RESTRICTIONS on abortions at home could soon be lifted permanently, with the Scottish Government looking to keep emergency changes made a result of the coronavirus beyond the pandemic
However, the move will likely spark a furious reaction from the church.
Early medical abortion, which can take place in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy, involves taking two different types of medicine.
Before the lockdown was introduced, women in Scotland could already take the drug misoprostol at home, provided they had first taken the drug mifepristone in a clinic 24 to 48 hours beforehand.
However, in the wake of the coronavirus outbreak, the previous chief medical officer, Catherine Calderwood, told the country’s NHS boards to allow women having an early medical abortion to take both abortion pills at home, following a consultation by phone or video.
Now the Scottish Government have opened a consultation on extending that policy for when “coronavirus is no longer a significant threat.”
Public Health Minister Joe FitzPatrick said:“All women in Scotland should have access to clinically safe abortion services, within the limits of the law, should they require this.
“The current arrangements were put in place to minimise the risk of transmission of COVID-19 and ensure continued access to abortion services, without delays, during this pandemic.
“This consultation allows will allow us to gather as much evidence as possible to help inform future arrangements."
Jillian Merchant, from Abortion Rights Scotland, welcomed the consulation.
She said: “Covid-19 has forced Government and Politicians to realise that our abortion laws are no longer fit for purpose or in line with modern medicine,” she said.
“The introduction of telemedicine during the pandemic has been a vital service for women seeking an abortion during this time.
"Telemedicine on a permanent basis would prevent thousands of women making multiple unnecessary journeys to GPs and Hospitals in order to access abortion services.
“Telemedicine for early medical abortions is a safe and effective practice - already recommend by expert bodies – with no clinical reason why, after the necessary consultation, both abortion pills can be prescribed, delivered and taken at home”.
Earlier this year, Scotland’s bishops described the lifting of restrictions as “profoundly depressing”.
Bishop Hugh Gilbert said he found the decision “deeply troubling” and that it trivialised “what is an extremely serious and life-changing procedure” and claimed “vulnerable women in unsatisfactory domestic circumstances” were “particularly at risk”.
A similar policy change in England ended up in the courts, with the well-funded evangelical Christian Inistitute taking the UK Government to court.
However, they lost their legal challenge earlier this week.
They argued that the Government’s decision went beyond the powers available to it under the 1967 Abortion Act and claimed that allowing women to have terminations at home goes against the purpose of the Act, which was to prevent “backstreet” abortion
The group argued that the Abortion Act meant that a termination has to be carried out by a registered medical practitioner and in an “approved place” such as a medical setting to be lawful.
But Lady Justice Nicola Davies dismissed the appeal on Friday, saying the decision fell under the scope of the Act and its purpose was to “protect women’s health”.
Sitting with Lady Justice King and Lord Justice Phillips, the judge said that under the Act, the Health Secretary can “react to changes in medical science” to allow terminations in other settings.
She added: “That is exactly what happened in 2020, a decision was made in the context of a public health emergency arising from the Covid-19 pandemic.”
The judge said there was evidence from health professionals that vulnerable women were turning to online providers outside the regulated healthcare system, “thereby breaking the law and losing the safeguarding and support inherent in the process provided by regulated services”.
She continued: “The purpose of the 2020 approval was to address a specific and acute medical need, in the context of a public health emergency, so as to ensure the continuance of the protection of the health of women in the context of the 1967 Act.”
The judge said the registered medical practitioner “remains in charge throughout the procedure, which has been altered to reflect the changing and challenging times” and said the changes were “time limited”.
Christian Concern has said it will take its case to the Supreme Court.
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here