Abortion decriminalisation ‘undermines feminism’ - Kathleen Stock

A separate and perhaps side point but it also feels like this is perhaps a bit of a reaction to what we see in the US with removal of abortion rights. But the US is a totally different landscape with totally different political and religious views on this, and I don’t think the discussion in the UK is ever likely to reach the stage of total abolition of abortion like in the US.

Sometimes I think we are too influenced here by American movements and rhetoric and forget that our values and challenges can be quite different.

I don’t think this needed to happen here, I think we had probably got the balance about right before this change.

Much, much more risk if a woman is effectively giving birth at home alone.

That is why the abortion pills are only supposed to be given to women who are less than 10 weeks pregnant.

Ironically, a major reason that abortion was legalised in the UK was to enable women to have safe abortions assisted by a doctor.

She's spot on.

Many feminists on this board have spent the last decade talking about the importance of nuance and balancing competing interests in the trans debate, and railing against facile slogans like "trans rights are human rights".

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.

No nuance, no recognition of the competing interest of a healthy late term fetus, just a barrage of slogans - "trust women", "as late as necessary" etc.

But surely that’s always a risk no matter the term of the unborn child.

I accept it might not be the intention of the change, but can we be sure it won’t be the effect of it?

If your (general you, not specifically you @GrammarTeacher ) position is that abortion at any stage is morally okay for any reason then that’s a view I disagree with but people are obviously entitled to hold. From that viewpoint I can understand decriminalisation, it logically follows.

If your view is late term abortions are a generally bad thing, but women hardly ever do this and it’s always complicated so we should decriminalise and let those very few off then I disagree with the logic of that, not just the position. We shouldn’t decriminalise things we think are wrong just because it’s hard, or tragic, or rarely applicable.

Sorry that was a longer post than I'd thought it would be. TL:DR I don't believe this actually does protect women who've experienced miscarriage from investigation. And I think it increases the risk of women experiencing truly awful abortion situations rather than having it performed under medical supervision.

Absolutely. Knowing how many women are nagged to get abortions by their abusive partners this means that some stupid men will assume she can "just get some pills" and make things go away.

@Britneyfan That's really the crux of my feelings and why I agree with Kathleen Stock on this. Whatever your feelings about late term abortions (and I understand the difference between decriminalisation and legalisation), the deterrent not to procure abortion pulls by post whilst not knowing (or confirming) how pregnant you are is removed. It leaves women open to the situation where it looks like a less serious thing to do.

It is serious. For the potentially viable baby and for the mother. In hospital, the foetus is killed before delivery after 22 weeks. I assume this is because there would be an expectation to save the baby in hospital if it's born as at a viable size. I believe in ancient times, this was also done (in a less sanitised way) and that as long as part of the baby was still in the birth canal it didn't count as infanticide. As I understand it, pills by post just induce womb lining shedding and labour (please do correct me on this if I'm wrong - there seems to be little detail available online). How horrific, painful and traumatic this would be for the baby (which is it is once born alive regardless of your view on fetal personhood) and a mother who doesn't know she's as far along as she is.

As she says, the importance of the deterrent and change in public can't be underestimated. If this had gone through before the need for medical observation was removed, I think there would be stronger support. In a time where the pills can be easily obtained without confirmation of what the results will be (ie whether the foetus is viable or wont survive the process), it became necessary to investigate whether women knew how pregnant they were when they took the pills. This created the (understandable) worry of miscarriages being investigated.

The obvious solution seems to me to remove abortion by post until the finer posts and implications have been investigated. By decriminalising, surely there's still a chance that the next situation we get in, is someone takes by post abortion pills thinking they're 20 weeks, turning out to be 34 weeks, presenting with medical problems (and a deceased baby) and then being investigated to work out whether the baby was born dead (not illegal now) or alive and the mother didn't seek medical attention for it (no idea at what point this becomes concealing a birth or child neglect or causing the death of a child, legally) or something far worse. I don't think this protects women surviving stillbirth from investigation. If the use of these pills increases, it makes this situation far more likely, surely? People saying 'late term home abortions aren't a thing' seem to be ignoring the fact that that is what the latest investigation was around, surely - the taking of by post abortion pills far too late for them to be safe and past the point it was legal to do so (even if not knowingly).

There’s another case of a woman being investigated described here…
This has been happening.

and the direction of travel on abortion has been in the other direction. Since the odds for premature babies have improved so dramatically, it now overlaps the gestation point for abortion, which makes people (including me) very uncomfortable. The discussion last I was paying attention was to reduce the weeks where abortion was available.

And of course that has not changed.

On this thread though, most people who are against it are so because of women, not babies/foetuses or however they are regarded.

Women at risk of death due to unassisted childbirth.

Women’s mental health issues due to having no support during what is almost bound to be a traumatic process.

Women being coerced into having late term abortions due to a man thinking he has the right to decide a child’s sex.

I’m surprised anyone is shocked. Stock has made it abundantly clear that she thinks people should be controlled in how they are able to inhabit their own bodies. This is on brand.

Such a huge change in abortion law should have been in Labour's manifesto and made more public. I only knew about this earlier in the week and seems to have caught many other people by surprise too. I was absolutely supportive of the law as it stood, this change makes me deeply uncomfortable for some of the reasons KS has mentioned.

KS does has a point that a narrative of “feminists always support late abortion” could gain traction.

It absolutely will gain traction if that's what she says about the bill in a national daily paper. She's just given the narrative traction.

