IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/medlaw/v30y2022i1p177-187..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Crowter v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2021] EWHC 2536: Discrimination, Disability, and Access to Abortion

Author

Listed:
  • Zoe L Tongue

Abstract

In a recent case before the High Court of England and Wales, Crowter v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, three claimants challenged the disability ground for abortion contained in section 1(1)(d) of the Abortion Act 1967. It was argued on behalf of the claimants that this provision was incompatible with a number of rights protected by the European Convention on Human Rights. Among the arguments made was a claim that this provision perpetuates discriminatory attitudes and negative stereotypes towards disabled people. While the case was rightly unsuccessful, as restricting or removing section 1(1)(d) would only force pregnant people to continue pregnancies in difficult circumstances, the claim around discrimination carries some weight. The High Court rejected this line of argument, missing an opportunity to consider the ways in which the Abortion Act is both inadequate in relation to access to abortion and perpetuates stigma towards disabled people. However, the reform required to address this must take place in Parliament and cannot be done by the courts.

Suggested Citation

  • Zoe L Tongue, 2022. "Crowter v Secretary of State for Health and Social Care [2021] EWHC 2536: Discrimination, Disability, and Access to Abortion," Medical Law Review, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(1), pages 177-187.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:medlaw:v:30:y:2022:i:1:p:177-187.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/medlaw/fwab045
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:medlaw:v:30:y:2022:i:1:p:177-187.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/medlaw .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.