that medical science is being used to kill the handicapped in our society before birth appears elsewhere in this newsletter. Any amending Bill should include provisions to put a stop to such discriminatory practices.
Declaration of the Rights of the Child
At the conclusion of the "Year of the Child" it may be appropriate to draw the attention of members to the United Nations Declaration of 20th November 1959 on the rights of the child. The portions of that declaration which will be of most interest to the members of this Association are reproduced below:-
Whereas the child, by reason of his physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth, NOW THEREFORE the General Assembly proclaims this Declaration of the Rights of the Child:
Principle Four. The child shall enjoy the benefits of social security. He shall be entitled to grow and develop in health; to this end special care and protection shall be provided both to him and his mother, including adequate pre-natal and post-natal care.
We leave it to our members to form their own judgment about how much attention the Government of this country gives to this Declaration of the United Nations.
********
The Rule of Law
The Rule of Law is the foundation of human rights, because in a society where the law, any law, can be broken with impunity the basic rights of the individual to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are set aside. In their place is substituted the principle that might is right and he who is stronger may kill and rob him who is weaker.
The Attitude of our present Government
Our present Government claims to be particularly concerned to uphold the Rule of Law. In her first public speech as Prime Minister, Mrs.Thatcher said, "The battle against crime will be pursued with relentless vigour and total commitment".1 They also claim to be particularly concerned in upholding the weak against the strong. Mr. Whitelaw in a Party Political Broadcast on the 30th August 1978 said that it was a fundamental part of Conservative policy to encourage people to look after themselves, but those who were too young were entitled to expect all the help, all the compassion, we could give them.
From these remarks one would expect this Government to be relentless in punishing those who unlawfully kill the unborn child. However, in previous issues of this Newsletter we have had occasion to draw readers' attention to numerous examples of cases where the law which protects the unborn child is being broken habitually and openly. Abortionists boast in medical journals2 and on television that they perform abortion on demand (which is illegal: see R.-v- Smith)3, while the duly constituted authorities whose duty it is to enforce the law stand by and do nothing.
All late abortions are illegal
Month by month the Government produces statistics showing the number of late abortions performed. From these it is clear that thousands of notified abortions take place after the date at which a child is capable of being born alive. A child is capable of being born alive (albeit the length of time for which existence may be sustained is short) from the time that he or she is completely formed, that is, 10 to 12 weeks from conception. In 1975, the last year for which we have published statistics, the number aborted after 12 weeks was 27,069.4 To kill in the womb a child capable of being born alive is a criminal offence.5 Nor are these crimes where the Government has to seek out the criminals. The Government is notified of the crime and of the person who committed it in every case. Yet there has not been one single prosecution by this Government or its predecessors to punish the criminals involved.
Children born alive - an avoidable error!
Babies are repeatedly born in our hospitals following abortions, only to die, because they had not reached the stage where they could sustain independent existence. An article in the British Medical Journal for the 28th July 1979 referred to cases which had been reported at Wanstead, Whiston and Barnsley Hospitals. It must be apparent, even to the Prosecuting Authorities, that if a child is born alive it is capable of being born alive, and that each of these deaths is attempted child destruction (child destruction being intended), and actual homicide because the death of a human being was achieved. Once again, no prosecutions followed any of these cases.
Professor Peter Huntingford of the University of London was quoted in the Observer of Sunday 6th May 1979 as stating that at the time of abortion a poisonous substance should be injected into the womb to achieve the objective that the baby be born dead, and in "General Practitioner" of 18th May 1979 it was reported that this procedure was actually being carried out at one hospital. Once again it must be obvious, even to the Prosecuting Authorities, that if it is necessary to inject a solution to prevent a child from being born alive then the doctor who injects that solution must believe that the child is capable of being born alive, and must therefore know that he is committing the crime of child destruction. Once again no prosecution followed this well documented evidence.
Some more unpunished crimes
Mr. Goldthorp, a Consultant Gynaecologist, wrote in the British Medical Journal in 1977 that he was carrying out the menstrual aspiration technique with the intent of aborting if the mother was pregnant. This is clearly an offence under the Offences against the Person Act 1861,6 because it is an act done with intent to cause a miscarriage, and the Abortion Act 1967 can give no defence, because if the doctor does not know if the mother is pregnant he cannot form an opinion that the balance of the risks favours termination. This practice is now widespread, and is well known to the Prosecuting Authorities. Yet no prosecutions follow.
