Birthrights and Leigh Day announce three-year partnership to promote women’s human rights in childbirth

Birthrights, the UK’s human rights in childbirth charity, and Leigh Day, a law firm specialising in clinical negligence and human rights, have announced a new partnership over three years, building on previous joint work on specific projects. The new agreement includes a package of corporate financial support, fundraising activity, pro bono and in-kind support, and joint communications and campaigns, to achieve the following goals:

“We believe that too many women in the UK experience maternity care that does not respect their basic rights. Our partnership will help us raise the profile of these issues, campaign together to achieve change and enable Birthrights to reach and support even more women.”

In 2018, Birthrights responded to over 170 email requests from women and their online factsheets were visited over 7,000 times. Qualitative feedback shows women and families highly value this information, support and individual advocacy. The partnership with Leigh Day will help Birthrights to reach even more women and equip them to secure their rights in pregnancy and childbirth.

Chief Executive of Birthrights, Amy Gibbs, said: 

“We have been extremely grateful for the close relationship, pro bono advice and generous support from Leigh Day to date. As a small charity, this additional financial commitment over three years is invaluable. Our new partnership will help us achieve our potential, invest in our core activities and put us on a firmer footing for the future. We are particularly excited about the opportunity to grow the profile and reach of our advice and information for women.”

Suzanne White, Partner and Head of Clinical Negligence at Leigh Day, said:

“We are very proud to support Birthrights, a small but vital charity that has already achieved so much in its first six years. Many of the women Leigh Day supports have had their rights in pregnancy and childbirth violated due to negligence and substandard care, resulting in physical injury, psychological trauma or tragedy. Working together we can raise awareness of these issues and push for positive improvements in maternity care.”

About the partners

Birthrights is the UK’s only organisation dedicated to improving women’s experience of pregnancy and childbirth by promoting respect for human rights. We believe that all women are entitled to respectful maternity care that protects their fundamental rights to dignity, autonomy, privacy and equality. We provide advice to women on their rights, train healthcare professionals to deliver rights-respecting care, and campaign to change maternity policy, systems and practice. 

Leigh Day is a specialist law firm with some of the country’s leading clinical negligence, personal injury, employment and discrimination, product liability, international and human rights teams. Unlike other law firms, we act exclusively for claimants who’ve been injured or treated unlawfully by others. We are based in London, Manchester and Liverpool.

Recruiting for Legal Officer – part-time / flexible (2.5 days per week)

£30,000 pro rata – £15,000 actual per annum

Deadline: 5pm on Monday 29 April

Birthrights is looking for a new Legal Officer to help us achieve our mission. If you are a legal expert with strong knowledge of human rights law and maternity care in the UK, practical experience of litigation and a passion for protecting women’s rights, we hope you will apply to join our team.

Birthrights exists because women matter during childbirth. We are the UK’s only organisation dedicated to improve women’s experience of pregnancy and childbirth by promoting respect for human rights. We provide advice and legal information to women, train healthcare professionals to deliver rights-respecting care and campaign to change maternity policy and systems.

Our new Legal Officer will manage and develop our email advice service and online resources, play a core role in our strategic legal and policy work, support the development and delivery of our training and contribute to organisational priorities and development.

Essential criteria include a legal degree or legal professional qualifications, knowledge of human rights law and practical experience of the UK legal system and strategic litigation, knowledge of maternity care policies and practice, excellent communications skills and experience of working in a small team. The ideal candidate will also have experience of providing advice to beneficiaries or the public, knowledge of other relevant UK law, experience of legal policy work and understanding of the issues and context faced by small charities.

Download the job description to see the full list of essential and desirable criteria.

Birthrights values diversity, promotes equality and challenges discrimination in line with our human rights mission. We welcome applications from people of all backgrounds, regardless of their race, gender, disability, religion or belief, sexual orientation or age. We encourage applications from women with lived experience of the issues we tackle, particularly those groups most at risk of human rights violations during pregnancy and childbirth – disabled women, women living with severe and complex disadvantage, and Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic women.

Recruiting new Legal Officer

Birthrights is the UK’s only organisation dedicated to improving women’s experience of pregnancy and childbirth by promoting respect for human rights.

The Legal Officer is a new and critical role at Birthrights to manage our advisory and legal work, including running the advice service, overseeing strategic litigation and providing legal policy input with core stakeholders.

