JM Thorn 

25 October 2008

The latest failure to extend abortion rights to women in the north exposes both the reactionary nature of the peace process and the illusion that the British Government can be a force for liberalisation.

The possibility of the extension of the 1967 abortion act arose from the passage of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill through the Westminster Parliament.  A number of amendments to the bill were put forward by backbenchers, which would have had the effect of liberalising the current abortion laws in Britain and extending them to the north.  Currently a woman can only have an abortion in Northern Ireland if it can be shown there is evidence of a threat to her life.  The consequence of this is that every year more than 1,000 women have to pay to have the procedure carried out privately in Britain.   This places a particularly onerous financial burden on women from low income backgrounds who have to find the money to pay for the cost of travelling for private abortions — bills that sometimes cost up to £2,000.   The poorest women are forced to bear unwanted children or use back-street methods; in a recent survey over 10% of GPs admitted to dealing with the aftermath of amateur abortions.

In the mid 1990’s a series of court judgements started to define the specific circumstances in which abortion was legal.  In the case of a 14-year-old threatening suicide and self-induced abortion: the High Court ruled an abortion legal because “to allow the pregnancy to continue to full term would result in [her] being a physical and mental wreck”.  The court ruled that a severely mentally disabled woman could have an abortion.  In another case a judgment was given for a minor to have an abortion on grounds of a probable risk to the physical or mental health, well-being or life of the girl.  Similarly, clearance was given for a mentally disturbed 16-year-old to have an abortion. 

While such cases made it clear that the law allowed for abortion in more instances than commonly thought local politicians still refused to deal with practicalities that arose from these.  In June 2000, the first Stormont Assembly debated the extension of the 1967 Act, but rejected a call to refer the issue to the Health Committee for further discussion.  The health minister at that time, Sinn Fein’s Bairbre de Brun, refused to issue guidelines telling medical practitioners what rules they could or should follow.  In November 2003, as a result of a legal challenge brought by the Family Planning Association (FPA), the Appeal Court asked the Department to “inquire into the adequacy of termination of pregnancy services ... and [issue] appropriate guidance.”  Draft guidelines were finally published in January 2007.  These declared that abortion was legal when a woman’s mental or physical health was in “grave” danger of “serious and permanent damage”.  However, the restored Assembly rejected this slightly more liberal interpretation of the law.  The redrafted guidelines, issued by the Department of Health earlier this year, restated that a threat to the life of a woman was the only basis for an abortion.   It also warned doctors that they could face life imprisonment if they carried out abortions that were subsequently ruled to have been illegal. 

The prospect of extension of the 1967 Act brought out both the pro- choice and anti-abortion lobbies.  On the anti side were all the main political parties in the north, all Protestant and Catholic Church leaders, and also the main anti-abortion activist group Precious Life.   In the run up to the Commons vote they a made a series of interventions.  These included private meetings with Government ministers and the publication of open letters from the party leaders and Catholic Bishops.  Their biggest public activity was the so-called Rally for Life at Stormont, which was addressed by church leaders and representatives of all the main parties.  One of those attending, the SDLP’s Pat Ramsey, described the rally “a march for civil rights - to defend the most fundamental civil right of all - the right to life”.   Alongside the usual moralistic and emotive appeals, the anti lobby put forward two political arguments.  The first was that the extension of the 1967 abortion Act would be undemocratic because it was against the will of the people in north as represented by local parties.  The second was that an extension would somehow damage the peace process.  Both these arguments were articulated by the DUP’s Jeffrey Donaldson in his claim that the Assembly not the Westminster Parliament should ultimately decide the “sensitive” issue of abortion, and his warning that if the amendment were passed it would cause "considerable problems for the political process".

The pro-choice lobby consisted of just two MLAs (Dawn Purvis and Anna Lo), the Family Planning Association (FPA) and the Alliance for Choice.  Its main focus was on lobbying backbench MPs to support the amendment on the extension of the Abortion Act.  Forty local women travelled to Westminster just days prior to the vote - a symbolic representation the number of women who travel every week from the north to seek an abortion in Britain.   The group met Labour MP Dianne Abbot, who had tabled the amendment to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill calling for an extension of the 1967 Abortion Act.  She said women in Northern Ireland were being treated as second class citizens in comparison with those in Britain.  “They are not afforded the same rights as in the rest of the UK and that is a disgrace,” she said.  The perspective of the pro-choice lobbyists was summed up by Audrey Simpson of the FPA: "We hope that Westminster MPs will resist any pressure to drop these amendments. They are the voices for Northern Ireland women with regard to access to abortion services, as they do not have a voice in the Northern Ireland assembly."

Such hopes proved to be unfounded as MPs were denied the opportunity to even vote on the issue.  A parliament slight of hand by the British Government, which turned convention on its head by putting amendments at the end of the order paper, ensured that there would be no time to even debate them never mind vote.  It was ironic that it was the self styled “feminist” Harriet Harman who led for the Government on this issue.   Only a few weeks earlier she had declared to the Labour Party conference that her priority was to fight discrimination against woman.  Now she was collaborating in the denial of abortion rights to women in the north of Ireland.  The commitment of Labour backbenchers also proved to be paper thin - they voted overwhelmingly for the amendments to be put back.  Even those who had initially supported the extension of the Act capitulated weakly to the will of the Government.  They were typified by Emily Thornberry, the pro-choice Labour MP, who said she had reluctantly come to terms with Harman's move: "I don't accept [the government action]. But Harriet and Jan [Royall, the leader of the House of Lords] are liberal-minded, pro-choice women. If they tell me it's not possible, what do you do? It breaks your heart - but what do you do?"

While disappointing this turn of events is hardly a surprise.  Experience shows that the British Government is not a force for liberalisation in the north.  Time and time again, since the inception of the state, through to the civil rights movement and right up to the present day, it has backed the most reactionary elements in society as the best means of maintaining stability and control.   Today that means shoring up the peace process and appeasing the DUP.  If this requires sacrificing the right of women to abortion then that’s what the British will do.   What’s really disappointing is that so many who claim to be on the left still harbour such illusions both in the British and in the peace process. Surely these recent events should give them cause for thought and to consider the nature of a political settlement that denies women their basic rights.