home 
|
| contact
|
| action
|
| weekly worker
|
| european social forum
|
| theory
|
| resources
|
| what we
fight for
|
| programme
|
| join |
| search
|
| communist university
|
| links
|
| our history
|
Enjoy
the
Weekly Worker?
How about
showing us your appreciation? Producing the Weekly Worker costs a substantial
amount of money. Our only source for that financial backing comes from
people like you: readers and supporters of our newspaper. You may not
agree with the CPGB on every dot and comma, but we know that 1000s of
comrades appreciate our open, critical and democratic press
Send cheques, payable to CPGB, BCM Box 928,
London WC1N 3XX or donate online:
Weekly Worker 548 Thursday October 14 2004
An issue that cannot be ducked
Last week’s Sunday Telegraph ‘exposé’ of the activities
of the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) has once again ignited
the controversy over late-term abortions (October 10). It has also provided
more ideological ammunition to ‘pro-lifers’ and their allies
in parliament.
In a clear attempt to raise a reactionary storm, The Sunday Telegraph
began an investigation into all abortion services in Britain in September.
It particularly targeted charities that are given government money to
provide services and information. A sting operation was set up using a
pregnant reporter to act as an agent provocateur.
She contacted BPAS, one of the main abortion providers in Britain, and
told them that she was 25 weeks pregnant and needed help. A staff member
at BPAS told her they were unable to assist, but if she was desperate
she could contact the Ginemedex clinic in Barcelona. When the reporter,
Charlotte Edwardes, rang the clinic, she was informed that an abortion
could be provided for just over £2,000.
Asked if it was legal, the clinic told her that under Spanish law abortion
is allowed beyond 22 weeks if the mother’s life is in grave danger
(including for mental health reasons), so it could be provided for women
in her circumstances. The Sunday Telegraph claimed not only that such
an abortion would be illegal under Spanish law, but that the BPAS’s
action in recommending such a course was illegal too, since the 1967 Abortion
Act states that “anything done with intent to procure the miscarriage
of a woman”, unless she fulfils “certain stringent criteria”,
is unlawful (October 10).
Abortion in Britain is not permitted after 24 weeks unless the foetus
will be so severely handicapped as to make it unviable if the pregnancy
were allowed to go full-term. In fact even if these circumstances exist
it is very difficult to get late abortions. In Scotland, for instance,
there is no official provision after 14 weeks and it is difficult to find
doctors and facilities available to perform them, despite their legality.
After 18 weeks many doctors refuse to carry out terminations. No surprise
then that women are travelling abroad. According to the Telegraph, 80%
of the women who travel to the Ginemedex clinic are British.
The intrepid Ms Edwardes also made her way there. After intensive questioning
and physical examination the doctor agreed to carry out the abortion -
at which time she made a hasty retreat. In the meantime another undercover
reporter spoke to the sister of a British woman who was at the clinic.
He learned that there were extremely “strange and upsetting circumstances”
surrounding the situation of this woman. He was told that the decision
to terminate had been difficult to make and therefore put off, but it
had been a harrowing and expensive one.
The woman’s sister insisted: “She’s got no choice really.
It’s just something she has got to do. It’s awful, it’s
not nice.” At least The Sunday Telegraph permits itself to reveal
something of the emotional trauma that desperate women are forced to endure.
Armed with the results of its operation and extremely pleased with himself,
The Sunday Telegraph editor approached John Reid, minister for health.
who is well known for his opposition to abortion. He responded swiftly,
promising to investigate and take action: “If there is evidence that
the will of parliament is being thwarted and that the law of a fellow
European country is being broken by an organisation in receipt of public
money, this will be a very serious situation indeed.” There have
been many calls for the police to investigate.
BPAS has so far refused to buckle under the threats and pressure. Ann
Furedi, its chief executive, was contacted directly by the Telegraph and
the results of its investigation were put to her. Her response was a cool
“So what is your point exactly?”
In subsequent interviews she has been adamant that BPAS has not done anything
illegal by informing women of the availability of abortion services abroad.
She has referred to the Irish ‘X’ case, where the government’s
attempt to stop a pregnant girl from leaving to access abortion facilities
in Britain was found to be illegal.
