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 Women should not have to battle outdated Victorian legislation for control over their reproductive rights.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.

No one is arguing for "no questions asked" abortion to term FFS. How many times do we have to say it?!

I think you will find that several were - it's rather the whole point of the thread.


Taking highly unlikely scenarios back a day still doesn't make this a sensible basis for discussion.

Women who request late term abortions generally haven't changed their mind overnight or on a whim - see the individual situations listed in the BPAS list that someone posted above.

I don't think anyone is arguing that there shouldn't be protocols to abortion care are they? A man can't just rock up at a vasectomy clinic and say that he wants one there and then, and indeed no major medical intervention can be accessed in that way.

Of course women should be given time and support to think about the courses of action open to them and the implications of whatever decision they make.

And decisions they make about their pregnancy shouldn't be subject to criminal charges in view.

I'm not really talking about the woman, I'm talking about the child.

Are you not answering because you find it hard to reconcile yourself with the killing of a foetus a few seconds from being a baby?

Because that's no different to one a week from being a baby, or even a month from being a baby.

The thread is about removing abortion from a criminal framework, so that it is in line with other types of health care.

The only 'questions' that need to be asked are those pertinent to any other potentially life changing situation where there are a range of courses of action. Do you understand what your options are? Have you weighted up the pros and cons of taking each action? What support do you have? Do you know how to access other support should you need? and questions about current and historic health status.

An unwanted pregnancy is a potentially life changing situation, whatever course of action the mother decides to take.

Sorry ducky, what do you mean you were talking about the child?

I'm finding it difficult to answer because I'm not sure what you mean.

If I haven't already made myself perfectly clear, then I believe that a woman should have the right to make decisions about her own pregnancy, including whether to end it or not. I believe that she should have this right, without fear of criminal proceedings against her, throughout her pregnancy.

I'm aware that you disagree with me, and that's fine, but the posting of ridiculous, hypothetical scenarios that are insulting to women aren't helping.

And in terms of who would be prosecuted, if you remember Joanna Jepson won the right to launch criminal proceedings against the doctor who performed the abortion not the pregnant woman. Thankfully, she wasn't successful in this action.

It's perfectly clear. I'm asking about the foetus which is soon to be independent of the mother.

If I haven't already made myself perfectly clear, then I believe that a woman should have the right to make decisions about her own pregnancy, including whether to end it or not. I believe that she should have this right, without fear of criminal proceedings against her, throughout her pregnancy.

So my ridiculous hypothetical would be acceptable to you then.

The idea that it is thinking little of 'women' to assume a tiny minority might act in an arbitrary and objectionable way is wrong headed. Most people act in decent and reasonable ways but the criminal law is there to sanction the few that do not. Is it thinking little of 'people' to believe that a small minority will deliberately harm one another? If so, we can just scrap the whole statute book and rely on people to be nice to one another.

If you want to argue the law saying a baby is a foetus until the moment it is born, then the law also makes it a criminal offence to abort after 24 weeks (with the normal quite reasonable exceptions). If you want to argue that the law is wrong, then you also have to accept that others will disagree with the idea of the legal definition of the foetus. One cannot consistently state that the law is the final argument regarding the definition but not regarding abortion time limits.

I truly believe that the vast majority of people would not accept late term abortion of viable foetuses as moral or ethical. For those who say that women would change the current law, can you cite evidence for this? Even reading this thread, it appears to me that most women find terminating viable babies (yes, my choice to use this word for a late term foetus) viscerally abhorrent.

Such a situation couldn't arise in the way health care is structured ducky.

Women don't go along the antenatal care pathway and the abortion care pathway throughout their pregnancy, then decide what to do at the last minute. That's ridiculous.

So your scenario couldn't happen even if there were no time limits on abortion. If a women went to her GP the day before a planned CS saying that she wanted to end the pregnancy instead as in your scenario, the GP would look into referral into urgent abortion care. This is unlikely in any situation to happen the same day, and women seeking late term abortions should have safeguards in place (for their own mental health) about gathering information and taking time to make a decision. For no abortion do you just turn up at the clinic and say that you want it done there and then. So this woman wouldn't have had access to the abortion care necessary for an abortion to take place. Furthermore, a midwife delivering in an antenatal unit isn't just going to be able to phone a doctor specialising in late term abortion to pop along as the baby is crowning, is she/he? That's also ridiculous.

I'm aware that I hold a minority view on this issue larry. I'm not trying to persuade others to it or to morally justify it. This discussion does make me realise how far we have to go in terms of enabling women to have true bodily autonomy though.

Very good post Larry

I really dislike the "Oh you must hate women" accusation which gets thrown in as if that answers all points.

Highly unlikely hypothetical scenarios aren't the best basis for any sensible discussion.

