Cross-party inquiry into unwanted pregnancy: your views?

[RowanMumsnet]

Hello,

We've been asked by Conservative MP Amber Rudd to contribute to a cross-party inquiry into the factors underlying unwanted pregnancies in the UK, and ways in which the unwanted pregnancy rate might be brought down. (Other members of the Inquiry include Labour MP Sandra Osborne and LibDem MP Lorely Burt.)

The background information from the Inquiry states: 'Over the last decade, the age-standardised abortion rate has risen by 2.3 per cent. Beneath this statistic are some striking trends. For example, the abortion rate for women in the 30-34 age group has risen by around 10 per cent in the past three years, which is in stark contrast to other countries like New Zealand, where the rate has decreased by 5 per cent over the same period. Repeat abortions have also increased over the past decade, rising from 31 per cent in 2001 to 36 per cent in 2011. Although unwanted pregnancies in teenagers have been steadily declining over the past decade, the UK also remains home to the highest teenage pregnancy rate in Western Europe.'

The Inquiry is interested in hearing your views on the following:

1. The issue of unwanted pregnancy in the UK.
2. The figures suggest that there are increasing rates of abortions among some age groups in the UK, increasing rates of repeat abortions, and high levels of teenage pregnancy. What are the underlying reasons for these trends? And what role (if any) does government have in tackling them?
3. What lessons can be learned from previous attempts to tackle unwanted pregnancies?
4. Are there any measures the government should be implementing to tackle unwanted pregnancy?

Plus, of course, anything else you want to say.

Thanks,
MNHQ

Rowan is it possible to have more information about the facts and stats the enquiry will be considering?

Work needs to be done to raise young women's self esteem as they are bombarded with negative images constantly.
The right for each woman to choose whether she wants an abortion is fundamental and I would never vote for a party that tried to erode that right.

I don't think that it's a 'silly idea' that more boys having access to hardcore porn as their early learning about sex is a problem. But I hope that if they want to know what teenagers are doing they will be asking, you know, some actual teenagers.

Personally I think it's a big problem that abortion is taught in schools as a big ethical dilemma and not just the facts of the medical procedure.

Actually I agree with you there ninja. I'm not sure I could have had am abortion at 16, whereas at 25 with 2 kids, I don't have any trouble with the idea.

I've only wanted to have a pregnancy terminated because of breakdown in my relationship. That was my only reason.

Economically, it's a case of we'll cope, and be poor. I wouldn't have got pregnant without liking babies and wanting a baby.

I can't really comment on other people. I didn't have a termination. But then I have a lot of family support so I'm very lucky in that respect. I've probably been judged monumentally by others but I block it out.

There are social pressures not to be a single mother. Massive ones. It is very difficult at times to hold my head above the water.

I think maybe that has an impact on some people. They cannot bear the idea of being socially outcast - and it does happen. There seem to be an awful lot of men in this country who see it as fine to leave someone while they are pregnant, never try to help, or come to terms with having a child, and just let the mother take all the rap.

Not sure if our culture encourages this in boys, or not. Women seem to be highly sexualised - breastfeeding is totally anathema to many sections of society and viewed with disgust while naked modelling is bought and sold to men, viewed as a bit of fun, well, it's damaging.

If a man gets someone pregnant it's often a question of 'Oh you stupid fool, she'll have to get rid of it or no more sex for you'
and children are seen as expensive (maybe they are, but it's all relative) and so often, pressure on women to have terminations is HUGE.

I can't really add much more.

I am concerned however that the government might be looking to cut down on the options available to women in terms of terminating pregnancy.

What are the aims of this research? What do they intend to do with it - and will it mean less choice and so on.

I am pro choice though I dislike the idea of abortion for myself.

I think the increase in abortions in slightly older women is party because we are all constantly told about our declining fertility, to the extent that people believe they actually can't get pregnant if they are over 30.

As for the teenagers, well there are so many social reasons, but it's all about lack of life chances, lack of self esteem and culture. As we are never going to live in a socialist utopia you will never completely solve these issues. The way a teenager deals with their life after having a baby is often related to the support their parents can and are willing to give, having a baby is not the worst thing that can happen to anyone, some girls will be supported, continue with education, and be encouraged to live a rounded outward looking life. Many girls simply cannot get that support and a cycle of lack of ambition and money is perpetuated.

