Abortion should be available on demand, without restrictions, for everyone who needs it. Image: YouTube
Show Hide image

Laurie Penny on abortion: it should be free, safe and legal – for everyone

Nobody should have to play the frightened victim to make basic choices about her future.

What does a good abortion look like? A few months ago, Emily Letts, a 25-year-old American clinic worker, filmed her surgical abortion and posted the video on the internet. In the clip, Letts smiles and hums throughout the procedure, which she chose to have simply because she did not want to bear a child. “I feel good,” she remarks when it’s over, shattering generations of anxiety and fear-mongering around reproductive choice with three simple words.

The idea that abortion might be a positive choice is still taboo. For some, the only way it can be countenanced is if the pregnancy is  an immediate threat to life or the result of rape – meaning that the woman involved didn’t want to have sex and as such does not deserve to be punished for the crime of acting on desire as a female. Even then, the person having the abortion is expected to be sorry for ever, to weep and agonise over the decision. In Britain, the Abortion Act 1967 obliges anyone seeking a termination to justify why continuing with a pregnancy poses a threat to her health and well-being or that of her existing offspring. “Because I don’t want to be pregnant” simply isn’t enough.

Hence the furore over the glamour model Josie Cunningham’s recent announcement, through the eyebrow-raising medium of the British tabloid press, that she is planning to terminate her pregnancy in order to have a shot at appearing on reality television. The national and international gossip media scrambled to excoriate Cunningham: this was the epitome of selfishness, a woman who would boast of having an abortion to further her career. We live in a society that fetishises “choice” while denying half the population the most fundamental choice of all – the choice over the autonomy of one’s body.

Women in Northern Ireland, where the Abortion Act 1967 does not apply, have just learned that – despite paying towards the NHS through their taxes – they will continue to be denied an abortion unless they can travel to England and fund it themselves. As a result of a high court ruling, hundreds of women each year will still find themselves having to take cheap red-eye flights to Heathrow and Manchester, scared and alone, to have procedures they may have gone into debt to afford.

In Northern Ireland, as in the rest of the world, the prospect of women having full control over their reproductive potential – the notion that we might be able to decide, without shame or censure, whether and when and if we have children or not – provokes fear among the powerful. When abortion is discussed in public, it is almost always in terms of individual morality or, more usually, of moral lapses on the part of whatever selfish, slutty women are demanding basic human rights this week. It is rarely discussed in terms of structural and economic inequality. Yet reproductive inequality remains the material basis for women’s second-class status in society. It affects every aspect of our future.

Consider, as an example, the controversy over the rise of “social surrogacies” – rich women paying poor women to go through pregnancy and childbirth on their behalf. The horrified response to this idea belies how men do the same thing: arrange for women to bear, carry and, indeed, raise children on their behalf so that they can get on with their careers uninterrupted. That’s the material basis of gender inequality and it must be discussed honestly as a matter of structural injustice, not individual morality.

Abortion, motherhood and reproductive health care remain fraught issues, as women’s demand for basic control over our bodies and destinies pulls ever further away from official public policy. In countries such as Ireland, Spain and the US, women’s bodies remain the territory on which the patriarchal right wing fights its battle for moral dominance.

Abortion can be a difficult, painful decision – if, for example, you would quite like to have a baby but are in no position to support one because “single mother” is still a synonym for “poor and shunned” and pregnancy discrimination is rampant in this treacherous post-crash job market. But abortion can also be a simple decision. It does not have to involve years of regret or, as Emily Letts bravely demonstrated, any regret at all.

So here, in case it wasn’t clear, is my position. Abortion should be available on demand, without restrictions, for everyone who needs it. I believe that while society still places limits on what a woman may or may not do with her own body, while women’s sexuality and reproduction are still in effect controlled by the state, any discussion of equality or empowerment is a joke. Nobody should have to play the frightened victim to make basic choices about her future. It should be enough to turn up at a clinic and say, “I don’t want this,” or, “I’ve changed my mind.”

And there’s more. If there were real choice, real equality, pregnancy, childbirth and motherhood would not come with enormous socio-economic penalties for all but the richest women. Society should provide support for all parents, single and partnered, in and out of work, rather than forcing them to live on a pittance, under constant threat of eviction, and shaming them as “scroungers”.

