Defending & Extending Abortion Rights

Ann Henderson

Controversy continues and women’s reproductive rights are under attack again. Forty years on since the 1967 Abortion Act came into effect, and the anti abortionists have been organising to restrict the terms of the Act through amendments tabled to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill at Westminster.

In May this year, following strong lobbying from across the labour movement, student movement and women’s movement, Parliament defeated amendments to restrict the time limits for access to abortion (currently 24 weeks). A high number of MPs turned up to vote, and the vote to retain the 24 week limit was decisive. No medical evidence had been brought forward to the contrary. From amongst the 59 Scottish MPs, 10 were not present for the vote, and 35 voted against any new restrictions – a clear majority reflecting Scottish opinion. More than half of Scotland’s Labour MPs voted against any changes in the time limit.

Despite this evidence, an intervention from Bishop Joseph Devine sought to make abortion an issue in the Glasgow East by election, as he attacked the Westminster government on the Embryology Bill itself and on abortion. It is debateable how much this actually affected voters’ intentions, but the SNP candidate (now the MP) John Mason was quick to publicly declare his opposition to the Bill and also to abortion. Margaret Curran, Labour’s candidate, was clear that had she been at Westminster she would have supported the Bill and opposed any restrictions on the 67 Act.

The surprise decision by the Labour government to delay the voting on the final stage of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill appears to have been a knee-jerk response to the intervention by the Catholic Church. In fact, the delay has only given the anti abortionists longer to organise against something that was Government policy. Another batch of amendments relating abortion and abortion services were lodged late July, just as Parliament broke up for the summer. Although not all will be called by the Speaker for debate, a number will be considered by the House of Commons in the autumn.

A number of restrictive amendments have been lodged, which seek to make it harder for women to access abortion services. Restrictions to the terms of the 1967 Abortion Act, could include requirements for additional counselling advice, cooling-off periods, and additional assessments of the risks to mental health if the pregnancy continues.

Other amendments will extend and improve services for women. The House of Commons Science and Technology Committee’s recent report found no evidence to support the continued need for two doctors’ signatures for a woman to have an abortion, and Dr Evan Harris MP has brought forward an amendment that would change the requirement, to be for one medical practitioner to agree.

There is a proposal to remove the restrictions on locations where abortions can be carried out, supporting women who wish to complete the second stage of an early termination at home, and also an amendment which would allow suitably trained healthcare practitioners (as well as doctors) to be permitted to carry out terminations.

Everyone should encourage their MP to sign Early Day Motion 2009 on Abortion Law, which argues for MPs to take this opportunity to modernise the law and to improve early access to abortion.

TUC and STUC Women’s Conference policy is clear – women must have the right to choose whether or not a pregnancy continues, and they will continue to campaign for accessible safe legal abortion services. Additional barriers to obtaining appropriate services only add to the number of later abortions, and increase stress and pressure in a situation that is already very difficult. At TUC Congress the TUC Women’s Committee will be moving a policy motion on a woman’s right to choose.

The day before the Westminster parliamentary summer recess began, MPs added their names to an amendment lodged by Diane Abbott MP, which proposes the extension of the 1967 Abortion Act to Northern Ireland.

Welcoming this, Dr Audrey Simpson, director of the Family Planning Association Northern Ireland (www.fpa.org.uk) said: ‘A Northern Irish woman in the 21st century who is the victim of rape or incest is expected to give birth, or find up to £2,000 to travel for treatment in England where women have the right to access safe abortion. These are a vulnerable group of women who need support – not to be forced to find money and travel long distances on their own.’

It is timely that there be wider discussion on this issue – the United Nations recently completed a hearing in the UK, looking at member state progress on the Convention to Eliminate Discrimination Against Women, and the recommendations are clear – urging an early public consultation in Northern Ireland on the abortion law, and seeking removal of punitive measures against women who do undergo abortion.

Trade unionists are adding their voices to the broad-based campaign supporting the moves to modernize the 1967 Abortion Act, and opposing further restrictions. We will continue to work together in the coming months.

Ann Henderson

Secretary Edinburgh South CLP and Vice Chair Abortion Rights

Editorial Comment

In case anyone is tempted to believe the fight for a woman’s right to choose has been won once and for all, they should look to the United States. On this occasion it is not abortion rights that are under threat, but the basic right to access many forms of contraception including the contraceptive pill, the ‘morning-after’ pill and IUDs.

Anti abortion campaigners in America have tried to get these types of contraception classified as abortion and have succeeded in getting the American Health Secretary, Mike Leavitt to commit himself to support this approach. The move has taken place under the guise of allowing health care workers to refuse to provide these common contraceptive. It is claimed that the act of referring a woman onto a practitioner who would help her was tantamount to requiring them to assist in abortion.

The health department has drafted a regulation to halt federal funding to any medical institution that requires healthcare workers to take part in abortions which is defined as “any procedure or any other action that results in the termination of the life of a human being in utero between conception and natural birth, whether before or after implantation.”

It should be noted that behind many anti abortion campaigns is a belief that any ‘artificial’ means of controlling conception should be outlawed. They fight on the issue of abortion using highly inflammatory and emotional pressure, but for many there is no valid distinction between an abortion and the most common forms of female contraception.

Dressing this up as an issue of conscience for health care workers is a means of effectively denying women the ability to control their own fertility and putting back the cause of women’s rights nearly 100 years.

EDITOR