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 Women should not have to battle outdated Victorian legislation for control over their reproductive rights.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

Larry that's only because a healthy 24 year old doesn't need assisted suicide. They can just kill themselves. No assistance needed.

What on earth do you mean by 'insane' larry? I can't understand the point that you're trying to make, partly because I don't understand what you mean by 'not insane'.

vdb it's very difficult to access a surgical abortion post 16 weeks in any circumstances, let alone 24.

Some women who choose to end a second trimester pregnancy pay privately as the NHS usually offers induction of pregnancy.

It is hard larry. Laws, ethics, morals are complex and difficult. I don't agree that this issue is very simple or not hard as several anti-late abortion posters have posted on this thread.

If it's not hard, then address the point that you skipped over in my previous thread -

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.

24 weeks is an arbitarily imposed cut off which increases the pressure of women who may find out about a pregnancy in the second trimester to make hurried decisions.

This isn't helpful for anyone.

Christina,

You keep bringing Canada up as the holy grail for those seeking late abortion. As I explained upthread, a physician terminating a 24+ week foetus in Canada would be struck off. Could you please research this and make a comment before repeatedly bringing Canada up. There is no 'civilised' country that allows termination of a post 24 week old healthy foetus, except in exceptional circumstances.

You cannot stop people travelling. Your idea of travelling to Canada is the equivalent to travelling to Dignitas to die. I struggle to understand this point really. Should we change all our laws to match those in other countries, merely because people can travel and legally commit acts which are illegal over here.

I've never held Canada up as the Holy Grail.

I was picking up on MaryRobinson's points.

You appear to be holding 24 w as the Holy Grail. What:s the reasoning behind that?

The significance of Canada escapes me too.

From wiki

Third-trimester abortions are not generally available. For instance, in Quebec, there is no doctor who will perform a third-term abortion unless the health of the woman is in great peril or there is a genetic disorder. The province sends women who seek to have third-term abortions performed to the United States. Quebec is actively looking to hire a doctor to do third-term abortions, but has not been successful as of October 2004

Canada does not have the UK "2 doctor rule" (which as far as I am aware is a hurdle in theory rather than practice)

You appear to be holding 24 w as the Holy Grail. What:s the reasoning behind that?

Not sure if that is to Larry or me. No one is holding it up as a holy grail. Both Larry and I have acknowledged it is arbitrary. Lots of laws are arbitrary. Having sex at 15 years and 364 days old or sex at 16 years old.

It is there because there is no hope in hell of convincing legislators or the public (or doctors and nurses for that matter )that a 40 week old foetus can be aborted on demand.

You can argue bodily autonomy as much as you like but there is a world of difference between a clump of cells and an in utero 40 week foetus; there is very little difference between a 40 week foetus in utero and a new born 40 week baby.

Yes , 24 weeks may be illogical , yes no abortion at all or abortion to term is logical. 24 weeks (which does not preclude late tfmr) is a pragmatic compromise.

With further reference to Canada.

Even though there's no gestational limits in Canada, over 90% of abortions are done in the first trimester, only 2-3% are done after 16 weeks, and no doctor does abortions past 20 or 21 weeks except for compelling health or genetic reasons

www.prochoiceactionnetwork-canada.org/articles/canada.shtml

This is from a pro choice site. It seems late abortions are at a doctor's discretion. Whereas in UK up to 24 weeks is within the "2 doctor rule " but in reality a formality and UK still has legal exemptions for very late abortions in certain circumstances. Perhaps Canadian women over 20 weeks would be better travelling to the UK?

Boopsy
Anyone can have a nose job. Find a doctor who'll do it and you can legally have one.

The reason for bringing up Canada was to make the point that if the time limit was lowered on the UK, people who are in favour of maintaining criminalising abortion in some circumstances would then have to consider whether they would find it acceptable for women to travel ( to Canada was an example not the Holy Grail) for abortion care or not.

