By Candace Miles
Before 1967, the illegality of abortion left many women with no choices around pregnancy. Contraception was not freely available through the NHS, and could be obtained only by married women. Wealthier women had access to the right resources, discretely obtaining private abortions. However, thousands of poor, unmarried women with unwanted pregnancies were forced to resort to dangerous methods such as drinking poisonous substances or using knitting needles. The only alternative for such women was to consult illegal, unsafe ‘backstreet abortionists’. These processes consumed the lives of many of the poorest women because the law failed to protect them by refusing to provide safe and legal abortions for all.
Deep concerns arose regarding the significant loss of life and damage to women’s health resulting from dangerous, illegal abortions. Eventually, the Abortion Act 1967 legalised abortion (though it remains illegal in Northern Ireland). This new piece of legislation legalised the termination of pregnancy if two medical practitioners were present and of the opinion that the woman is more at risk while pregnant. However, despite the change in law, many hospitals refused to provide abortion. In the West Midlands, traditional Catholic and anti-abortionist views dominated due to influence of Hugh MacLaren, a professor of obstetrics and gynaecology in the University of Birmingham, who was opposed to the liberal interpretation of the 1967 Act. This made it impossible to find an NHS doctor willing to approve an abortion Research suggests that up to 30% of pregnant women faced delay or were refused when obtaining an abortion. As a result, women remained dependent on private providers. These inadequacies contributed to a small group of friends in Birmingham creating a charity; the Birmingham Pregnancy Advisory Service (now the British Pregnancy Advisory Service) in 1968. The founders included Martin Cole, a board member of the Abortion Law Reform Association, Nan Smith and Professor Francois Lafitte of the University of Birmingham. BPAS was set up as a charity to provide affordable, non-judgmental abortion care for all women, training doctors and providing premises for safe, legal and affordable abortions. They began as a referral bureau where the doctor would doctor would certify whether the abortion was legal and refer the woman to a private gynaecologist for termination. BPAS frequently helped women who had been misdiagnosed, held up or refused by their doctors, even though they had legal grounds for an abortion. An example is Mary, who sought an abortion from her doctor at 8 weeks of pregnancy. She was not able to see a local consultant until 14 weeks of pregnancy, where she was told it was too late for a NHS abortion. Mary went BPAS at 18 weeks, obtaining an abortion efficiently. At first, women like Mary had to travel to London and pay for abortion procedures. However, eventually an abortion clinic was opened in Birmingham called the Calthorpe Clinic (currently operated by Marie Stopes) and BPAS began to work with the NHS to ensure that access to abortion was free for all. Today, BPAS provides abortion counselling and treatment at centres across England, Wales and Scotland. Over 95% of clients now also have their abortion treatment funded by the NHS. BPAS can be admired for trusting women at a time when the NHS was not always prepared to.
The failure of the Abortion Act 1967 in Great Britain
The current abortion legislation does not protect all women. 50 years after it was founded, BPAS’ fight to liberalise abortion access still continues. The parliamentary debates surrounding David Steele’s Bill, which became the 1967 Act demonstrate why the legislation failed to adequately protect women. There is a barrier between what men think women need and what women need. Accordingly, the predominately male reformers, stereotypically represented women as ‘vulnerable’, ‘unstable victims’ who needed ‘guidance’. By contrast, doctors were portrayed as rational, responsible and reassuring figures. It is debateable whether the 1967 Act was ever intended to give women autonomy. In R v Bourne, a doctor was acquitted by the court after carrying out an illegal abortion on a 14-year-old rape victim. Arguably, the law sought to protect medical autonomy in such circumstances, rather than to grant rights to women. It is a way of controlling women’s terminations. This becomes clearer as the defects of the abortion legislation itself are outlined.
Abortion is not accessible to all women
Currently, to procure an early medical abortion (EMA), women must take two pills 24-48 hours apart. The 1967 Act stipulates that termination treatment must be carried out in a hospital or clinic. Consequently, women must take both pills on the premises before traveling home. Having multiple clinical appointments creates significant problems. Women must incur travel expenses for separate journeys, find additional childcare for any existing children and miss further days off work. Accessing abortion is impossible for women in controlling relationships who are unable to leave the home alone for clinical appointments. Such difficulties make abortion inaccessible for many women. Additionally, the abortion pills tend to work fast; causing women with longer journeys making use of public transport to experience bleeding and cramping.
