The court ruled on the age of viability of the foetus. Nobody had been foolish enough to claim before that, at 21 weeks, a foetus might be viable. The man who brought this case was laughed out of court. But to stop any other idiot doing it again, they changed the law in 1991, to bring in a fixed 24 week time limit, so there would be no doubt in future about the time limit. I would imagine a 10 year old could understand this.
Vive La France!
- Thread starter noseall
- Start date
The court ruled on the age of viability of the foetus. Nobody had been foolish enough to claim before that, at 21 weeks, a foetus might be viable. The man who brought this case was laughed out of court. But to stop any other idiot doing it again, they changed the law in 1991, to bring in a fixed 24 week time limit, so there would be no doubt in future about the time limit. I would imagine a 10 year old could understand this.
MBK mistakenly thought that it didn't say 'authorise', when in fact it does say that. He just misread it or misunderstood the grammar......
Lol. In his anger, he forgot to put on his spec's.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 15,782
- Reaction score
- 2,371
- Country
Cases with no merit do not get to the Supreme Court. Nobody was laughed out. The law was changed to address this.
IRONY ALERT!
Read this paragraph and tell us what it says in bold type....
Currently, the requirement for two doctors to certify that a woman meets the legal grounds for abortion has the potential to delay treatment. It may be difficult for a woman who is concerned about confidentiality to find two doctors to approve her abortion request. There is no central monitoring of delays to treatment of this type, but recently, Tony Calland, the Medical Ethics Committee Chair of the British Medical Association (BMA) said that "some women waited up to 13 weeks [gestation] to have their abortion approved by two doctors and removing this requirement would reduce such a wait and the associated risks". The requirement for two signatures for solely legal purposes also increases treatment costs by introducing unnecessary bureaucracy.
.....what do you think Dr Tony Calland means?
Lol.
It didn't get to the Supreme Court, which by the way didn't even exist at that time. There was an expedited hearing. The High Court said there was no standing, an hour later the Court of Appeal said it was nonsense, the House Of Lords refused to hear it.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 15,782
- Reaction score
- 2,371
- Country
[1987] EWCA Civ J0225-1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(MRS. JUSTICE HEILBRON)
Royal Courts of Justice.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(MRS. JUSTICE HEILBRON)
Royal Courts of Justice.
Did you miss that bit?
I'm not sure that it is the actual assessment causing the delay. Probably doctor shortages etc.
- Joined
- 31 May 2016
- Messages
- 15,782
- Reaction score
- 2,371
- Country
The fact remains. The 1929 act had power until the 1991 changes.
- Joined
- 25 Jul 2022
- Messages
- 10,707
- Reaction score
- 803
- Country
I think you are beginning to understand why this thread is still going
OCD traits, decent memory and an avid reader.
Yes, that is true. It was a complex construction involving the Abortion Act, the OAPA and the 1929 Act. Then in 1991 they simplified it, and they brought the bit that had been governed by the 1929 Act directly into the Abortion Act.
Perhaps MBK can't say...?Read this paragraph and tell us what it says in bold type....
Currently, the requirement for two doctors to certify that a woman meets the legal grounds for abortion has the potential to delay treatment. It may be difficult for a woman who is concerned about confidentiality to find two doctors to approve her abortion request. There is no central monitoring of delays to treatment of this type, but recently, Tony Calland, the Medical Ethics Committee Chair of the British Medical Association (BMA) said that "some women waited up to 13 weeks [gestation] to have their abortion approved by two doctors and removing this requirement would reduce such a wait and the associated risks". The requirement for two signatures for solely legal purposes also increases treatment costs by introducing unnecessary bureaucracy.
.....what do you think Dr Tony Calland means?
Lol.
No. The 1991 rules didn’t simplify the law. It removed the possibility of doctors being prosecuted for ending a viable life, that is major not insignificant. And it extended de facto abortion on demand to full term, effectively mbk’s reference to socio economic grounds, all at the same time as reducing the limit to 24 weeks. I can’t see any reference to 28 weeks in the 67 act so it must have changed the 29 act too. Far from a simplification
No it didn't. What you call "de facto abortion on demand" is restricted to 24 weeks.
They did simplify the construction of the law, which was the subject of my post. Instead of having the time limit in a different Act, they brought the time limit into the Abortion Act itself. I mean simplified in the sense that now there are only two Acts rather than three.
It disapplied the 1929 Act in these cases. See the point immediately above. The Act itself was unchanged.
Last edited: