NRL News

Being pregnant with third child enough to get woman dropped from panel debating abortion in Great Britain

by | Oct 9, 2017

Mother also had not aborted her second child diagnosed with Down syndrome

By Dave Andrusko

Former nurse Sarah Costerton, pictured here with three-year-old daughter Beth, was dropped from Abortion on Trial

Former nurse Sarah Costerton, pictured here with three-year-old daughter Beth, was dropped from Abortion on Trial

As NRL News Today has reported at great length, pro-abortion forces in Great Britain are on the march, insisting that abortion laws which are already lax-to-non-existent must be eliminated altogether. The category of vulnerable unborn babies most in their cross-hair are babies prenatally diagnosed with genetic anomalies, typically Down syndrome.

Reporting for the Daily Mail over the weekend, Jonathan Petre tells us the BBC this month is going to broadcast “Abortion on Trial,” which is “billed as a debate among nine people with conflicting views about terminations to mark 50 years since the passing of the Abortion Act.”

But one would-be presenter says she was rejected because she was pregnant with her third child!

Petre writes of former nurse Sarah Costerton that

Mrs. Costerton said programme-makers had seemed keen for her to participate but after being told her pregnancy might distress other participants or restrict what they felt able to say, she was informed that she would not be required.

She said: ‘I was angry because it feels like there is extra protection given to the feelings of women who have been through a termination.

‘The comments I have had about my daughter having Down’s syndrome are unbelievable and the Down’s community has to put up with feeling offended every day.’

Perhaps a secondary “offense” was that Mrs. Costerton and her husband did not abort Beth, their second child, when they learned there was a one in two chance she would have Down syndrome–“a decision she said she and her husband David never regretted.”

A spokesman for the BBC denied Mrs. Costerton’s assertion. “As in the making of any programme, production spoke to a wide range of potential contributors and it’s simply not true that anyone was not included on the grounds that their story might offend. The contributors represent a breadth of views and perspectives and include the mother of a child with Down’s.”

Which, of course, evades Mrs. Costerton’s point:

“They were worried it would inhibit people speaking freely or cause upset; that me being pregnant would offend people who opted for a termination. That’s what was said.”

She said the programme-makers had given no explanation for not selecting her, but added: ”It seemed that me that being pregnant was a stumbling block.”

She said that she did not see how a debate could fully represent all views on abortion if none of the participants was pregnant, and the programme makers had “missed an opportunity” by not inviting her to take part.

Categories: Abortion