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 Women should not have to battle outdated Victorian legislation for control over their reproductive rights.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

TJE
"give pro-lifers the right to not have an abortion if they don't want one"
"Pro lifers" (anti-choicers, in other words) already have the right not to have an abortion if they don't want one. The pro choicers don't want to take that right away (The clue is in the word choice.) It's the opposite. The "pro life" / anti choice lobby want to take the choice away from others.
If only we were all allowed to choose what we wanted to do with our own bodies. Much more simple than dictating what others should and shouldn't do, when we can't possibly understand, anticipate or imagine every single potential scenario.

and I suppose you think that abortion is a pain free walk in the park for the baby? Why else when operations need to be performed in utero do they give the baby anesthetic? Would it be because it can feel pain? hmmm

No they don't. And with respect you will never beat your enemy if you don't understand their motives. Whilst yes, there are of course some extreme anti-choice people on the pro-life side, an awful lot of people who object to abortion, particularly those who agree with some abortion but up to a limit are not motivated by wanting to control the woman bearing the child, but by a belief that the viable foetus inside her deserves the same rights over it's body as the mother has over hers.

How far would you go to preserve the agency of the mother. Is abortion at 40 weeks OK? 42? Would you say life doesn't start until the baby has taken its first breath, and therefore allow abortion by injection into the babies head as it is crowning? Or that it's still a foetus when the head is out but shoulders and body aren't?

22neve I assume you are talking about Late term abortions when you refer to the feotus feeling pain?
I have a friend who had to travel to the UK (we're Irish) at 19 weeks pregnant to end the pregnancy as the baby had anacephaly sp? It's not possible to do this in Ireland, as long as the baby has a heartbeat.
My friend was induced and she gave birth. The baby had died just before the birth. This baby suffered no pain. This was a medical abortion. This is what happens every day of the week in the uk.
It's currently only possible to have an abortion in the uk after 24 weeks for medical reasons.
I laugh out loud when I hear the "abortion for lifestyle reasons" you haven't got a bloody clue what some women go through

TJEck
I'd like to pick up on your suggestion of early induction. Currently this isn't legal. Women are forced to carry to term.
Do you think it's preferable for women to be induced at say 24 weeks and have possibly very sick baby they don't want than to have an abortion?

I don't know- it wouldn't be my preferred option , but wondered if it was an option that ardent pro-choicers would want to be made available to give agency over their bodies back to pregnant women. Or maybe they are so wedded to the idea that a woman should not only ahve agency over her own body but the right to kill the baby inside it that that wouldn't be acceptable

I think it is wrong to have an abortion, it murder.

Well I won't be donating to bpas. Abortion on demand to 24 weeks. For any reason. Even sex of the baby.

After that only if the fetus has a terminal illness.

I really don't think there's a demand for abortion to term outside the feminism board on mumsnet etc. The law should stay as it is.

Abortion certainly is not murder. There are numerous occasions where it's actually an act of compassion, for the child as well as the mother.

My worry here is that, as Macbeth sagely said 'if it were done when 'tis done, then 'twere well it were done quickly.' - I can't think of anything other than abortion that this applies to more.

As the pregnancy continues, the options diminish if you like - from pills to surgical removal to actually having to give birth. Giving birth to a (presumably deceased) baby would be immensely distressing and probably not just for the woman. I am VERY pro choice but even I know I could never work in an abortion clinic.

I am pro changing the law (though in practice that is how it works anyway); I am pro having some flexibility on the 24 week limit in exceptional cases and I have nothing but compassion for this woman.

But that compassion cannot extent to administering death on a foetus in this stage of gestation.

It is perfectly acceptable and in fact even sensible to acknowledge that at particular stages, certain options have passed.

I think you're confused about the abortion procedure "22neve".

Foetuses aren't given anasthetic.

Your views, even your completely contradictory ones, woyld have more credibility if you showed some understanding of some basic medical facts.

I think 22neve is referring to fetal surgery, rather than anaesthesia during terminations?

Agree with this campaign. Quite a few prem babies in my community who were of course wanted and cherished and survived thank goodness. Doesn't change my stance. There are no right and wrong reasons for abortion. Strongly agree with pp that more freely available stigma free terminations may greatly reduce their occurrence anyway.

Stop making this about MN feminists. There isn't a hive mind. Plenty of people post on FWR who don't even consider themeselves feminists. But women having bodily autonomy is a basic tenet for feminism - not just MN feminism (whatever the fuck that is).

"Through uni I watched girls have abortions because it suited them." So what would a valid reason for abortion look like to you then? One that didn't suit the woman?

