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 Women should not have to battle outdated Victorian legislation for control over their reproductive rights.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

If you did it at 8 weeks how could you possibly know it wasn't a natural miscarriage rather than a illegal termination. I don't think you would be charged on that basis that it couldn't be proved.

Harassed
Why is wanting real choice dangerous?

Seeing as we've already done a million imaginary scenarios...

I find out i am pregnant, see a doctor who refuses abortion. Second doctor also refuses
So I take my 4x meds rather than wait and wait, each day making it harder to go through
Miscarry, but then i haemorrhage
I have to go to hospital, and of course i have to tell them what i have taken or it could affect my care
I have to admit to an offence
They call the police and i am charged

Is that fair?

If 2 doctors refused an abortion then I guess they'd have very strong reasons to. So to take matters illegally into your own hands then I'd say you'd be liable for prosecution under the law.

Beyond HCPs very very rarely report crimes to the police. I think you'd be safe from prosecution.

Especially as it would be impossible to prove the miscarriage was the result of taking the medication, at the early stage at which your scenario takes place.

No of course it's not fair.

Saying that HCPs rarely report crimes to the police in the context of this being a positive thing adds weight to the Abortion should be decriminalised arguement as far as I can see.

Of course you should be able to make decisions about your own pregnancy. At any stage of it.

I don't really think it's advisable to take an overdose to achieve an abortion. Bit dangerous.

The point is, no one would bother to try to prosecute in the case described. Abortion in early stages is essentially legal.

The point causing discussion on this thread is the abortion of viable foetuses.

The importance of decriminalising abortion so that it's in line with other health care (seeOP) is the key issue for me

I completely agree about the dangers of taking an overdose to induce an abortion.

Hence my preference that fewer women being put in that situation by decriminalising abortion at all stages.

The reason bpas used the example of a woman who self aborted a viable foetus is that (I believe) no woman has been convicted of doing so for an unviable one since the abortion act was passed.

And why would they - you can have a legal abortion. A campaign to remove the need for 2 doctors to sign off within the legal limit would not have been met with such disgust.

Itsbetter, Its dangerous because what those in the minority class as a 'real choice', the majority (and in a democratic country such as the UK the majority have the power so to speak) view as an extreme abomination. And in pushing the majority to get that extreme abomination you run the risk of reducing the right to abortion as it currently stands.

The Abortion Act in the UK was introduced in 1967.

The contraceptive pill was introduced to the UK in 1961 but was originally only available to married women on prescription from a doctor.

I had no requirement to use contraception in 1967 (being 7 years old) but I doubt condoms were easily and cheaply available in every corner shop, garage shop and supermarket (if such existed in 1967) to be picked up from the shelf as casually as a bar of chocolate.

NHS 24 didn't exist; the morning after pill didn't exist ;well-women clinics didn't exist; easy access to reliable information about contraception and early signs of pregnancy, whether from the Internet or an informed but non-judgemental pharmacist or practice nurse didn't exist.

My worry is that if you push for full-term abortion of viable foetuses those who are "pro-life" will point out the huge differences between 1967 and 2016 and say, hang on, other than possibly cases of rape, why do we need abortion at all?

The logical position is either life begins at conception and abortion is always wrong or at the other extreme until a woman goes in to labour abortion should be an option.

The vast majority of people do not support either and 24 weeks is a pragmatic fudge- personally I would support 26 weeks.

Choosing to end your pwn pregnancy cdoesn't fill me with disgust.

Women being criminalised for doing so does though.

So does anyone who has the arrogance to tell a woman what she should do with her pregnancy.

No, the logical position is to put abortion care the same footing as other health care and remove it from a criminal framework.

lass
They key difference between 1967 and now is the massive advancement in medical science.
Now, I can have ultrasounds to see if my baby is developing properly. I can have an amnio and get information back within a week as to whether the baby has terrible and fatal genetic conditions. I can be told what the likely outcomes for the baby will be at 20,30,40 weeks pregnant, and the first few weeks and months of life.
Or I can look at in-depth studies into the short, medium and long-term outcomes of children born unwanted to parents in poverty, abusive relationships or placed in care.

There was a test case recently as to whether a mother who was a severe alcoholic and had a baby born with FAS should be found legally responsible for the damage to her child.
After going to some of the highest courts in the land, she was found to not be legally liable, because the unborn child was not legally a person in the eyes of the law and therefore couldn't be 'assaulted' by her drinking.

It therefore seems like a vey strange legal anomaly that aborting your own pregnancy without two doctors consent is criminal, but drinking so heavily that your baby could die, isn't.

Also, name one other medical procedure which needs the consent of 2 doctors to go ahead...

Christina, i would put to you that the majority dont agree with you, hence why no political party would touch legalising full term abortion for viable babies with a bargepole. Im not saying everyone finds it disgusting, there is clearly a minority that dont. That is their prerogative. Until the majority agree though it wont ever happen. And pushing the womens right/body autonomy will never change the minds of the majority who dont view full term abortion as a womans right issue but that of the right of the unborn child.