So is it the law of the land or the 24 weeks that is the deciding factor? If the former, should UK doctors be prosecuted for performing abortions on the thousands of Northern Irish women who go overseas for abortion each year. If it's 24 weeks, why is it acceptable for a foetus to be aborted at 11.55pm when the woman is 23 +6 and not six minutes later?

What about if there's a few days difference between someone's date and the gestation that a scan indicates?

A pregnancy is a pregnancy. Whether of a 'ball of cells' or an almost formed baby. I can't agree that some women have rights when they're pregnant and others don't.

"Boopsy* scroll back through this thread and you'll find lots of sensible explanations about what bodily autonomy means within a medical context.

Boopsy it's illegal to have a private post 24 week abortion.

No one should be allowed to kill a baby, would it have been ok if she walked into a premature babies room and smothered it because she changed her mind about wanting a baby?

Christina

1. Has anyone on this thread suggested UK time limit be lowered?
2. Canada was a red herring, raised by Mary and vigorously pursued by you and/ or Emma. In reality a women 20-24 weeks might be better off in the UK.
3. How many times does it need to be acknowledged 24 weeks is arbitrary? Laws are full of arbitrary time limits. I gave you an example. There are plenty of others. 24 weeks is almost 6 months pregnant.

You just keep on saying "I can't agree that some women have rights when they're pregnant and others don't

As has been pointed out no country permits full term abortion on demand so to that extent all women are in the same boat.

Women in mainland UK seem to have greater rights than women in Scandinavia and the Netherlands, which surprised me.

It is clearly impossible for you to get your head round the idea that there is a point where the feotus is more than just a bundle of cells.

It was not you who said it, but suggesting Larry, as a man , wants to keep an upper limit because he wants to control women, and that I as a woman want to keep it because I'm so conditioned by the patriarchy that I only value woman on the basis of being breeders shows there is just as much lack of comprehension of other's views on the full term side.

It may be illogical and arbitrary for a point to be fixed , but it has been fixed and I cannot imagine it will change. Energy is far better spent on focusing on education, contraception, early intervention and access to early intervention than on a point that at best you will not achieve and at worst will alienate support for abortion.

1. several posters said that that if the BPAS tried to gain more publicity for the argument for decriminalising abortion, they would campaign for a reduction in the cut off period.

2. Canada was an example of a country a women might be able to access an abortion at approaching 24 weeks if the cut off was lowered in this country. It was an example. The anti-abortion posters on this thread have posed ridiculous hypothetical scenarios. I thought this was a pretty explicit example (the word 'if' was the clue). but evidently not.

3. Because if it's okay to make laws on an 'arbitrary' basis, why not just change the time limit to later. As it's arbitary it doesn't matter. Your legal age of consent argument doesn't hold water. People gain certain legal rights when they're 16. Overnight they can legally have sex, apply for legal aid and be detained in custody. A 24 week foetus doesn't suddenly have a change in legal status.

I don't think any woman who wants to terminate a late pregnancy thinks 'oh, this is just a bunch of cells'. They think 'I don't want, for x reasons, be pregnant with this baby at the moment'. That's what they should not be criminalised for.

And yes, I've neither criticised you for being a woman or Larry for being a man (is he/she?), or indeed made any personal criticisms at all.

I agree that the law is likely to be changed. I think there's likely to be another attempt to lower the 24w made fairly soon. Fiona Bruce has already made a sideways attempt to limit access to abortion. I fully support the decriminalise abortion campaign by the BPAS, which doesn't mean that I support it at the exclusion of supporting sex education, contraception, access to abortion, buffer zones around family planning clinics, support for pregnant women whether they want to be pregnant or not.

And I maintain that it's important to discuss these issues and that minority voices are important in any context.

