'The law is saying there are reasons why I shouldn't be alive. I look at my life
and think: That's rubbish'
23/11/2003
Joanna Jepson is going to the High Court to try to block late abortions for
'trivial reasons' such as a cleft palate. She tells Elizabeth Day about the very
personal reasons driving her fight
|
There are two photographs at the bottom of the dusty shoebox. One of
them, its edges curled with age, shows a skinny teenage girl in a white
lace blouse. Her mousey hair curls down her back. She has an awkward
half-smile. But the profile shot reveals a protruding upper jaw and
sunken chin. The second is one taken years later of the same girl. She
is laughing through long, blonde hair; she has high cheekbones, shining
eyes and even features.
"I looked like a chipmunk in that first photo," she says
matter-of-factly. "There isn't a name for what I had. It's vaguely
referred to as a 'congenital jaw defect'. That basically meant that my
top jaw stuck out by about eight millimetres and my lower jaw hung down
into my neck. I had to wait till my bones had stopped growing to have
reconstructive surgery at 17."
Over two years, from 1991 to 1993, Joanna underwent three corrective
operations to remove a strip of flesh from her upper jaw and to break
her lower jaw, re-pinning it in the correct position. Her chin was then
reconstructed from muscle. She was in intensive care for several days
and the swelling took a year to go down. Her jaw was wired for seven
weeks. "Yawning was the worst," she says. "It felt like I was ripping my
teeth out." |
Joanna announced her intention last week to take the police to court over an
abortion that was carried out because of the discovery of a cleft palate. She
claims that Paul West, the Chief Constable of West Mercia police, failed to
investigate an unlawful late abortion of a foetus with a cleft palate - the
doctor who performed the procedure in Herefordshire in 2001 cannot be named for
legal reasons.
Under the law as it stands, abortions after 24 weeks, such as this one, are only
meant to be carried out in cases of serious handicap. The 1967 Abortion Act
clearly states that such action can take place after the 24 weeks only if "there
is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such
physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped". For Joanna,
who has been through major surgery to rebuild a substantial part of her face, a
cleft palate and harelip hardly qualify.
"When I found out about this 'cleft-palate' abortion by looking at the National
Abortion Statistics published last September, it just felt so close to home
because I have had major surgery on my jaw. I thought to myself, I know people
who have had cleft palates repaired and how many operations they went through,
but I think I have had more major surgery than they've had.
"So I thought, if you play this argument through, the law is saying there are
good reasons why I shouldn't be alive. And I look at my life and I think,
'That's rubbish.' Even if I hadn't had my surgery, even if I'd chosen to stay
the way I looked before, that's no good reason for me not to be alive."
The current abortion legislation gives no definition of "seriously handicapped",
instead, it relies on the discretion of the wishes of parents and doctors.
Twenty-six abortions on foetuses with cleft palates have taken place since 1995,
two of which were performed after 24 weeks.
"There needs to be a reassessing and a tightening of the law so that abortions
aren't taking place for trivial reasons. We just need to say, 'Enough is
enough.' There is a huge pressure on women to have a perfect baby. While it's
great that there are all these tests available during a pregnancy, it's also a
double-edged sword. The reality is you raise a woman's fear levels when she is
in a vulnerable position. You turn her into a bio-ethicist which isn't what
motherhood is about."
For Joanna, external beauty has always been a fickle thing. After the surgery,
which was offered as part of her orthodontic treatment, she had to carry a
passport photograph around with her to prove to her peers that she was the same
person. She began noticing that boys no longer wanted to be "just friends". Cars
started stopping for her when she was crossing the street. It was, she says,
"almost like a face transplant".
Questions
This article is all about whether or not the law should change.
This woman, Joanna Jepson, is arguing that a cleft palate is not a good
enough reason to have an abortion.
She wants the law to change to be more specific about what ‘severe disability’
means. Answer these questions in
full sentences.
This will help you with your law section.
1)
Read paragraph 1. How does this
paragraph make you feel about Joanna Jepson?
Why do you think the newspaper has chosen to describe her in this way?
2)
Read paragraph 2. What is a
‘congenital jaw defect’?
3)
Read paragraph 3. What did she have
done to solve the problem?
4)
Read paragraph 6. Why was she so
upset that someone had an abortion because of a cleft palate?
Do you agree with her argument?
Do you think it is a strong argument?
5)
Read paragraph 7 and 8. Do you
think that the law should be more specific about what ‘severe disability’ means?
Explain your answer and be specific about what the law should say?
6)
Do you think that Joanna Jepson is right to take this women to court?
7)
Joanna Jepson is a Reverend for the Church of England.
Do you think this might have influenced her decision?