The same Professor Huntingford mentioned above was recently reported in the Daily Telegraph7 as saying that he inserted abortifacients into women in deliberate violation of the law. Whether that statement is true or not is immaterial. The fact is that those whose duty it is to uphold the law were apparently just not interested, and did not prosecute him.
Since all these instances of illegal abortions are so well known, and so well documented, it is quite clear that there is a deliberate policy by those members of the Government whose duty it is to enforce the law to take no action. Quite clearly the rule of law is being brought into ridicule and contempt. Do we as lawyers have a duty to do anything about this?
The role of the lawyer
Lord Denning, addressing the National Conference of the Law Society in October 1979, spoke of the Rule of Law as the foundation of civilised society, and pointed out that it was we the lawyers, who by upholding the Rule of Law, laid this foundation. And he made clear that he regarded this as being no less our duty today than in past times. But where do the leaders of our profession stand on this question of the law relating to the unborn child? Have we heard even one protest, one complaint, from those whom we elect to represent us, and who stand at the head of our profession? On the contrary, every breach of the law so far as it relates to the unborn child, is met by a deafening silence.
It is up to us
It is up to the 500 members of this Association to remedy this. We can do this by drawing the attention of those who are responsible for enforcing the law, those who are the leaders of our profession, and those who govern our country, to their duty in this matter. It is up to us to write to our representatives at the Law Society, at the Bar and in Parliament, and to call upon them to speak up on behalf of the profession. If they ignore us, or reply indicating that they intend to do nothing, then let us make this known to the general public through the media. If one of us complains, little is likely to happen. If all 500 of us complain, we may by a united effort thrust back those whose purpose it is to destroy what Lord Denning calls "The foundations of civilised society". Because that is precisely what the indiscriminate and unpunished killing of our fellow human beings must lead to; and speedily.
Notes
1The Scottish Conservative Conference at Perth 12th May 1979
2e.g. British Medical Journal 15th September 1979
319741 AER376CA
4OPCS Monitor 1975
5Infant Life (Preservation) Act 1929 S.I.
6Sections 58 and 59
729th October 1979 at Page 21
********
Back Street Abortions
It has always been the view of this Association that because we are bound to accept the medical profession's findings that the life of each human being begins at conception, the only law which can logically be defended is one which imposes on the killer of the unborn child the same penalties as are imposed on the killer of the born child.
However, with increasing frequency those who oppose any change in the present law are heard to say that if abortion is made more difficult to obtain legally, this will not save unborn children. It will merely mean that women resort to "back street" abortionists.
Because this argument is nowadays heard so frequently, even on the lips of those who are opposed to abortion in principle, it is appropriate to make clear that this Association does not accept this view, and to explain why not.
Legal abortions do not drive out illegal abortions
The first argument which abortionists put forward in favour of their view is that the criminal abortion rate before 1967 was somewhere around 100,000 a year, and making abortion legal has not much increased this. Therefore making abortion illegal would not much reduce the total number of abortions. However, the myth that the criminal abortion rate was around 100,000 a year was exploded by Dr. C. B. Goodhart of Cambridge University as long ago as July 1973 in the magazine "Population Studies". In his article, copies of which can be obtained from our Chairman, he showed clearly that the true figure could not have exceeded 20,000 and was probably nearer 15,000 criminal abortions a year before 1967.
Unfortunately statistics do not exist in this country for any reduction of illegal abortions since 1967. However, a survey in the World Medical Journal for July 1979 of the abortion situation in Denmark showed that although abortions there have become steadily easier to obtain legally since the last war, so that between 1967 and 1975 the number of legal abortions per year rose from 6,000 to 27,000, nevertheless the number of illegal abortions treated in hospitals fell during the same period only from 8,800 to 7,800. There is no reason to suppose that the situation in this country is any different.
Legalising abortion does not prevent maternal deaths
Another argument used against making abortion more difficult to obtain is that the number of maternal deaths caused by abortion has fallen since the passing of the Abortion Act 1967. This is true, but the implication that 2 legalising of abortions led to the reduction in the maternal deaths is false. A Report on confidential enquiries into maternal deaths in England and Wales (number 14) issued by the Department of Health and Social Security states that although the number of maternal deaths from abortion fell between 1967 and 1974, the reduction had occurred more dramatically after natural abortions, which are unaffected by the Act. It is clear from this that the reduction is due to improvements in medical science, and not to the legalising of abortion. This is not to imply that induced abortion can now be regarded as safe. Indeed the report shows that induced abortions cause six times as many maternal deaths each year as are caused by natural abortions.
