Tory MP calls for a review of abortion laws

Two abortion stories hit the headlines over the weekend.  One concerned the rapid growth in so-called "bedroom abortions" via the controversial 'EMA' abortion pill.   The pill is controversial because of worries over its safety.  The other story, broken in The Sunday Times,  concerned the revelation that "more than 20 babies have been aborted in advanced pregnancy because scans showed that they had club feet."

There have been calls for the police to investigate termination of unborn babies with webbed fingers or club feet.  The 1967 Abortion Act allowed for abortion when there was a risk of "severe" physical or mental handicap but these 'defects' can be easily corrected by splints, plaster casts, minor surgery or physiotherapy.

Conservative MP Bob Spink has told today's Daily Mail that Britain's 40-year-old abortion laws need to be reviewed:

"It is nearly 40 years since the 1967 Abortion Act was passed and science has made tremendous advances.  Public opinion has changed, partly as a result of huge improvements in the imaging of the unborn child.  Parliament is not reluctant to grapple with the issue.  A Communications Research survey showed that nine in 10 MPs want the abortion law to be reviewed continuously in the light of advances in medical science... There is a political will to act - in the last election, all three party leaders called for a review of the timing of abortion - so why has action not been taken?"

***
Related link: Making abortion rare.

Comments

[spagbob]

it's about time too, and pro-lifer's need to use this oppurtunity to put forwars the case for a review of the law. it's time mr cameron told us his views on the issue too.

[Le Nerd]

It's a pity it's too late for you to use your survey to ask some questions on 'moral' issues like this. I'm guessing, but I suspect very few British Conservatives have any interest whatsoever in restricting abortion. Simply because - we, most of us, just do not see it as infanticide.

[A H Matlock]

Recent press reports on 'home abortions' and late-term abortions have been absolutely sickening. I personally think it is a travesty that this sort of thing goes on to the extent that it does in an enlightened society.

Bob Spink is entirely correct - it is time for a review of the abortion laws to bring them into line with current science and the over-arching aim of any review should be to make abortion much less common in practice.

[Peter]

The danger of proposing this now, when Tory MPs are in the minority, is that once such a bill is put forward, it could be amended by Labour or the Liberals in such a way as to liberalise the abortion laws, something everyone who cares about unborn life would oppose.

[James Burdett]

I think we need to be careful here, if we propose a review we should do it in an open-minded fashion. We should not seek to set up a prejudiced review that is merely going to antagonise those of a contrary disposition and consequently lack widespread public support.

[SimonNewman]

"I suspect very few British Conservatives have any interest whatsoever in restricting abortion."

I suspect only a minority of British Conservatives would want to _ban_ abortion. OTOH I suspect that a majority of both Conservatives and the public would think that the law should balance the interests of the mother and the foetus and that the foetus's interests become more important to consider the longer the time since conception. So no US-style absolute right to abortion either. Personally I agree with Bill Clinton that abortion should be safe, legal & rare. It should also be as early as possible in the pregnancy, the current 24 week limit is too late and should be reduced, I'd advocate 18 weeks. I think the home-abortion pill should probably be restricted to 6 weeks rather than 9 weeks. I think I'm probably right in the mainstream of British public opinion in both strongly supporting a right to abortion and thinking that current law on late term abortions is too liberal.

[A H Matlock]

Speak for yourself, Le Nerd.

[Andrew]

A 'liberal' view on abortions would balance the rights of mother and foetus, which to my mind means abortion up to the point of possible survival (18 weeks? 20 weeks?). Beyond that, the state should intervene to stop harm against another - the classic definition of a liberal law.

[Le Nerd]

Simon Newman, like many other decent people, believes that, "abortion should be safe, legal & rare". But that's the thing Simon - what you think doesn't matter. If abortion's legal, then it's what pregnant Simones are thinking that does. And if abortion is legal, people like you, or me for that matter, can say to them, "you shouldn't be so quick to exercise your right to a legal abortion". but it won't make any difference. As, I'd argue, the last 30 years has shown all too clearly. Legalised abortion always has and always will lead to plentiful abortions. You are too optimistic about human nature if you think that anything else will be the case. So it's for this very reason - women who want to abort, and are legally entitled to do so, will do so - that I can't see what the point is in Conservatives pretending that we're going to do something about it. Short of banning abortions, we can't, and we won't.

