Turning back the clock on women’s rights

By Helen Gibson

Another week passes, and another plan is revealed to turn back the clock on women’s rights. We’ve had attempted sentencing plans for rapists who plead guilty, we’ve had cuts that hit women harder than men, we’ve had anonymity proposed for men charged with rape, and now, of course, we come to the next blow. Abortion.

Nadine Dorries MP is infamous for being one of the more maverick Conservative MPs. The one woman war she has waged on reproductive choices for other women since entering parliament is staggering.

On Friday June 24th, it was revealed that amendments to the Health and Social Care Bill, tabled by Dorries and Frank Field earlier this year, are being explored by the Department of Health. Andrew Lansley is due to start discussions soon on how these proposals could potentially be folded in to current regulations; thus circumventing the need for a vote in parliament and missing out a national debate on the proposals entirely.

The proposed amendment will see counselling ahead of an abortion (which is currently optional) made a precondition of gaining a termination, thus limiting women’s choice; assuming that women need advice or counselling before an abortion, and delaying the time when an abortion can be carried out – meaning the pregnancy is even further along when the termination may eventually take place.

In addition, the proposals would see women having to gain counselling from an ‘independent source’, or one that does not provide abortion services itself. This is against current practice, where the majority of abortions in England are carried out by BPAS and Marie Stopes International. According to the pro choice group Abortion Rights, this decision will pave the way for anti-choice lobbying groups such as LIFE and Care Confidential to become involved in advising women facing an unwanted pregnancy. There is no current suggestion that there is any problem with current counselling providers. Indeed, of those women who seek counselling, 1 in 5 choose not to have a termination, so it cannot be said that there is a conflict of interest occurring. The current system works. Services providing counselling have been doing so for years, they have built up great expertise in this field, and their work is strictly regulated. It beggars belief that the coalition government are willing to tinker with a system that simply isn’t broken.

This is not the first time the government has shown itself to be at odds with the majority of the public on a woman’s right to choose. Earlier this year, BPAS was excluded from it’s long held position on the DoH Sexual Health Advisory Board, whilst the anti-choice group Life was given a seat, sending the clearest message yet that the coalition apparently takes a dim view of certain women’s reproductive choices. This is another example of the government choosing, without any evidence, to change the way they deal with terminations; this is bad for women and makes everyone’s’ goal harder: that abortions should be conducted as early as possible.

The Department of Health has confirmed it is exploring the amendment, and is discussing how the plans could be folded into the current regulations. In a statement, Charles Whitney from the DoH said “we do not believe it is necessary to set out this requirement in primary legislation as the necessary legal mechanisms already exist to enable this. We are inviting interested parties to meet with the Public Health Minister Anne Milton and DH officials to discuss the matter”.

The reproductive rights campaigner and writer Marge Berer has written to Anne Milton MP at the DoH, stating that it is the responsibility of the DoH to put public health first, ahead of false allegations and assumptions that counselling services provided by BPAS and others are somehow conflicted. There is no evidence to support the assumptions of Dorries and Field, and these changes have gone nowhere near parliament.

No formal consultation is being launched, nor is a vote on something as crucial as this huge potential upheaval for women even being debated in parliament. This scandalous decision speaks volumes about the Conservative-led government’s blind spot over women’s rights, and its disgraceful methods of railroading ideas proposed by fringe politicians into government practice whenever it suits. The fact that the DoH have taken up the baton on this agenda demonstrates the real views of those ministers now occupying the Health offices of Whitehall. They are not seemingly concerned with freedom for women to make choices about their own bodies, as ministers in this government are not apparently concerned for women’s ability to work and pay child care, see a rise in the rape conviction rate or earn a decent pension in retirement.

Women’s access to abortion is an important freedom which gives women choice about the life they want to live and the children they want to have. It was hard-fought to achieve it, and is widely valued by British people. We should all fight any attempts to undermine it. Labour women MPs and others are always at the forefront of any fight back against the coalition government and their absurd treatment of women in this country. Today, and in the coming weeks, those MPs, joined by their male colleagues, need to make their voices heard loud and clear on this issue. MPs must demand a debate and a vote in Parliament on these proposals. Anyone who claims to care about choices for women must vote this down. As the coalition government are so hell bent on pursuing their reckless agenda, Labour must lead for women.