[Socialism Today, No 23, November 1997, p. 8-9]
The decriminalisation of abortion, which took place thirty years ago this month, was an enormous step forward for women. The 1967 Abortion Act was the first in a series of reforms such as the equal pay and sex discrimination legislation. These gains were made by women who demanded changes in the law to reflect the changing role of women within society.
Nowadays it is easy to forget just how important these changes were, especially for working class women. Prior to 1967 only if you had enough money to bribe your GP or private consultant to certify that you needed an abortion on medical grounds, could you have access to safe abortions. Ordinary women, however, were subjected to the horrors of backstreet or DIY abortions. It wasn’t uncommon to hear of women throwing themselves downstairs, using knitting needles or drinking poison to terminate pregnancies. In 1965, 3,050 women suffered from post-abortion sepsis – and prior to 1967 illegal abortions that went wrong were the main cause of maternal death in Britain. Perhaps 30 years after the Abortion Act memories have faded of the horrors of backstreet abortions but they shouldn’t because this, not no abortions, is the real alternative.
Of course attitudes to abortion have changed. The majority of young women see abortion as a right that cannot be taken away. Rather than memories of the back streets they are confident in their right to make decisions about their own bodies. A recent Mori poll showed that 64% agreed that abortion should be available for any woman who wanted one, up from 54% in 1980. Even amongst Catholics, 50% believed women should have the right to abortion. Such changes in attitude have meant that ‚pro-life‘ groups such as the Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child (SPUC) have had to use a more ’subtle‘ approach than just proclaiming abortions are morally wrong.
One argument put forward, for example, is the idea that ‚irresponsible‘ young women use abortion as a form of contraceptive. This is a million miles away from reality. Of course, there is a need for a better contraceptive service and more open, non-judgmental discussion on sex, but many women are confronted with unwanted pregnancies because the contraception they were using failed.
SPUC also protested at the recent development of abortions which could be done relatively quickly without general anaesthetic – what were termed ‚lunchtime abortions‘. Anti-abortionist Josephine Quintaville, of Life, commented disapprovingly: ‚This would be the ultimate in a fast economy; you have fast food and now you can have a fast abortion‘. Yet, if advances in medical technology are available to enable women to undergo quicker and safer abortions that is undoubtedly a good thing. The opposition of ‚pro-life‘ groups exposes their previous, hypocritical ‚concern‘ about late abortions, which they used to attack abortion rights. Now there are procedures which would allow much earlier abortions and they complain!
Certainly, 30 years on from the Act, we don’t want to just defend the status quo. It’s still the case that a woman has to have the approval of two doctors in order to have an abortion. This can lead to problems caused by judgmental doctors putting barriers up, leading to delays and late abortions. The Socialist Party believes that the role of a doctor should be to give non-judgmental, medical advice, including what methods of termination are available and appropriate, but that the decision to have an abortion should be left solely to the woman.
Unfortunately, under the current climate of cuts in welfare, the trend to restrict abortions is likely to continue. In North and Mid Hampshire the health authority made the decision to restrict the number of abortions especially for under-18s. No doubt they will rationalise that by trying to make women feel that it is their fault that they need an abortion and therefore they should pay to have it done privately or in one of the non-profit making clinics. NHS cut backs actually represent one of the biggest threats to the right to abortion. It means more and more will be means tested and forced to pay. It also means that in the NHS it is difficult to provide a range of treatments – including the so called ‚lunchtime‘ ones being pioneered in the non-profit making sector – and too often all that is on offer is the vacuum method involving general anaesthetic or induced labour.
The right to choose, like the availability of contraception has been a vital reform for working class women.
The right to choose, like the availability of contraception, has been a vital reform for working class women. It doesn’t mean you’re liberated but unlike earlier generations of women whose whole lives were taken up with endless pregnancies, miscarriages, births and child rearing, this generation has better health and more control over our lives to give us the time and energy to fight for change.
Elaine Brunskill
Schreibe einen Kommentar