Guest post: "Abortion must be decriminalised"

[MumsnetGuestPosts]

In December, Natalie Towers, a young mother from Durham, was sentenced for ending her pregnancy at 32 weeks using pills she'd bought online.

When a woman feels she has no choice but to cause her own abortion in this way, you would hope that she would be viewed with compassion, and not treated as a criminal. Unfortunately, this is not the case: she was jailed for two-and-a-half years.

This tragic rare case highlights a broader issue that affects us all: from Belfast to Brighton, pregnant women's decisions about what to do with their own bodies are policed by the criminal law. In every nation of the UK a woman can go to prison for ending her own pregnancy without the legal authorisation of doctors – from the moment a fertilised egg implants.

The 1861 Offences Against the Person Act threatens life imprisonment to any woman who ends her own pregnancy. This is the harshest punishment for self-induced abortion of any country in Europe, bar the Republic of Ireland.

The 1967 Abortion Act is often seen as a victory of the women's rights movement, but it didn't actually overwrite the 1861 Act – rather, it opened up loopholes. Now, a woman is exempt from prosecution when two doctors certify that she meets certain criteria; most commonly that her mental or physical health would suffer if she were forced to continue her pregnancy. In other words, it is perfectly lawful for a woman to be forced to continue a pregnancy if doctors judge her able to cope with the child.

Women's agency is painted entirely out of the picture. Responsibility is turned over to doctors in a way that doesn't happen with any other routine medical procedure. While the work of committed medical professionals means that most women can get the abortion they need, this is beside the point. The criminalisation of abortion makes a mockery of the equal status that women fight for in every other area of life, represents discrimination against women, and stigmatises the one in three women who will have an abortion. Women should not have to battle outdated Victorian legislation for control over their reproductive rights.

Abortion is a medical procedure that has emancipated women, enabling them to have children at the time they think is right with the person of their choosing. It is accepted as a back-up when contraception fails, or when we fail to use it as well as we might; it is an established part of family planning, and is commissioned and funded by the NHS. It therefore makes no sense that it sits within a criminal framework. It runs entirely counter to all principles of bodily autonomy and patient-centred care to deny a woman the right to make her own decisions about whether to accept the physical imposition and risks posed by pregnancy and childbirth.

Our neighbours in France, Sweden and the Netherlands do not send women to prison for inducing their own miscarriages. Even Poland, where abortion is all but outlawed, does not prosecute women who cause their own abortions. The use of the criminal law to punish women in the UK serves no purpose. It is not a deterrent, as any woman who feels desperate enough to try to end her own pregnancy will find a way to do so, and it cannot be seen as an appropriate punishment for a heinous crime, given that legal abortions are approved every day.

Taking abortion out of the criminal law and regulating it like other healthcare services won't lead to unsafe care. Outside of the criminal law, abortion services are already tightly regulated, with regular inspections by the Care Quality Commission. Doctors, nurses and midwives work to strict guidelines and are bound by their professional bodies. Women do not currently turn to unqualified providers for any other form of NHS healthcare, and there is no reason why they would do so for termination services.

Taking abortion out of the criminal law would not lead to more women such as the young mother from Durham ending their pregnancies at home at 32 weeks, in the same way as keeping it there won't stop another woman in equally desperate straits from doing the same. But removing threats of prosecution and prison might make her more likely to seek help – and perhaps her story would have a different ending.

But above all, taking abortion out of the criminal law would be a statement of where we see women today – capable of making their own decisions in pregnancy as the ones who must carry the consequences of that pregnancy, whether it continues or ends. Changing this ancient law will be a symbol of just how far we have come since 1861.

Trust women to make the choice that is right for them. Please join the We Trust Women campaign today.

