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 Women should not have to battle outdated Victorian legislation for control over their reproductive rights.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

It's better,

If public opinion does not create laws (ultimately... I am aware of intervening steps), what do you think does? Why is murder illegal? Why is stealing illegal?

Larry most people would not enjoy watching open heart surgery.
What an absurd comparison to make. Women having full and equal access to reproductive healthcare is a positive thing. Just because bits of it aren't nice to look at doesn't make a difference.
The extermination of a race of people who were independent human beings is not in any way positive.

I believe a nine month old 'foetus' to be a human baby, exactly identical to a born baby.

You are ignoring it by 'othering' it, making out it is less than human, and thus killable.

The 'bits' that aren't nice to look at are the extinction of a kicking, feeling, sensate being.

I don't feel the same about early abortion as the embryo/ early foetus is nothing like human yet.

Our visceral feelings should act like early warnings.

Well public opinion in the vast majority supports assisted suicide. Yet it's illegal.
It was only last year that public opinion supporting the death penalty dropped below 50% yet it's been illegal for decades.

Larry
It isn't an independent human being. That's a fact. It is dependent on the body of another.
You are 'othering' younger foetus' by saying because they don't look as much like a baby they are killable.

It's better,

Yes, it is imperfect. Our lawmakers are elected by us and broadly reflect public opinion. In certain instances, they try to lead or resist it. Interesting you talk about the death penalty. Surely you must support it? It is a bit yucky, but just society exercising its right to extinguish a useless life.

Is there a kind of Godwin's law bingo? Because if so, I win i win i win!

Nope the death penalty kills an independent human being. We have no right to do that.
A woman does have the right to end her pregnancy in her own body. This kills a foetus not an independent human being.
One has power over their own body not other people's.

Those who believe in the death penalty believe that those sentenced to death have lost the right to be considered human.

Humanity is in the eye of the beholder. Personally I think a 9 month human foetus should have more rights to life than a murderer.

If the law changed tomorrow and officially recognised 24+ weeks unborn babies as babies and not foetuses, would you still consider 24+ week unborn baby a foetus, or would you now consider it a baby?

The whole point of the 24 week cut off point is this is when it is deemed that the baby CAN live independently of the mother. A full term baby has no actual need for the mother carrying it which is why it is outrageous to suggest that just because the mother decides she no longer wants it then she should be allowed to decide it should be killed.
And for those who respond with ridiculous claims that I am anti women or not trusting women to make the right choices,please just open a newspaper or turn on the Tv and read a few horror stories about what some parents decide to do to their children and then understand that the law is there to protect us from people who often behave in ways different to what we would find normal and acceptable, and that includes women to.

harrassed, but the law couldn't do that. How on earth could the law sensibly insist that the product of a 24 week pregnancy needs a passport to travel abroad, is entitled to child benefit, is entitled to medical assistance independent of its mother without totally violating any bodily autonomy that individual women are entitled to?

Unless you believe that women aren't entitled to bodily autonomy, and as soon as they become pregnant they become accountable to the criminal justice system (which is the situation that we have in the UK today).

Do you think women should have the option to be induced at any time after 24 weeks?

christina you are being a bit pick 'n' mix on the application of law. A 24 -39 week foetus does not , and cannot , as you say have the rights you identify. A 24-39 week foetus however does have other rights. There is nothing illogical in the law conferring these rights just because the other rights don't apply.

You don't help your case by statements that any one not supporting abortion without restriction must beĺieve women in the UK lose bodily autonomy as soon as they become pregnant.

That clearly does not happen , as evidenced by the 185,000 abortions carried out in England and Wales in 2014 , 98% of which were funded by the NHS. Scottish figures were around 12,500. I can't find the funding %age for Scotland but wouldn't be surprised if it were higher than 98%.

UK courts have thrown out with no hesitation attempts by fathers to prevent a woman having an abortion.

So far as not being accountable to the criminal justice system - how do you propose that would work ? Who will carry out abortions and where?

Should over the counter pills be sold with no prescription ? What if pills acquired in that way arecgiven forcibly to a pregnant woman ?
Should any one who feels up to it be permitted to perform a surgical abortion ?
Isn't the 2 doctor rule (and I don't particularly see the need for more than 1) as much to protect women as control them? I suppose you could say in those cases it is only the illegal practitioner who should be penalised , but at under 24 weeks why , in the UK is there any need not to use NHS, BPAS or Marie Stopes?