Consequently, in 2011 BPAS brought a legal challenge, arguing that women having EMAs should be entitled to take the second abortion pill at home. However, the Secretary of State for Health refused, arguing that a new practice should not be introduced without evaluation ‘because it is deemed safe elsewhere’. This is problematic as the same drug is already prescribed for home use in cases of miscarriage. It is already proven that women can safely take the second abortion pill at home. Moreover, a study conducted by BPAS clarifies that most women having an EMA would prefer to be in the privacy of their home, rather than the hospital. However, yet again, we see the law refusing to consider abortion from a woman’s perspective. Women cannot fully participate in society if they cannot control their own reproductive decisions.
Women’s lack of choice
Under the current UK legislation, women’s choice is minimal. The Offences Against the Person Act 1861 prohibits women from procuring their own abortions. The Abortion Act 1967 gives doctors with the definitive say as to whether an abortion is acceptable. Doctors are put in a superior position, choosing to accept or refuse abortion requests. This creates a ‘medical monopoly’; doctors can make moral judgments, discriminating between women who ‘deserve’ an abortion and those who do not. Thus, there is no guarantee that women seeking abortions will obtain one from such doctors. BPAS rightly argue that this could be harmful, compelling women to continue unwanted pregnancies because they cannot find doctors to treat them.
BPAS’ campaign to decriminalise abortion
Since 1967, women have attained further rights and medical patient autonomy has become crucial. However, as we have demonstrated, the UK legislation on abortion is still archaic. Women are not trusted by the law to make independent decisions; the stereotypes of women still linger. Accordingly, BPAS have introduced a ‘We Trust Women’ campaign, fighting to decriminalise not deregulate abortion. BPAS argue that abortion should be taken out of the criminal law. No ‘woman should face prosecution for inducing a miscarriage and doctors should not be criminalised for providing safe abortion care, at a woman’s request’.
It has been suggested that decriminalisation could increase the number of unsafe and late abortions. This view can be rejected. When the UK abortion statistics are compared with those in Canada, where abortion is decriminalised, there are fewer late abortions in Canada. This is because ‘women face fewer obstructions in the care pathway’. Similarly, the decriminalisation of abortion will not decrease safety; abortion will still be regulated. Abortion is already highly regulated and doctors are regulated by their professional bodies such as the General Medical Council. Negligent medical professionals could still face criminal sanctions if they inadequately carry out abortion care.
Conclusion
To conclude, the 1967 Act is riddled with flaws and so further work needs to be done ensure that our abortion law is fully representative of women. Charities such as BPAS should be praised for persistently trying to advance women’s rights. The decriminalisation of abortion in the UK was is received with both support and opposition, but it cannot be denied that the gradual decriminalisation has led to less back street abortion measures, less loss of life and less stigmatisation of abortion-seeking women.
Further Reading
Griffin G, Feminist Activism In The 1990s (Taylor & Francis, 1995)
Hindell P and Simms M, Abortion Law Reformed (Peter Hall, 1971)
Paintin D, A Medical View of Abortion in the 1960s (Palgrave Macmillan, 1998)
Porter R & O’Connor M, Abortion: medical progress and social implications (John Wiley & Sons, 2009)
Sturdy S, Medicine, Health and the Public Sphere in Britain, 1600-2000 (1st edn, Routledge 2013)
Barkan S, ‘Gender and Abortion Attitudes: Religiosity as a Suppressor Variable’ (2014) 78 Public Opinion Quarterly 940
Cavadino P, ‘Illegal Abortions and the Abortion Act 1967’ (1967) 16 British Journal of Criminology 63
Lee E, ‘Tensions in the Regulation of Abortion in Britain’ (2003) 30 Journal of Law and Society 532
Newhall L, ‘Women in Law – Bodily Autonomy’ (43) Bracton Law Journal 59
Nossiff R, ‘Gendered Citizenship: Women, Equality and Abortion Policy’ (2007) 29 New Political Journal 61
Sheldon S, ‘The decriminalization of abortion: an argument for modernization’ (2015) 36 Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 334
Paintin, D, Abortion Law Reform in Britain 1964-2003: A Personal Account (BPAS, 2015) http://www.abortionreview.org/images/uploads/Paintin_memoir.pdf.