Pro-choice? You can’t be complacent

By Rachel Reeves MP

Forty four years ago, a Labour government legalised abortion. But every generation has to defend and re-win the rights that have been won before. Nadine Dorries’ amendment on abortion counselling has been (rightfully) defeated by a majority of 250, but those of us who are pro-choice cannot be complacent. If Britain is still pro-choice then we need to defend again a woman’s right to choose.

The debate in parliament yesterday was incredibly frustrating, with only a few MPs being able to take part. After 51 minutes, with few others able to get a word in, Frank Field, who originally co-signed the amendments, told Dorries that she’d make a better case if she finished speaking. She spent half her speech blaming unions, the left wing media, including New International’s The Times(!), and the LibDems for opposition to her proposals.

But, in the end, it was commonsense and fairness that won the day: a victory for choice and support for women and for those who have faith that a woman knows what is best for her.

Dorries’ amendment aimed to hand over abortion counselling from BPAS and Marie Stopes, charities we know and trust, to organisations we do not know and do not trust. In essence, charities who provide abortions would not have been able to provide counselling. Counselling would have come from third party organisations instead.

BPAS and Marie Stopes provide many thousands of women with an invaluable service and both of them do work in my city of Leeds. Each and every one of their counsellors is approved and regulated by the Department for Health and the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (BACP). Crisis pregnancy centres, very often run by anti-abortion campaigners of the same ilk as those who campaigned for these amendments, are not regulated. Yet it is here that Nadine Dorries would see advice offered. It is this sort of bias that we have to avoid if we really believe in supporting choice.

Had this amendment been passed, it would have caused delays in accessing abortion services, which in turn would have limited abortion options, causing undue stress for women. The British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) called this amendment “misguided and unnecessary” and there can be no doubt that it would have severely limited women’s ability to access good counselling.

If passed, these amendments would have been far reaching, harmful, and unfair on women. In their sinister attempt to reduce abortions, there have been unkind suggestions that charities, such as BPAS and Marie Stopes, make a profit from abortions. It might be a matter of semantics, but there is an insinuation that these charities are acting like large corporations, out for a quick buck, compelling people to have abortions through false advertising and pushing them onto the operating table. BPAS and Marie Stopes were set up to help women – it is offensive to them and insulting and patronising to women, to suggest that they are somehow forcing women to make a choice they have not fully considered. By trusting these charities and their long-established reputation for care, we are trusting women to make important decisions on their terms.

Yet there is another issue, which is equally as damaging. Requiring a third party to provide advice, rather than BPAS or Marie Stopes, would, even by Nadine Dorries’ assumption, delay abortions. I will pass over the greater costs incurred for the NHS and focus on the possibility that 15,000 more women, as a result, would have to have more intrusive surgical abortions as opposed to medical abortions. Instead of just two pills, a delay would take women over the nine week threshold for medical abortion, meaning a surgical operation instead. Women should never be rushed into a decision, but I don’t think that they should face unfair and unnecessary delays in accessing counselling or abortion.

As charities that seek to enable women to make genuine choices, BPAS and Marie Stopes have no interest in pushing women quickly towards decisions they may later regret. Indeed, BPAS has a comprehensive complaints system and 94% of people who use their service say they are happy with it – a greater satisfaction than with most politicians. Abortion services should be free of politics and political meddling.

BPAS and Marie Stopes do not put a limit on the number of times someone can see a counsellor and, for people who do not want to see someone face to face, there is telephone counselling ten hours a day, seven days a week. I don’t believe other organisations would be able to offer this. What they do offer is often stress and delay.

None of this is to say that decreasing the number of abortions should not be a priority, it’s just there are better ways to achieve this. When Labour was in government, it increased the availability of contraception and promoted and encouraged sex education in schools. To reduce abortions, it is necessary to lower the number of unwanted pregnancies. Better sex-education and access to contraception saw a 13.3% reduction in under-18 pregnancies from 1998 to 2010 and the number of abortions taking place after 10 weeks has fallen by 40% in a decade. Today 95% of abortions take place within 13 weeks and 77% within 10 weeks. But more is needed to reduce unwanted, which, overall, are up by around 5% in a decade. But restricting access to counselling isn’t going to help reduce unwanted pregnancies.

Where can we go forward from here? We can be pleased we’ve won the battle. But we cannot be complacent. We have a government where three of Cameron’s cabinet (Iain Duncan Smith, Liam Fox, Owen Patterson) supported the amendment and Anne Milton, health minister, said that the government wanted to pursue the “spirit of these amendments” adding that the government “intend to bring forward proposals for regulations accordingly”. If new regulations are forthcoming, we will be one of the first generations to have seen an erosion of women’s rights. We must fight against these changes at every stage.