Featuring fresh takes and real-time analysis from HuffPost's signature lineup of contributors
Clare Murphy

GET UPDATES FROM Clare Murphy
 

Why the Women's Minister Shouldn't Deny Women Later Abortion

Posted: 04/10/2012 01:00

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

FOLLOW UK POLITICS
 
 
  • Comments
  • 58
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
MelRoy
I think, therefore...here I am
06:59 PM on 10/07/2012
The government recently did spot checks to see if doctors were following the law. They examined only a fraction of healthcare trusts, and found that 14 had broken the law by using pre-signed forms authorising terminations for women they had never seen. BPAS criticised the government for looking into the practice and exposing them! BPAS went even further, stating the law should be changed to do away with the requirement for women to be seen by doctors! BPAS also decried The Daily Telegraph for investigating sex-selective abortions after their undercover reporter was told by BPAS counsellors in two separate clinics that they would lie to make sure she got a sex-selective abortion. BPAS also rails about any suggestion that counselling should be independent of the abortion provider. What bothers me most is the abortions BPAS carries out are paid for by the NHS but they advertise and market themselves like a private company providing a service like window cleaning. Their mission statement clearly sets out the goal of "increasing its market share for abortion services" and that it regards an increase in abortions as "a significant achievement".

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.
07:23 PM on 10/07/2012
I'm glad that I'm not the only one to be disturbed by the Huffington Post's complete bias on this. Getting a paid up employee of the foul BPAS is a step too far from a journal that I've rapidly lost so much respect for and it saddens me to say that.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Thismortalcoil
Science is the poetry of reality
04:33 PM on 10/08/2012
David, can you please explain your connection with the anti-abortion group that has been widely slated for photographing women outside abortion clinics? Wasn't one of the leaders called David and arrested for harassing women?
06:20 PM on 10/07/2012
Wonderful, superb article. Agreed 100%,
06:15 PM on 10/07/2012
Well Huffington Post, your bias knows no bounds. I have lost so much respect for you over this issue because every article that you have carried has been pro-abortionist. You have printed articles condemning Jeremy Hunt but I have yet to see you addressing the balance by printing any articles from anti abortion organisations. Clare Murphy of the BPAS, Britains biggest abortion provider would say all of these things wouldn't she. Where is the redress, something i naively believed all good journalists try to provide.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Thismortalcoil
Science is the poetry of reality
04:35 PM on 10/08/2012
Daviduk, you know full well that the Huff featured an article from an anti abortion group quite recently because I answered your comments on it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Rob Ferris
02:43 PM on 10/05/2012
I'm not sure where I stand on this. My viewpoint would be to prevent abortion after significant development of the foetus' central nervous system (which would mean it is capable of suffering). My understanding is that can occur any time between 20 and 24 weeks.

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).
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
MelRoy
I think, therefore...here I am
05:39 PM on 10/07/2012
Babies are "significantly developed" at week 16-18, and just as a qualifier of "individual identity" - that's when they have fingerprints.

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.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DJPotterWriter
12:40 PM on 10/05/2012
I respect the view that all abortions should be allowed, and I respect the view that no abortions should be allowed. I'm torn in this dilemma, I must admit. But, the law, as it stands, is clearly ridiculous. What's special about 24 weeks? Does the unborn magically become a person at 24 weeks? Recognise personhood at conception or at birth: anything else is arbitrary.

