The anti-abortion lobby is back on the warpath
With Tory MPs in favour of reducing time limits on terminations, feminist campaigners have a fight on their hands
By Julie Bindel Published 20 January 2011
Anti-abortionists are feeling emboldened and they have adopted a new tactic. In both the United States and Britain, campaigning groups no longer implicitly state that they are against abortion, but claim instead that they are offering women "real choices". They are even beginning to adopt much of the rhetoric of pro-choice feminists. Groups in the UK, such as the Life League and Right to Life, are taking the anti-abortion message to even further extremes, aping American activists by picketing sexual health clinics and intimidating women out of having abortions.
Since 1967, when David Steel's private member's bill became the Abortion Act for England, Scotland and Wales, religious groups have made sustained efforts to restrict access to abortion and lower the time limit. In 1974, a private member's bill, put forward by the Labour MP James White and sponsored by an anti-choice organisation, threatened the act, but it was defeated after a campaign by pro-choice groups. The first real challenge, however, came in 1990 when a section of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act lowered the legal time limit for abortions from 28 weeks of pregnancy to 24.
In May 2008, MPs were again asked to vote on cutting the limit for the first time since 1990, resulting in calls for a reduction to between 12 and 22 weeks, but the overwhelming majority voted the proposals down. Today, abortion is allowed up to 24 weeks, although there is no time limit if there is a serious risk to the woman's life or severe foetal abnormalities.
Now, however, the presence of the Tory-led coalition government makes a lower time limit a palpable threat. A survey of Conservative candidates carried out before the 2010 general election found that 85 per cent favoured more restrictive abortion laws. Most Liberal Democrat MPs, on the other hand, support the current time limit. David Cameron, in an interview with the Catholic Herald last April - at the start of the election campaign - said he was in favour of an upper limit of between 20 and 22 weeks.
Life choices
The Tory MP Nadine Dorries is a well-known anti-abortionist. In 2006 she introduced a private member's bill in the Commons calling for the limit to be reduced from 24 to 21 weeks. She also proposed a mandatory ten-day "cooling-off" period for women wishing to have an abortion, during which they would be required to undergo counselling as a condition of consent. Then, in 2008, she tabled an amendment to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill seeking to reduce the upper limit from 24 weeks to 20. It was defeated by 332 votes to 190.
“Please do not describe me as pro-life," Dorries says when we talk. "I am middle-ground, and hold the opinion about abortion that most people in this country agree with." There are, to date, no poll results that substantiate her claims about public attitudes. Her intention is to introduce "fully informed consent" for women seeking abortion, she says, rather than to campaign for a return to illegality. "There are 1,300 couples in this country wanting to adopt, but women are rarely told of that option. They feel railroaded into a cattle-market process and end up in clinic with 60 or so other women every day who are not treated with particular kindness."
What about women or children who have been raped? "Abortion is a double insult to rape victims," Dorries says. "They didn't want to be raped. They may have even had pro-life tendencies beforehand. I think these women should be treated separately from those on the regular conveyor belt in clinics which are full of women having social abortions."
One of the new wave of anti-abortionists is Robert Colquhoun, who leads the UK chapter of the religious, Texas-based 40 Days for Life,
a pressure group that has support and funding from hundreds of American churches and has been picketing outside clinics. He, too, uses the language of "choice" and "consent", and insists that 40 Days takes a "non-judgemental approach" to abortion. "Many women say they feel they were offered no choice but to have an abortion," he argues. "We provide support through prayer, and offer them counselling and love. We also educate people about the ignorance and apathy about abortion."
Like many in his movement, Colquhoun peddles some dangerous myths. In November, 40 Days picketed the Marie Stopes family planning office in central London and handed out leaflets claiming that abortion makes women more susceptible to breast cancer and that permitting rather than preventing abortion jeopardises human rights. "Abortion is the violation of the rights of a human being," he says. "Often it is an easy way out for men who do not wish to take responsibility. There are men who force women to have abortions. That is not about feminism."
It's my body
Feminists, however, do not want others to speak on their behalf, and are rising to the challenge. Cath Elliott, a 45-year-old freelance writer, is one of a growing number of women campaigning on the issue. "I believe that women must have the right to body autonomy and the right to control their own reproduction," she says. "Women's ability to determine when and if they have children is one of the most important factors in the fight for women's equality. Forced pregnancy is a form of violence."
Elliott, who has had an abortion, knows how difficult the system can be for women. "There is no such thing as abortion on demand in this country, no matter what the so-called pro-life brigade tell us. There are doctors who refuse to make known their own anti-abortion feelings, and who place obstacles in the way of women wanting to access abortion services."
