Abortion decriminalisation ‘undermines feminism’ - Kathleen Stock

Unborn babies do not have 'rights' and women are not trying to land grab extra rights from another group.

Case in point. Late term unborn babies do have certain, limited rights (not entirely unlike how women have certain, limited rights to single sex spaces), such as the right to not be aborted in the absence of medical reasons. An expansion of women's rights to terminate a pregnancy is a land grab of those rights. Your denial of the existence of another group's rights is no different to TRAs saying that women do not have the right to single sex spaces.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/12/appeal-jail-term-woman-aborted-baby-40-weeks

As far as I can see, the change is that this 2012 prosecution would not take place.

I wish that this case had been discussed, as well as the ones chosen to engage public sympathy. The arguments wouldn’t be different, but they would be honest.

See also the repeated reference to the 1867 legislation, and not the equally relevant 1929 legislation re: child destruction.

It should have been thought through more. What about women coerced to take the pills by abusive partners or family? Female baby when they want a son? And can these pills be crushed and hidden in the mothers food by men who could not get her to agree to an abortion?

I keep reading stories from America where women who have had a miscarriage have been arrested, even before they have physically recovered from the miscarriage. So I’m glad to see our country take a stance that we won’t follow that way. I think the idea of late term abortion is horrific and really would be against it but the worlds attitude to women had me supporting this to protect miscarrying women in years to come.

it’s still illegal to help a woman do this if not medically justified which I think is important.

This raises a good point. Although rare, women who make a decision to have a late abortion will almost always have circumstances which mean they are likely to need support.

Does anyone want this?

If the answer is no then we need a better system. As other countries do.

It’s the telemedication system without process that puts us out of step with other countries.

It’s only in place due to Covid and at this point is an oversight.

The intention wasn’t to allow late term access, so we need something to ensure it has guardrails in place.

And it’s not going to help any girl or woman to start wanting to row back on Pills by Post for abortions within the Abortion Act, which seems to be what some posters are saying?

Pills by post are a good thing in supporting access to timely legal safe earlier abortion. Pills by post remove delays and protect against loss of privacy or gain of knowledge by a third party about the abortion which could endanger her if she is living in a violent situation. Pills by post possibly enable access to an abortion for women at home who can’t straightforwardly leave home to get to a HCP for treatment easily for caring reasons, work reasons, privacy, or all three. This option lowers medical and social risk, and supports women’s privacy safety and dignity.

Delaying abortion by removing the Pills by post option pushes more women into having surgical abortions at later gestations that could have been done medically and less invasively earlier on.

Pills by post have been available illicitly (outside of the 1967 Act in GB), since these pills have been around via groups like Women on Waves. They’re a very important recourse for women in countries where abortion is very restricted or not available.

This amendment has not changed anything about provision of abortion care, the time limit, the right to conscientious objection or any other aspects of abortion law.

To my mind, it’s about giving confidence to women that they can still seek medical help after abortion, miscarriage or stillbirth without fearing criminal penalties - which will save women’s lives in a small number of instances.

It will give confidence to HCPs that they don’t have to report women to the police to be criminally investigated for possibly having acted outside the1967 Act, which has been happening as a report, increasingly.

HCPs can still act on any concerns they have for women’s welfare and safety just as they did before. But it brings the focus first to women being able to access medical care and support.

This change brings England and Wales into line with Northern Ireland. Scotland has never had the same laws.

Anyone who wants a bit more clarity on whats changed, take a look at this briefing supported by all the main relevant groups to women’s health care:

https://www.rcog.org.uk/media/00sjehln/multiagency-call-for-urgent-action-by-parliament-to-protect-women-s-essential-reproductive-rights.pdf

Anyone who wants a bit more insight into why accessing abortion could be delayed for several weeks, or abortion could only become needed very late on (this is only 20 weeks-24 weeks but gives some key themes which will be relevant): https://www.bpas.org/media/dmjf3y0l/why-do-women-need-abortions-after-20-weeks.pdf

The main women’s reproductive health medical bodies of the UK all support this change. They do so because they are rightly concerned for the women in really dire situations attempting to self administer outside the Abortion act who are then too scared to seek medical help, and they know of the women who have been criminally investigated for an stillbirth or miscarriage because it might look like to an HCP that they might have self administered something. They want to put their patients first and not deter anyone who needs help. It brings the focus on to women’s health and wellbeing which is where it should be.