Getting back to Canada despite there apparently being no application of criminal law the rate in Canada was around 82,000. The population is lower but more women proportionally access abortion in the UK and women can access post 20 and post 24 week abortions in the UK. Isn't it possible that a clearly defined legal structure allows women and clinicians to know where they stand?

This has been a very interesting thread and the discussion is useful. If I'm being honest whilst I fully support the right to have an abortion in accordance with current UK law to get to that position requires a certain equivocation. The logical position is the foetus is protected from conception or it is not protected until born- but neither appeal to me morally or ethically.

Well, its a hypothetical question, so surely you could answer hypothetically?

Why is a 38 week foetus not a human baby? It is. How can it be a baby when it's wanted and a foetus when it is.

A foetus doesn't acquire rights as pregnancy goes on though. I was responding to the 'why not treat a 24w fetus as a baby' line.

I don't know how to respond to that hypothetically, harassed. I don't understand what youeam tbh.

You're twisting my words again "lass". I haven't at any point argued for self-aborting tablets to be sold without prescription or suggested that women should be able to have an abortion without access to support and signposting to other services.

Women should very much have access to support throughout their pregnancy whatever decisions they make about it and there should be safeguards in place to protect a woman's mental health if she is considering a late abortion ie access to counselling, time to weigh up the options and make the right decision for her.

Women do lose bodily autonony when they become pregnant. As the law stands, women can be prosecuted for ending their own pregnancy without the consent of 2 doctors from the very beginning of their pregnancy.

And people seem to be avoiding addressing whether they think this is an acceptable situation.

Vivienne I haven't said that. In fact, I've explicitly said that I don't believe that several times.

christina "No-one is suggesting making self-induced abortion legal"
And
"As the law stands, women can be prosecuted for ending their own pregnancy without the consent of 2 doctors from the very beginning of their pregnancy.

And people seem to be avoiding addressing whether they think this is an acceptable situation."

Whilst you appear to have conflicting arguments, a couple of replies answering your questions from the thread:

"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."

"Isn't the 2 doctor rule (and I don't particularly see the need for more than 1) as much to protect women as control them? I suppose you could say in those cases it is only the illegal practitioner who should be penalised , but at under 24 weeks why , in the UK is there any need not to use NHS, BPAS or Marie Stopes?"

They're not conflicting arguments at all ducky.

No-one is saying that women should be absolutely free to access tablets or whatever to abort pregnancies without any legal regulations on health care providers. For example, the situation now is that women are required to take the MAP in front of the prescribing/administering physician or pharmacist so that it cannot be used for a purpose other than which is is prescribed. I don't think it would be helpful for women of these legal regulations were lifted, indeed they would be more open to abuse by others.

However, saying that women shouldn't be criminalised for the actions they take in regard to their own pregnancy is a different point.

It's beside the point if no-one has ever been prosecuted for acting outside of the current law earlier in their gestation. The current law means that it is possible, and my question was do people think this is acceptable. Even though abortion is legal before 24 weeks, if you look at the '32 reasons' list posted near the top of the thread, you'll see lots of very valid reasons why women didn't access abortion care earlier in their pregnancy.

Interestingly, I'm less against the 2 doctors rule than others seem to be, as long as access to open-minded doctors is prompt and freely available. Making decisions about a pregnancy can be a life-changing situation for some women (not all, many women know immediately that a termination is the right decision for them), and women should have access to counselling, support and information about the options to them (including continuing with the pregnancy). A 24w cut off puts women under pressure to make decisions more quickly than they would prefer, which I don't think its helpful.

It seems that many women have to wait an fair bit of time to access abortion services, though. If this is typical, I'm not sure that needing the consent of 2 doctors is an acceptable situation.

A foetus doesn't acquire rights as pregnancy goes on though. I was responding to the 'why not treat a 24w fetus as a baby' line.

Yes it does. It may no longer be aborted other than in exceptional circumstances. You can split hairs and call that a restriction on the woman's right rather than the foetus acquiring rights - but the end result is the same.

Christina,

Two simple questions:

Is an 8 month old foetus a living sensate human being? (This is a yes or no question).

If the answer to the above is 'yes', why do you think it deserves no rights whatsoever?

I think that you have been avoiding the above throughout this thread.

Of course it's a restriction on the woman's rights.

She was charged with administering poison in order to induce miscarriage ie an action on her own body.

If it was the foetus's rights, a charge of manslaughter/murder would have been brought.

What about, larry, if someone answered the question is an 8 month old foetus a living sensate human being with the very simple answer "no".

I don't actually think anyone had been avoiding that question. Plenty of people have been answering it.

(Apologies, have n/c during the course of this thread).