That should have read 'I agree that the law is unlikely to be changed'.

lass

"the UK "2 doctor rule" (which as far as I am aware is a hurdle in theory rather than practice)"
PLEASE stop saying this! There are several real life examples ON THIS THREAD of women whose access to abortion was delayed due to the two doctor rule. It would be in the interests of those of you who are adamantly against late term abortion to support removing the two doctor rule, as it DELAYS abortions. In other words, the foetus is even more developed by the time the women finally get their abortion.

And another thing. I said fuck all about Canada.

Marco
"No one should be allowed to kill a baby"
Luckily, no one is allowed to kill a baby. Last time I checked, killing babies was illegal. Aborting a foetus up to 24 weeks is legal, though. Luckily.
HTH

And another thing. I said fuck all about Canada

Actually you posted a roll eye emoticon under my post where I stated I didn't see anything which particularly demanded to be answered in Mary posts.

No one should be allowed to kill a baby"
Luckily, no one is allowed to kill a baby. Last time I checked, killing babies was illegal. Aborting a foetus up to 24 weeks is legal, though

The post you are replying to is goady but I think you will have to do better than that to refute the point

There are many posts on MN mourning the loss of a baby after the onset of a late period. So is it a baby if it's wanted and a foetus if it isn't?

I am not sure that 24 weeks is as arbitary as people are making out. It is the point at which the outcomes for a baby being born are not so bad longterm. There are some babies born at 21 weeks who will survive but usually with lifelong complications. By the time the baby is 24 weeks it has a much better chance of survival and less risk of severe longterm complications. At 25 weeks over 60% will survive with none to mild disability. When a reduction of the legal limit to 21 weeks was considered , it was rejected because although outcomes have improved significantly for babies born after 24 weeks, the outcomes for 21-24 weeks have not changed significantly.
This ability to survive outside the womb is extremely significant to the debate and is why so many doctors refuse to engage with late term abortion.

lass
I said fuck all about Canada
"Actually you posted a roll eye emoticon under my post where I stated I didn't see anything which particularly demanded to be answered in Mary posts."
Oh so an eye roll is a comment on Canada now?! I would add another eye roll here but I'd hate for it to be misinterpreted!

"So is it a baby if it's wanted and a foetus if it isn't?"
How many times do we have to answer that question?! I already did. Days ago. So if you want the long answer, RTFT. And if you want the short answer: yes.

I'm all for debate with people I disagree with, but for the love of God, when you INSIST on going round in circles, it wears thin.

That's quite an optimistic picture that you've painted there.

The ability to survive outside the womb is significant, not least to the woman who is pregnant. I think it's fair to say that a woman who is pregnant will consider this..

But it shouldn't be the only factor taken into account when considering women's healthcare, nor should it be anyone else's right to decide on what this significance means to each individual woman.

I'm all for debate with people I disagree with, but for the love of God, when you INSIST on going round in circles, it wears thin

Well you should know, given I feel exactly the same on most of my posts ( goodness knows howmany times I've explained the 24 week point ) but apologies if I missed your explanation earlier of the difference between a foetus and a baby.

Of course it's not actually me you have to convince but the poster who posted the question (and presumably missed your explanation somewhere in the middle of what is a very long thread)

This might be an unpopular opinion, but I think there is a difference between a premature baby that is born early and very much wanted v a foetus that is still in utero and is unwanted. Medically, legally and ethically we're talking about two different things. And just because I support a woman's right to make decisions about her own body and the foetus she's carrying does not change the obvious fact that a premature baby deserves the best possible care and the human rights we're all entitled to, as soon as it is born

And there was your explanation. Basically, in your opinion a wanted foetus is a baby but an unwanted one is a foetus. Medically that is not correct. Legally that is not correct.

That leaves "ethically". Your ethics have made the distinction. It does not follow you are right.

I don't actually have to make that distinction. Legally it is a foetus which after 24 weeks acquires a greater protection because of the medical analysis of its state at that point. For what it's worth, I would support 25 or 26 weeks.