Well yh sometimes it is just tough. Life isnt perfect. Sometimes we have to pick between difficult things. Sometimes life throws shit at us that seems unbearable. But you still have act within the law. The law isnt just an informal guideline. It has set a limit whilst trying to be fair to both sides. If you miss that limit for whatever reason then you have deal with the problem (in this case it would be an unwanted child) in other ways within the realm of the law. If you break the law then expect to be punished. And it still comes down to woman's autonomy vs 24+ unborn baby right to live. And the law clearly states which side it is on.

But what I and others are saying is that the law is wrong, oppressive and denies women agency over their own bodies.

differentnameforthis If I was infertile, I would adopt. My husband and I discussed this before ttc. As it is, we have young children, one with sn. We may adopt when older. How about you?

As for the children in care you are speaking about, I imagine the majority of these are children who have been taken into care by children's services? Not newborns given up for adoption at birth? So a different issue really. But yes, I do think that is sad, and feel badly for them.

I have several friends who have adopted, or are waiting to though. It's not that unusual.

I would be very interested to see stats on the number of babies born to women unable to access terminations who end up in care because of homelessness, substance abuse, DV or plain inability to cope.

My baby was born at 32 weeks and is now a wonderful little boy. This is murder and abhorrent. Babies born as young as 22 weeks can survive and thrive. We are asking entirely the wrong questions we need to be talking about lowering the limit. Breaks my heart so so very sad

And the point im making is that you live in a democracy and from what i can see the majority of people dont agree with you. Id be willing to bet that if there was a referendum tomorrow on full term abortion it would fail by a large margin. It is an ethical argument where perhaps neither side are right or wrong, they just have different priorities.

IShouldBeSoLurky are you saying the children in care would be better off dead? Fucking hell.

Some people on here talking about unwanted babies being better off dead astound me. Couldnt agree with this more. But I got my arse handed to me on a plate on another thread when i dared say so!

Well yh sometimes it is just tough. Life isnt perfect. Sometimes we have to pick between difficult things. Sometimes life throws shit at us that seems unbearable. But you still have act within the law

So because sometimes life is shit, we should just accept that, and no one should ever campaign for or discuss a change?

Some people on here talking about unwanted babies being better off dead astound me

No, it is really not that clear cut. No one is advocating that an unwanted 20+ week baby should automatically be aborted. What they are advocating is a wider discussion of the time limits and a woman's right to choose.

I do wish women who have given birth to premature but much-wanted babies and had great outcomes would stop conflating their experience with that of an unwilling woman facing an unwanted pregnancy.

Termination of pregnancy may be abhorrent to you, but no one is forcing you to do it. It is not murder - it's a vital part of healthcare for women.

I do think that a women's autonomy over her own body should be given priority over those of an unborn baby/foetus. This is not the same thing as me wanting there to be lots and lots of abortions past 24 weeks. I would want there to be as few as possible, of course. I cannot think of a situation where I would need to have a late term abortion, I can't imagine needing one much beyond 12 weeks, for my own circumstances. That doesn't give me the right to tell other women what they must do with their own bodies, just because it isn't anything I could see myself needing to do.

Ducky - no, I am saying that there is very probably a link between women forced to give birth to children they don't want and can't cope with, and children ending up in care.

It's not helpful to use emotive language like "better off dead". Would society as a whole be better if women weren't forced to give birth to unwanted children? I think so, yes.

Leaving this thread now and glad I don't have such evil views.
I think that trying to control and shame women is evil.

are you saying the children in care would be better off dead?
A lot of adults I know who have been in care/adopted struggle with suicidal tendencies because they have been so hurt by the situation surrounding their conception and birth. What have you personally done recently to improve children's services and care? I believe children who end up being abused/possibly eventually murdered by their parents would rather they had been aborted than spent a lifetime suffering because they were an unwanted pregnancy.

That doesn't give me the right to tell other women what they must do with their own bodies, just because it isn't anything I could see myself needing to do. - But thats not how the law works. Can I ask what your views on prostitution are?

