Shock: Almost 2,700 Abortions on Down Syndrome Babies in England, 99 After 26 Weeks
by Steven Ertelt | London, England | LifeNews.com | 7/19/13 4:08 PM
The number of abortions on babies in England with Down Syndrome or other congenital abnormalities is on the rise.
One of the leading pro-life groups in the U.K. is shocked by the numbers and says aborting disabled babies is offensive and government-driven and getting worse. The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) provided LifeNews with the new figures from the latest official statistics for abortions in 2012.
Anthony McCarthy, SPUC’s education manager, commented: “It is tragic that, largely unremarked, the latest DoH abortion statistics show that Ground E abortions for suspected handidcap in the foetus were 2,692 this year, as opposed to 2,307 in 2011, an increase of nearly 300.”
He added: “Late abortions (post-24 weeks) have risen from 146 to 160, and that 99 of these took place after 26 weeks. Nearly all of these will have been for disability, at least according to the law.”
CLICK LIKE IF YOU’RE PRO-LIFE!
McCarthy continued: “The DoH policy of promoting universal screening to ensure that as many disabled babies as possible are aborted has been in place for many years, so it is difficult to know the reasons for the increase. There have been discrepancies between figures published by the DoH and those from Eurocat and the National Down Syndrome Cytogenic Register on abortion for disability. Possible prior underreporting by the DoH may explain the situation, though trends in later-age pregnancies may also be a factor. Either way, the double-standard between post-birth care for the disabled and the NHS-funded elimination of the disabled before birth continues apace.
“Forward thinkers in the pro-abortion lobby are pressing for this double-standard to be abolished, by introducing infanticide – as evidenced by a special edition of the Journal of Medical Ethics earlier this year, with editorials calling for this to be examined”, concluded Mr McCarthy. (See http://jme.bmj.com/content/39/5/260.extract )