Maria Miller’s abortion stance means she’s no friend to women

Zoe Stavri argues that the women's minister's focus on reducing the abortion time limit is either misguided or disingenuous.

Lowering the abortion time limit is a key flashpoint in ongoing attempts to chip away at a woman’s right to choose. Politicians and commentators alike will periodically propose that the abortion time limit- currently at 24 weeks- should be reduced to 12, or 16, or 20 weeks.

Among proponents of this is the recently-appointed women’s minister, Maria Miller, whose voting record shows support for reducing the abortion time limit. She has also clarified her position in an interview, saying if the issue came up she’d vote for a reduction of the time limit again.

Miller’s role in government is supposedly to prioritise women’s issues in government. However, her views on the abortion time limit are anything but pro-women, and should not be prioritised as they are actively harmful.

UK abortion law currently allows women access to abortion at any time up to 24 weeks, though the vast, vast majority of abortions carried out take place 3-9 weeks of gestation, with only 1.4 per cent being carried out at over 20 weeks.

This reflects advances in helping women access abortion quickly and safely. However, on average, there is still an average waiting time of 2-4 weeks between seeing a doctor and getting an abortion on the NHS.

This waiting time can easily make the difference between a legal and an illegal abortion, and would be exacerbated were the time limit to be reduced.

The fact that Maria Miller focuses on reduction of the abortion time limit rather than further improving women’s access to abortion suggests she is either misguided or disingenuous. To support women, you must support the choices they make about their own body, whether it’s something you approve of or not.

The last thing we need is greater restrictions on access to abortion: we need greater freedom and greater support to allow women to make choices concerning their own bodies. This isn’t what Miller stands for. Because of this, she is no friend of women, and unsuitable for her position as women’s minister.

The new Minister for Women and Equalities, Maria Miller. Photograph: Getty Images
Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

The buck doesn't stop with Grant Shapps - and probably shouldn't stop with Lord Feldman, either

The question of "who knew what, and when?" shouldn't stop with the Conservative peer.

If Grant Shapps’ enforced resignation as a minister was intended to draw a line under the Mark Clarke affair, it has had the reverse effect. Attention is now shifting to Lord Feldman, who was joint chair during Shapps’  tenure at the top of CCHQ.  It is not just the allegations of sexual harrassment, bullying, and extortion against Mark Clarke, but the question of who knew what, and when.

Although Shapps’ resignation letter says that “the buck” stops with him, his allies are privately furious at his de facto sacking, and they are pointing the finger at Feldman. They point out that not only was Feldman the senior partner on paper, but when the rewards for the unexpected election victory were handed out, it was Feldman who was held up as the key man, while Shapps was given what they see as a relatively lowly position in the Department for International Development.  Yet Feldman is still in post while Shapps was effectively forced out by David Cameron. Once again, says one, “the PM’s mates are protected, the rest of us shafted”.

As Simon Walters reports in this morning’s Mail on Sunday, the focus is turning onto Feldman, while Paul Goodman, the editor of the influential grassroots website ConservativeHome has piled further pressure on the peer by calling for him to go.

But even Feldman’s resignation is unlikely to be the end of the matter. Although the scope of the allegations against Clarke were unknown to many, questions about his behaviour were widespread, and fears about the conduct of elections in the party’s youth wing are also longstanding. Shortly after the 2010 election, Conservative student activists told me they’d cheered when Sadiq Khan defeated Clarke in Tooting, while a group of Conservative staffers were said to be part of the “Six per cent club” – they wanted a swing big enough for a Tory majority, but too small for Clarke to win his seat. The viciousness of Conservative Future’s internal elections is sufficiently well-known, meanwhile, to be a repeated refrain among defenders of the notoriously opaque democratic process in Labour Students, with supporters of a one member one vote system asked if they would risk elections as vicious as those in their Tory equivalent.

Just as it seems unlikely that Feldman remained ignorant of allegations against Clarke if Shapps knew, it feels untenable to argue that Clarke’s defeat could be cheered by both student Conservatives and Tory staffers and the unpleasantness of the party’s internal election sufficiently well-known by its opponents, without coming across the desk of Conservative politicians above even the chair of CCHQ’s paygrade.

Stephen Bush is editor of the Staggers, the New Statesman’s political blog.