The women's minister, Maria Miller, has said she would back a reduction in the abortion time limit from 24 weeks to 20 weeks. She says the time limit should come down "to reflect the way medical science has moved on" in the care of very premature babies, and that she is motivated by the "very practical impact that late-term abortion has on women".
The British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) carries out the majority of later abortions in this country. Our staff would have been more than happy to explain to the women's minister just what kind of impact restricting access to abortions after 20 weeks would have on the small numbers of women who need them.
For one, it's fairly unsettling that a minister of state appears so misinformed about science. While survival rates for babies born at 24 weeks and beyond have improved, sadly for the parents who deliver much wanted babies before that point, the prospects remain extremely poor. But the science - or lack of - is only part of the picture here. This is about real women's lives.
Around 2% of all abortions in England and Wales last year were carried out past 20 weeks. The numbers are relatively small but each one comes with their own story that always gets lost in the statistics. BPAS carries out the majority of these abortions, our doctors and nurses providing the most compassionate care possible to women who are often in the most unenviable circumstances.
These women rarely tell their stories, which provides a vacuum that gets filled with assumptions about the kind of women they must be. Who would end a pregnancy at that stage? For a period of one month, we asked staff to keep an anonymous record of the women they saw needing these later abortions.
In just a couple of lines, a story unfolds. Girls who had hidden their pregnancies so long they were on the cusp of the time limit: "15-year-old who had sex for the first time to see what it was like. Thought she might be pregnant but "buried her head in the sand hoping it would go away". She started to self-harm: punching herself in the stomach and making herself vomit. Mother took her to GP suspecting bulimia and the pregnancy was detected." But the stories stretch across women of all ages in all sorts of circumstances. "Mother is in a longstanding relationship, and has three children, one with Down's Syndrome. She has known about her pregnancy and felt that abortion was her best option for "some time", but as her child with Down's Syndrome was scheduled for major surgery, she had to "push it to the back of [her] mind" until the surgery was over"... "University student being treated for depression. She thought her weight gain and nausea were side-effects of her medication, and went to GP to request a different prescription. GP diagnosed her pregnancy"... "This mother has two young children. This pregnancy was unplanned but her current partner had persuaded her to continue. She then found out that he was abusing her children."
It's hard to know which of these women Maria Miller would deny, and why she thinks she is better placed to make a moral decision about their predicament than they themselves.
Early access to abortion services is extremely important. Thanks to tests which can detect pregnancies before a woman has even missed a period, women who know they do not want to continue with their pregnancy can now often refer themselves directly into services, with their care paid for by the NHS. The arrival of Early Medical Abortion - the 'abortion pill' - means women are able to end pregnancies at some of the earliest gestations, without surgical intervention and its accompanying risks.
Abortion is a very safe procedure - inevitably safer than ongoing pregnancy and childbirth - but the earlier it can be carried out the lower the risk to women. But no matter how early and swiftly women can access services, there will always be women who need later care. Our women's minister is absolutely entitled to her own personal convictions about abortion - but she should think hard before she sacrifices these women to assuage her own moral qualms.
Follow Clare Murphy on Twitter: www.twitter.com/bpas1968
Laura Hurley: 40 Days for Lies?
Anti-abortion protesters cleared of public order offences
'Abortion is genocide': UK pro-lifers defend Scottish bishop's Holocaust ...
Maria Miller: I would vote to lower abortion limit
Maria Miller's Abortion Comments Are 'Anti-Women' And Have No Basis In ...
Minister urges lower abortion limit
Judge in late abortion case linked to conservative Christian charity
It really bothers me that Huffington Post allows you - a paid employee of BPAS - to blog. It is exactly like if somebody from Procter and Gamble or Coca-Cola was allowed to extoll the virtues of Fairy Liquid or Diet Coke.
I'm not a doctor so I'm totally open to correction on that timeframe, as long as it's from a proper source (i.e. a reliable, peer reviewed, scientific/medical journal).
