THE CASE FOR ABORTION REFORM - READING FOR SCEPTICAL PRO-LIFERS
By Patrick Leahy, Director of Student LifeNet
In recent months, some pro-life campaigners have publicly suggested that any reform of the UK's abortion laws will only lead to further liberalisation of the law. They thus oppose moves to lower the abortion time limit.
On the day the dynamic Alive + Kicking abortion campaign is launched, Patrick Leahy, Director of Student LifeNet, responds to often cited statements by those opposing reform:
“Why are you campaigning to change the law?”
We believe tightening up the law will help to reduce the very high number of abortions. We also believe that, due to public and parliamentary support, the time is right for a review of the law.
“We don’t have enough support in parliament”
No longer true. A CommunicateResearch poll commissioned by the Alive + Kicking campaign shows that 63% of MPs will now support a lower time limit. Only 34% oppose this move. Thanks to lobbying, this is a shift of 30% in one year.
According to a September 2005 YouGov poll, 64% of the public demand a limit of 20 weeks or lower. As do a staggering 76% of women. Only 2% of the population support the position taken by pro-abortion groups.
“Won’t the pro-abortion lobby use the opportunity to liberalise the law further?”
The pro-abortion lobby have been pursuing a more liberal law since their conception. They would be pushing for the same agenda regardless of whether we were pushing for a tighter law or not. Our job is to ensure that we get our demands and they don’t get theirs.
At the moment there are no bills or government plans on the table. It is more than possible, if we work effectively beforehand, that only our proposals will be voted on.
Further, the pro-abortion lobby has been primarily successful in changing policy – not legislation. If people are concerned about further liberalisation of the law then they should focus on policy decisions being made by the current government.
“But isn't there a danger that the pro-abortion lobbyists will campaign to remove the two doctors required to allow an abortion?”
This danger has always existed.
There is also no evidence of doctors ever refusing to allow an abortion. In fact, there is a danger that, because of the respectable position of doctors, they legitimise the abortion decision and send an undecided woman in the direction of an abortion. This has been indicated by recent research.
Student LifeNet would therefore, ideally, like to see this part of the law changed too; we would like to tighten-up the process.
It should also be noted that the government has recently confirmed support for the two-doctor rule. This is significant given its reluctance to spell out its position on whether or not to lower the time limit.
“But aren’t some normally pro-abortion politicians supporting a reduction in the time limit?”
Such is the strength of feeling at the moment that even traditionally pro-abortion politicians, such as Lib Dem Evan Harris MP, are supporting a reduction in the time limit. The majority of such politicians have no “secret agenda” – they are simply accepting current wisdom.
“We should be writing to MPs to stop them from introducing any new bill”
That would be counterproductive. A change in the law is being pushed for by many groups and there is unprecedented public pressure on parliament to change the law. A large number of MPs have also indicated that they think a new law should be introduced.
By asking MPs not to change the law you may be allowing the pro-abortionists to gain the upper hand in lobbying. It is inevitable that the law will be changed – the only question is: when?
Somewhat ironically, if enough people support no review whatsoever (instead of campaigning for the demands of the Alive + Kicking campaign) the result might be a self-fulfilling prophecy: the law really would be liberalised.
“The Labour cabinet is overwhelmingly pro-abortion”
It is certainly true that the Labour cabinet has many pro-abortion MPs. But it is equally true that there are a number of pro-life MPs in the cabinet too. Pro-abortion MPs might try to influence any outcome, but our job is to place sufficient pressure on them not to do so.
“In 1990 the pro-life movement fell for the same trick: it claimed it was reducing the time limit but, not only was that false, the actions of 1990 liberalised abortion law further”
The 1967 abortion act (which the 1990 law amended) referred to the upper time limit as set by a court case which decided that viability was set at 28 weeks. The 1990 law set the upper time limit for most abortions at 24 weeks. Opponents of the 1990 change therefore argue that the 28 weeks “limit” was open to challenge and could have been lower than 24 weeks. It would have also avoided the extended upper limit for aborting babies with “serious handicaps” (the law's language, not ours).
However, this is a somewhat insincere argument. It is far from clear that courts would have sided with viability being lower than 24 weeks. Furthermore, it is philosophically dubious to base the right-to-life on when viability begins.
Questions should also be raised regarding what the 1990 law has to do with reform in 2005!
“The 1990 law led to an increase in abortions not a decrease; another change will lead to another increase”
For a variety of reasons, it is accurate to say that abortions have increased since 1990. However, there is no evidence to support the claim that this is a result of the 1990 legislation. Student LifeNet researchers have investigated this and found that insufficient factual data exists to determine the number of abortions which were prevented by the 1990 changes (no pre-1990 data indicated how many abortions, and under what grounds, occurred between 24-28 weeks).
There are now a number of studies showing that women often request late abortion for a number of reasons. A reduction in the time limit would, therefore, definitely decrease the number of abortions.
“By campaigning for a reduction to, say, 12 weeks you are saying abortions before 12 weeks are acceptable”
We are definitely not. It is eventually up to the politicians regarding what they vote for. We will support any reduction in the time limit – the larger the better. But this is for political reasons. Ultimately, Student LifeNet would like to see abortion completely outlawed. But this is an unrealistic short-term objective for us.
“It’s not true that the abortion rate cannot get any worse – look at other countries!”
Actually, a recent BMJ article (http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/331/7512/310-f?etoc&eaf) indicated that the British abortion rate is higher than the US, France, and most other countries. Things can always get worse, but they’re pretty bad as they are!
“Okay: so if abortion reform is inevitable can’t we just come onboard and support the Alive + Kicking campaign when a bill has been put on the table?”
This tactic is dangerous. The agenda will be decided before any bill or government review is announced – not after! We have to be influencing that agenda now.
Disclaimer: The above article represents the opinion of Student LifeNet and not the Alive & Kicking campaign.
If you have any further questions, do not hesitate to email Patrick Leahy: director@studentlifenet.co.uk
