New attack on abortion rights fails
"WOMEN [have been regarded] as little more than flowerpots in which future generations of children, preterably boy children, are reared". (Conservative MP Theresa Gorman during the parliamentary debate on abortion.)
ON APRIL 24 the British parliament voted for the first time for
23 years on women's rights to abortion. Prior to the votes, which took place because the Thatcher government made a concession to the anti-abortion lobby by allowing government time for new legislation to be considered, the pro-choice movement feared that a substantial attack on the existing law might be carried. In fact the outcome was not a restriction of legal abortion, but in some respects at least, a liberalization of the law. This result was a massive defeat for the anti-abortion
BRITAIN lobby.
ANNE KANE
W HILE the new abortion law
Flowers the general time limit for legal abortion by four weeks, to 24 weeks, other amendments adopted mean that later abortions will continue to be available to exactly the groups of women who receive them now. They are covered by the two exceptions to the 24 week limit adopted by parliament - for foctal abnormality and "grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman" — which are allowed with no upper limit.
Possibly the most significant step was the vote to separate the 1929 Infant Life Preservation Act from the new abortion law. The 1929 Act's statutory ruling on "viability" of the human foetus puts the onus on doctors to prove that a foetus was not viable, and that the abortion had taken place before the 28th week - the 1929 Act's limit for the "presumption of viability". This has been used to threaten doctors, who might perform an abortion in good faith under the 1967 abortion act but then be challenged legally under the 1929 act. This has limited the willingness of many doctors to perform late abortions.
The 24 week limit with exceptions had the backing of the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, on the grounds that, due to advances in medical science, a presumption of viability should have 18 been more accurately fixed at 24 weeks. While the pro-choice National Abortion International Viewpoint #185 • May 21, 1990
Campaign (NAC) clearly rejected thesc arguments about viability, as not relevant to women's right to terminate a pregnancy, the medical profession's view did initially push a substantial section of moderate pro-choice opinion for example the charities that run abortion clinics — in the direction of favouring a cut in the existing time limit from 28 to 24 weeks. However lack of clarity in the debate meant that it was not at all clear that this same section of opinion understood that the medical profession also favoured wide exceptions to this limit and the decriminalization of abortion.
Tactics of anti-abortionists backfire
The anti-abortionists were both hoping for and expecting a major victory. The scale of their subsequent defeats led to public recriminations among anti-abortion MPs. For twenty years this lobby has attacked the 1967 act in parliament, waged gory and expensive propaganda campaigns outside and demanded government time for an abortion debate in parliament. This time some of their tactics backfired - in particular many MPs and public opinion were alienated by receiving realistic plastic models of a foetus through the post on the eve of the vote.
The votes of April 24 were sufficiently decisive, in particular in rejecting all the proposals of the anti-abortionists - who voted against the final amendment proposed to the abortion law - to set back the anti-abortionists for a number of years.
This success for the pro-choice movement lay in bringing the reality of the majority view that women have a right to decide on abortion, to bear on parliament. This was achieved despite difficult odds arising from the confusing context of the attack, the weight of medical opinion supporting a cut in the abortion time limit, considerable hostility from the leadership of the labour movement, and initial public apathy.
It involved a major campaign involving pro-choice women's groups, backing from women in the trade unions, and support from Labour MPs. It built on previous campaigns on the same issue - for example against the attempt two years ago to introduce an 18 week limit on abortions by Liberal-Democrat MP David Alton.
This battle was the sharpest test for legal abortion in Britain since the passage of the 1967 abortion act, which substantially decriminalized abortion and made it possible — though it was not a "right" — for women to obtain legal abortion with the agreement of two doctors on a wide range of grounds.
The ferocity of the attack on abortion rights this time came from the fact that the anti-abortionists were given backing by Thatcher herself. She had personally intervened to ensure that a vote on abortion could be attached to a bill on the government's "Human Fertilization and Embryology Bill", which meant that unlike previous attacks raised by individual MPs, this time the amendment was ensured time in the legislative proceed-
ings of the House of Commons, and there would therefore be a definitive vote on
Previous anti-abortion proposals had been procedurally defeated before reaching the stage of being voted into law. Thatcher's intervention to attach a vote on abortion to a bill on a different topic was carried out against the opposition of even some of her own ministers and the
The Embryology Bill was introduced in parliament to establish a legal framework for scientific and medical techniques around human embryo research, artificial insemination by donor, in vitro fertilization, surrogate motherhood and related
Embryo research holds key to medical advances
Scientific pressure behind the legislawas immense. Enormous vested interests supported continued research and the development of the reproductive technologies. Embryo research holds the key to advances in knowledge and treatment of congenital and inheritable disease, of infertility and into safer forms of contraception. great potential for improving the quality of human life.