Arguments about prostitution are about men's right to purchase consent and the wider impact that has on women's status within society, harrassed. If anything, prostitution, like the lack of freely available abortion, is about men controlling women's bodies, not about women making free choices.

How do you think individual women being able to freely access terminations when they need them negatively impacts society? It doesn't. It's about people saying, "Oh, I could never murder a precious ickle baby." Good for you. Don't do it then.

harrassed, you do know that prostitution is not illegal?

I believe children who end up being abused/possibly eventually murdered by their parents would rather they had been aborted than spent a lifetime suffering because they were an unwanted pregnancy.

Is anyone saying that the woman should have been forced to raise the baby? Adoption would have been an option in this situation. At 32 weeks the woman would have had to have given birth to the foetus anyway. I don't understand why it was so important it was not born alive.

Reasons like this for removing the time limit:

23w 5d - Mother already has four young children. Had monthly bleeds throughout the pregnancy and so didn’t realise she was pregnant. Went to GP when she started to feel fetal movement. GP told her, incorrectly, that she was 14 weeks pregnant and so she didn’t realise the urgency of her situation. Unfortunately, no appointment could be found for her within BPAS or any other NHS or independent provider so there was no alternative but to refer her back to her GP for ante-natal care.

Because having an abortion is exactly parallel to prostitution...

I know it's not how the law works! This thread is about changing the current abortion law, which is what I would want to see. As I said before, I would like the law to change so that at least up to 24 weeks women don't need to ask permission and persuade two doctors that their reasons are valid. I would also like to see a change in the law to allow abortions to term, on demand. I appreciate that this isn't a popular viewpoint and is unlikely to happen.

i didnt say it was illegal. Im merely querying if the principal of womens right to do or not do with her body applied to prostitutes? There are wider issues regarding prostitution, (mostly down to poverty and drugs and ill treatment) but to whittle it down to men'r right to a women's body doesn't cut it. Otherwise are you saying that you would have no issues if a gay woman hired a prostitute. I dont think we do have full and complete autonomy over our bodies neither. Otherwise people could commit suicide without intervention. To be clear i am not saying suicide is illegal. But society will always try to prevent it where possible by way of hospitalisation, detainment or other medical treatment.

Again the 24 week limit does not seek to control women, but to protect the right of the 24+ week unborn baby. Its just different priorities.

its not a parallel, im trying to discuss the principal that has been put forward of "the right to tell other women what they must do with their own bodies". Its not much of a principal if its not applied across the board.

Is anyone saying that the woman should have been forced to raise the baby? Adoption would have been an option in this situation. At 32 weeks the woman would have had to have given birth to the foetus anyway. I don't understand why it was so important it was not born alive.
I don't think anyone is really in a position to say "give it up for adoption" unless they have actually given up a child for adoption and know the emotional/social impact upon the birth mother. I highly doubt it's as simple as 'just give it up for adoption and never think about it again.' Would you suggest that we should let women induce whenever they want to instead then as long as they are in a medical environment? Or should they be forced to house something living in their body that they don't wish to house or accommodate anymore to 40 weeks?

I don't really have a strong opinion on allowing abortion to term but I had an awful experience of having to "get permission" from two doctors to end my second pregnancy that would have ended in her suffering and untimely death. This needs to change. Women should not be subjected to this when making a decision about their lives and their bodies, they should not have to justify it to anyone.

I find it hard to believe how the emotional/social impact upon the birth mother giving up a child for adoption could possibly be any worse that terminating that child at up to 39 weeks pregnant? At least with the former the child has a right to life. Which, after 24 weeks, the law protects.

"the 24 week limit does not seek to control women" Of course it controls women. It means that women who are over this limit cannot access an abortion, legally, if that is what they decide is best for them. Even under this limit women are forced to justify themselves and seek permission from 2 doctors (which could be refused, in practice it usually isn't, but the option is still there). It treats women as irresponsible idiots who aren't best placed to decide what they need. How is that not controlling them?