The Progressive

Abortion debate: keep party politics out of it

When he was shadow Health Secretary, Dr Liam Fox appeared to suggest that the Tories should become the anti-abortion party. In 2001 Fox was quoted in the Conservative Christian Fellowship prayerbook as saying that the UK's 'pro-abortion laws' should be scrapped.In 2005 Michael Howard almost made abortion a general election issue when, towards to start of the campaign, he told Cosmopolitan magazine 'I believe abortion should be available to everyone, but the law should be changed. In the past I voted for a restriction to 22 weeks, and I would be prepared to go down to 20.'

It is because of examples like this that I am just a little sceptical about the new campaign launched today by the Tory MP Nadine Dorries. A former nurse, Ms Dorries is leading a parliamentary campaign to reduce the upper limit for abortion from 24 weeks to 20 weeks when the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill is debated in the Commons later this month. The last time the law on abortion was amended was in 1990 – given the fact that both medicine and science have advanced significantly one cannot agree that a review of abortion legislation is long overdue.

At present, all legislation on abortion in Britain is considered as a matter of conscience and decided under a free vote. What worries me is that some MPs and campaigners may use the forthcoming debate as a means of polarising attitudes where the issue of abortion is seen only of terms of being a vote winner, or a vote loser. Today’s Daily Mail leads on the launch of Ms Dorries’ campaign and will no doubt be a strong advocate of the need for a change in the present law. Britain has a long and enviable record of allowing its elected representatives to make up their own minds in matters of conscience. The danger, as I see it, is that some of Ms Dorries’ colleagues may well be tempted to frame the debate about abortion in such a way that it heralds the first tentative steps to try and establish a political arm for the Christian right in Britain.

Ms Dorries has stated that the campaign is not a religious campaign (yet 6 out of the 10 organisations linked to it are backed by Christian evangelicals) nor, we are told, is it politically motivated. Let’s hope it stays that way.

Too many abortions?

David Steel is rightly credited with introducing a breakthrough Bill to legalise abortion in 1967 which took away the horror of women dying in backstreet procedures and helped to liberalise attitudes towards sexual freedom and a woman's control over her body. Today he gave a worrying interview to the Guardian in which he suggested that everybody could agree "there were too many abortions" and that women were using abortion as a form of "contraception" - an argument which is made more often by writers in the Daily Mail.

While it could be argued that there are too many "unnecessary" abortions, it's difficult to know what number might constitute an acceptable or expected level of abortion. In the year following the Abortion Act, 55,000 abortions were undertaken. That figure has now risen to 193,700 in 2006, a 4% rise since 2005. A number of sexual health charities have suggested some of the increase could be due to Eastern European migrants. Others have blamed cuts in provision of contraception and sexual health advice for the increase.

What is clear is that there are still too many barriers to early abortion and we should be trying to break them down rather than turning up the moral indignation or putting the blame on women's "irresponsibility". The first barrier, which Lord Steel raised in his speech today to the Global Safe Abortion Conference, is the need for two doctor's signatures to allow an abortion to proceed. There is no reason why one doctor cannot give consent as is the case in all other operations. The only other situation that I know of where the consent of two doctors is required is the compulsory admission of a mentally ill patient to hospital.

The second barrier which should be overcome is the need to prove that not terminating the pregnancy would "involve risk of injury...to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman". It is demeaning for women to have to pretend their physical or mental health might be harmed by the continuation of pregnancy, when in fact there may be any number of reasons why giving birth and taking on the responsibility of another human being may not be a good idea. Women should be able to ask for an abortion within the time limit on the basis of their own decision about their best interests.

The third barrier is the number of GPs who feel as though they can appeal to their own moral compass, rather than stick to the guidelines of their profession which requires them to refer women wishing to have an abortion on to those who can give impartial advice and counselling. Stronger guidelines should be issued to GPs about the seriousness of making judgments on the basis of their personal rather than professional opinions, and checks should be made on the provision of advice by GPs by mystery shoppers to see how widespread the problem is.

