The abortion debate, as we’ve seen this weekend, is an emotional and difficult one. However, to me it has always come down to a simple question. Who should be in the lead in making choices about a woman’s body and health? Whenever a woman has an unwanted pregnancy a decision will need to be made – whether to continue with the pregnancy or not. There are a whole range of players who could claim to have an interest in this decision – the woman, her partner, health services, the state, the church. But it is the woman herself who will have to take the physical and emotional burden of giving birth to and caring for a baby. She has the responsibility; she should have the choice.
In the UK, the time limit for abortion, except in the case of severe disability in the foetus, has been determined in line with clinical evidence about potential viability. In 1990, the time limit was reduced from 28 weeks to 24 weeks as methods to ensure the survival of very premature babies had improved. However, medical experts agree that there is no new evidence of further improvements. There has certainly been no major breakthrough since 2008 when MPs voted to keep the current time limit. All the major medical bodies support the status quo. So the latest flurry of ministers calling for restrictions on abortion are simply based on long-held beliefs or prejudice, not on evidence.
Ninety-one per cent of abortions are already carried out at less than 13 weeks. Women seeking abortion over 20 weeks are the most vulnerable and in the most difficult situations – for example, having found out at the 20 week scan that the foetus has a serious disability or having failed to even realise they were pregnant earlier. Any limit will force women to have to make a difficult decision with less opportunity to seek advice and to talk to partners and friends. This is why former GP and Tory MP, Sarah Wollaston tweeted on Saturday, ‘profoundly disagree with Hunt on lowering abortion limit, would restrict access to safe abortion for most vulnerable who present late’.
‘But he was asked and was just being honest about his personal view’ is the most disingenuous defence that has been made of health secretary Jeremy Hunt. Hunt isn’t just any bloke. He’s the person with responsibility for determining the government’s health programme. The fact that his first major pronouncement since taking on the health job is about restricting women’s choices says something important about his priorities.
The next time he talks on this issue, perhaps he’d like to address the ways in which unwanted pregnancies and later abortions could be avoided through better access to contraceptive services, abortion and information. Perhaps he’d like to stand up for patients by deprecating those who protest outside abortion clinics harassing the women who are going in to make one of the most difficult decisions of their lives. In fact, of course, his words have given added impetus to this sort of protest.
And it would be good if the principles of healthcare could be applied equally to men and women. When it comes to health services, I believe in patient choice and clinical evidence – unlike Hunt though, I think this should apply to women making the difficult decision about abortion too.
—————————————————————————————
Jacqui Smith is former home secretary, writes the Monday Politics column for Progress, and tweets @smithjj62
—————————————————————————————
yes we need to get rid of disability…..
Scribble doesn’t really help much.
This is not a party political issue and I really hope it stays that way (despite Gordon Brown’s appalling insistence on a three line whip on the human fertilisation and embryology bill).
I am Labour and pro-life (from the womb to the tomb) but I accept that others have a right to an opposing opinion. I just wish that many on the centre-left would accept the moral right of people to dissent on this issue which is a matter of conscience whether you are Tory or Labour.
The day that Labour makes this a policy issue is the day I resign from the Party.
People should recognise choice as oppose to limitaions and attacks by those people who try and push their Religious values upon other people. It is like those people who attack gay marriage based upon their Religious beliefs. If your in Politics you should leave your Religious beliefs at home and instead vote in accordance with what is best for society, equality and choice.
Thinking that “choice” is positive and “limitation” is negative is a simplistic approach to any situation.”Choice” is not good when drink driving and some “choices” lead to bad outcomes in life like drinking or smoking or eating to an early death. All actions should be governed by “resonsibilty” and some choices will be taken irresponsibly.
I do not agree with people who put their Religious beliefs or their idea of how society should fuction. The problem we face is not what Technology to save a baby life or test for illness but what could be coming up the track in 5 to 10 years. We need to ask that question! I know after 13 weeks women are in the most vulnerable and in the most difficult situations but thats not the issue the issue is do new tests mean at some point will the 24 week limit maybe missused. Also I get the feeling society on this issue is changing as for couples it is harder to have a baby in the first place. I may not agree with people who push their Religious beliefs onto vulnerable other but I also do not want to end up in anything like Aldous Huxley Brave New World.
Leaving the decision on whether to abort a life entirely to the female half of the union as in Ms Jacqui’s : ‘its the woman who has to carry the burden…’ (sic) is wrong – it takes two-to-tango. I know of two cases ,in my life, one for abortion, and one agin it.
The first option allowed a beautiful person to emerge who grew in to a good citizen. The second abortion was to leave the prospective mother barren for life – and barren in many other mental aspects as well… went mad.
It aint just that simple for a ‘minister of politix’ to willy-nilly play with the grand order of the universe.
At yer peril, Beryl !
being of an atheist persuasion, it must be noted I I don’t say this litely, but
God save us from Politicians who ‘play’ God …
“She has the responsibility; she should have the choice (on abortion)” – debate. Acknowledging that a number of ‘interested parties’ may have responsibilities and justifiable views on the state of the pregnancy is fine but to then exclude from ANY say in the progress of the pregnancy is both illogical and irresponsible. The foetus is a unique medical condition which is a new life created by male and female, Giving the carrier of this new life the sole power over life or death is wrong. If your argument is “because the foetus is within the female body, she is the only one to have the choice” is illogical. The male could equally argue that he “no longer wishes his DNA to remain within her body”.
The most important ‘party’ in this debate is the unborn life and the personal considerations of the ‘creators’ should be secondary.
Your last paragraph says it all …
Mr gove should give some thought to your observation.
About time we inderstood from an early age that money dont buy you love