This is a part-time home based role, with a pro-rata salary of £15,000. To find out more and how to apply please download the Job Description.

Closing date for applications is 5pm on Wednesday 27th June 2018.

IMUK’s Judicial Review of NMC Decision: A Guest Blog

On 18th and 19th October, members of IMUK (the membership organisation for independent midwives in the UK) will bring to court their judicial review of the Nursing and Midwifery Council’s decision that their indemnity cover is inadequate.

In January Birthrights wrote to the NMC to express concern about the decision stating that their actions “appear designed to cause maximum disruption and damage to independent midwives and the women they care for,” adding that, “we do not believe that these are the actions of a responsible regulator.”

Ahead of their court date, IMUK Chair Jacqui Tomkins has shared her thoughts and hopes in this guest blog. 

I became an independent midwife almost 20 years ago. It has been an overwhelming joy to be able to determine my own volume of work and to work with women and families that I can take the time to listen to and get to know very well. This has also been hugely beneficial for my family who know that I will be at most of the big family events we want to share but if I do have to miss the occasional celebration they are to be found helping me pack the car inan excited state as I get ready to help another family welcome in their newest family member. 

I work with a collective of like-minded midwives who provide me with a wealth of knowledge and skills that are fast becoming lost to us as a profession and ultimately to women. We have a supportive network that holds us and lifts us when it’s needed and allows us all to thrive in a supportive and emotionally intelligent environment. It’s not all unicorns and rainbows but it is a safe space to work within and its the way forward for a lot of midwives who need to feel they can provide the care they have been trained to give with the time needed in order to give it. 

This way of working is so important to me, my colleagues and the women we work with as we all value the relationship that is at the centre of this very important life event. The women I have helped look after in the past and the present are shocked to understand that this right to choose for them, but also for midwives, is at risk of being lost forever. So many women have been telling me that they feel they have nowhere left to turn as for various reasons they feel they cannot use the local maternity providers. As Chair of IMUK I have also been hearing about how some of those women have made the difficult decision to birth alone during this enforced period of redundancy for self employed midwives. This is the most terrible consequence of the decision made around insurance supposedly and in the name of public protection as these woman had not set out to do this. 

As an organisation we are ready to move forward and resume our plans to help with the training of student midwives and help the government to deliver the vision of “Better Births” by supporting pilot NHS groups and continuing to work closely with NHS England. 

Overwhelming throughout the struggle for independent midwifery to survive, my concern has been both for the midwifery profession generally but also the thousands of women per year who seek out our care. This woman centred model gives women a skilled and safe option for their care, with a guaranteed assertion that they will know who is coming to support them on the day and that they trust that person implicitly to be able to turn up and of course will respect and protect their carefully thought out choices. 

The importance of clinical autonomy is fast being eroded within employed models and self employed midwives understand that this is the thing we must protect and enshrine within our profession at all costs. That is not to say we do not work collaboratively with other health professionals, we are very skilled at communicating our clients needs and best interests so will be making appropriate referrals and accompanying women when they need to make alternative care plans for their pregnancies and births. 
 

Midwives are fast becoming a scarce commodity so it makes no sense to remove the right to be self employed from the profession. We need help and support to be able to continue to practice and for there to be an understanding that these issues highlighted in court this week are not about safety but about finances. Finances that have been confirmed by two independent actuarial firms to be perfectly adequate for our scope of practice.

Four years ago when this board of IMUK decided not to accept the future in front of us, we had only midwifery experience between us.  Since then, the team and our members have been joined by supporters and experts from all walks of life, almost all of them having previously benefitted from independent midwifery in some way.  We have become very knowledgable about insurance, both its benefits and its restrictions, we have experienced the political arena, press and legal worlds all of which have given us surprising new life skills but most of all I’m proud of how far we’ve come as a small group of health professionals with a big problem and my hope is that next week we will find out that it has been enough.

Ban on Northern Irish Abortion Upheld

In a judgment published today, we were disappointed to learn that a Supreme Court appeal, challenging the government’s refusal to provide NHS-funded abortion care in England for women resident in Northern Ireland, has narrowly failed. Birthrights joined coalition of reproductive rights charities, Alliance for Choice, the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (bpas), the Family Planning Association (FPA), and the Abortion Support Network (ASN), to intervene in the case.

