Voices

Views from elsewhere

Syndicate contentRSS

We have to counter the anti-sex, anti-choice spin before it's too late

A vocal minority is attempting to influence the political mandate on sexual health.

Women’s minister Maria Miller has backed a four-week reduction in the limit for
Women’s minister Maria Miller has backed a four-week reduction in the limit for abortions. Photograph: Getty Images

I had hoped my first blog post for the New Statesman might be about my experience of sexism in the film industry (short version: it’s like 1950); that I think we should have a Good Sex instead of a Bad Sex literary award (why not celebrate decent, provocative writing?); or perhaps just a few lines on how underappreciated the naked male form is (and wanting this exhibition to come to the UK), but, instead, I am having to pen a piece about the way in which politicians are screwing us (no pun intended) over sex.

When it comes to sexual health, we seem to be seeing a subtle change in policy-makers’ decisions, with the vocal minority becoming more determined to influence the political mandate. Last year, I wrote this about Nadine Dorries MP, because her repeated attacks on abortion and sex education needed to be confronted. While it is nice to breathe a sigh of relief now, and know that her political objectives have been ridiculed (not least with her appearing on TV’s I’m A Celebrity), the fight for women’s rights over their own bodies still continues.

There is an undercurrent in UK politics, with, at its heart, an anti-sex, anti-women agenda. Bit by bit, the goal posts are being shifted and with each step pandering to the religious, anti-science, anti-choice ideologues, our rights, our ability to access healthcare, our freedom to make safe choices about our lives, get chipped away.

It’s incredible that we have a health minister, Jeremy Hunt, who wants the time limit for abortions to be halved, without any medical reason for doing so, and who fundamentally misunderstands that abortions are provided as healthcare for women – we shouldn’t need tragic cases like Savita Halappanavar to be reminded of this. But he sees this as a moral issue: he believes that personal opinions are the basis upon which to make medical decisions, not scientific facts. And he is in charge of women’s health. Great.

We also have a women’s minister and home secretary both pushing for four-week reductions. Besides ignoring their own parliamentary review (pdf) in 2006, which clearly states that there is no justifiable reason to decrease the 24-week limit because very, very, few foetuses are viable before then, these politicians press ahead with their ignorant opinions, arguing that “people’s views” should help form a pronouncement of women’s healthcare.

As well as the attacks on abortion rights, the coalition government is undermining sex and relationships education in schools and specialist services for young people due to their cuts in funding. If we don’t provide young people with comprehensive, age-appropriate sex and relationship education, which includes teaching about all forms of contraception, their sexual – and emotional – health will suffer. Brook, the sexual health charity for whom I am an ambassador, regularly asks young people what they want when it comes to learning about sex and relationships – and what they want is unbiased, balanced, knowledgeable sex education. Without this, they cannot make informed decisions about the sex and relationships they choose to have.

Simon Blake OBE, Brook’s Chief Executive, says:

“Most young people under the age of 16 are not having sex. Evidence shows that high quality sex and relationships education, provided by parents and at school, combined with access to free, confidential sexual health services helps delay the age young people first have sex and increases the likelihood they will use contraception when they do.”

If we don't fight against the encroaching attacks on access to abortion we will see a further deterioration of women's reproductive rights, and more women’s health will be at risk. And if we don't fight on behalf of young people and the sex education they are entitled to, then the impact on their lives, their relationships, and their sexual health, will be felt for generations to come.

In January, I'm running an event called Sex Appeal on behalf of Brook, to get people to openly challenge those who spread misinformation about sex, sexuality and sex education. We need to counter the spin that these anti-sex, anti-choice apologists are spreading – before it is too late.

5 comments

AAMVN's picture

Sex is part of life. It is a basic human right to have sex assuming you have a consenting partner. Sexual education (what I got at school in the early 1980s was useless and at times outright falsehood.) is too much from the tacit point of view that sex is dirty, bad and to be avoided - but if you MUST be weak and give in to the boys then use condoms. Condoms were notoriously hard to acquire in the quantities you'd actually need. Hence - the sexually active run risks of pregnancy and STDs.

Young (and older) people need access to the facts - unvarnished unbiased facts so they can choose. You can - if you want have moral education and extol the virtues of whatever moral code you want. But morality should stay out of sex education.

Nowadays with the internet these moralists are largely banjaxed. You can find out what you need to know in minutes. But there should be other channels. TV shows. School classes taught by specialists - not any old science or humanities teacher...

Prose poem's picture

Perhaps I don't recall the first feeling of pain by which I knew I was alive. Sometime later I knew my family as warmth near-by as I looked at what I now find to have been the ceiling, and lampshade. Was I alive before then? before life- life as it is after death perhaps, who can tell. When did I feel my first agony? when will I feel my last - Oh, but that is another poem.

three6t's picture

Just to pick up on one thing...(as I think you're basic point is patent stupidity...as if there's going to be a reduction in the time limit or that there will be less sex ed rather than - I predict - even more.)
The quote from Blake, I note, has no mention of any research.
To my shame (I now see) I spent 25 years helping to deliver sex ed to teenagers (Including working with Brook as well as a number of other agencies).
During that time, the teenage pregnancy rate contined to climb, along with abortions and STDs. What did we do?...offer more sex ed! And when the rates continued to climb, surprise, surprise we decided to give more of it. And now to try to claim that sex ed is responsible for any slow down in the number of kids having sex! It would be laughable if it wasnt tragic.
While I was working with them, I have seen people alter figures, "lose" a report and simply lie to, for example, headteachers, about the "proven" effectiveness of our materials.
Why? Mainly to keep jobs, I suspect. After all, if we were ever shown to be ineffective there would be no more flogging our materials or nice cushy jobs going into schools to chat to teenagers...and the rest.
I'm now ashamed...I doubt you care...

florere's picture

Is the right to limit abortion for social reasons, to when the foetus can survive without its mother, that would have to continue to come down as medical science improves, perhaps a better limit would be, when the foetus can feel pain? When is that?

Pavlova's picture

A) Jeremy Hunt was giving a personal opinion not proposing that his personal opinion should become policy, see "it's just my view"
B) The inquest into Savita's death is not even complete yet and you are drawing political lessons from it. It looks likely that this was a case of medical negligence rather than religious zealotry because her life was in danger and an abortion would have been legal in her case, the hospital failed to recognise her condition.
C). Abortion is not just a health issue, it is also a moral issue because there is not just one person's rights at stake, but three people's.
D) if this article is anything to go by, then your Sex Appeal event is going to be an exercise in spreading your own kind of misinformation.

Latest tweets