It appears to follow from these figures, therefore, that if the law relating to abortion returned to the position as it was before 1967 there would not necessarily be an increase either in the number of illegal abortions or in the number of maternal deaths. However, there are also other strong grounds for assuming that returning to the pre-1967 position would not be the disaster which abortionists claim.
More maternal help now available
Before 1967 many girls went to back street abortionists because there were no support agencies to help them, and little Social Security and housing provision after the baby was born. Today there are many voluntary agencies helping girls in this position. For example, there are 180 Life Groups up and down the country, and some of these offer help to as many as 500 women every year who are worried about pregnancy. There are a number of other similar agencies in the same field, and also the Social Security position for a single mother with a baby is much better. Also, there are now many hostels providing accommodation for single mothers with babies, which did not exist a few years ago. Furthermore the same stigma does not nowadays attach to a single mother having a baby, as it used to do before 1967. If it were not for outside pressures from parents, boyfriends etc., which arise solely because abortion is so readily obtainable, there is little doubt that a great many more women today would prefer to keep their babies rather than have them aborted.
Abortion kills
Sufficient has been said to show that Mr. Corrie's bill, and any other legislation restricting abortion, would not necessarily lead to back street abortions. However, even if the arguments set out above did not exist, there is no doubt that legislation restricting abortion is bound to save a very large number of human lives. It is inconceivable that back street abortionists working in their own homes could kill as many human beings as the huge abortion clinics and hospitals, which at the moment kill 300 children a day by conveyor belt methods. To argue otherwise is to say that Henry Ford could have made as many cars in his bicycle shed as he could do in his automated factories. Furthermore, by vigorous law enforcement back street abortions can be reduced, thus saving lives. Obviously legal abortions cannot be reduced by law enforcement, and therefore to reduce the grounds for legal abortion must increase the chances of saving human lives.
Bad logic makes bad law
A further argument used by abortionists is that restricting abortions is struggling against the inevitable. However, people said before 1833 that there was no point in prohibiting the slave trade, because slavery had always been in existence, and always would be. Also they said that it would be impossible to enforce such a law. Nevertheless the slave trade was made illegal in that year, and as a result slavery is nearly unknown today. It is well proven that the legalising of any human activity tends to make it respectable, and inevitably leads to an enormous upsurge in that activity, which in the case of abortion has led to a corresponding enormous loss of human life.
Finally, it is not a good reason for refusing to make something illegal to say that the law would be difficult to enforce. For example, it is difficult to enforce the law against violence in Northern Ireland. That is no reason for legalising violence in Northern Ireland. The legalising of violence against the unborn child in this country is equally unjustifiable.
********
AMNIOCENTESIS
This is one of those medical terms, which in the past have meant very little to the average lawyer, but which we are going to hear much more about in the future.
It is a technique by which certain fetal abnormalities can be diagnosed antenatally at about 16 weeks gestation. Without going into medical detail, what happens is that a very thin needle is inserted into a pregnant woman, and into the amniotic sac of fluid which surrounds the unborn child. By this means some of the fluid is drawn out and from analysis of this fluid certain fetal abnormalities can be detected.
In 1978 the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology published an assessment of the hazards of amniocentesis in the form of a report to the Medical Research Council, by their working party on amniocentesis. This report revealed some very interesting information.
In about 98% of cases where fetal abnormality was detected the pregnancy was terminated. There is no way in which the abnormalities found can be treated or cured, and thus the only purpose of the treatment is to kill the patient if abnormality is detected. It is therefore in no sense therapeutic.
It must also be emphasised that the test cannot detect the degree of abnormality, and the abnormality can range from a mere pimple to very serious defects. Indeed there are grounds for believing that in some cases where the tests are positive there is in fact no detectable fetal abnormality at all.
According to the report the tests revealed fetal abnormalities in 5% of the women who were tested. This means that in 95% of cases the tests were totally unnecessary on any grounds whatever. There would be perhaps no harm in this, if the test involved no hazards. However, the report clearly shows that the hazards to the mother and the baby are substantial.
The findings of the working party are surrounded with many qualifications, and it is perhaps not fair to try to summarise them, and anybody interested is recommended to read the full report. However, at the risk of being slightly misleading, the way in which the tests were carried out was by comparing the pregnancies of 2400 women who had amniocentesis, as against the pregnancies of 2400 women who did not. The results were that among those who had the test there were twice as many spontaneous abortions, four times as many severe haemorrhages, twice as many unexplained respiratory difficulties in the born child, and nine times as many major orthopaedic postural deformities in the born child.