My view is that the so-called "charities" like Marie Stopes and Clare Murphy should charge for abortions or find other ways of funding them, except where the pregnancy cannot continue due to life-threatening complications, incest, rape or a birth defect which would greatly reduce the child's life expectancy. Instead of receiving funding from the NHS, these charities should rely on charity donations.
The NHS's tenet is to treat the sick - and it is under incredible strain without paying £3.5 million a week for elective procedures.
The other elephant in the room is the doctors and nurses who carry out the abortions in their clinics are not NHS employees - yet they are paid by the NHS at increased rates. They even bring in doctors and nurses from outside the UK to perform the abortions because NHS staff may, by law, refuse to participate in abortions. And why, uniquely, do women get to choose where they will have their abortion when sick patients must have their operations locally?
At least let's agree that women should be forced to pay for their repeat abortions - that would make a serious dent in the abortion rate.
On a related note, I'm disturbed by the increasing willingness of people not to question the law, or in other words to allow their morality to be shaped by the law (rather than vice versa). For example, in the recent case of the illegal abortion at 39 weeks, there seemed to me to be not a single pro-life person stating that any legal abortion would be comparably immoral to that particular illegal abortion, and there seemed to be no pro-choice person willing to say that the mother's right to control her own body should apply in that case too. Is this moral cowardice or simply unthinking allegiance to received opinion?
If you feel torn, consider this. Does a fertilised egg have the same rights as a baby? If, like most people, you don't think it does, then you have to consider when that set of cells with potential to be a person should be given the same moral status as a baby. There are grey areas in all aspects of morality and law, but if you think through the logic that you're basing your views on, I hope it will help you through your dilemma.
I would add that Miller knew exactly what she was doing when she cynically focused attention on late term abortions - which only account for around 1.5% of all abortions. The vast majority are carried out before 10 weeks, when the foetal cells would fit into a teaspoon.
Your spaniel has an evil eye. Where's the other one?
Thanks for your voice of reason..
F&F number 3 from me...
So far, however, no-one has invented a form of contraception that's 100% reliable.
Hope that answers your question.
This is not the US, there is no large bloc of voters who would welcome a lowering of the time limit and potentially swing an election. In fact, those who are genuinely opposed to the current law are those who want abortion banned completely, and they are in a tiny minority. Polls even show that a significant majority of catholics support a woman's right to choose:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/most-uk-catholics-support-abortion-and-use-of-contraception-2083291.html
In the US where 'abstinence' is preached as a form of contraception, they have twice as many abortions per 1000 women than in the Netherlands where they have fantastic sex education.
In the US teen birth rates are 8 times higher than in Holland.
Anyone who genuinely wants to see fewer abortions should be campaigning for better sex education, and more freely available contraception.
But she has FAR more right to make that choice than you, or any religious group. She is LIVING the situation, knows all the ins and outs, pros and cons, and nobody else has any right to make the decision for her - as long as she doesn't break the abortion laws we have in this country - which are good laws based on the best scientific evidence available. This minister is not 'for' women at all - she doesn't know the latest research, or if she does, she's ignoring it. 24 weeks is still considered, medically, as the safe limit. Survival at 23 weeks is very poor and requires lots of invasive medical interventions and follow up care, to have any chance of success at all.
The law has already decided that women's individual choices do not trump the rights of the foetus after a particular cut off point, which is 24 weeks, when the foetus has a viable chance of independent life.
This view is already well established, and shared by the majority of people in the UK, who are pro-choice. What exactly is the point you are trying to make?
It's still her body at 24 weeks or 36 weeks.
If you believe that it's OK to abort at 12 weeks then you have to believe it's OK to abort at 40 weeks...or else your argument is not grounded in morality, but convenience.
What's more most people can recognise the difference between a fertilised egg, which has no brain, and a newborn baby, which is a person,
There are key stages of development in between. That's why the vast majority of abortions are carried out before 10 weeks, when the foetus is around the size of a pea.
Most people in the UK believe that it is not immoral to abort a foetus before it has developed a brain, but most people would believe it is wrong to abort a foetus after the age when it has a viable chance of surviving outside the womb.
That's why late term abortions are extremely rare and why 24 weeks remains the upper limit.