Christina you are being obtuse if you cannot appreciate that the vast majority of people consider pregnancy to be quite different to other forms of healthcare due to the effect any decisions have on another person, ie, the unborn baby. I realise you do not agree with me but I DO consider it to be my business what another woman does with 'her' body as much as I consider it my business if I see anybody causing harm to a baby who happens to have been born. I may not get a say in it but I can damned well have an opinion about it. I would not object to a woman taking whatever drugs she chooses or undergoing any medical surgical procedures she wishes, when not pregnant. But when people keep referring to the 'woman's body' you are not actually referring to anything happening to the woman's body. Her body will be unharmed but the body of the baby will be fatally harmed. Apologies for caring about that. I realise that I am now off topic from the OP and that you will not ever agree with me so I shall step away from this thread now. It is very upsetting that so many hardened people exist

It therefore seems like a vey strange legal anomaly that aborting your own pregnancy without two doctors consent is criminal, but drinking so heavily that your baby could die, isn't

I may be wrong about this but the anomaly is in UK law, where a pregnant woman is not found liable for drinking or taking drugs despite the adverse affects on the foetus. Isn't it the case in certain US states she can be held responsible?

I agree with ispymincepie pregnancy is quite different to other forms of healthcare due to the effect any decisions have on the foetus.

Banging the drum about termination to full term risks I think unintended consequences. The key difference I can see between 1967 and 2016 is the availability of cheap and reliable contraception and the removal of the stigma attached to pregnancy outwith marriage. Hence why I said demanding the right to abort on demand even up to full term may provoke equally extreme counter arguments.

I don't actually follow what point sparechange is making - does she mean children with poor life outcomes are only being born because their mothers have no access to abortion? In the UK clearly women do have access to abortion.

It would be funny if it wasn't so sad that you think of pro-choicers as being "hardened"... it reminds me of the phrase "hardened criminals"! I actually think of being pro-choice as being compassionate to women and the situations they find themselves in. It must be hard enough to deal with an unplanned pregnancy without having to get two doctors to agree to an abortion. It must be desperately hard to get a late termination for medical reasons and again getting permission from two doctors just adds insult to injury. Lastly if a woman is so desperate that she resorts to an illegal, unsafe late-term abortion, I think the compassionate thing to do is to allow her the medical option as a last resort, to avoid unnecessary pain to her and the foetus, and not to criminalise her. I think some of the attitudes people have expressed towards her could be more accurately described as "hardened" and uncompassionate.

If you criminalise abortion, desperate women will still get illegal abortions. That's a fact that some people on this thread seem to prefer to conveniently ignore. Or maybe they don't care? Maybe they think women desperate for late term abortion deserve all the risk, pain and punishment they can get? That's a pretty harsh attitude IMO.

Lastly. Thank God we don't criminalise pregnant women with addictions (to alcohol, tobacco and drugs). That would deter them from getting help to beat their addiction. And in most cases they're not doing it with the primary purpose of harming their baby. There are complex reasons that criminalisation will certainly not fix.

I'm aware that I hold a minority view. That makes it all the more important to voice, for obvious reasons.

It's a bit rich to call people who don't agree that women should be criminalised for action they take on their own pregnancy 'hardened' when you consider the reasons women have for requesting late term abortion, and then feel able to support them being forced to continue with a pregnancy they don't want or be convicted for taking action to end it.

I'm not being obtuse about the health status of pregnancy. Controlling women's pregnancy rights is abput refusing bodily autonomy. There are countless historical and current situations where women have had their autonomy denied them by the legal system. This is the context I see reproductive rights in.

I do think society has a responsibility to women withan unwanted pregnancy, in terms of support her to make whatever decisions are right for her, not criminalising or criticising.

It's much easier for the pro lifers to pretend back street abortions aren't happening when it's small numbers. That can be pushed under the carpet.
They can still pay themselves on the back that they 'allowing' women in early pregnancy bodily autonomy. Let's just forget about the other women in later pregnancy.

Yes, and it's incredibly naive to suggest that claws are based on the views of the ajority.

They're based on the views of those who have power.

Yep that's what I said up thread, and basically got ignored!

'If you criminalise abortion, desperate women will still get illegal abortions. That's a fact that some people on this thread seem to prefer to conveniently ignore. Or maybe they don't care? Maybe they think women desperate for late term abortion deserve all the risk, pain and punishment they can get? That's a pretty harsh attitude IMO.'

You need to separate abortion, which is sensibly legal, and aborting viable babies, which is sensibly illegal. There is minimal (if any) evidence of demand or supply of illegal late abortions.

I am all for desperate people being treated with compassion but we do that for loads of crimes already. That is where mitigation comes in. It is not a reason for decriminalising terminating 30+ week old babies.

Larry.
They can't be separated as they are both abortion. The date doesn't change that fact.
This isn't about treating criminals with compassion. It should not be a crime. These women shouldn't be criminalised for what they choose to do with their pregnancy.

ItsBetter,

This debate has been had.

The majority of the population (women as well) believe that it it is immoral and should remain a criminal offence. There is zero desire to change the law here. If you want a different law, you can campaign (which will get nowhere, as there is no support) or try to find a jurisdiction where they take a different view (and Canada, despite taking a different view on the legality of abortion, achieves the same result by a different means).