"Decriminalising women who do this" does not equal "always supporting late abortion" in the public mind until someone - like her! - puts it all over the press.

KS uses colourful emotive language and this article will land well with many Telegraph readers. Whilst I disagree with much of her rhetoric, it’s an issue that troubles me, even though I wholeheartedly support it’s aims and don’t want to see women in desperate circumstances prosecuted.

I understand that nothing will change - legally - with regard to medically assisted abortion and that decriminalising women does not remove the strict requirements for HCP. However that isn’t how it will be interpreted by the wider public. KS does has a point that a narrative of “feminists always support late abortion” could gain traction. Our differing, considered and often nuanced views will be overlooked, along with the women needing late abortions and the reasons for them.

The likelihood is that late, unsupervised abortions without medical assistance will increase and the lives and health of women will be put at risk. I can’t celebrate that.

Late, gender selective abortions will also increase, sometimes due to coercion. Again, I don’t think this is a victory.

@myplace well that’s the thing isn’t it?! If what the public and lawmakers actually want is for termination to be available right up to birth on demand for any reason, they could make that happen. And essentially what this amendment has done is now say yes late stage termination is fine for any reason long as you do it unsafely and traumatically for both mother and baby at home without the right support. I’m not sure that’s really the message they want to be sending?!

If it’s the right law then it doesn’t matter when it was enacted. Thou shalt not murder has been in place since before Christ, but I don’t see a rush to overturn that?
I totally agree with her she is talking a lot of sense and put into words what I have been thinking, especially about the hypocrisy and hyperbole to justify the need for a law which everyone says doesn’t change anything. The key issue is that you shouldn’t be able to get abortion on demand up to birth which is what has been enacted, if you can get pills via the post by going whoops I got my dates wrong.

@Slothtoes I’m pretty sure this now means N Ireland is out of step again actually, don’t think they have totally decriminalised late stage terminations there in the way this amendment does for England and Wales. Really all termination legislation in this day and age should be national and consistent throughout the UK I think!

It’s possible this will result in the pills being more tightly controlled- collected in person, for example.

This law is not saying abortion at 36 weeks is ‘a good thing’. So that’s a bit of hyperbole.

Perhaps a woman should be able to go to her dr saying she is desperate, she needs the baby out at 36/34/32 weeks, and get help.

Thank you @Britneyfan It's a complicated balance. And to be fair to Dr Stock I also get frustrated by politicians who vote for something based on how good it sounds.

@AmaryllisNightAndDay I agree with you the pills by post is the change that has led to seeing more of these cases. I’m not convinced women are being criminalised more all of a sudden, it’s just that until this recent change this was a crime that was suddenly happening more (albeit still rarely) due to being able to get pills by post.

I agree with you I think we need to go back to in-person appointments for these. No way most of these women would have got them if that had been the case as they’d have been generally visibly pregnant at a glance and would I think have had a scan to confirm gestation first etc.

Although the arguments from these poll providers has been that it improves access to people who might struggle to make an appointment to come and see someone face to face for them etc. And arguably enables women to get their hands on them more quickly at an earlier stage of pregnancy. I think before the law changed in N Ireland just prepandemic there had been a lot of pressure for pills by post to be accessible by women living there, so it may have happened at some stage even without the pandemic and lockdowns though I’m sure not as quickly. I think the pros are outweighed by the cons of such cases happening.

If discussion has been going on for years, why does Stella Creasy seem so confused about the implications of the amendment she proposed? (I know that this wasn’t the amendment voted on, but in theory she is an experienced parliamentarian and this is her area)

This is a transcript of Stella Creasy on news agents

"Emily Maitlis: When people talk about taking pills at 37 weeks, I had a baby at 37 weeks. There wouldn't be a custodial sentence, is that right?

Stella Creasey: No, no, no. We're talking about two different things.

EM: I'm just asking to clarify

SC: Yeah, there are separate criminal offences which would apply in this instance. As I say, Constance Marten has been done under grievous bodily harm. There are attempted murder offences.”

Not clear what she is arguing re: Constance Marten.

This is commentary on Creasy’s proposal from a reader in law, health and well-being at Strathclyde university.
https://www.strath.ac.uk/humanities/lawschool/blog/theabortiondecriminalisationamendmentsatwestminsterbadlawinthemaking/

“NC20 would remove all abortion-related offences from the law of England and Wales, not only for women acting in relation to their own pregnancies, but for everyone. This means that women could self-induce abortions at any stage of pregnancy without being guilty of any offence. But it would also remove any criminal sanctions for doctors who ignore the rules in the 1967 Act, and for abusive men who cause a non-consensual abortion by crushing abortion drugs and putting them in a partner’s drink, or by kicking or beating a heavily pregnant woman in the stomach…, it is for someone else to repair the damage done by removing the existing crimes from the criminal law and enact a new crime that can be used against violent and coercive men. And until they do….what?”

This change brings England and Wales’ law into line with Northern Ireland. I think it’s a good thing for women.

The problem seems to be getting abortifacient pills by post. We're not in lockdown any more. Why is this still a thing? And why is criminalising a small but increasing number of women the solution?

I am glad you pointed out the danger to women trying to self abort a late stage pregnancy. Probably alone. Which will result in the birth of a live or still born baby. When folk can't even buy more than two packets of paracetemol and yet can obtain these pills by post quite easily.

A late term self-induced termination at home is effectively unassisted childbirth. Women can and have died in this situation. Regardless of your views on abortion, how is this a good thing?