The court was divided 3-2 against the appeal and, in a sensitive and thoughtful judgment which made it clear that the levels of distress and hardship endured by vulnerable women were real and unacceptable, the Court ruled that they couldn’t force the Secretary of State to fund the abortions of Northern Irish women.

 

The case was brought by a young woman, A, who in 2012 as a pregnant 15-year-old girl travelled with her mother, B, from their home in Northern Ireland to Manchester for an abortion at a cost of £900. Abortion is effectively banned in all but the most severe of circumstances in Northern Ireland. Despite being UK tax-payers, women from Northern Ireland in need of abortion care have had to fund both their travel to England and their treatment.

The Court’s ruling stated that – as Secretary of State – Mr Hunt holds the legal authority to grant women resident in Northern Ireland NHS-funded abortion care in England, but had decided against doing so – not due to financial constraints – but out of “respect” for the democratic decisions of the Northern Ireland Assembly, in which the largest party is the DUP.

The Secretary of State had previously stated that the Government’s policy was that “in general, the NHS should not fund services for residents of Northern Ireland which the Northern Ireland Assembly has deliberately decided not to legislate to provide.”

The judges expressed a profound sympathy for the “plight” of women in Northern Ireland facing an unplanned pregnancy. Lord Wilson, who did not rule in favour of the appeal, stated that the “embarrassment, difficulty, and uncertainty attendant on the urgent need to raise the necessary funds” added significantly to mother and daughter’s “emotional strain.”

In a comment piece to be published later today, our CEO Rebecca Schiller, is expected to highlight that Lady Hale’s dissenting opinion reflected many of the points we made in our intervention. Lady Hale pointed to autonomy and equality as the “fundamental values underlying our legal system.” Underpinning all of that she invoked the profound legal and moral imperative given by the respect for human dignity. “The right of pregnant women to exercise autonomy in relation to treatment and care,” said Lady Hale, “has been hard won but it has been won.”

Rebecca is also expected to ask for assurance from the Prime Minister that women’s rights are not threatened by any future alliance between the Conservatives and the DUP. To that end she has written to the Prime Minister on behalf of Birthrights, in a joint letter which you can read in full here.

In a statement this morning our Chair, Elizabeth Prochaska, added, “the government’s tolerance of this affront to women’s dignity is deeply concerning. For very little cost to the NHS, women in Northern Ireland could be given access to abortion care in Britain. We need immediate clarity from the Prime Minister that any alliance with the hardline DUP will not be allowed to undermine our commitment to women’s equality and reproductive rights.”

A and B are now expected to take their case to the European Court of Human Rights and, if they do, our coalition of reproductive rights charities will be ready to intervene to help protect the vulnerable and ensure their voices are heard.

You can read the press release from the Interveners here.

Childbirth and the Court of Protection seminar

On 8th March, Birthrights, alongside Queen Mary’s School of Law and 39 Essex Chambers, will be putting on a seminar taking a critical look at the recent trend of forced caesarean decisions in the Court of Protection.

The seminar (17.00 – 19.00) will feature an impressive line up of panelists including: Professor Lesley Page CBE, President of The Royal College of Midwives, Dr Daghni Rajasingam, Consultant Obstetrician, Guys and St Thomas’s NHS Foundation Trust, Dr Jo Black, Consultant Psychiatrist and Clinical Director for Perinatal Mental Health at NHS England, Polly Sands, specialist perinatal mental health midwife at Guys and St Thomas’s NHS Trust, Seaneen Molloy-Vaughan, writer, mental health blogger, and mum of one, in addition to Elizabeth Prochaska, Matrix Chambers and Birthrights and Victoria Butler-Cole, 39 Essex Chambers.

The event is primarily aimed at lawyers, and judges working in the Court of Protection but healthcare professionals and anyone else with an interest are more than welcome.

To reserve a place please contact: Beth Williams (beth.williams@39essex.com) / 020 7832 1155

More information about the event can be found here.