To those who argue, "we should make abortion tougher" (why? if abortion is the destruction of an actual human being, fewer of them doesn't make an abortion culture one bit less bad surely?), because "then there will be fewer of them", think about it. 'Pro-choice' people will scream that "this is an attempt to restrict abortion", and if you're being honest about what you're trying to do with those 'tougher' conditions, you really do have to admit that they're right.

There is no gain for Conservatives in pretending that we are going to do anything about abortion when plainly we are not going to.

[Le Nerd]

AH Matlock - sometimes it really does help to read what other people post. As I said in the very first post I made on this thread, it's a pity that some questions on moral lissues like abortions weren't included in the May survey. Then, at least among CH readers, we'd know. At the moment neither of us do. On the other hand, if you want to make the case that among the public at large there's great clamour for restricting or banning abortion, no doubt you have lots of evidence to present?

[SimonNewman]

"As, I'd argue, the last 30 years has shown all too clearly. Legalised abortion always has and always will lead to plentiful abortions."

Hmm - abortion rates do vary a lot by country and by culture, though. You can at least reduce abortion through eg prevalent use of effective contraception. Also for me the morning-after pill doesn't raise any moral red flag, because for me a small blob of cells has negligible moral weight. OTOH IMO a 23 week old foetus is a baby that just hasn't been born yet.

[A H Matlock]

Not at all, 'Le Nerd' - I did in fact read your post, and what I take issue with his your statement:

"I suspect very few British Conservatives have any interest whatsoever in restricting abortion. Simply because - we, most of us, just do not see it as infanticide."

I have been a paid up member of the Conservative Party since the 1950s, and I know very few fellow Tories who would agree with that statement, particularly the last bit. Many Tories may not agree that abortion should be banned altogether - cases where the life of the mother is at risk, perhaps, but I doubt most would have a problem with increasing controls on it.

Abortion is not an issue grounded in political expedience, and I don't see it through the prism of 'vote winner' or 'vote loser' To me, it is an issue of right and wrong.

[Editor]

I'll certainly consider questions on moral issues like abortion in a future Panel survey...

[Louise]

Abortion never has been, and never should be, an issue of policy in the Conservative Party. I would imagine that within the party there is the whole spectrum of opinion on the issue.

Bob Spink is right, it is time we had a review of the current laws, but any legislation must come from an individual Member of Parliament not from the Government or a debate during an opposition day.

I'd like to see a review of the current abortion laws, but I'd also like to see a review who is having abortions and why. This would include examining the impact of sex education in school - how many abortions could be prevented by better understanding by teenagers? And how many women are having abortions on their doctors advise because there is a chance their baby may have Down's Syndrome.

This is a huge topic and we need a sensible, informed and wide ranging debate. We don't want to have such an important issue hi-jacked by the radical, unattractive views on both sides of the argument.

[arthur]

I notice Boris Johnston hasn't made any comments about supporting a review of the abortion act:wonder why.

[Patsy Sergeant]

Louise @ 18.55, 'This would include the examining the impact of sex education in schools - how many abortions could be prevented by better understanding BY teenagers'

Yes, by persuading boys/men (I notice that apparently most of the posters on this thread so far are male!) that it is possible to get satisfaction AND use a condom. So many young men seem to feel that it is entirely up to the girl/woman to protect herself, and so FEW silly girls seem to realise that a condom is not only a protection against pregnancy (in this vastly overcrowded world), but also a protection against disease. Men Please note, and DON'T pull out the old one about holes, I mean in the condom.

[Sean Fear]

Abortion will take place regardless of the state of the law. But there's no reason to assume that it will take place at the same rate. Countries with very lax abortion laws (such as the USA) tend to have very high rates of abortion. A useful starting point would be actually to enforce the terms Abortion Act of 1967, so that it is only permissible in case of danger to the life or health of the mother. In most cases, that is now no more than a legal fiction.