The techniques with which the bill is concerned also have crucial implications for expanding women's reproductive control. To take the example most attacked by the right, artificial insemination by donor, the Warnock Report commented
"the various techniques for reproduction offer not only a remedy for infertility, but also offer the fertile single woman or lesbian couple the chance of parenthood without the direct involvement of a male partner." The bill is a compromise between the interests bound up with the advance of scientific
I THOUGHT ABOUT HAVING KIDS
BUT CHANGED MY MIND
MURDER?! ALL I DID WAS THINK ABOUT IT!
and the concern that such research, and the associated reproductive techniques such as insemination by donor, be only permitted in the most restrictive way. The Tory government wanted to allow scientific developments without creating greater reproductive choice for women and without weakening the anti-abortion lobby.
The fact that the essential proposals in the bill were likely to be carried — particularly that allowing embryo research, albeit with a limit of 14 days from conception - meant that scientific opinion had won out over the so-called "pro-life" lobby in the Tory party, giving Britain among the most advanced laws in Europe on the matter. The "right to life" lobby demanded retribution.
The government sought to pacify this lobby and score some counterbalancing attack on women's reproductive rights by facilitating restrictive amendments to the bill. The outcome of one of these, to restrict access to insemination by donor to women in a "stable heterosexual relationship" is still to be decided. The other was that on abortion. Government support for a parliamentary attack on abortion was unprecedented.
In British parliamentary practice abortion has traditionally been treated matter of conscience, not subject to party discipline. Even the 1967 act was introduced by an individual member of parliament. No government, or political party as a whole, has since backed a restrictive abortion bill. The persistent attempts at parliamentary attack on the abortion law have always been by individual MPs, in the form of Private Members Bills.
The government's move provoked wide condemnation by the scientific and medical lobby, rightly fearful that this would turn a bill with a strong chance of making its way into law into an abortion minefield. Baroness Warnock, chair of the THAT's MURDER!
LIFE BEGINS AT CONCEPTION!
BRITAIN committee whose recommendations led to the bill, and very much an establishment figure, denounced the government's move as "evil". However, it was clear at the end of the struggle over the last parliamentary attack on abortion law, the Alton bill, in 1987-88, that there was a parliamentary majority for some restriction in the abortion law, at lcast a restriction to 24 weeks in line with majority medical opinion. Anti-abortion MPs exploited this sentiment, arguing that a debate would allow a new consensus to emerge.
Anti-abortionists knew that a debate in government time could not be defeated by procedural manoeuvres. They were therefore hopeful of a substantial restriction on existing law, and right up to the final vote publicly stated their belief that a restriction to 20 weeks was possible and at least 22 weeks was certain. Abortion rights and individual conscience
Although the Labour Party has a clear policy in favour of a "woman's right to choose" on abortion, and a majority of Labour MPs support this, the party leadership has traditionally not demanded adherence to this position in parliamentary votes, claiming abortion to be a matter of individual conscience. In reality the party leadership, while formally opposing attacks on abortion, refuses to confront the party right on this matter. Although only a small number of Labour MPs are hardline anti-abortionists, there was concern that these numbers would be boosted by some who support some restriction in the law, swinging the overall result further in the direction of the anti-abortionists.
Central figures in the Labour Party, as carly as October 1989, were suggesting that restriction in the abortion law was inevitable and therefore the task was to promote support for a 24 week restriction. Such tactics by the Labour Party - and they were not even urged upon the whole pro-choice movement - would simply have shifted the terms of debate massively in favour of the anti-abortionists and helped prepare a defeat.
The campaigning organizations outside parliament, in particular the National
Abortion Campaign (NAC) and the ad hoc coordinating group, the Stop the
Amendment Campaign (STAC), established by NAC to fight this particular attack on abortion rights, took the view that the only way of minimizing the damage was to hold firm against any change.