Birthrights Criticises NMC for Independent Midwives Decision

Birthrights strongly criticised today a decision by the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) that prevents many independent midwives from caring for women in labour. The decision (which relates to the level of indemnity insurance arranged for many independent midwives by their umbrella body, IMUK) has resulted in the regulator instructing pregnant women to make immediate alternative arrangements for their birth care.
In an urgent letter to NMC chief executive Jackie Smith, Birthrights CEO Rebecca Schiller said that the NMC’s actions, “appear designed to cause maximum disruption and damage to independent midwives and the women they care for,” adding that, “we do not believe that these are the actions of a responsible regulator.”
Schiller adds that “the NMC has a key role to play in protecting public safety, yet this decision directly jeopardises the health and safety of the women it is supposed to safeguard. Beyond the very real physical health implications of this decision, it is causing emotional trauma to women and their families at an intensely vulnerable time. To date, it appears that the NMC has shown no concern for the physical and mental wellbeing of pregnant women who have booked with independent midwives.”
In the letter, Birthrights highlights the unnecessarily tight timescale imposed by the NMC and lack of attempt to communicate what constitutes adequate levels of insurance. Schiller expresses her concern that some women will now feel forced to give birth alone adding, “many women choose the care of an independent midwife because they are unwilling to access NHS services, often because of previous traumatic experiences. Without the support of their chosen independent midwife, women have already told us that they feel their only option will be to birth without any medical or midwifery assistance. We hope that you will share our urgent concern about the avoidable harm that could come to women and babies in this situation.”
Birthrights is urging the NMC to remedy the damage caused to date by taking urgent steps that include:
  1.  Guaranteeing that all women who are currently booked with independent midwives using the IMUK insurance scheme will be able to continue to access their services
  2.  Reassuring Birthrights, IMUK and the women who have already engaged the services of independent midwives that the midwives caring for them them will not face disciplinary action for fulfilling their midwifery role
  3. Urgently making a public recommendation on what constitutes adequate insurance.

Dubska ECHR judgment: disappointing but not the last word

The Grand Chamber of the European Court gave judgment today in Dubska v Czech Republic. We wrote about the earlier decision of Court here. The Court reaffirmed that women’s rights in childbirth are protected by Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, further underlining the human rights protections that childbearing women should enjoy.

But in a disappointing and poorly reasoned judgment, the Court found that the Czech government was not obliged to regulate midwives to enable them to attend women at home births, despite the significant negative impact this may have on the safety and wellbeing of childbearing women. The Court accepted that care in Czech maternity hospitals was ‘questionable’ and expected the Czech government to keep its law and practice under “constant review so as to ensure that they reflect medical and scientific developments whilst fully respecting women’s rights in the field of reproductive health”.

Five of the judges dissented, expressing a joint opinion that disagrees with the Grand Chamber’s judgment. These judges found that the Czech system effectively forces women to give birth in hospital and could not be justified by any public health argument. They noted the observations of the CEDAW Committee on disrespectful and abusive practices in Czech hospitals. As they said, citing the UK Supreme Court’s decision in the Montgomery case,  ‘Patronising attitudes among health personnel should not be taken lightly, as they may constitute a violation of an individual’s right to self-determination under the Convention.’

This judgment is a missed opportunity to offer appropriate, safe and rights-respecting choices to Czech women. Women giving birth in obstetric units in the Czech Republic face a range of unsafe and rights-violating practices, meaning that for some choosing to birth at home is the only way of avoiding degrading, painful, lonely and de-humanised care. Routine practices in these units include: separation from their babies, a lack of access to facilities that support physiological birth, no involvement in decisions about their care, routine episiotomy, lack of pain-relief options, giving birth without a partner unless they pay an additional fee. Without regulated and state-supported access to out-of-hospital birth it is likely that some women will now feel forced to give birth without medical assistance. When hospital births that undermine a woman’s basic human dignity are the only option, there are significant safety issues at stake.

For women in England the judgment has no impact on their right to choose where to give birth. Choice of place of birth is enshrined in policy and practice, and underpinned by the recent report of the National Maternity Review. But for women in eastern Europe this will create a significant bend in the road that activists, mothers and health care professionals will need to navigate with clarity and purpose to minimise the damage.

Thankfully the clamour for childbirth rights, and a shared understanding of how to promote them, is growing across Europe. More cases on abuse during childbirth will undoubtedly reach the Court and other recent ECHR judgements (such as Konovalova v Russia) still stand; robustly upholding women’s rights to make decisions about childbirth.

Given the forceful dissent, and the Court’s demand that the government keep pace with change, this is unlikely to be the last word on homebirth in the Czech Republic.