I disagree. I would hope our law makers model every possible scenario they can think of when debating new laws and not just dismiss possibilities because 'it'll never happen'. Chance's are, it will happen, and other situations we never even imagined.

My scenario up thread. If we decriminalise abortion. Women self aborts, gives birth in the bath, baby is still alive, mother does nothing to bring baby to the surface of the water, baby dies. Now, you could argue, she didn't kill the baby, she just didn't act to safe it.

And as for the Oh you must hate women comment, what a ridiculous thing to say. It's just like somebody saying to you 'Oh you must hate babies' ridiculous.

Anywho.. I dont think we're gonna get anywhere with this as the arguments are too polarised. And i think (though i agree) that bpas are going to struggle to get people behind this.

What i do wonder though, is where a better compromise could be reached. Would anyone disagree that the decision should perhaps only be authorised by ONE doctor, rather than the two required?

Or perhaps that the 24w cut off (and i'm not talking about 9m along here) could have a little more leeway in certain cases, rather than being a definite cut off? Given that dating scans are educated guesses at best, i dont see how anyone can argue that an abortion should be denied to someone at 24+3. The cut off is arbitrary, it should be a bit more flexible.

Another little pondering...

I take a chemotherapy type med that is an abortifacient (as such, if i found i were pregnant, i would have to abort. No chance though luckily, i have a coil and dh is snipped!). If i found out i was pregnant and there was a problem getting an abortion, so i took an overdose of my prescribed medication (google tells me three or four doses would be enough), as it stands i would be breaking the law?

Beyond Yes I think you would.

Just to chip in another reason I would be against this off the back of another thread. After 24 weeks, unless there is a medical reason, then it is impossible for a legal termination. So even if a pregnant female is under pressure to get a termination, after the 24 week period it is legally impossible. this wouldnt obviously stop illegal means but that would be illegal and if discovered would have consequences However I dont like the idea that a potentially vulnerable pregnant females could be under considerable pressure to get an unwanted termination for the duration of their whole pregnancy. I think this would considerably raise the possibility of an (unwanted) late term abortions being undertaken due to prolonged pressure.

That argument is such utter rubbish.
Women could be pressured at any time. The important thing is to ensure they're not being pressured, and protect them from that pressure, NOT prevent all women from making their own decisions because a few women may be pressured into making a decision they don't want to.

If abortion is decriminalised, women would be considerably less likely to self-abort. That's the point. It means that abortion is safer.

In regard to your hypothetical scenario, an inquest would try to determine whether the baby was born alive or not, the judge take into account the person's understanding and intent etc.

As with any other death for unclear causes

That's a more likely scenario than the 'woman changes mind during delivery/day before a planned CS' scenarios that ducky suggested.

Although it would still be less likely if abortion was decriminalised.

Harrassed, whats your opinion on my medication scenario? Do you think i should be prosecutable for taking an overdose of my own prescribed medication, when the foetus would have to be aborted anyway?

(On repeat prescription and given one month at a time. Inducing miscarriage would take 3-4 doses, so i often have the meds required to hand)

Because as i understand it, that is exactly what the law says now.

I'm pro - choice under the current UK law.

Has any woman in mainland UK ever been refused a termination because she couldn't meet the 2 doctor requirement? I've never been in the situation where I had to face one but I remember in my early 40s being convinced due to very irregular periods I might be (despite a negative test) and my gp assured me there was no question of my not being offered a termination in the miraculous event of my being pregnant if I wanted one.

I think however pro - full term abortion campaigners are almost as dangerous as pro-life campaigners. If there ever had to be a choice between the 2 I think many pro - choice supporters would swing the other way.

Not completely refused, but a friend of mine had to wait over a week just to get approved as every doctor in her surgery refused. Then she had to wait for the counselling etc. This then took her over the limit for early medical abortion and meant she had to have the D&E.

If i knew for a fact that you had deliberately taken an overdose of drugs (regardless if it was prescription or not) for the ultimate aim of illegaly terminating a pregnancy over the 24 week mark then i think you should be penalised in accordance with the law. I dont even understand why thats even a question/dilemna tbh.

I think however pro - full term abortion campaigners are almost as dangerous as pro-life campaigners. If there ever had to be a choice between the 2 I think many pro - choice supporters would swing the other way. This 100%. I said this earlier in the thread, perhaps not as elegant but essentially the same and was compared to the white supremacy in the apartheid :/

I wasnt talking about over 24 weeks, i know where everyone stands on that. I meant early - as the law stands if i did it at 8 weeks i would be liable for prosecution.

And as i said above, i have sat with a friend while she was told she now had to have a surgical abortion as (thanks to docs refusing) she had gone over the time limit. I would not chance that when i have appropriate medication here, is that really unreasonable?