There won’t be any headlines because there won’t be any investigations. But there will be women who knowingly or unknowingly take these pills late in pregnancy and have a horrendously traumatic time birthing a viable baby alone at home.

And any women who do it on purpose at a late stage (I appreciate this is likely to be very rare) won’t be investigated despite purposefully taking medication designed for use under 10 weeks at a much much later stage. Personally I think those women should be investigated, although I accept that’s not everyone’s view.

Point of fact, Late abortions after 20+ weeks can be very hard or impossible to get. Legally available yes but incredibly time sensitive to access and only available from a very small number of very specific HCPs at a very few specific facilities. Who could be at the opposite end of the country to where a woman lives even if they have appointments available within the under 24 weeks limit. These abortions require overnight stays and recovery stays and normally access to travel and accommodation ££££ for the woman and a support companion if she has one and time off work or education and child caring responsibilities etc so they are not always quick or easy to find.

She's talking a lot of sense actually. Says she's not debating from a pro choice or pro life position, but one of pro safety.

That Parliament have made it legal for women to abort late term pregnancies, but haven't given them a legal (and safe) mechanism through which to do it.

Also, as a side note, I think it's a real shame that genuine stillbirths and miscarriages get swept up in this - there should be some way of differentiating.

Thanks @PandoraSocks

Just listening to Woman's Hour from yesterday and the MP who put forward the online pills amendment (defeated) is being interviewed. She makes a good point that coercive men have been prosecuted also - and that now investigations will no longer take place, these men will also go undetected.

This poll shows 55% support decriminalisation

What are those harrowing headlines going to say? 'This year, like every year, 2,000 women in England suffered a post-24 week pregnancy loss. The police did not arrest any of them.' Its non-news.

Yes you can decriminalise if wanted but prevent late term use which isn’t what it’s for anyway.

All that has to be done is similar guardrails for access to the medication. Plus women would have more support.

But the moment the shoe is on the other foot, and women are the ones trying to get egregious legislation though the back door to expand their rights at the expense of another group, they become everything they have fought against.

Bollocks. AGPs trying to access women when they're vulnerable is not comparable at all to women having dominion over their own bodies. Unborn babies do not have 'rights' and women are not trying to land grab extra rights from another group.

The police should not be putting women who've miscarried in cells, the HCPs treating them should not be reporting them to the police, police should not be combing the period apps or internet searches of women who have miscarried, and women shouldn't be afraid to access healthcare in case they're accused of breaking the law. None of that is remotely comparable to saying men can't use women's changing rooms.

this right here.
i think the way a lot of people are framing it online for clicks is "omg abortions until 37 weeks everyone!" when actually, it's only about not punishing the woman who has a termination/stillbirth/miscarriage.

Women having stillbirths are already dealing with a horrifically traumatic thing - and removing the added trauma of being investigated for a much wanted baby. This is a WIN.

It's genuinely only about the actual woman, not the medical staff etc.

https://x.com/JuliaLopezMP/status/1935279545575215428

When was the debate previously held in Parliament? Julia Lopez MP stood up and criticised such a major law change being rushed through in two hours. She didn't seem to accept that it's been worked on for years.

This really. I’m pro-choice for women but I don’t agree with her fully on this, but there are some inconvenient truths in what she’s saying.

Stella Creasy was quite open about this re: her proposed amendment (again in her interview on News Agents). She wanted to make abortion a human right in the UK because she is worried about the influence of JD Vance et al.

This seems sensible @EasternStandard, a better safeguard. That would prevent the traumatic experience of a woman like Becca in the Cosmopolitan article linked up thread. I would feel much more comfortable about this.

Conversely, a larger number of women who have a late miscarriage or still birth in circumstances where there has been a relationship split, or an affair on one side or another, or a financial reverse, will be side-eyed and gossiped about as having procured the loss. Or indeed outright accused by partners or family members

This is more a process and access situation to me.

The medication was meant to be overseen when it came in, the guardrails were there. It’s only due to Covid which was a novel event we have telemedicatiin with almost no controls. That wasn’t the aim for access.

I think we’re now the only comparable country with this set up. We should look to others to see how access is provided. Some do an ultrasound for example to determine term stage.

This is a mess up but on access basis.

I lost the article I was trying to post here…

https://apple.news/AMdQCAHn3ShSJhphz8urRYA