The results of this survey raise a number of serious questions, among which the following must be of particular interest to lawyers:-
1. Is the mother advised before the test of the risk to herself and the child from this non-therapeutic treatment? If not, what remedies does she have, if she or the child are damaged, or the child killed?
2. If she is so advised, what right does she have to consent to treatment of the child, which she knows beforehand cannot be for his benefit, and could seriously damage him?
3. What remedies does a child have who is born deformed, or with other difficulties, as a result of this unnecessary treatment? It would seem more than possible that he could recover damages under the Congenital Disabilities (Civil Liability) Act 1976.
The use of this treatment is becoming increasingly common, and the "indications" for it can be as slight as "maternal anxiety", according to the report. It is hoped that the above questions will be resolved in the Courts before this highly undesirable treatment becomes regarded as normal for all pregnancies.
*********
For the interest and use of members we list hereunder the towns in which there are one or more solicitors who are members of this Association:-
Abergavenny
|
Manchester
|
Aldershot
|
Marlow
|
Altrincham
|
Middlesborough
|
Axminster
|
Milton Keynes
|
Aylesbury
|
Mirfield
|
Badminton
|
Newbury
|
Basingstoke
|
Newent
|
Beckenham
|
Newhaven
|
Bedford
|
Northampton
|
Billericay
|
Norwich
|
Bilston
|
Nottingham
|
Birkenhead
|
Peacehaven
|
Birmingham
|
Petersfield
|
Blackburn
|
Plymouth
|
Blackpool
|
Pontefract
|
Blackwood
|
Poole
|
Bodmin
|
Port Talbot
|
Bolton
|
Preston
|
Bournemouth
|
Purley
|
Bradford
|
Raglan
|
Bridport
|
Rayleigh
|
Brigg
|
Reading
|
Bristol
|
Romford
|
Burnley
|
St. Albans
|
Bury
|
Sale
|
Cambridge
|
Salisbury
|
Cardiff
|
Sandbach
|
Caterham
|
Scarborough
|
Chelmsford
|
Seaford
|
Chester
|
Sheffield
|
Chislehurst
|
Sheldon
|
Chorley
|
South Croydon
|
Colchester
|
Sowerby Bridge
|
Congleton
|
Stafford
|
Colwyn Bay
|
Stockport
|
Coventry
|
Stoke-on-Trent
|
Cranleigh
|
Stratford-on-Avon
|
Deal
|
Sudbury
|
Derby
|
Sunderland
|
Devizes
|
Sutton Coldfield
|
Dorking
|
Taunton
|
Dublin
|
Teddington
|
Dumfries
|
Thornton Heath
|
Dundee
|
Tonbridge
|
Durham
|
Truro
|
Edenbridge
|
Tunbridge Wells
|
Edgware
|
Wakefield
|
Edinburgh
|
Wallasey
|
Epping
|
Walsall
|
Epsom
|
Warwick
|
Exeter
|
Wembley Park
|
Farnham
|
Westcliffe-on-sea
|
Fleet
|
Weston-Super-Mare
|
Glasgow
|
Wetherby
|
Gloucester
|
Weybridge
|
Godalming
|
Whitchurch
|
Gosport
|
Wigan
|
Grantham
|
Wilmslow
|
Gravesend
|
Wimbledon
|
Greenock
|
Wirral
|
Guildford
|
Witham
|
Halifax
|
Wolverhampton
|
Hampton
|
Woodford Green
|
Harrow
|
Worcester
|
Hitchin
|
Worthing
|
Hornchurch
|
Yateley
|
Hull
|
Yeovil
|
Ipswich
|
York
|
Kidderminster
|
|
Kings Lynn
|
|
Lake
|
|
Leeds
|
|
Leicester
|
|
Leighton Buzzard
|
|
Letchworth
|
|
Lincoln
|
|
Lingfield
|
|
Listowel
|
|
Littlehampton
|
|
Liverpool
|
|
London (20)
|
|
Lymington
|
|
Macclesfield
|
|
Maidenhead
|
|
Maidstone
|
|
Malmesbury
|
The Association of Lawyers for the Defence of the Unborn accepts the undisputed findings of modern embryology that human life begins at conception. The Association therefore holds that natural justice requires that the unborn child, no matter how young, should enjoy the same full protection of the criminal law as is enjoyed by his or her mother or by any other human being.
