New Minister for Women - Maria Caulfield - is pro life.

[ArabellaScott]

www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/anger-as-mp-who-suggested-cutting-abortion-time-limit-is-made-minister-for-women/ar-AA13vIjr?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=af0ca7de70284591967a666f2eeebfad

'The Lewes MP has previously come under fire for arguing babies born at as little as 18 weeks “grow up to live long, healthy lives like the rest of us”,'

I thought it was Women & Equalities, has that changed?

This is an excellent, solid argument that makes it very clear to me why the limit is where it is. Thank you.

Abortion seems to be settled, but I think we must always be cautious anf vigilant.

Agree, op. I'm not going to shut up about women's rights vs self ID just because right wingers also share that view. We agree on the things we agree on and heartily disagree on everything else. Grown ups can do that

'Pro life' is positive spin. The people who are against abortion want to make their views look positive. Fair enough, you get to label yourself, but that doesn't mean I have to use your words to describe my experience.

Many women are both pro life and pro choice. They don't try to impose their beliefs on others.

Much clearer to describe the two general groupings of opinion on the issue of abortion as 'pro choice' and 'anti choice'. Because that's what it boils down to, really: what choices women are to be allowed to have when it comes to bodily autonomy?

It's weird that the minister for women is now in the trade department, presumably because KB is both trade & equalities?

Wasn't minister for women the job that KB did under truss as minister for women & equalities?

From the gov Web site

Maria Caulfield MP was appointed Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Minister for Women) at the Department for International Trade, and Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Department of Health and Social Care on 27 October 2022.

She was previously Minister of State for Health at the Department for Health and Social Care between 7 July 2022 and 7 September 2022

She was previously Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Minister for Patient Safety and Primary Care) from 17 September 2021 to July 2022 and an assistant government whip from December 2019 to September 2021.

She had been a Health type minister fir a while where abortion is also relevant.

At best it's pro-forced birth. I prefer "anti-choice".

I think it's concerning that they have put someone who is fairly anti abortion as the minister for women. I don't think there's a appetite for restricting abortion, but appetites can be created by influence, and things can change despite a lack of appetite. We should be vigilant.

Much of our 'right' to abortion is dependent on how policies are enacted by professionals - eg exactly what the 2 medics are required to consider when they sign it off, and the circumstances in which the cps prosecute women. As we have seen it doesn't take a change in public opinion to cause massive changes in the interpretation of laws and policies. It just requires that ppl in the institutions where decisions are made are persuaded that the law requires this rather than that, or that this interpretation of a policy is correct and asking questions is hateful.

I am absolutely disgusted at this appointment. Maria Caulfield has opposed abortion rights for UK women. She voted to allow the harassment of women and girls who seek abortion and she said the she wishes to be a voice to the unborn.

Women's officer should be working for women, not someone who prioritises the contents of their womb over their bodily autonomy.

This time 10 years ago there was no appetite in either party to leave the EU. Look how that turned out.

The mechanism would be similar, too. A party under pressure and in need of votes starts appeasing a wing which does want these things – and suddenly that wing's the kingmaker.

Happened in the US, too. Roe v Wade has been struck down in 2022 because the Christian right promised to support Trump in 2016 in exchange for him supporting anti-abortionists. A few Trump Supreme Court appointments later, and Bob's your uncle.

I'm not sure that argument actually holds much weight ..

Our current 24 limit doesn't apply in the car off a fetal abnormality anyway. 24 weeks is essentially there limit on social ground. If a disability is discovered at 30 weeks, the woman can still have an abortion. I know someone who discovered their baby was severely ill at 38 weeks and advised to terminate.

Changing the social limit to 16 weeks, 20 weeks or whatever will have ZERO implications on the ability to abort in case of abnormality.

There are arguments for an against it, but this isnt one of them.

Ps: The earliest babies to survive have been born at 21 weeks (I can't remember how many days). Babies can be born alive much earlier than this, but die shortly after. I don't know if anyone has tried to keep these babies alive, or if they receive palliative care only (which is what they'd get in the UK, but it wouldn't surprise me if not aggressive efforts were made in the USA on occasion).

I don't think we know what the earliest age we can keep a baby alive is, unless it was routinely attempted earlier, which would throw up all sorts of ethical and proportionality issues.