At the same time, correctly estimating the relationship of forces, they did not make those who thought a 24 week restriction was inevitable the main target of attack, understanding that many who supported it were far from being anti-abortionists.
It was this course, followed by NAC possible to build up the maximum alliance 19 and STAC in particular, which made it May 21, 1990 • #185 International Viewpoint
----- photo credits and running heads -----
* KYLATIMEL SYND WASHERMAN
BRITAIN/ SRI LANKA of forces, in very difficult circumstances, which was key to the success finally achieved. The first step in the campaign was to emphasize the damage to the discussion on the vital issues in the Embryology Bill that would result from attaching abortion legislation to it. A public appeal was launched calling for abortion to be kept out of the Embryology Bill, which won support from the medical lobby in both the embryo research and abortion fields, and across a wide range of political and public opinion.
The support of the trade unions was decisive. The campaign, being established on the basis of opposition to any restriction in abortion rights, was able to win the active support of the TUC and national trade unions. The support of national trade unions, particularly the women's structures, was essential in ensuring the maximum expression of opposition in the time available.
In terms of practical support for example, the local government white collar union, NALGO, printed thousands of leaflets and posters for the campaign, the
TGWU, the largest general union, paid for the public address system for the April 23 demonstration, the print unions NGA and
SOGAT paid TUC women's conference expenses and provided considerable organizational help, and several regions of the MSF (white collar technical workers) and NCU (telephone workers) gave substantial donations.
National union officials sign public appeal
A wide range of national union officials signed the public appeal, calling for abortion to be kept out of this bill. Several national trade unions affiliated directly to the campaign. The NGA, SOGAT and NALGO, in rapidly organizing the submission of resolutions, ensured that this was the central debate at TUC women's conference in March, backed up by one of the best attended fringe meetings for years. The March TUC women's national conference took a position in sup port of the embryology bill, against the abortion attack and against restrictions on
When the campaign had less than three weeks notice for the decisive parliamentary vote and called for a demonstration and lobby of parliament, the trade unions, notoriously slow to move, responded in a big way. An evening demonstration on the Monday before the vote brought several national and regional trade union contingents, including the local government workers, NALGO, the public unions GMBATU and NUPE and print unions SOGAT and NGA onto the demonstration. At very short notice 3000 people turned out. This demonstration was referred to repeatedly in the follow20 ing day's parliamentary debate.
There is no doubt that this expression of International Viewpoint #185 • May 21, 1990 opinion affected the vote which followed, especially by Labour MPs. Given party policy, it is scandalous that any Labour
MP voted for a 22 weck limit or even lower. But that only 30 of them did so is directly attributable to the campaign.
In the debate itself, the implications of the massive change in women's position in British society and the basis for the strong support for women's choice on abortion was clear. While only one in 16
MPs is a woman, of these the great majority were firmly against this attack on abortion. These included women
MPs like Theresa Gorman, whose intervention included a strident attack not just on anti-abortionists, but on misogyny, male sexuality and Christian hypocrisy.
This attitude, from an MP who on other matters is very much on the right of the
Conservative Party, was not isolated and can only have added to MPs fears of a popular backlash against the anti- abortionists of the kind seen recently in the United States.
overall vote, however, strictly class interests. Conservative
MPs voted by almost 2:1 for the more restrictive 22 weeks; only 30 Labour MPs voted for 22 weeks. The final version of the clause was carried with 335 votes for and 129 against, the latter being the hardline anti-abortion vote.
Pro-choice movement on the offensive
The outcome has shifted the relationship of forces substantially in favour of women. For the first time since the 1967 act, the pro-choice movement is able to move onto the offensive. During the remaining stages of the bill in parliament for example, moves will be made to attempt to gain abortion on request in the first 12 weeks in line with many other European countries. The argument that this would reduce the need for late abortion was heard more clearly than ever in this cam-
Following the vote on April 24, Consergovernment minister Clarke indicated his sympathy with making early abortion easier to obtain, possibly by only requiring reference by one doctor rather than two. offensive by the anti-abortionists, unlikely that any further positive change will be won, but for such demands to now be part of the mainstream debate is itself a major shift. The last remaining threat to women connected with this bill is the posrestricted access to donor insemination. While this is less widely understood than abortion, and the anti-abortionists will certainly be desperate for some success after their two defeats, the odds against a successful attack are greatly improved by the victories won so