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 Women should not have to battle outdated Victorian legislation for control over their reproductive rights.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

itsbetter than......the point I make is that post 24 weeks you have to 'labour' anyway and I would assume that you are entitled to the same pain relief that any other woman in labour is entitled to.

Vdb
We've been over this back in the thread. You don't have to labour anyway. There are abortion methods that don't involve labouring at any stage.
Secondly You are ably to have different pain relief if you are giving birth to non living foetus than to a living one. Forcing someone to who wants an abortion to give birth is wrong. Forcing them to have less access to pain relief during this forced labour because you want the foetus to possibly live is even worse.

Also, if you've decided that a foetus has the 'right to a chance' of life if woman chooses abortion post 24 weeks, surely it has the right to the best life possible ie to not be induced early.

If you're going to argue a point, at least do it logically.

And still no-one has responded to MaryRobinson's posts.

Wonder if the questions are a bit tricky?

Or either we allow all pregnant women to have abortions or none at all.

Exactly this.

One of the stronger arguments for people who would like to see abortions to terms, I imagine (it certainly is for me) is that the arbitrary cut off point of 24w has its own inherent problems, as discussed in great detail above by several posters, myself included - and which is roundly ignored by those who disagree with abortion to term.

No one is saying that it is comfortable to consider the termination of a pregnancy at 38w. No one is saying that it should be allowed without significant support to the mother to ensure she understands all the options available and what will have to occur in order to end the pregnancy. No one is saying that abortion to term stands completely separate from significant improvements in adoption in the UK to make it a more viable choice for a woman who doesn't want to raise her child to put them up for adoption, without worrying that the child will be in care for the first year or two.

It is possible to advocate for something without feeling 100% comfortable about it because you feel that, overall, the societal benefits are greater.

You could advocate assisted suicide while still feeling uncomfortable for the families that will lose a loved one when they are not ready for it, or the healthcare professionals involved in the process, for example.

People discuss and advocate for changes that society has not considered before, all the time. It's about raising awareness. In this case, the initial reaction of many people will probably be "no way, the time limit is late enough as it is." However it is discussion of the issue - discussion that late stage abortion is a criminal act and that is horribly unfair, discussion that an arbitrary time limit has many significant issues to it - that raises the issue and allows people to consider the issue in more detail than they may have thought.

Just the same as assisted suicide. Many people may be strongly against the issue when it is presented as a straightforward question with no discussion of the wider sentiment behind it. A thorough discussion of the issue involved and the feelings of those people who wish to end their life may change many peoples view.

The Canada issue is a non issue. Canadian physicians are not allowed to perform abortions after 24 weeks. It is no more permitted inCanada than I the uk.

I don't really understand the other point Mary Robinson made.

I am v pro assisted suicide; something my terminally ill mother wanted and ultimately failed to get.

However I am not prepared to extrapolate this 'logic' to saying that it should be available to anyone, on request, regardless of age or health.

For me, there is a limit to bodily autonomy.

Larry
Should people be prosecuted and jailed for suicide attempts?

And no-one has responded to the points that MaryRobobsob made recently and the interesting questions that she asked

I didn't respond to them because I found them neither pertinent or interesting or particularly clear.

Or either we allow all pregnant women to have abortions or none at all

I have said at least twice 24 weeks is a pragmatic fudge. If you want to push that argument, which I conceded is the logical but repugnant basis for "pro-lifers" and christina et al , then I would with great reluctance have to opt for none. And I bet large numbers of pragmatists would follow suit.

That is why pushing for full term abortions are as damaging as any fervent pro-life advocacy. You will alienate support.

Mary's point was, clearly, if women find themselves living in a country where they cannot access abortion when they want it, is it okay for them to travel to a country where it is permitted.

Or go to a backstreet doctor. Or buy some pulls from the internet to try to do it themselves.

Are these situations okay for womem's healthcare?

This is what happens to women in Northern Ireland. Do we think that's okay?

I think most of us would agree that there is a limit to bodily autonomy *Larry". I can't go to a doctor and demand an operation to remove my appendix for example. Nor do I think I should be able to of course.

As I see it, people arguing for the decriminalising of pregnancy are saying that all women should be able tomake choices about their own pregnancy. Abortion care doesn't involve turning up to a clinic and having an abortion there and then. It rightly involves support and information for the women so that she makes the right choice for her. Women further on in their pregnancies need even more support on the whole.

Removing the time limit would mean that women that found out that they were 20 weeks pregnant could take their time to decide what course of action to rake, rather than having an arbitrary the limit imposed on them

This would surely be a good thing for all nvolved parties.