At least the easy bit is to have MUCH more information given in schools, right from Primary. We are so behind Scandi countries it makes me weep.

And under no circumstances restrict the access to abortion. It's a woman right. Under any circumstances whatsoever, her rights outweigh anybody else - the baby, the father, the state, anyone.

It's just occurred to me that with the immense cuts the government is making to people in difficult or less well of situations, being a single parent is much more of a threat than it used to be = abortions will go up, and having a lot of children with no increase in CB is going to put a lot of people off keeping an accidental pregnancy.

The government is going to see a huge rise in terminations due to its financial policies especially those involving benefits.

You cannot have it both ways.

Access to contraception. For years I could simply get repeat pill scrips every 6 months or so, and if I were too disorganized and ran out, a chemist would give me a few or the GO would write a script same day.
Since my first child was born, they won't prescribe more than 8 weeks of minipills, and the pharmacist wasn't allowed to give me any, the GP refused to write a prescription that day, so I spent a tedious 5 hours queuing in the sexual health clinic. Though if I'd wanted the MAP, I could have bought that in the chemist. Then it turned out none of my 12 GPs can fit coils or do implants and more, so I had a month's wait for an appt at the sexual health clinic - who to be fair were fab and the coil fitting was painless.

I was shocked recently to find that teenage girls I work with had had one hour of sex ed at their Ofsted-outstanding school. 10% had been pregnant by GCSE and half of those had babies. Their friends were sure at least 3 of the girls had had no idea how they got pregnant, let alone their options then. One double lesson in year 7 is no way sufficient to cover sex and contraception facts, let alone anything on relationships.

But as someone said upthread, if women are having abortions where they might have previously had an unwanted child, surely this is a good thing? On cost grounds as well, seeing as that's more likely to convince this government.

That's an excellent point about the pill - chemists used to be able to give you an extra packet but not now without a prescription. I understand it but it's annoying!

Here is some useful background on the inquiry I found: "A Conservative MP is to launch an inquiry into unwanted pregnancy in an attempt to prevent the issue being hijacked by anti-abortion advocates in her own party.
The cross-party inquiry launched by Tory MP Amber Rudd comes after a year in which the government has invited anti-abortion group Life onto its sexual health advisory group, cut funding for pregnancy advice groups and launched a costly investigation into abortion clinics which found just 14 guilty of making essentially administrative errors.
"I am unequivocally pro-choice," said the Tory MP for Hastings. "Women who want abortions know what they're doing. They're grownups. The correct debate we should be having is how to improve contraception. It's about prevention.""

[[http://m.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/12/sexual-health-inquiry-abortion-debate?cat=world&type=article more here (The Guardian)

From my perspective the inquiry looks like a good thing.

It also looks like we have been asked the same questions which are being asked of the experts (BPAS, Marie Stoppes etc...) which is why the questions seem a bit odd - as we are not researchers but service users, and the plural of anecdote is not data.

I think there are a few important things that most of us could stand behind (without of course claiming that 'MN speaks')

1. Welcome the inquiry as an evidence based discussion on unwanted pregnancy.
2. Note that no no clear case has been made that there are too many abortions, or that a certain abortion rate is the 'right number'.
3. Say that the most important things are that young people get good sex education (both technical and emotional), that everyone has access to contraception and that access to abortion is not constrained in order to reach some arbitrary target.

I guess most usefully we can give our experience of access to contraception, and barriers we have encountered.

Trying again: more here (The Guardian)

I have read this thread until I got to bertie's post and had to agree with it straight away.

I totally agree that the possibel reason for the increase in this age group is that perhaps the stigma of abortion has markedly reduced. If you experience an unwanted pregnancy perhaps people are seeing it in a less romantic light, not as a little baby who they can't kill, but as a collection of cells which potentially could be a baby but at this point can be halted.

Caitlin Moran's article on guilt free abortion was very important I think, both in the bravery of her voicing those thoughts and the fact that I think a lot of women think in a similarly pragmatic way.

It is very true that having an extra child could financially ruin people. Why should women live their lives in genteel poverty?

And agree also that hormonal contraception can have awful side effects which can cause women to not want to use them, and go back to condoms, with their failure rate.

I am sightly affronted by the tone apparent in 'failure to contracept'. Like women are errant children behaving in a feckless manner. I can't help thinking that there is a pernicious tory agenda behind this level of questioning.