Women in Catholic communities find abortion particularly difficult. Abortion Support Network, founded last year, helps women living in the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, where abortion is in effect illegal, to get access to safe and legal services overseas. Women seek terminations for many reasons, such as being unable to afford to keep a child, or having been raped by an abusive partner, says the network's founder, Mara Clarke. "The pessimist in me says we can campaign for abortion rights as hard as we like but it is a long road ahead - and women need help now."
The Labour MP Emily Thornberry supports the pro-choice movement. What does she think should be done to ward off the danger to abortion time limits? "The Tories won't do it themselves but will support one of their members to do a ten-minute-rule bill, or a private member's bill, or even an amendment to a health bill or something. We need to remain vigilant and not let anything get past us."
Thornberry will be helped by the many grass-roots campaigners who are gathering to see off the threat. "We now have massive support from the National Union of Students, various feminist campaigns and loads of individuals," says Darinka Aleksic, of the UK pro-choice campaign Abortion Rights. "The attack on abortion is not going away soon - and neither are we."
Julie Bindel is a writer and feminist campaigner
Return to the Irish question
Ireland is one of the few countries in the EU that limits abortion to instances where the mother's life is at risk. As a result, every year, more than 4,000 women from Ireland come to the UK to have an abortion.
The Irish constitution explicitly limits abortion, guaranteeing "the right to life of the unborn . . . as far as practicable" - essentially until the mother's life is threatened.
The law, however, is murky. What constitutes a threat to the mother's life is a legal minefield. A doctor can face conviction if it turns out that the mother's life was not in danger. Yet there are no clear guidelines about what constitutes a threat to the woman's life - so, many doctors don't take the risk of sanctioning abortions.
Irish women are thus obliged to make the trip to the UK, sometimes even if their life is at risk.
This status quo has been challenged recently. In December, the European Court of Human Rights ruled in favour of an Irish cancer patient who was refused an abortion. It described the current legal position as "chilling".
Despite this, the rule remains popular in Ireland. Polls consistently show support for the country's abortion law among Irish citizens, with about two-thirds in favour of it.
The trickle of desperate women from across the Irish Sea won't cease just yet.
Duncan Robinson
Latest tweets
More from New Statesman
- Tools and services:
- Polls
- Predictions
- Jobs
- Archive
- Magazine
- PDF edition
- RSS feeds
- Subscribe
- Special supplements
- Stockists


10 comments
A well observed and well timed article. In Northern Ireland we (the FPA) experience and understand what living in a society blurred by a distorted vision of what the anti choice (abortion) lobby describe as “real choices” is. We’re the only organization to give impartial advice and counseling to women in Northern Ireland with an unplanned or crisis pregnancy who’re denied an abortion in their own country. Our services in Belfast and Derry deal with the fall out from hundreds of women forced to travel overseas including the 1,300 who travel to England to pay for a private abortion every year. In such a situation ‘choice’ soon stops being a reproductive argument. It rapidly descends into being one about class as abortion is only available to Northern Ireland women who can afford to pay costs of between £600 and £2,000.
Pro-choice doesn’t mean pro-abortion, and we mustn’t let the anti choice lobby (now on record as wanting an ‘abortion free Britain') make it appear that way. Being pro-choice means giving women the power to make their own decisions about their own bodies and lives. It also means having different choices and options available so that individual decision making has meaning and purpose, rather than a situation where “my choice has to be yours.”
I will believe that these people 'just want women to have greater choice' when they start campaigning for greater support (financial and otherwise) and more choices for women after they give birth, rather than trying to curtail their choices beforehand.
In a time when finances are hard on many, it is notable that they are not pushing for more legislation to relieve the monetary burden on expectant mothers, and have instead chosen to try and get abortion limits lowered - they'll take other's choices away, but not reach into their own pockets! The height of hypocrisy.
@G Grant
"The real issue here Is it a baby at any state of development "
You're presenting your opinion as fact. As far as I'm concerned, a baby is a baby once it can live on it's own. Which, from reading your comment, is clearly far away from your interpretation.
So it's not a case of people avoiding "the facts" - they simply don't agree with you.
With regards to choice in the form of contraception, I know of a couple where the lady - a good friend of mine - was on the pill, and her husband still wore condoms. On top of this, they used the "pull out" method. Normally, I would laugh at this as being ridiculously over-precautious... but their first child is due in about 3 months.
Abortion is a choice. Contraception is a lottery, whereby the more you use the higher your chance of winning. That's one of the reasons why that particular argument holds very little water.