I'm still failing to see the pearls of wisdom which must be addressed but

80% believe life starts at conception or during pregnancy

They might, but they don't want the foetus afforded the same rights as born babies: That would seem to be the possibly illogical but pragmatic approach taken in the UK.

Do 80% want all abortion banned no idea how this question came to be framed from the data Larry supplied.
Do 80% want pregnant mothers to have the same criminal responsibility for not damaging her child ditto

Should mothers whose children are damaged in-utero face criminal prosecution ditto
Should a person who causes a first trimester miscarriage by causing a car crash be charged with death by dangerous driving I'm not a criminal lawyer , I don't know if there may already be provisions relating to a third party injuring a pregnant woman -although although with 2nd and 3rd questions failing to see how this is relevant to the statistical data which predicated these questions.

And one last question if people would like more restrictive regime. Would you like measures in place to prevent pregnant women having abortions in Canada, or would that be OK?

No idea as to point of this question but irrelevant for me as I have said I do not want to restrict or reduce current UK provision.

Lass.

You would rather no women had access to terminations than allow a tiny minority to access them after 24 weeks?

Mary's point was, clearly, if women find themselves living in a country where they cannot access abortion when they want it, is it okay for them to travel to a country where it is permitted.

As far as I'm concerned Mary's point is completely irrelevant. There is, as far as I can tell, no country in the world where one could travel to to have a full term abortion on demand.

The situation in Northern Ireland is shameful particularly given mainland UK on practice would appear to have the most liberal regime of western Europe.

I also find the argument which is being peddled that if one doesn't support full term abortions one must somehow be in favour of restrictions, bizarre. At no point in this have I , nor Larry, said UK law should be changed to make it more restrictive.

Abortion is permitted in the UK after 24 weeks.
www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Abortion/Pages/When-should-it-be-done.aspx.

I support the current UK position. I could not support full term abortions for no reason other than the woman doesn't want to give birth.

if one doesn't support full term abortions one must somehow be in favour of restrictions... At no point in this have I , nor Larry, said UK law should be changed to make it more restrictive.

But there is a restriction already. At 24 weeks,

Birth which is excruciating, potentially life threatening, often physically damaging no that's not a good enough reason..
What reasons are good enough for you pre 24 weeks Larry?

Sorry not Larry I meant Lass.

And ? I've clearly said I do not support full term abortions one demand. The 24 week limit does not apply in certain circumstances.

Birth which is excruciating, potentially life threatening, often physically damaging no that's not a good enough reason..
What reasons are good enough for you pre 24 weeks?

What point are you trying to make? The practical reality of UK law is asking for an abortion in mainland UK is enough.

You are putting words in to my mouth which I have never said. Please stop doing so. That post is entirely untruthful spin of your own on what I have posted.

Lass, that's the rub, you see.

On one hand, you describe the situation in Northern Ireland is 'shameful' and 'irrelevant', but on the other hand you maintain that it's okay for some women to have restrictions put on their reproductive rights.

If you need me to spell Mary's points more explicitly -

80% of women believe that life starts at some point during pregnancy, but that doesn't mean that they don't want the right to end a pregnancy if they choose.

Indeed, public opinion polls in Northern Ireland have increasingly shown that the majority (about 70% of people believe that abortion should be legal in some circumstances) yet once again the Northern Ireland assembly has voted not to entertain discussions about changing the law, despite parts of these laws being found to breech the Human Rights Act in a legal judgement last year.

So much for laws being a 'majority'.

The Canada example is relevant. As MaryRobinson says, if there was a more restrictive regime in the UK, would it be okay for women to travel to Canada (provided they can afford to/find a doctor willing etc)?

If no, then how can you hold the position that the UK law doesn't need changing? If yes, then why not permit them that right in the UK now.

I can't understand the argument that says that some women are deserving of reproductive rights and some aren't.

What reasons are good enough for you pre 24 weeks Larry?

Any, pure discretion of the woman. Although, close to 24 weeks, you would have to find a doctor willing to perform the procedure.

itsbetterthan I have spent the last hour googling this issue and although there is very little info out there on post 24 wk abortion other than numbers, as far as I can see, in the UK, after 24 weeks it will involved induced labour. If you can link me to anything that says otherwise, please do as I am genuinely interested.

'I can't understand the argument that says that some women are deserving of reproductive rights and some aren't.'

It is not that hard. It depends on the whether the law (or ethics/morality) feels the foetus has developed to the stage where it has the right not to be killed.

Can you understand the idea that a terminally ill person with 6 months to live may have the right to assisted suicide but a healthy 24 year old, with world weariness (not insane, merely logically wanting to die), might not be granted the same right?

Vbd
The U.K. Currently forces women to give birth post 24 weeks but that isn't the only Method. Intact dilation and extraction is a method that can be used at any time and doesn't involve giving birth.