1) Introduction

Amendments to the 1967 Abortion Act will be voted upon on 22nd October 2008 at the Report stage of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. We are asking Members of Parliament to oppose amendments that seek to restrict women’s existing rights in law, and to support pro-choice amendments that have been tabled for debate and vote

At the Committee stage of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill in May anti-abortion amendments, including those to lower the time limit, were unsuccessful. Voting was by a committee of the whole House, and the clear view of the House was against restriction. Despite this, some MPs have tabled further restrictive amendments for the Report stage. We ask you to oppose them.

A number of other amendments, tabled by pro-choice MPs, seek to improve the law for women and bring it into line with public expectation and medical practice.

We are seeking your support for the pro-choice position. Opinion polls consistently show three quarters of people support a woman’s right to choose. A wide range of organisations support choice, with, for example, the Trade Union Congress in September 2008 adopting a firmly pro-choice policy (see http://www.tuc.org.uk/congress/tuc-15362-f0.cfm)

2) Summary

We are asking you to vote against amendments that would restrict women’s existing abortion rights.
· Some amendments tabled would introduce further delays in women’s access to services. Already women commonly face more than three weeks of delays, including 23 per cent of women seeking abortion in the second trimester.
· Other amendments try to restrict the grounds for abortion, impose compulsory ‘counselling’ or introduce further obstacles to later abortion.

Some of the key restrictive amendments are outlined below in Section 3.

We are asking you to support improvements in the law that women need by voting for pro-choice amendments.
· Allow one doctor, rather than two as at present, to approve an abortion — a change supported by the pro-choice movement, women’s organisations, the TUC, medical professional organisations including the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, and by the Commons Science and Technology Committee and many parliamentarians.
· Extend the Abortion Act to Northern Ireland to end an historic injustice that results in women paying up to £2,000 and travelling long distances for a safe abortion or bearing a child against their will. This was specifically called for by this year’s TUC.
· End unduly restrictive rules about where abortions can take place and who can perform them.

These and other proposals outlined below have broad support from trade unions, the pro-choice movement, women’s organisations, medical bodies and family planning groups,.

3) Don’t turn the clock back - oppose restrictive amendments

Increasing the number of doctors required to approve later abortions: Amendments proposing to increase the number of doctors required to approve abortions post-24 weeks (a tiny number are needed in very exceptional circumstances) from 2 to 3 have been tabled by Frank Field MP, in New Clauses 4, 5 and 17. These would add complications and delays and contribute further stress to women in very vulnerable situations. New Clause 4 proposes combining an increase in the number of doctors’ signatures post-24 weeks with a reduction to 1 doctor under 13 weeks. This should be opposed: the human rights of one group of women should not be traded off against another; there is no case for supporting a tightening in the tiny number of very late cases and it is not supported by any medical organisation. New Clause 16, also tabled by Frank Field, suggests abortions up to 13 weeks should only require 1 doctor’s signature but with 2 doctors being needed thereafter. This would introduce an arbitrary distinction between abortions before and after 13 weeks. Any MP in support of the positive change of a reduction in the number of signatories required should vote for New Clause 1 tabled by Evan Harris MP (see below).

Restricting the grounds for abortion – foetal impairment: New Clause 6 (tabled by Nadine Dorries MP) would exclude abortion in a number of cases where there is impairment of the foetus by identifying specific conditions that should be excluded. While New Clause 15 (by Charles Walker MP) would restrict the definition of ‘seriously handicapped’.

These amendments attempt to politicise an area that is medically complex and should be left to the individual woman concerned, supported by her medical counsel. Women must be free to make their own decisions about continuing with or terminating a pregnancy. Abortion Rights strongly supports the rights of disabled people but does not believe that restricting women’s rights to choose on abortion will help bring disability equality closer. Such changes were not supported by the then Disability Rights Commission.

Imposing information, counselling and ‘cooling off’ delays to obstruct women: New Clause 19 and 32 (Angela Watkinson MP) would delay abortions until a range of biased information has been foisted on women about the ‘psychological risks’ of abortion or availability of adoption services. Non-directional information and counselling is already routinely available to women who want it as part of good medical practice. New Clause 20 (Dr Nick Palmer MP) would require the Secretary of State to make available scientific information about impairments and treatment options, when such information already exists. New Clause 26 and 31 (Edward Leigh MP) proposes a 7-day ‘cooling off’ period, which would introduce further stress and delay for women. Parliament has previously rejected similar proposals and should do so again, if these amendments are selected.