[Richard]

"I think I'm probably right in the mainstream of British public opinion in both strongly supporting a right to abortion and thinking that current law on late term abortions is too liberal."

I recall an opinion poll last year prior to the election that showed a majority want the law tightened up. However, I doubt it is an issue of significant concern to many people however regretful this may be.

Re sex education - it has done nothing to halt the increase in teenage pregnancies since its widespread introduction. Unless I'm mistaken we had fewer teenage pregnancies before the days of sex education. This just goes to show that cultural factors are at work. As far as I'm concerned sex education is a waste of time. All I remember from it is being told how different contraceptives work, information I could easily have got from a medical health book.

[Annabel Herriott]

Again, we must look back at the history of the abortion act. I am old enough to have been a midwife in the 1950s. I served on our "flying squad". Too many of the emergencies we rushed out to, were almost exsanguinated women who had either been busy with a knitting needle or whatever themselves, or had the services of the local Vera Drake. Either way, there was a LOT of blood around, and we had to rush up a pint or two of O Negative into the hapless woman before she expired.
This "previous" HAS to be taken into account, before any high minded pontificating takes place. You lads were not even born. Well, perhaps Alastair was!

[Afleitch]

If anything we need more sex education in schools (speaking as someone who left the school systen only 4 years ago)There is far too much pick and choose pussyfooting when it comes to this issue; countries with low ages of consent, wide sex education and unrestricted access to contraceptives have low rates of pregnancy and subsequent abortion. When you choose to do the exact opposite, as in some US states the opposite is true. Sex education does not encourage promiscuity, it encourages responsibility.

[lucy74]

Louise - the most sensible person on this blog! - is quite right that a review of why women are having abortions has to happen before meaningful, workable and effective legislation can be enacted.

Unfortunately there will always be those who believe that "silly" girls are having abortions as an easy form of contraception. If this is indeed the case, we need to look at why and deal with the social problems giving rise to unwanted pregnancies.

The Abortion Act was brought in as a way of stopping "back street abortions". If abortion is once again outlawed, just as many foetuses will be aborted but at much greater risk to the mother's life.

[Editor]

lucy74: "If abortion is once again outlawed, just as many foetuses will be aborted but at much greater risk to the mother's life."

Not that anyone is talking about outlawing abortion, lucy74, but that last contention of yours has no basis in reality. On what do you base it?

[Justin Hinchcliffe]

Bob Spink is right - my views are well documented.

[AlexW]

Firstly, I believe that opinion polls should be given roughly zero-weighting on an issue like abortion. The nature of abortion means that there are a few people who are disproportionately affected by abortion laws (those planning to have an abortion), and most people to whom it has relatively little day-to-day significance. The votes of a casual passer-by who goes about his daily life thinking not one second about abortion until a clipboard is thrust into his hand cannot be equivalent to those who are planning or who have undergone an abortion. Moral majoritarianism is at its worst when a simple majority can dictate a policy that matters little to them but make a severe impact on the lives of the few.

On the substantive issue, however, I do feel that there is a case for lowering the term limit. There are only three rational positions where the line can be drawn: never, at the time of viability, or up until birth. Anything else, whilst perhaps demonstrating a reasonably pragmatic approach, is difficult to justify with reference to clear principles. If foetuses (foeti?) are morally equivalent to babies, there is never any justification short of the mother's life being in danger (by analogy to the Siamese twins case). Rape victims would have give birth to their assailant's baby, as it would be morally unjustified to kill a wholly innocent party with the same normative position as a child. No one here seems to be arguing that abortion should be generally permitted up until five minutes prior to birth, so this is not a point I feel the need to address.

