Abortion is a medical procedure that anyone who can get pregnant may need at some point.

There are some basic things about abortion that make that procedure above all absolutely necessary to be safely obtainable freely, easily, legally.

#prochoice /1

When someone is pregnant, & doesn't want to be, abortion is the only remedy.
Anti-choicers suggest going through the pregnancy anyway & then adoption. But adoption is traumatic in itself & doesn't do anything to fix the essential problem: of not wanting to be pregnant. /2

Someone who is pregnant & doesn't want to be, often knows their "doesn't want" instinctively, instantly - where abortion is immediately, safely, freely available, most abortions are carried out within the first 9 weeks. /3

Even where artificial delays are created making it more difficult or more expensive because authorities feel women & girls can't be trusted to decide for themselves instantly "don't want to be pregnant - abortion" - still, most abortions are carried out under 13 weeks. /4

Everyone understands: there is a time component to abortion. Legal, medical, emotional. The law dictates in most countries how late on in pregnancy an abortion can be performed. Doctors decide how late on in pregnancy they are able or willing to perform an abortion. /5

And for the person who is pregnant, waiting to have an abortion she has decided she needs, is emotionally very difficult - traumatic, in some instances.

Might the person change her mind afterwards about abortion? /6

Yes. A person who decides, promptly and immediately, she doesn't want to be pregnant, she wants an abortion, might in later years change her mind and wish she'd have the baby. It's possible.

But that isn't a good reason for the authorities to deny or delay abortion right now. /7

We all make decisions that affect our lives.

Sometimes we look back and think "I wish my life had been different & so I wish I had decided differently."

(Most women do not regret abortion even a little.)

We accept: adults have a right to make their own decisions. /8

What of children?

#GillickCompetence says that a minor child who is able to articulate/understand their own need for contraception, should get to have contraception.

Medical ethics say that a minor child who wants an abortion, should have an abortion: if not, not. /9

We understand that with urgent, time-dependent needs - you cannot delay either abortion or pregnancy just because the pregnant child is under 16! - the needs of the child are paramount, & the parents wishes can't be allowed to overrule or delay what the child needs. /10

In a perfect world, any parent discovering their child is pregnant, would be instantly & immediately supportive in a good way - want to find out what the child wants & needs & is capable of, not enforce their own wishes on the child.

We do not live in a perfect world. /11

It is accepted law in the UK: a minor child can be old enough to understand they need contraception, & competent to understand the consequences, & even if the ordinary process of the law says their parents must make that decision for them, if the child says "No", don't tell. /12

Of course doctors and counsellors will urge the child to talk to their parents.

The responsibility of the parents is to have made themselves adults the child knows to be absolutely trustworthy and reliable. If a child doesn't trust their parents, the child may not be wrong. /13

Now let's consider how this bears on the recent Tavistock case, brought by a Christian Right lawyer using a parent who wants to control her trans child, & an adult who chose puberty blockers when she was 16 & surgery after her 18th birthday & now regrets her decisions. /14

A High Court ruling now says minor children in England and Wales can't be considered mature enough to decide to have puberty blockers prescribed, because this is a life-changing medical decision.

Like pregnancy. Or contraception. /15

The medical and soclal barriers against prescribing puberty blockers to minor children are set very high.

And unlike contraception, it is a must that a minor child has at least one supportive parent - without that support, the child is never going to get to Tavistock. /16

Forcing a girl to go through puberty as a boy, or a boy to go through puberty as a girl, is a traumatic experience for gender-dysphoric youth.

The High Court ruling means that doctors cannot now issue prescriptions to prevent that trauma to gender-dysphoric children. /17

No matter how much the child knows they need those medications, or how much the parents know their child needs those medications, there is no way - until that decision is appealed - for doctors to prescribe them. /18

Puberty blockers are not expensive & not unobtainable. There will be instances of parents obtaining the drugs quietly and giving them to their children without medical supervision. Puberty, like pregnancy, isn't stopped by the law or by individual trauma. /19

A decision to prescribe puberty blockers, or contraception, or perform an abortion, is between the doctor & their patient. The law intervening, to say a doctor may not do what they think best for their patient, creates the bad situation where patients will seek out solutions. /20

Abortion is a safe procedure. Contraceptives are safe medications. Puberty blockers are safe medications, with 35 years of use by human children behind them.

But all ought to be prescribed/performed by medical professionals with experience & training. /21

For the High Court judge to rule that a minor child may not receive the medication the child, their doctor, and their parents know they need, just means the doctor won't - the parents/the child may get it anyway. This isn't good. /22

For this reason, as an abortion rights activist, as a #prochoice feminist, I oppose the decision against Tavistock, and I fear not only the consequences for gender-dysphoric children, but also the consequences for any minor child who needs contraception or abortion. /23

As a feminist, as an abortion rights activist, I hope the Supreme Court reverses the High Court judge's decision, and I support Tavistock in their appeal against this. I fear for the principle of #GillickCompetence if the decision is allowed to stand. /24

I understand that besides the long-term consequences, this decision has immediate & awful consequences for trans children who desperately need puberty blockers & are now not allowed by a High Court judge who doesn't know them & isn't medically trained. I'm sorry, This is bad. /25

PS: One response to this was that puberty blockers are "experimental". I noted that they have a 35-year history of patient use - as oral contraceptive pills did in 1995. Was the Pill "experimental" in 1995?

But here is a much more resourced thread; https://twitter.com/quinjesse/status/1334211837701844993

PPS The change to the law & access to healthcare, by a High Court judge, applies only to trans children in England and Wales.

Trans children in Scotland continue to access puberty blockers, if that is considered best, at the Sandyford in Glasgow. https://twitter.com/libby_brooks/status/1334435329034641408