Restricting grounds for abortion on mental health grounds: Dr John Pugh MP’s New Clause 22 says one doctor must be a mental health expert so as to decide whether a woman would face a ‘serious’ risk to her mental health by continuing with an unplanned pregnancy as opposed to a ‘trivial’ risk. This change would be highly impractical, and lead to further delays for women as a result of an unnecessary requirement to involve mental health experts. It is a proposal which disrespects women’s health rights and implicitly ignores the mental distress that results when a woman forced to bear a child against their will. It is unnecessary, impractical and would result in serious delays and should be opposed.

Banning abortion after 24 weeks on grounds of foetal impairment: Ann Winterton MP’s New Clause 28 would remove from women the right to choose late abortion on grounds of foetal impairment. The claim that this would advance disability equality is false. Those women denied choice would include any disabled woman seeking a termination after 24 weeks on these grounds. Under this amendment a woman would be forced to carry on with the pregnancy even if the foetus was diagnosed with an extremely serious condition such as anencephaly where there is no chance of survival. This amendment is not about disability equality but about attacking women’s rights to decide, and in very difficult circumstances. We can support disability equality by campaigning for better rights and independent living for disabled people and a change in public attitudes.

Preventing access to safe, legal abortion in Northern Ireland: Frank Field MP’s amendment to New Clause 30 (Diane Abbott MP) is a wrecking amendment designed to prevent the extension of legal rights that women in Britain currently have, to women in Northern Ireland.

3) Improving women’s rights: Support these amendments

Removing anti-abortion doctors’ obstruction:New Clause 1, tabled by Evan Harris MP, would mean one doctor, rather than two, would be required to authorise the procedure, in line with ‘good medical practice’. This will improve access to early abortion by removing a source of unnecessary delay and pretext for obstruction. Abortion is currently the only medical procedure except involuntary treatment under the Mental Health Act that requires two doctors’ authorisation. This amendment is widely supported, including by the BMA and others.

Extending access to safe, legal abortion to women in Northern Ireland: New Clause 30, tabled by Diane Abbott MP, would extend existing law on abortion to Northern Ireland. Women in Northern Ireland still do not enjoy the protection of the 1967 Act — even if they are the victim of rape or incest. If they can raise the financial resources, they must travel abroad for a safe termination at great personal cost, often resulting in much later abortion than women would prefer. There have been at least five known deaths due to unsafe abortion practices and countless women have been forced to continue a pregnancy against their will. The UN Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women, the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland, the fpa, Alliance for Choice and a wide range of Northern Ireland women’s, rape crisis groups and trade unionists all support change in this area.

Increasing the pool of abortion practitioners: New Clause 2, tabled by Frank Dobson MP, would enable suitably trained nurses to carry out early abortions. Nurses commonly do this in other parts of the world such as the USA and South Africa. The medical consensus is that this will extend women’s access without in anyway compromising safety or quality of care.

Allowing more local abortion services: New Clauses 7 and 10, tabled by Jacqui Lait MP, would allow abortions to be performed in GP surgeries and Family Planning Clinics rather than just hospitals. This will help speed up access to early abortion and could facilitate better contraceptive follow-up, contributing to lowering the likelihood of unintended pregnancies and repeat abortions.

Allowing women to take the second stage of an early medical abortion at home: The Parliamentary cross-party Science and Technology Committee said women should be given the option of taking the second stage of the early abortion pill at home, with appropriate follow-up and care. New Clause 9, tabled by Chris McCafferty MP, removes the requirement for two clinic visits, increasing capacity for early abortion treatment appointments, helping to reduce distressing delays for women.

Banning deliberately misleading advertising: New Clause 11, tabled by John Bercow MP, would protect women from being misled into using ‘crisis pregnancy counselling’ services that do not provide clear, non-directional, evidence based information. This amendment would make it an offence for an organisation which provides biased information to fail to make clear, in their advertising or promotional material, that they are anti-abortion on principle.

For further information please contact Abortion Rights, the national pro-choice campaign on 0207 923 9792; choice@abortionrights.org.uk www.abortionrights.org.uk