If - to my mind - the only remaining line is that of viability, there is nonetheless a compelling case for reducing the limit to about 20 weeks. The provisions of the 1967 Act were drawn roughly in line with viability as the cut-off point with regard to the state of medical science at the time. Lowering the threshold does not fundamentally alter the *principle* behind abortion law, though it will affect the operation of that principle. The only other potential cause for concern is that pregnant women will be less likely to "detect" pregnancy given a 20-week cut-off and seek illegal abortions. For one, I believe that the number of women who reach this period without noticing their condition and who subsequently seek an illegal abortion to be relatively minimal; in any event, if something is morally indefensible, the awareness of other parties is irrelevant.

Of course it is impossible to "prove" that the via media is the preferred option, since this is an irreducible moral conundrum. Twenty weeks does, however, seem to be the only "principled" limit which adequately addresses the myriad policy considerations in this difficult area.

[lucy74]

I base it on research I carried out for my PhD which looked at the socio-economic indicators for abortion. Modern day Vera Drakes without the conscience would carry out procedures; without proper medical training, mothers would of course be at greater risk than if they had an abortion in a hospital, performed by an experienced NHS surgeon.

[Editor]

I'm sure backstreet abortions would be more dangerous for the mother, lucy74, although not for the child who dies in every scenario, but my fundamental question related to your contention that "just as many" would be aborted. I want to know what evidence you have for that please.

[lucy74]

My apologies Editor. Our research group found evidence that if abortion were outlawed in this country, many pregnant women would undergo backstreet abortions to terminate the pregnancy; others would travel to EU/other countries for abortions, just as some do now for euthanasia purposes. In both cases, we found that numbers of terminations carried out on British women would be similar to current figures.

Admittedly, it is hard to correlate figures for 1950s terminations as by their nature many were not known about. But those which were known about tended towards the horrific.

Whilst there is a strong case for reducing the time limit for abortions, I do think prevention is better than cure, and we should examine more closely the relationships between poverty, family breakdown and abortion so that effective legislation is produced.

[Editor]

Thank you Lucy. You may be right that abortion numbers would stay the same but I'm grateful for your clarification that the number of backstreet abortions would not equal the number of current legal abortions. My guess is that they would be a very small fraction.

Given that there is no early likelihood of any significant legal restrictions on access to abortion my hope remains that as more and more people come to see the visible humanity of the unborn, the number of abortions - particularly at later stages of pregnancy - will fall.

[Richard]

"When you choose to do the exact opposite, as in some US states the opposite is true. Sex education does not encourage promiscuity, it encourages responsibility."

Then why did we have lower teen pregnancy rates before widespread sex education?

I expect sex education has a peripheral effect on sexual behaviour nowdays due to the widespread availability of sex-related information outside of the classroom. I am certainly not aware of anybody's behaviour being influenced by it.

[lucy74]

I agree in principle - in a utopian society people would recognise their responsibility to their unborn child and act accordingly. However, humanity being fallible, many will choose the option of abortion.

What I would like is a more wide-ranging debate on the causes of, in particular, teenage pregnancy so that unwanted pregnancies are reduced and therefore abortion levels are reduced.

[Richard]

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/articles/population_trends/fertconttrends_pt100.pdf

Scroll down to figure 10. Note that the increase in sexual activity before 16 coincides roughly with the introduction of sex education. I am not suggesting that sex education is responsible, merely that we didn't need it to keep teen sexual activity (and therefore teen pregnancies) down in the past.

[lucy74]

Richard

Sex education is introduced by educationalists at the age when they expect children to require guidance - so it is not that the teenage pregnancy age mirrors sex education introduction but vice versa.

[Richard]

An interesting analysis of supposedly more permissive Dutch methods:

http://www.famyouth.org.uk/pdfs/LDM.pdf

[Richard]

"Sex education is introduced by educationalists at the age when they expect children to require guidance - so it is not that the teenage pregnancy age mirrors sex education introduction but vice versa."

Yet this doesn't change the fact that sex education has failed to prevent the rise in teen pregnancies. I expect much more important cultural shifts are responsible and there is little that sex education can do about it.

[A H Matlock]

Tim makes an excellent point someway up the thread. Much is made of the rights of the woman when it comes to an abortion, but what indeed about the rights of the child, who is killed in each and every instance?

