Briefing from Feminist Fightback and others on Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill

Posted on May 15, 2008
Filed Under Campaigns, ENS Women

Briefing for MPs: The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill
A call from pro-choice trade unionists, students, and health workers for MPs to defend and extend reproductive freedoms

On Tuesday 20th May MPs will debate and vote on the anti-choice amendments to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. The Bill itself includes provision for research on different types of embryos and proposes changes to definitions of legal parenthood for cases involving assisted reproduction. The Bill is being used to attack abortion rights and the rights of lesbian women’s access to IVF treatment. There are currently eight anti-choice amendments tabled – one reducing the time limit to as little as 12 weeks!

There is no excuse for infringing on a woman’s right to choose; particularly when 83% of people in Britain are pro-choice and the recent Commons Science and Technology Select Committee strongly recommended a liberalisation of our current abortion law. MPs should be looking to extend a woman’s right to choose by abolishing the two doctor requirement, enabling access to abortion in Northern Ireland, extending IVF access to single and lesbian mothers and guaranteeing women who choose to have a child access to free childcare and better benefits.

Abortion

When women won the right to choose in 1967, it was a big step towards women having control over a crucial part of our lives, the decision of whether and when to have children. Driven by the religious right the anti-abortion lobby are trying to chip away at abortion rights. The anti-choice amendments to the Bill are a reduction in the time limit to anything between 12 and 20 weeks and an enforced “cooling off” period of two weeks for any woman seeking a termination.

These attempts represent an attack on the principle that women should be in a position to make this important decision about their lives and that they should have full control over their reproduction. An attack on the time limit will have a devastating impact on the small number of women (less than 2%) who need a later abortion – often vulnerable women facing unusual and difficult circumstances such as late diagnosis of pregnancy, rape or domestic abuse or NHS delays.

Anti-choice campaigners claim that there is increased scientific evidence that a baby can survive at an earlier stage, this is not the case. On 29th October the Commons Science and Technology Committee published a review of the 1967 Abortion Act. They made three main recommendations:

• Upholding the 24 time week time limit for abortion
• Removing the need for women seeking an abortion to get two doctor’s signatures
• Allowing nurses to perform first trimester abortions

The Committee found that while survival rates at 24 weeks and over have improved since 1990, survival rates (viability) have not done so below that gestational point. The Committee therefore concluded that there is no scientific basis - on the grounds on viability - to reduce the upper time limit. Furthermore they found that the need for two doctor’s signatures was causing unnecessary delays and that there was no evidence of its value in terms of safety, and that as the development of Early Medical Abortion has allowed for an easily-administered procedure nurses and midwives with suitable training and professional guidance should be able to carry out early abortions.

Responding to the report, Ann Furedi, Chief Executive of BPAS (British Pregnancy Advisory Service) said, “An evidence-based report like this shows up the forty-year-old Abortion Act, which was framed in a different era of medicine, as now looking a little threadbare. Surely laws should be able to respond over time to permit doctors and nurses to offer the best possible practice?”

Thus far in Parliament attempts to destroy our rights have been beaten. On Monday 14th January, the Lords Liaison Committee rejected a proposal for a special Select Committee to focus on “moral” arguments around abortion and the sanctity of life, and the first vote on an amendment to restrict abortion rights was heavily defeated in the Lords (22 votes to 89) on the 28th January.

MPs, we urge you to listen to the evidence and to not only defend our rights but to extend them in order that women can truly access abortion, and have real choice.

IVF Access

The Bill contains amendments to the regulation for the application of IVF treatments or assisted reproduction, including an amendment on the role of the father. The current law emphasises the duty to take account of the welfare of the child as a primary interest in consideration of the provision of fertility treatment. This bill maintains this duty but changes the phrase “the need for a father” with “the need for supportive parenting”. This change will reflect and reinforce the current practice of many clinics that do provide treatment for lesbians and single women. The Equality and Human Rights Commission, the Joint Committee on Human Rights and Stonewall all argue that “need for a father” is discriminatory against lesbians and single mothers. It is an obvious contradiction to other recent legislative reforms. Those arguing against the alteration in this section of the legislation are for a rolling back of the equality agenda.

The passing of this amendment would be a real victory for the rights of women, helping break down society’s strict codes about parenting, family units and gender roles.

What should the demands be?

The fight to defend the time limit is part of the fight for control over our reproduction. This includes:

* No compromise on the 24-week time limit for access to abortion
* The right to abortion on demand, this means an end to having to get the consent of two doctors
* The extension of abortion rights to women in Northern Ireland
* Abortion to be integrated into the NHS as an ordinary medical service
* An end to privatisation and fragmentation in the NHS: increased public funding to guarantee free and equal access to abortion
* Improved access to and increased choice of publicly funded contraception
* Clear, honest, comprehensive and confidential sexuality and relationship education which addresses issues of consent and domestic violence
* Increased IVF access, including to single and lesbian mothers
* A real “right to choose” which means the right to have a child free from economic and social pressure. This requires a real living wage for all workers, benefits which can be lived on and rise with earnings, universal publicly funded childcare and an end to the stigmatisation of single mothers

What can you do?

Ask a question in the debate on the 20th May. Suggested questions:

1. The recent Select Committee Report concluded that there is no scientific basis whatsoever to reduce the upper time limit. Evidence shows that less than 2% of all abortions are carried out at this stage and that it is often the most vulnerable in our society who need to access this. The religious right has attempted to hide its calls for a reduction behind scientific arguments; these arguments do not hold up. What possible reasons are there for a reduction in the time limit?
2. The Commons Science and Technology Committee recommended ending the requirement for two doctor’s signatures and allowing nurses to perform early abortions. There are currently unacceptable delays to abortion and these liberalisations could help cut down the damaging wait that many women currently have to suffer. Why are we not moving amendments to implement these desperately needed recommendations?
3. Shouldn’t something be done to alleviate the current injustice of the “NHS postcode lottery”, where a woman’s access to an abortion is dependent on her geographical location? The fight for abortion rights should also be the fight against the increasing privatisation and fragmentation of the NHS.

**Consider putting forward a pro-choice amendment around ending the need for the consent of two doctors, allowing nurses to perform early medical abortions or extending abortion rights to Northern Ireland.**

Supported by

As trade union activists and organisations, we want to create a strong labour movement voice in favour of reproductive freedoms.

This briefing is supported by:

Feminist Fightback
Left Women’s Network
Kate Ahrens and Ali Brown, UNISON NEC (personal capacity)
Janine Booth, Chairperson, RMT National Women’s Advisory Committee
Sofie Buckland, National Union of Students NEC
Glen Burrows, Secretary, RMT Bristol Rail
Janet Cassidy, Branch Secretary North Clyde RMT branch, Scottish Regional Women’s Officer
Mandy Evans, Swansea No. 1 RMT branch, Vice-Chair RMT National Women’s Advisory Committee
John Leach, President of the RMT
Joanne Parry, Chair, RMT TFL No.1 Branch
Laura Schwartz, NUS Women’s Committee
Gemma Short, Sheffield University SU Women’s Committee and NUS Women’s Committee-elect
Maria Taylor, Senior I.R. Rep, RMT TFL No.1 Branch
Linda Wiles, Branch Secretary, RMT TFL No.1 Branch

To add your name email rebecca.galbraith@yahoo.co.uk