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?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Thismortalcoil
Science is the poetry of reality
08:45 PM on 10/05/2012
Scientific evidence suggests that 24 weeks is a key stage at which the brain is developed, and the foetus has a viable chance of survival outside the womb, so yes that is the point when it has a chance of becoming a person. It's not arbitrary, it's the best solution that the medical profession has been able to come up with.
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.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
DJPotterWriter
09:30 PM on 10/05/2012
If you use physical development as the criterion, then surely each fetus should be assessed individually (to make such an assessment is, presumably, increasingly possible, with continuous advancement in medical technology). After all, there might be a case where a 23-week-old fetus is more developed than the average 24-week-old fetus. Indeed, there might be a case where a 24-week-old fetus is as developed as the average 23-week-old fetus. It also seems rather hypocritical that a person who has been born can not be lawfully killed, no matter what the physical state of his brain, even if his brain is less functional than that of a 23-week-old fetus.
Makalha
Opinions are not facts.
12:39 AM on 10/05/2012
I am sure that most women who find they are pregnant and don't want the baby don't wait until 24 weeks before seeking an abortion . They will normally have one as soon as possible, most later abortions are carried out because of health reasons of either the mother or the baby so I see no real reason to change the rules .
10:13 PM on 10/04/2012
I agree an abortion should not be done after 20 weeks, the way I look at it is a women know in with the first month or 2 that she is pregnant, then the abortion should take play, why wait longer.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Thismortalcoil
Science is the poetry of reality
06:39 PM on 10/05/2012
Actually there are a number of reasons why a woman might not know she's pregnant until much later. She may have just started having periods, she may be approaching the menopause, she may have all sorts of conditions that affect her periods. Fortunately these cases are rare. Only 1-2% of abortions are carried out after 20 weeks, and many are for medical reasons, such as saving the mother's life, or the foetus having a sever illness. Many illness can't be detected until 20 weeks.
06:19 PM on 10/07/2012
Exactly, *plus* the examples in the article itself which are excellent and upon which I see not a single comment here.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
astralady
10:04 PM on 10/04/2012
I dont beleave in abortions as to me its like ending a life.My friends daughter had her baby at 22 weeks and now that baby is a mother herself.She was so upset as she thought her baby would`nt live but she did like i just said shes a mum herself now.So thats why i dont beleave in abortions full stop.the baby is flly formed at 18 to 20 weeks and its just growing after that for the next 20 weeks or so.The only time i beleave in abortions is if there`s a risk of life with the mother then fair enough.My daughter lost a baby at 12 weeks it was awful to see as it was almost fully formed in that time.i had to pick up this baby and wrap it up to take the hospital it was so upseting
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
wakyracir
My spaniel is watching you
09:32 PM on 10/04/2012
Personally I'd increase the limit to 18 years after birth. It would solve a lot of problems where I live.
Kraptonfactor
They're coming to take me away ha ha, hee hee, ho
11:13 PM on 10/04/2012
@ wakyracir
Your spaniel has an evil eye. Where's the other one?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
wakyracir
My spaniel is watching you
02:48 AM on 10/05/2012
She's not evil - it was just time for her last walk and I'd put on another episode of Big Bang, so she wasn't very pleased.
This comment has been removed.
04:34 PM on 10/04/2012
Why get Pregnant in the first place if you do not want to go full term?
photo
rabidrightwatch
Green lefty & active environmentalist
05:43 PM on 10/04/2012
what an incredibly silly remark...
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Thismortalcoil
Science is the poetry of reality
05:57 PM on 10/04/2012
Don't know if you've ever tried having sex bowiealis, but it actually feels pretty good, so it's widely practiced.

So far, however, no-one has invented a form of contraception that's 100% reliable.

Hope that answers your question.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Philip J Sparrow
When your work speaks for itself, keep quiet
11:55 AM on 10/04/2012
Since when has this been a pressing political issue in the UK? There is no significant body of opinion that has been calling for the limit to be lowered and, contrary to what the minister claimed yesterday, no medical or scientific breakthrough which would challenge the legitimacy of the law as it currently is.

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
06:41 PM on 10/07/2012
A poll conducted by YouGov, printed by the Independent on the eve of Pope Benedicts visit to the UK. A time when the media whipped up as much anti-Pope feeling as they could. Must be right then.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Philip J Sparrow
When your work speaks for itself, keep quiet
06:44 PM on 10/07/2012
Catholics are anti-pope?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Mark B Robertson
09:26 AM on 10/04/2012
One would suspect that Maria Miller is not interested in helping women, she has an altogether more sinister purpose and that is to promote a very specific viewpoint.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
MelRoy
I think, therefore...here I am
05:03 PM on 10/07/2012
I don't really want to know the opinion of someone who gets paid to provide abortions. One of her colleagues blogged on Huffington Post several months ago and I called it as I see it - a total conflict of interests.
09:26 AM on 10/04/2012
I am uneasy when politicians wade in on what should be a woman's choice on an individual basis. If anyone truly wants fewer abortions then the focus should be on reducing unwanted pregnancies. This means empowering women, giving them greater access to sex education and birth control. When you consider that many of those who oppose abortion rights also oppose sex education in schools and wider access to birth control, then their real agenda becomes apparent. To impose their moral (often religious) views on others.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Thismortalcoil
Science is the poetry of reality
11:18 AM on 10/04/2012
Exactly. Religious interference does far more harm than good.

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.
This comment has been removed.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
MissTake1989
Equal means equal, hypocrites.
10:05 PM on 10/03/2012
The only argue that is used to justify abortion is that it's the woman's body.

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.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Thismortalcoil
Science is the poetry of reality
11:06 AM on 10/04/2012
You're wrong, there are many moral and logical reasons to justify abortion.

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.
photo
mmartini54
Roll on 2015!
02:56 PM on 10/04/2012
That's an indefensible view to hold. Moral absolutism of that sort is simply fascism. All real world morality is based on context and degree, and abortion is no different. There can never be one rule to fit all circumstances. The current UK law is the best fit, given what we know of foetal development.