I certainly have no desire to see a return to the days of back street abortions and Vera Drakes, but there has got to be something better than the state of affairs we've got now.

Annabel Herriott at 20.15 - I take your point made and I defer to your extensive practical experience in this field, but I'm sure neither you or Patsy Sergeant mean to suggest that men have no place in this debate? ;o)

[YorkshireLad]

"If anything we need more sex education in schools (speaking as someone who left the school systen only 4 years ago)There is far too much pick and choose pussyfooting when it comes to this issue; countries with low ages of consent, wide sex education and unrestricted access to contraceptives have low rates of pregnancy and subsequent abortion. When you choose to do the exact opposite, as in some US states the opposite is true. Sex education does not encourage promiscuity, it encourages responsibility"

I'm slightly younger than you and take the opposite view.

I agree that there is a "postcode lottery", this is because effectively what gets taught as "sex education" is by and large down to the school as there are no national criteria.

I thought the "sex education" I received (at a fairly average comprehensive school in Leeds) a total waste of time and can't see how anyone could have benefitted from it. I would prefer the details of sexual activity, contraception etc to be taught as part of the science/biology curriculum, that in my view would be more effective at getting a message across without moralising (which seems to be the current aim).

I also think schools should be much more transparent & honest with parents about what they intend to cover in SexEd classes - that way if a parent wants to withdraw their child they are able to do so. This would also prevent schools from teaching inappropriate material.

[Henry Whitmarsh]

No no no no no. When I joined the party I was NOT asked my views on abortion. Being a Conservative has NOTHING to do with the question of abortion. You might think it does. I think it has more to do with personal autonomy, less government interference, a greater role for business at the expense of the public sector, rewards for hard work rather than being a victim.

If you want to start your own version of the pathetic culture wars which have torn the US apart then be my guest.

Abortion, whether good or bad, is a matter between a woman, her body and her doctor in which she is in total control. It is a private matter in which the state has no business getting involved in. It's not a political decision period.

[Henry Whitmarsh]

I'm sure neither you or Patsy Sergeant mean to suggest that men have no place in this debate? ;o)

No, they don't. This party has an awfual record on women, probably because women make up such a small proportion of members and MP's. Now we want to control their fertility too? More generally, men have always sought to control women through controling their fertility, effectively subjugating them. The Handmaid's Tale is a WARNING not a blueprint. Sheesh!

[Phil]

Apologies if these points have already been made...but it won't do any harm to repeat them! It is encouraging that there is increasing unease about abortion in society, no doubt largely brought about by imaging of the child in the womb, and the increased knowledge of the life of the unborn child. So cannot Conservatives be in the forefront of working peacefully to persuade of the case for change?

Beware that any attempt to reduce the abortion time limit could be used as a Trojan horse by 'liberalisers' to make early abortions easier in return. Most abortions take place earlier anyway. Therefore we could end up killing more babies than now. This means that reform should tighten the law on the reasons when abortion is allowed, rather than the time limit. (As life begins at conception, earlier abortions surely would not make it any more moral, nor reduce the long term emotional damage). This must be about saving as many children as possible. Therefore attempts at legislation should be made when the desired result has a prospect of being achieved!

Abortion - the murder of innocent children, for that's what it is - must be the most important defining issue of our time. So why do we instead have the emphasis on poverty, important though that is? That a society can discard children for having a cleft pallet or club feet, or because twins are too inconvenient when only one child was planned for, must show the depths to which we have sunk, and how cheaply we regard life.

And when unwanted pregnancies happen, what about adoption? It cannot be right that women seem more likely to get pushed down the abortion route.

[Henry Whitmarsh]

Fine, Phil, you're anti abortion. Luckily, you'll never have to make that decision.

[A H Matlock]

No need for the hysterics, Henry. We have a perfect right to hold and air our views as you do yours.

[AlexW]

"Fine, Phil, you're anti abortion. Luckily, you'll never have to make that decision."

Presumably, neither will you...

"what indeed about the rights of the child, who is killed in each and every instance?"