Furedi, a supporter of the Spiked website, set up by the now disbanded
Revolutionary Communist Party, obviously needs to be backed in the face
of this renewed ideological offensive and any consequent governmental
action. Unless there is a campaign of resistance the government will find
it easy to crack down. This is particularly the case in current circumstances,
where we have been subjected to a torrent of propaganda aimed at promoting
so-called foetal ‘rights’ over and above the rights of women.
It is important for the left to act. It is unfortunate therefore that
the largest organisation on the left, the Socialist Workers Party, has
so far poured cold water on any possible campaign.
At a meeting held on September 16 to discuss the launch of a new pro-choice
initiative, Candy Udwin of the SWP told us “on behalf of” her
organisation that “it would be extremely difficult to encroach on
existing rights” and that there was therefore no reason for a new
campaign to be set up. Obviously crass nonsense and opportunism. We all
know why. At a Respect meeting in Hackney on October 8, held to agree
resolutions to conference, Julie Waterson led her fellow SWP members in
denouncing those who argued for Respect to take a principled position.
She said she was a member of a revolutionary organisation that has a policy
to defend a woman’s right to choose. But Respect was not such an
organisation and if it adopted such a principled position it might put
off people who did not want to go that far. Meaning George Galloway and
various muslim clerics, of course, who oppose abortion on the basis of
obscurantist religious dogma.
She was supported by her comrade, Gareth Jenkins, who argued that Respect
should not campaign for an extension of abortion rights - ie, making the
right to choose a reality. You cannot help but wonder how the SWP proposes
to put its own politics into practice when it refuses to put them forward
in the organisation that is its main field of activity. Maybe principle
is now considered a private matter for SWP members.
It is a sad state of affairs when these so-called revolutionaries de facto
refuse to side with oppressed women against the state. Respect will only
defend existing legislation - legislation under which John Reid is threatening
to prosecute the BPAS and in doing so stop women seeking abortion abroad.
The Telegraph and its supporters are on the march. It is lobbying for
the “robust and no-nonsense health secretary” to take action.
Its editorial denounces Ann Furedi for having the courage to take a firm
stance and argues that “morally confused women” need to be protected
against those who can help them to terminate their pregnancy. Women are
mere vessels for the production of children and so the life of a foetus
must come first.
Calls are being made for an investigation into BPAS’s funding in
view of its alleged collusion with illegal acts. Even if criminal proceedings
are not taken, it is obvious that funding may be cut or withdrawn. And
with BPAS being one of the main abortion providers, women who look to
it for help will of course be the ones to suffer. Yet Candy Udwin tells
us we are all making a fuss about nothing.
Meanwhile, The Sunday Telegraph is lobbying for new legislative restrictions.
It reports that there are now more than 100 MPs who have signed a motion
to be presented to parliament in order to implement such bans. Obviously
a campaign is necessary and one that is firmly based on a woman’s
right to choose. While the anti-abortionists focus on the question of
a foetus’s ‘viability’, we must both side with desperate
women who, under present legislation, are forced to go to Spain and campaign
to extend abortion rights. Abortion must be available as early as possible
and as late as necessary. Women must have the final decision over their
own bodies and whether they want to reproduce or not. It is time to take
a defiant stance.
The women’s assembly at the European Social Forum will discuss taking
collective action across Europe on this important question. Abortion is
illegal in Ireland, Poland and Switzerland and is severely restricted
in many other countries, particularly in Portugal, with large numbers
of women and doctors facing criminal prosecutions.
In Britain and Italy attacks are beginning on existing rights. Despite
the efforts of governments, however, women, as they always will, are seeking
out abortions where they do not wish to continue their pregnancy. With
great difficulty and despite the risks, they either travel abroad or turn
to illegal facilities in their own country - 20,000 illegal abortions
are carried out in Portugal every year, for example. Irish women are wholly
dependent on British clinics and Swiss women travel to Germany. The interdependency
is obvious.
The significance of a European-wide fightback would be profound. A working
class-led campaign would immediately unite Spanish and British campaigners
and send a strong message to those who want to repress women and control
their lives. The working class must take up all democratic questions if
it is to liberate itself.
Anne Mc Shane