UK Supreme Court upholds women’s autonomy in childbirth: Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board

The UK Supreme Court powerfully affirmed women’s right to autonomy in childbirth yesterday in the case of Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board. Allowing the appeal from the Scottish courts by a woman whose baby suffered shoulder dystocia in labour, the Supreme Court held that women have a right to information about ‘any material risk‘ in order to make autonomous decisions about how to give birth.

Mrs Montgomery, a pregnant diabetic woman with a large baby, was not informed by her obstetrician of the chance of shoulder dystocia. Although she had repeatedly expressed concerns about giving birth vaginally, the obstetrician said that she routinely chose not to explain the risk of shoulder dystocia to diabetic women because the risk of serious injury to the baby was very small and that if she did explain it, ‘then everyone would ask for a caesarean section‘. For diabetic women, the risk of the occurence of shoulder dystocia is about 9-10% and the consequent risk of serious injury to the baby is less than 1%. However, shoulder dystocia poses a variety of serious risks to the woman’s health, including post-partum hemorrhage (11%) and 4th degree perineal tear (3.8%). The doctor apparently did not consider that these risks were worth explaining to women.

The arrogance of the doctor’s assumptions clearly disturbed the Court. As Lady Hale said (para 111): ‘In this day and age, we are not only concerned about risks to the baby. We are equally, if not more, concerned about risks to the mother. And those include the risks associated with giving birth, as well as any after-effects. One of the problems in this case was that for too long the focus was on the risks to the baby, without also taking into account what the mother might face in the process of giving birth.’

Baroness_Brenda_Hale

Supreme Court Justice Brenda Hale: ‘Gone are the days when it was thought that, on becoming pregnant, a woman lost, not only her capacity, but also her right to act as a genuinely autonomous human being.’

The law

From a legal perspective, the decision brings English and Scottish law into line with that of the United States and other common law jurisdictions by separating the question of informed consent from the traditional test for clinical negligence. The Court expressed the legal duty on doctors as follows (para 87):

An adult person of sound mind is entitled to decide which, if any, of the available forms of treatment to undergo, and her consent must be obtained before treatment interfering with her bodily integrity is undertaken. The doctor is therefore under a duty to take reasonable care to ensure that the patient is aware of any material risks involved in any recommended treatment, and of any reasonable alternative or variant treatments. The test of materiality is whether, in the circumstances of the particular case, a reasonable person in the patient’s position would be likely to attach significance to the risk, or the doctor is or should reasonably be aware that the particular patient would be likely to attach significance to it.’

It is therefore no longer appropriate to assess the adequacy of the doctor’s information sharing by reference to the standards of a reasonable medical professional; instead the relevant standard is whether the patient would attach significance to the risk. In its explicit recognition of patients’ rights to autonomy and informed choice, Montgomery hammers the final nail in the coffin of medical paternalism.

What are the implications for healthcare professionals?

Doctors will already be well-acquainted with the GMC guidance on consent, which was quoted with approval in Montgomery, and the case is a reminder of the importance of this guidance. The Court highlighted the following aspects of the process of informed consent that all healthcare professionals (and hospital managers) should take on board:

(i) Dialogue: in order for a patient to make an informed decision, there must be a conversation between doctor and patient. The doctor must ‘ensure that the patient understands the seriousness of her condition, and the anticipated benefits and risks of the proposed treatment and any reasonable alternatives, so that she is then in a position to make an informed decision.’ The information cannot flow one way and the doctor’s advice must be ‘sensitive to the characteristics of the patient‘ (Montgomery, para 89). Hospitals cannot rely on printed information leaflets to provide information; there should always be a personal discussion.
(ii) Material risks: a material risk is one to which a reasonable patient would attach significance. Statistics alone will not determine whether a risk is significant for a particular patient. For example, the risk of complications for future pregnancies after a c-section might be statistically small, but it would be more significant for a woman who wished to have multiple children than for a woman who did not.
(iii) Consent forms: the Court emphasised that the doctor’s obligation will only be discharged if the information is imparted in a way that the patient can understand. ‘The doctor’s duty is not therefore fulfilled by bombarding the patient with technical information which she cannot reasonably be expected to grasp, let alone by routinely demanding her signature on a consent form‘ (Montgomery, para 90). This is important guidance. Hospitals cannot rely simply on a completed consent form as evidence that a clinician has fully appraised a patient of the risks of a procedure.

More litigation?