Isn't this a slightly circular argument? If one starts with the presumption that the foetus is indeed an unborn child and has rights accordingly, of course it is morally reprehensible for it to be killed. However, if one starts from the premise that it is not a child, it never has any rights and there is therefore no injustice being done and no rights being violated.

As I have said, however, there is no one "correct" position, since all three positions start from a certain unprovable moral presumption as to when "life" begins.

[Sean Fear]

The Handmaid's Tale is ultra-Left drivel. I fail to understand why any Conservative would find any place for it other than the waste paper bin.

The point about abortion, Henry, is that it involves a person other than the mother.

[Henry Whitmarsh]

See, there you're wrong. I'm right wing, I just don't think that means I have to have certain views on the rights of women.

[Henry Whitmarsh]

Yes, but you have no right to enforce your moral views on the woman who has to make her decision.

[Richard]

"Abortion, whether good or bad, is a matter between a woman, her body and her doctor in which she is in total control. It is a private matter in which the state has no business getting involved in. It's not a political decision period."

Fair point. But there are some (even libertarians) who believe that abortion is murder and therefore it is the duty of the state to step in.

Besides, I don't think anybody here is suggesting we ban abortion, merely that medical research suggests the foetus is more developed than originally thought after 20 weeks. This means that the foetus is nearer to being human (assuming you don't think a foetus=human) and therefore calls the idea of late abortions into question.

America's culture war is over whether abortion should be banned or not, with the pro-abortionists in a narrow majority. Over here there seems to be a larger public consensus that the term limit should be reduced at least by a few weeks. Calling for a ban on abortion would be electoral suicide.

[Richard]

"Yes, but you have no right to enforce your moral views on the woman who has to make her decision."

Or you could turn that on its head and say you have no right to enforce your moral views on an unborn child. I'm not saying that you're wrong, merely that the argument is not so clear-cut as some would have us believe.

Basically it all comes down to how human you think the foetus is.

[Patsy Sergeant]

Thank you Henry at 22.54. Anyone who lived through the 50's and was a woman, will not forget easily the WHOLE climate that existed then - no morning after pills, low tolerance, if any of babies out of wedlock, no easy contraception (I say easy in the broadest sense), and the medical profession not helpful (or perhaps not allowed to be). That has largely changed now, but what hasn't changed, is men not wanting to use contraception, and please don't think that I am some sort of female misoginist, just watch Jeremy Kyle virtually any morning of the week!!! Added to that nowadays - and here we can get back to politics!!!!, is alcohol with the government apparently encouraging ever more boozing - more money for them (how corrupt!), paralytic teenagers particularly girls quite incapable of taking care of themselves. It doesn't matter that they have had sex education in school, they are hardly likely to remember that while getting smashed out of their minds!!!

Tougher laws on abortion won't stop kids getting plastered and behaving irresponsibly. It would be more appropriate to spend more time helping the poor wretched little specimens that are the results of so many carnal couplings. In the newspaper yesterday was a story of a woman, 64yrs old who was abandoned at nine months old in the middle of the Downs behind Worthing, with her little arms TIED BEHIND HER BACK, if two hikers hadn't happened to be passing by and heard her crying she would have died - slowly.

OK late abortion is probably to be avoided if at all possible, but does the subject have to be a political one anyway. One only has to see the appalling stories that have come out of the States resulting from bigotry to hope that that can be avoided here.

[Mark Fulford]

I wholeheartedly agree with Henry that it is not for the man to decide. I have always taken the view that, while I have an opinion, were a situation to arise where it might directly affect me, my opinion counts for naught.

I'd also like to show appreciation for AlexW's succinct warning against "moral majoritarianism".

[Mike Christie]

"As I have said, however, there is no one "correct" position, since all three positions start from a certain unprovable moral presumption as to when "life" begins."

This line of argument becomes somewhat invalid for late-term abortions which occur after a point where survival of the unborn child is viable outside the womb.

How can the ending of a viable, independant life of a human being be anything less than murder?

Over the past few years there have been stories in the news regarding late-term abortions because of fairly trivial and easily treated birth defects. Is this really the sort of value we place on human life?