Why should there be a drive to reduce the abortion rate? It is as medical procedure which is available (with restrictions) so if there is the demand for it, I would not like to see punitive measures applied to make it more difficult for women to access this treatment in order to massage the figures to suit a reactionary government.

And as mentioned upthread, I startesd a thread about guilt free abortion some time ago - jesus I was flamed by some, but I received a lot of thoughtful responses. I don't see why women SHOULD feel guilty about taking this step if deemedn necessary.

Right, off to read rest of thread.

Just read that bit about Amber Rudd. Hmm. That seems more hopeful. However, I can't help thinking that whatever comes out of this will be twisted like barley sugar and used to support reduction in services.

Every other fucking service has been cut in a swathe of tory idealism. I can't imagine abortion provision will be exempt.

The reduction of teenage pregnancy cannot be achieved purely by contraception access. It is a massive social issue. Custardo's posts are spot on. There are (sadly) always going to be girls who have babies at 17 because their life has been so awful that the only solution which appears sensible is to have a baby as you are guaranteed someone who will love you, and it will give you some control in life. Lots of girls feel the doors of hope clang shut on them in their early teens. I know - I was one of them. I wouldn't have aborted at that age for all the tea in china. But when I got pregnant at 28 - no second thoughts, and no guilt.

Getorf - agree wholeheartedly with your points.

It looks like the inquiry is in response to the pernicious Tory agenda, not part of it (see link above).

Thanks for that Himalaya it's good to see the reasoning.

But I am afraid she's going to have an uphill battle, if she's the only Tory who wants to know or cares. Also, will her own party use her research to cut services?

Because GetOrf's right...it's about all that's left to cut...

RowanMumsnet 'Why do an increasing number of women not successfully contracept?'

Can you tell us why you used the word 'women' and not 'people' please?

Because that is exactly where the problem lies. Men are told constantly by society that women hold all the responsibility for creating and looking after babies, so they sensibly call it a 'women's issue'.

Makes me to see HQ not just being lazy with semantics, but showing us exactly why politicians will continue to make it women's problems. It may be women who have to go through an abortion, but the pregnancy was created by two people, a man and a woman.

It is not seen as a male problem to contracept, but dear god it is seen as a male right to then intervene with the results of contraceptive failure. Then they can have their moral way with the contents of of womens uteruses (is that the plural?)

I am turning into a more militant feminist by the bloody day.

But surely it would be monumentally stupid to cut contraception and abortion because of the considerably higher cost (economic if nothing else) of unwanted children?

Quite, doctrine, but that won't stop politicians doing it. Because they can blame single mothers for being feckless instead of looking at their own policies. Just as they blame unemployed people for being jobless, in the middle of a ruddy double dip recession.

YY Doctrine and edam. Contraception being free, and what used to be good access to it, is a simple investment that pays off for individuals and the country.

I didn't know that you couldn't get a few contraceptive pills to tide you over from the pharmacy any more. Why ever not? I can get a couple of antipsychotics from the pharmacy for my husband if he runs out to tide him over (has happened once in ten years). What's that about? Is that a national policy? (questions I hope the enquiry will look into).

Joan I could 10 years ago (which was the last time I was caught short!) but now they can't without a prescription, though you can get a prescription faxed (faxed!!!)

But you really can get the odd couple of tablets without prescription for a few hours for a lot of conditions, still, until you can get a gp appt. Or has that changed literally in the last six months? and if not, why not for contraceptives, of all extensively-tested and not-useful-on-the-black-market pills?

My DH gets free prescriptions for a lifelong condition. If he is caught short he can get an emergency supply from the chemist but they charge a big fee. Is it the same with contraception?

I read somewhere that BPAS reackon that there has been an increase in early vs later abortions, and the reason is Poundland pregnancy tests! I wonder if this is part of the reason for overall rise in abortions? Maybe people feel less conflicted about having an early termination, and mor women are able to find out earlier with pregnancy tests at two for a pound?

Crikey that is a thought - poundland pregnancy tests.

I remember even 17 years ago when I had dd pregnancy tests were the best part of a tenner. You could have a preg test at the surgery (presume you still can) but the waiting for an appt, waiting for the result, waiting another significant time to see the dr - all adds up when time is crucial.

It is surely a good thing that whatever abortions there are are earlier rather than late.