Another barrier is the lack of access to the morning after pill. An article written by Ellie Levenson described how women have to lie in order to access the pill, and yet arguments to allow women to keep a stock of the pill are batted away on the grounds that it would make women take even more risks with their contraception. The anti-abortion lobby can't have it both ways - if they think there are too many abortions taking place, there has to be greater access to ways of preventing unnecessary abortions in the first place.

And finally we need to stop arguments which suggest that women are using abortion as simply another form of contraception. First, this trivialises what is an incredibly difficult decision, and a medical procedure which can hold risks particularly at the later stages. Second, this assertion could actually lead to women thinking that abortion really is available at the drop of a hat. As many providers will tell you, there aren't any waiting list targets for women waiting for abortions and it can often take a number of weeks to be provided with one. Some women miss the abortion time limit altogether and are faced with an unwanted baby, or a journey to another country with more relaxed rules. Current debates risk forgetting the important steps made forward in the interests of women's health and sexual freedom - we can rage about the viability of unborn babies at 24 weeks, but these questions only affect a small proportion of women every year. Many more face barriers at the start of their pregnancy and that is where the debate really ought to be focused.

Reduction of upper limit on abortions

We recently passed the 39th anniversary of abortion becoming legal, but the current climate surrounding abortion does little to reflect the milestone of social progress legalised abortion represents

Recently Conservative MP Nadine Dorries introduced her 10-minute-rule bill, proposing a reduction of the upper limit on abortions in this country from 24 to 21 weeks. She also advocated a 'cooling-off' period for women considering an abortion after their first contact with a medical practitioner.  All in all this is a bid to slow down the abortion process and decrease the number of abortions by having a shorter window combined with a greater delay.

Nadine Dorries, as with others like her, argues there is a 'moral obligation' to reconsider the 1967 law in the light of new scientific research suggesting foetuses may be at around 21 weeks.

Promoting new scientific ‘discoveries’ accompanied by shocking photos or heart wrenching stories is used regularly as a, highly emotive and persuasive, rhetorical device by pro-life groups. New ultrasound scans have shown foetuses to "walk" in the womb, suck their thumbs or open their eyes at 12 weeks.  Adding to this the the increasing number of prematurely born babies surviving where once they would not have it has led to increasing demands to review the current legislation from a wide range of people. The Archbishops of Canterbury and Westminster have both said the law should be revisited. Michael Howard, the former Conservative leader, has publically said he would back a 20-week limit and Tony Blair is also believed to support a review.

While those doing this research in the medical profession have been quick to say that these images do not mean that the foetal brain is conciously controlling these movements and that pairing these extraordinary images with assumptions about the viablity of life is incredibly dangerous it would appear that public opinion is being swayed.  And while women face an attack of their right to choose the ability of pro-choice advocates to defend them seems to be weakening.

Zoe Williams talked recently in the Guardian about the need to speak out on the debate over abortion. While 'pro-lifers' can quote new medical miracles concerning the viaiblity of life much of the pro-choice lobby still defends a woman's right to choose by describing abortion as a 'necessary evil' that without legalised abortion would turn women to the backstreets. There still exists a taboo about discussing abortion apart from as a harrowing descion that is taken as a last resort. While Westminster remains silent on the issue women still must justify their decision as the lesser of two evils. No MP has stood up and said 'I am pro-choice because I do not consider it murder.

It is very unlikely that there will ever be consensus as to when exactly life does begin, and unless we can find a new way to measure the point at which  human existance begins then science will steadily strengthen the pro-life cause. If the support for abortion continues to be one based on it being a last resort rather than an inalienable right of women we may well see the freedom that took so long to achieve slowly eroded. Unless politicians are willing to speak up and unless women are willing to stand up and claim what is rightfully theirs without shame then we may be losing a reason to celebrate in a year's time.