That’s what real choice would look like. And the thing about giving people choices is that inevitably a few of them will make poor choices, choices we might not approve of. Many people have religious or personal reasons for disapproving of abortion and they are free, as they always have been, not to have one themselves. Yet it’s time to change the terms of the debate. It’s time to demand reproductive rights for everyone – without apology. 

Laurie Penny is a contributing editor to the New Statesman. She is the author of five books, most recently Unspeakable Things.

This article first appeared in the 14 May 2014 issue of the New Statesman, Why empires fall

Getty
Show Hide image

Theresa May's cabinet regroups: 11 things we know about Brexit negotiations so far

The new PM wants a debate on social mobility and Brexit. 

This was the summer of the Phony Brexit. But on Wednesday, the new Tory cabinet emerged from their holiday hideaways to discuss how Britain will negotiate its exit from the EU. 

The new prime minister Theresa May is hosting a meeting that includes Brexiteers like David Davis, now minister for Brexit, Boris Johnson, the new Foreign secretary, and Liam Fox.

For now, their views on negotiations are taking place behind closed doors at the PM’s country retreat, Chequers. But here is what we know so far:

1. Talks won’t begin this year

May said in July that official negotiations would not start in 2016. Instead, she pledged to take the time to secure “a sensible and orderly departure”. 

2. But forget a second referendum

In her opening speech to cabinet, May said: “We must continue to be very clear that ‘Brexit means Brexit’, that we’re going to make a success of it. That means there’s no second referendum; no attempts to sort of stay in the EU by the back door; that we’re actually going to deliver on this.”

3. And Article 50 remains mysterious

A No.10 spokesman has confirmed that Parliament will “have its say” but did not clarify whether this would be before or after Article 50 is triggered. According to The Telegraph, May has been told she has the authority to invoke it without a vote in Parliament, although she has confirmed she will not do so this eyar.

4. The cabinet need to speak up

May’s “you break it, you fix it” approach to cabinet appointments means that key Brexiteers are now in charge of overseeing affected areas, such as farming and international relations. According to the BBC, the PM is asking each minister to report back on opportunities for their departments. 

5. Brexit comes with social mobility

As well as Brexit, May is discussing social reform with her cabinet. She told them: “We want to be a government and a country that works for everyone.” The PM already performed some social mobility of her own, when she ditched public school boy Chancellor George Osborne in favour of state school Philip Hammond. 

6. All eyes will be on DExEU

Davis, aka Brexit minister, heads up the Department for Exiting the EU, a new ministerial department. According to Oliver Ilott, from the Institute for Government, this department will be responsible for setting the ground rules across Whitehall. He  said: “DExEu needs to make sure that there is a shared understanding of the parameters of future negotiations before Whitehall departments go too far down their own rabbit holes.”

7. May wants to keep it friendly

The PM talked to Prime Minister Sipilä of Finland and Prime Minister Solberg of Norway on the morning of the cabinet meeting. She pledged Britain would "live up to our obligations" in the EU while it remained a member and "maintain a good relationship with the EU as well as individual European countries".

8. But everything's on the table

May also told the Finnish and Norwegian prime ministers that negotiators should consider what is going to work best for the UK and what is going to work for the European Union, rather than necessarily pursuing an existing model. This suggests she may not be aiming to join Norway in the European Economic Area. 

9. She gets on with Angela Merkel

While all 27 remaining EU countries will have a say in Brexit negotiations, Germany is Europe’s economic powerhouse. May’s first meeting appeared amiable, with the PM telling reporters: “We have two women here who have got on and had a very constructive discussion, two women who, I may say, get on with the job.” The German Chancellor responded: “Exactly. I completely agree with that.”

10. But less so with Francoise Hollande

The French president said Brexit negotiations should start “the sooner the better” and argued that freedom of labour could not be separated from other aspects of the single market. 

11. Britain wants to hold onto its EU banking passports

The “passporting system” which makes it easier for banks based in London to operate on the Continent, is now in jeopardy. We know the UK Government will be fighting to keep passports, because a paper on that very issue was accidentally shown to camera.