Victory for ProLife Alliance as Department of Health Forced to Release Statistics on Late Term Abortions

Yesterday, the ProLife Alliance won its long standing battle with the Department of Health (“DoH”) to have statistics on late term abortions published.

Since 2003, the DoH had refused to release important statistics on late term abortions, stating that it could be a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998.

In 2005, the ProLife Alliance used the Freedom of Information Act 2000 to request the full statistics on abortions for 2003. However, the DoH refused the request and sought to keep the statistics suppressed. The ProLife Alliance then took the case to the Information Commissioner, who agreed that the statistics should be released, as did the Information Tribunal.

The DoH then appealed the Tribunal’s decision to the High Court, which yesterday found for the Information Commissioner and the ProLife Alliance, holding that the statistics must be released. The DoH must now decide whether to attempt an appeal to the Court of Appeal.

The case concerned information on so-called “Ground E” abortions.  Whilst the upper time limit on lawful abortions in the UK is 24 weeks, under “Ground E” of the Abortion Act 1967, the unborn baby can be killed up to the point of birth if 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

Up until 2003 the DoH published statistics on these late term abortions.  However, in 2002 the statistics revealed that an abortion was carried out on a baby with a cleft lip and palate.  Critics pointed out that a cleft palate required a very simple surgical procedure and in no way constituted a “serious handicap”.  Pro-life groups argued the rules were being abused to weed out "less than perfect" babies and as a result, the ProLife Alliance began its case for information—a case which once again ended in victory in the High Court yesterday.

Outside the court, Josephine Quintavalle of the ProLife Alliance said:

"This is a great victory for freedom of information and accountability and most importantly for the rights of the disabled unborn child. There is no proper mechanism for the scrutiny of abortion provision other than the meagre information provided by statistics, and these were far more detailed in 2001 than they are today, particularly in relationship to late abortions."

However, Ann Furedi, chief executive of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service, said:

"The real issue at stake is not how and when statistics are published, but that the late abortions currently performed for foetal anomaly are lawful and that doctors should be able to carry them out without intimidation. They are no one's 'dirty little secret' and the doctors and nursing staff involved deserve admiration and support."

Responding to the case, Andrea Minichiello Williams, CEO of Christian Concern, said:

“The vast amount of public money that the Department of Health is willing to spend in order to keep important information about abortion suppressed is remarkable.  We are grateful that the High Court dismissed its appeal and recognized that releasing information about abortion is both necessary and proportionate in a civilized society. Accurate information not only informs debate but also allows the public to recognize the true reality of abortion. When the reality is known, we believe the public will want to see it changed.”