Why the incredible story of baby Emily is a lesson in life for us all
As a girl born at 24 weeks seizes the chance to live...
THE photographs of premature baby Emily Cressey, clutching her mother’s finger with her own tiny hand, were enough to move me and many others to tears. To see her so fragile yet clinging to life is amazing. What a miracle. And what an incredible testament to the doctors and nurses who fought to save Emily, and valued her life so much that nothing was spared in the rush to transfer her to the special baby unit in Edinburgh.
And yet there is a sadness. Emily was born at just 24 weeks gestation, which is within the current legal limit for abortion. Up and down the country, babies are aborted who are just as fully developed as Emily was when she came into the world.
It may not be because these babies are ill or suffer medical problems. It may be because their mother has decided she no longer wants to be pregnant.
In my younger days, I trained as a nurse and, looking at the pictures of Emily, I am immediately transported back to the saddest day of my nursing career.
I had assisted a doctor with the late-term abortion of a baby who lived and breathed for what, at the time, seemed like forever, but was in fact only five minutes. The baby was handed to me in a cardboard bedpan, to be unceremoniously disposed of.
There, looking up at me, was a baby, struggling to breathe, gasping, pulling for breath, for dear life. Just like Emily.
I ran back into the room to the doctor, thinking that he would help. Instead, I was given a very stern talking-to. While this took place, the baby died.
At 18 years old, as a new nurse on my first ward, I fled in tears. The experience, along with stories like Emily’s, has since shaped my life as a politician and is why I believe we need to reduce the upper limit for abortion from 24 weeks to 20.
My first attempt at this was in May 2008, and it was met with such a ferocity of opposition that I could never possibly have anticipated how awful it would be. It included the outside of my home being pelted with raw eggs; the symbolism was not lost on me.
The Abortion Act was introduced in 1967, and much has altered since. Department of Health guidelines state that a woman does not need to be seen by two doctors when requesting an abortion, despite this being a clear provision within the Act.
In one case, two doctors were caught red-handed offering to carry out abortions on the basis of the foetus being female, which is clearly illegal, yet they were not prosecuted. So it is probably a fair comment that, in relation to the 1967 Abortion Act, the law is in desperate need of radical reform.
The argument against reducing the upper abortion limit is often framed around the fact that the majority of babies born prematurely at 22 or 23 weeks do not survive, and many of those who do can be severely disabled. This is true, but some are not.
We know that some babies even survive the late-term abortion process. It is estimated that one baby in 30 is born alive after the procedure, due to a failure of the lethal injection placed into the infant’s heart.
When attempting to frame evidence in the campaign to use in Parliament, and in the media, it falls into two categories.
The first is establishing that the foetus in the womb can feel pain. There are so many claims on both sides of that coin that it is impossible to make a case. But in simple terms it has been suggested by some scientists – although denied by others – that if you prick a 24-week gestation baby in the heel with a needle, it cries and pulls up its leg.
The second argument rests on common sense and is by far the more powerful. It is understood by doctors, nurses and members of the public, and the majority agree with it.
It is this: how can it possibly be acceptable that in one room in a hospital we have the medical profession throwing everything it has to save a baby like little Emily, while in a room down the corridor a baby of the same gestational age, with no medical problems, is being aborted? Where is the equality in that? This is surely where the crux of the argument rests.
SIX years ago, when Parliament voted on my attempt to reduce the abortion limit, despite considerable support, I lost the vote. The Labour Party, in government at the time with a healthy majority, is overwhelmingly pro-choice, to the point where they simply disregarded the majority opinion of the medical profession and the public, who were sympathetic to a reduction of the upper limit.
Ironically, my bid to reduce the limit was attacked from all sides: pro-choice groups argued that I was advocating the removal of hard-fought women’s rights, while pro-life campaigners described my attempts as ‘dangerous’, with SPUC, the Society for the Protection of
Why should doctors decide which babies are saved?
the Unborn Child, arguing that a reduction in the upper limit would actually end up promoting further liberalisations in the law.
As a mother of three young women, I am a feminist. I am pro-choice. I support a woman’s right to access abortion swiftly and easily, with an offer of independent pre-abortion counselling, should she wish it.
It is my position as a feminist which makes me such a strong advocate for the reduction of the upper limit as many of those healthy babies being aborted at 24 weeks are female and, if allowed to be born, would grasp at their chance of life.
Emily was very lucky to have been born in the location she was. In some hospitals, doctors simply take the decision not to resuscitate babies born as early as Emily.
How is it possible that members of the medical profession get to be the sole judges of which babies’ lives can be saved and which are lost? How can it be right that the ability of a premature baby to survive depends upon its parents’ postcode?
The fact that Emily’s life was fought for, while that of another baby at exactly the same point was aborted, is a moral dilemma which faces us all and one which, in light of Emily’s birth, demands an answer. It is an anomaly that, in the name of equality, must be corrected.
Medical science has advanced. The introduction and results of modern high-resolution scanners has helped to inform the public further and shape opinion, bringing many more people on side.
The youngest premature baby to survive was just 21 weeks and there is a seven-day margin of error in the prediction of a baby’s gestation.
It is time for Parliament to revisit the upper limit and hopefully, the next time, parliamentarians will see fit to respect the wishes of their constituents.
The astonishing case of little Emily shows exactly why the law must be changed, and soon.
Nadine Dorries is the Conservative MP for Mid Bedfordshire