Maternity care is already infamously litigious and accounts for nearly 50% of the value of all NHS negligence claims (see NHS Litigation Authority, ’10 Years of Maternity Claims’). The Supreme Court recognised that there is a risk that the Montgomery decision will increase litigation by women who claim that they were not adequately informed of risks. The Court gave an interesting response to this (para 93):

‘…in so far as the law contributes to the incidence of litigation, an approach which results in patients being aware that the outcome of treatment is uncertain and potentially dangerous, and in their taking responsibility for the ultimate choice to undergo that treatment, may be less likely to encourage recriminations and litigation, in the event of an adverse outcome, than an approach which requires patients to rely on their doctors to determine whether a risk inherent in a particular form of treatment should be incurred.’

Far from threatening doctors with more claims, proper disclosure of risks should protect the medical profession from litigation and lead to patients bearing responsibility for their own decisions. Respect for patient autonomy means that patients take responsibility.

An example: post-dates induction

Post-dates induction provides a useful example of how informed consent ought to work in practice.

  •  The obstetrician must make time for a genuine dialogue with the woman. Hospital information sheets on induction are not a sufficient basis for making informed decisions. During the dialogue, the doctor cannot not simply impart facts or hospital policy without taking account of the woman’s particular situation and wishes for the birth.
  • The conversation must be personalised – it would differ between a first-time mother and a woman who has already had children; or between a woman who wants to give birth vaginally and a woman who is concerned about vaginal birth.
  • The obstetrician should explain the risks of exceeding her due date using accurate and comprehensible information that does not put undue pressure on the woman (stating only that ‘your baby might die‘ would not be considered sufficient information).
  • She should then be told of ‘any material risks‘ of induction to both herself and her baby. It is obvious that most women would wish to know the likelihood of success and failure of induction in that clinician’s experience at the hospital in question, and the risks should induction fail. These will include fetal distress, assisted birth, with consequent potential for perineal trauma, and emergency c-section.
  • The obstetrician should suggest alternative courses of action, including waiting for natural labour to begin and elective c-section.

Elective c-section

The Court in Montgomery made it clear that not only should the doctor have explained the risks of shoulder dystocia, but that she should have offered Mrs Montgomery an elective c-section. Lady Hale stated (para 111) that doctors should volunteer the pros and cons of vaginal birth and elective c-section ‘in any case where either the mother or the child is at heightened risk from a vaginal delivery.’ Following these comments, failure to offer an elective c-section where there are heightened risks to vaginal delivery may lead to legal liability for negligence.

 

Elizabeth Prochaska, Birthrights

Birthrights Condemns Guilty Verdict in Purvi Patel Case

Press Release 4 February 2015

Women’s charity condemns guilty verdict as Indiana woman is charged with ‘feticide’ and child neglect.

The jury in a landmark case in Indiana has found Purvi Patel guilty of two contradictory charges of ‘feticide’ and child neglect. Despite widespread condemnation of the case by legal experts, health organisations and human rights activists, Patel faces up to 70 years in prison after giving birth to a stillborn baby.
 
Rebecca Schiller, co-chair of Birthrights (the UK-based human rights in childbirth charity), said:
 
“This is the second case of Indiana’s feticide laws being used against the vulnerable pregnant women they theoretically seek to protect. It is a worrying demonstration of what happens when the outcome of individual pregnancies is made political and subject to criminal sanctions. In addition, women in Indiana (and a rising number of US states) struggle to access free, safe abortion and are forced to see ultrasound images of their foetus before an abortion will be performed.” 
 
“The health and wellbeing of women and babies is being jeopardised by attempts to undermine women’s rights to access abortion, make decisions about their pregnancies and the way they wish to give birth. Despite all major US health organisations opposing criminalising pregnant women for the outcomes of their pregnancies, an epidemic of strategic prosecutions is the reality for women in America. Women from ethnic minorities and those at the lowest end of the socio-economic spectrum are most frequently targeted in these cases.”
 
“It is essential that women feel able to access unbiased support services and antenatal care without fear of a prison sentence. Legal systems should assert that women need to be trusted to make decisions about their pregnancies and draconian restrictions on abortions only serve to penalise the most vulnerable women. 
 
“We need to remain vigilant about attempts to undermine women’s reproductive rights in the UK, while raising awareness of the hostile climate in the USA and supporting those American advocates seeking to protect women from these harmful laws.”

For more information please contact press@birthrights.org.uk and 07793084945.