I thought it was Archers' Law that all females conceive at the first glance from an unsuitable bloke, then pop them out easier than a single lamb, go back into the fields/cafe before teatime and then expire/fall apart dramatically just as the completely indistinguisable posh male voice needs something to whine about for the next five years. They never, ever seem to make a choice that doesn't involve another kid who is silent until they need to get involved with unsuitably regionally accented teenagers.

Minister who believes that women should be able to have abortions up until 18 weeks is pro-life?

I trust women to make the right decision. I don't think we need a paternalistic change of laws about this. So I hope she trusts women as well, regardless of her own opinion. Because it doesn't matter what she thinks as long as she has no plans to act on her thoughts.

Yes, it is concerning that the Minister got Women is anti choice and seeks to reduce women's bodily autonomy.

Agree with DidIletherdown on viability and with Mangyinseam on terminology.

Just in case this isn’t obvious to everyone, we are (not yet) the 51st state of the US of A. We never had the equivalent of Trumpism and we don’t have the same political system (federal, presidential not parliamentary, Supreme Court with very different remit). And even though Roe v. Wade is overturned now, abortion remains legal in many parts of the US, and even right-leaning state legislatures such as Kansas have voted against restrictions. With this issue, it does pay to look at the finer points.

This is just the latest in a series of Anti-woman decisions made by the Tory party.

They really do hate women.

Can you name a political party that isn't anti-women?

abortion is still technically illegal in the UK.

www.bpas.org/get-involved/campaigns/briefings/abortion-law/

'The 1967 Abortion Act renders lawful activities that would otherwise constitute a crime under the Offences Against the Person Act (OAPA) 1861. The OAPA makes it a crime for a woman to 'procure a miscarriage', or for another person to help her do so.

The Abortion Act 1967 (as amended by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990) states that an abortion is legal if it is performed by a registered medical practitioner (a doctor), and that it is authorised by two doctors'

I'm not completely reassured that it is settled.

@ReunitedThorns, only one party has actively destroyed women's rights and opportunities for the last 12 years.

The Tory party.

I agree ArabellaScott. The loopholes in the Offences Against the Person Act created by the 1967 Act have been pragmatically useful for many women in the broader context of general public acceptance for the need for abortion in the US, Europe etc.

That broader context has changed significantly and frighteningly quickly.

The analogy to the EU upthread is interesting - who would have predicted ten years ago that the UK would have got itself into the mess it has?

Re: the time limit. The current 24 weeks is for social grounds. Section E of the Abortion Act covers terminations for foetal abnormality throughout the course of a pregnancy.

I'm not sure that viability is the best lens to view the need for abortion through - I think it's more women's healthcare.

That was in 2017, it didn't seem to go beyond a first reading in the HoL.

bills.parliament.uk/bills/2028

hansard.parliament.uk/lords/2017-07-05/debates/75B06EF2-BC66-4974-AFC5-9BA2A0119C97/Abortion(FoetusProtection)Bill(HL)

So the current party in power. And what about the devolved nations?

Essentially any party that is in power in any country has tried to destroy women's rights.

Why is viability irrelevant? If it’s solely about women’s healthcare, why then have any limits for termination at all? And while women’s bodily autonomy is important, speaking about foetuses as ‘the contents of a womb’ does seem a bit cruel. A foetus isn’t the same as a uterine cyst, is it? To me, it seems important to avoid dehumanisation of both women and foetuses in this context.

I think the law is fine as it is. 24 weeks is past the halfway point of a pregnancy, which does seem to leave enough time for such a momentous decision. Personally, I’d even be fine with a lower limit for abortion on social grounds but in the main I think this is an issue best left alone. And if we have a pro-life minister for women, why not put pressure on her to make life for poor mothers and mothers with disabled children more bearable in this country?

That's certainly the position the pro-choice viewpoint takes, which is probably why that is a good descriptor.

But you are casting the pro-life position inaccurately. You haven't described their logic or reasoning, only how you see the consequences of that in relation to your own viewpoint.

There is this tendency to imply that under those conditions, where someone else is putting a different emphasis on a question than you, that they are somehow being disingenuous. They know, somehow, that the right to life isn't really relevant here, but for some reason they are pretending otherwise.

What's really interesting about this to me is that actually quite a lot of political philosophy around rights starts from the basis of right to life, the right of existence, being primary, and that is a big part of a lot of what is considered typically leftist causes. It always seems odd to see that glossed over or even studiously unmentioned in this context, as if the clash of the human right to life and right to bodily autonomy in these instances doesn't actually represent a real conflict.