A well timed piece. Obviously women in Ireland both north and south are being oppressed and stifled by an argument that places the moral position soundly in the hands of the anti-choice brigade who are protecting the 'poor, innocent children'. Nadine Dorries' comment about abortion access for rape survivors is a clear example of this.
Pro-choice activists need to reclaim the moral argument that this is about women's lives. Restrictive abortion access is a form of silencing women's experiences and criminalisation of women's choices. The reality is that women in Ireland are criminalised for having an abortion, are portrayed as devient, evil, lazy and selfish by the anti-choicers. The most nefarious campaign: the 'I regret my abortion' line that seeks not only to encourage society to negatively judge women who have abortions, but also to create a discourse of internalised hatred on women who have had abortions.
This is an important issue , especially for women in NI and RoI and I suppose my only comment on teh positive might be that if this issue is reopened at Westminster, some moral pressure might be brought to bear on the NI Executive in the hope that either Westminster will act to decriminalise abortion in NI or our own Executive will relise that their current position of denial of the problem is untenable!
the only fool proof form of Contraception is abstinence. people should know this.
the problem is that abortion is all fine and good when we talk of a 'clump of cells'. but at 24 we are way past that. Babies have survived a little as 21 with care
I am prochoice, and No to killing. I reckon there is a minimum of 15 types of contraceptive available excluding MAP , and excluding subtypes within these contraceptives, ie male female condom, oral pill, mini pill etc. The "Choice " is either to use abstain from sexual intercourse( undoubtedly the safest method while getting to know your prospective companion )or, to CHOOSE one of the many contraceptices available . THis applies to all age groups. I presume those involved in companionship at thislevel are intelligent, social persons, with concerns and ambitions for their lives, not twelve to fifteen year old children, who have not yet aquired an education, or indeed understand the necessary intelligence and experience required to set up and live as head of a family in a higly developed country- Though it be short of moral fabric.. another detraction in this young persons social scene/ dilema . No 1 issue here is there is a myriad of choices from abstinence to a type of contraceptive to use for socially able, and functioning young adults. The choice does not lie is whether to KILL a baby which is in formation in a young or older adults womb . This should never be the choice presented in a society in a highly developed culture such as UK because a society which kills its young at any age of gestation of development is a society which is killing good , adn like its action it too will be deispensible. Eventually this type of society will loose , morals, belief in good, No woman or man should have the right to kill their child . You may argue that this is not yet a child.. and not separate from the mother... but can even a three year old toddler live separate from his/ her mother?. There is no diagnostic possible for the timeing of when a child is designated a child except by the substantiation of pregnancy itself . Anything after this is KILLING a preformed child. Does anyone not understand this?? The Bias put forward by blinkered thinkers as to when a child is called a child is fallacious. Is a child any the less valued if he/ she can live separte frommother at any age... two or four years. eight years. I have written abook in which it asks " Does the child shrill inside , When you say " KIll my proto Babe? " It is primitive society which killd its young...... it is a careless government which spilt hairs on when a child is a child,.... The real issue here Is it a baby at any state of development ....I say .. Once your in post ..any post from Primeminister down topoliceman, or teacher then you are your title.SImilar for a baby . It appalls me to see that society influences its young girls and men to force the issue.I met many young girls in my work who were only so happy to talk to someone who knew about the sancitiy of life, a religious and moral upbringing.. parents who cared about such and as these girls said .. if they had been taught better by their parents , they would not dream ever of killing a baby.The girls themselves were tearful of their parents lack of morals and teachings. They also said it was similar in school today.
It is always wrong to kill ..
It is a pity that this debate always seem to include highly emotive labels as "rabid religious groups" or "pro-choice feminists". Obviously, many on all sides of this debate have strong feelings, but let's try to be objective and not rude. There is ever increasing medical and psychological understanding about abortion, so let's focus on this when trying to refine or amend the UK's abortion practice.
I have to admit that as a mother who would also consider herself a feminist I find it very hard to think about this issue objectively.
Clearly the rights of the embryo/foetus/baby need to be balanced with those of the pregnant woman. As such I agree with John Hudson that scientific evidence should be used to assess the correct time limit and it is a shame this cannot be coupled with sensible debate around the issue...
I think the abortion time limit should be lowered from 24 weeks to 20 weeks, with an upper limits of 22 in extenuating circumstances such as rape, incest etc. I have studied embro development and foetuses at 6 months have developed sufficiently, in terms of neurological development, to feel pain.
An informed choice has to be a good thing. But who would trust any of these rabid religious groups with offering an informed choice? They have only one agenda.
As a man I personally don't have an opinion on abortion, After a 'genuinely' informed choice, I believe it is up to the woman to decide on the best course of action.
Post new comment