I'd say self abortion at 32 weeks is infanticide or murder. Well, it's neither.

a chance of life through adoption. Why is adoption metered out as the cure all? How many unwanted babies are you willing to adopt, Viviennemary?

22neve2326 Allisgood1 barber50 Gothgirl78 How many unwanted babies are you willing to adopt?

The difference is literally a couple inches skin and muscle. And the fact that once born, it no longer needs the woman for food, or that once born, it breathes. And it doesn't need the woman in order to live.

So different name - when would you have the cut off. At the exact moment of birth? Which means that a perfectly viable baby, who will have to be birthed anyway, could be aborted at 40 weeks plus?

Yes TJE.
Unlimited abortion on demand.
I trust women to make the decision. It's not up to me to say what they should do with their pregnancy.

itsbetterthanabox

Your reasoning makes no sense. Newborns still need someone to feed them, often need help to take their first breath.

How on earth can you think it is acceptable to kill them? Or it makes any difference if they are born or not?

You are so determined to fight for women's bodily autonomy that you have abandoned all logic and reason.

A few things I have never understood with the pro choice lobby.
If a woman can't cope with being pregnant then with the abortion why not have a sterilisation done.

What I see is women saying they are mentally or physically unfit to go through with a pregnancy then when they get pregnant a few years down the line and go through with the birth without having had any mental health or physical help. It draws to the conclusion that they didn't have any mental or physical health problems in the first place it was just a case of timing.

Also everyone is talking about a woman's rights. What about a woman's right to be born. More females are aborted than males.

I am not against abortion in certain circumstances (rape and where the baby is not going to survive the whole of the pregnancy) but from people I know abortion pre the morning after pill was used like a form of contraception. I know one mum of 2 who has had over 10 abortions that I know of.Another who had 2 during her degree course and given her skills as a parent should have been sterilised. She treated her marriage and dd as a box ticking exercise and pays au pairs to live in a house with her dd whilst she lives in a different country.

What's wrong with 'timing', Olivers?

There are so many factors involved in being pregnant. And having a baby. And having a child, of course. We're not talking about 9 months of pregnancy, we're talking about at least 18 years of being supporting a child.

So a woman - a family - may fall pregnant at a time when they know the long-term impact could be incredibly significant. That they can't afford the childcare costs of 2 young children for the next few years. That one parent may have to leave work to care for children, thus potentially ruining their earning income for the whole family in the long-term. That the impact on the family would then not just be of a 9 month pregnancy, but potentially of a lifetime of always being in a difficult financial position.

Or perhaps the woman suffered from PND and knows that having two small children at the same time, potentially suffering from PND, would have a significant emotional impact on their family. That they would feel more confident doing it again once the children they already have are older, at school, more able to look after themselves somewhat if PND hits again.

Of course, the issue nestling behind most people who are anti-abortion, or only want limited (rape, medical reason) abortions is that contraction is 100% effective and that if a woman falls pregnant, it's entirely her fault because she either wasn't on contraception, or was just too feckless to take it properly. In their world, condoms never have a tiny split that isn't noticed. In their world, a brief cold never renders the Pill ineffective. In their world, the diaphragm never gets dislodged by a millimetre. If she falls pregnant, is was entirely her on fault and she could just buck up and get on with it.

I'd love to live in a world where contraception was 100% effective...

Oliversmumsarmy
Do you know how hard it would be to obtain a sterilisation with no children at a young age? The NHS very often won't perform them as they think you will change your mind. Why would you want to force a child into a home that it isn't wanted in/can't facilitate it at that time?

where the baby is not going to survive the whole of the pregnancy
But not for babies that will survive the pregnancy, live a life of pain and die very young? They must suffer because they would survive the pregnancy.

Oliversmum im just going to address one point from a personal level.

I had a tfmr (lots of you guys must be bored of hearing my story now!) Our planned dd2 was diagnosed fairly late at 22 weeks with T18. It carries a lethal diagnosis. The doctors told us that she probably wouldn't survive pregnancy however there was a chance that she could have been born alive and lived hours, days or weeks (probably not longer than that with her specific anomolies, some babies with T18 can live longer)

I was entitled to a termination up to term because of this diagnosis so it would be unaffected by these suggested changes.

However, many people don't always understand or know (why would you unless you've been in the situation) that lethal diagnosis often means a baby can survive pregnancy but it is highly unlikely that they will survive for more than a few months.

Just to summarise lethal diagnosis, or incompatible with life as the diagnosis is often referred to, does not always mean that baby will not survive pregnancy.