07.07.2004

Speak out on abortion

Respect must stand in defence of a woman's right to choose, argues Peter Manson

Grounds for another full-scale assault on a woman’s right to choose are being laid. All kinds of reactionary groups and individuals have seized on the release of three-dimensional images of a 12-week-old foetus, following the development of a new ultrasound technique, to ‘prove’ once and for all that abortion is akin to murder.

The images - produced by professor Stuart Campbell, who pioneered the technique - are said to show the foetus kicking its legs in a ‘walking’ action at 12 weeks, ‘yawning’ at 14 and opening its eyes at 18. These identifiable human characteristics are being used to argue that the right of a woman to choose to end her pregnancy should be severely curtailed or virtually abolished.

Such is the momentum of the anti-abortion campaign that David Steel, who as an MP introduced the 1967 Abortion Act legalising terminations during the first 28 weeks of pregnancy, is now calling for the limit to be reduced to 12 weeks, with later abortions carried out strictly for medical reasons. The Liberal Democrat peer - now Lord Steel - says: “The law has already moved once in response to medical advances” - in 1990 the period was cut to 24 weeks. However, while “medical advances” have indeed meant that babies born prematurely now stand a greater chance of survival, no-one is claiming that a foetus as young as 12 weeks old can live outside the womb.

“Medical advances” are not, then, convincing grounds. Which is why the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (Spuc) does not favour Steel’s proposals. Spuc’s general secretary, Paul Tulley, said: “My fear is that by reducing the time limit we’ll just see women rushed into having abortions when they really need time to consider their situation.” Instead tighter restrictions across the board, irrespective of the age of the foetus, is what the society demands.

This clearly shows the danger posed by the new offensive. The left, therefore, must be firm and clear in its defence of existing gains for women, limited though they are. Indeed we must step up the fight for the untrammelled right of abortion on demand - as early as possible, as late as necessary.
Figures show that out of 39,286 teenage pregnancies in 2002, 16,707 (42.5%) ended in abortion. Simply banning a good part of them would bring this ‘unacceptable’ figure down, wouldn’t it? Such a high percentage does point to a profound failing - for many the trauma of abortion is a form of last-resort contraception; for others disapproving parents, teachers or social workers will have exerted undue pressure in favour of termination (the right to choose does, after all, mean the right to refuse an abortion too). The fact remains, though, if the latest campaign were successful, thousands of young women would be criminalised - forced to endure the horrors of back-street practitioners if they were unable to cope with or did not wish to face childbirth and child-rearing.

However, some are weakening in the face of the onslaught. For example, Arthur Scargill, speaking on Radio Four’s Any questions?, went along with the consensus of the other three panellists that, in view of the Campbell images, abortion laws need to be “revisited”. Scargill, honorary president of the National Union of Mineworkers and general secretary of the Socialist Labour Party, began by stating that he had always supported a woman’s right to choose. If, however, “the evidence shows that a child in the womb is alive and capable of developing in ways we didn’t know before”, then the legislation would have to be looked at again.

What an absurd and facile retreat. As if previously nobody had realised that a foetus is “alive” in the womb and “capable of developing” into a mature human being! (As an aside, the way Scargill was clearly regarded by the other speakers, including former Tory leader William Hague, is an indication of how he is now viewed by the political establishment - as an eccentric, but essentially safe symbol of a defeated past, whose calls, for instance, for the nationalisation of Sainsbury’s can be gently mocked.)

So Scargill, for one, has caved in on this question. But what about the organisation which mounted the biggest left challenge on June 10: Respect, the unity coalition? What are our candidates for next week’s Birmingham Hodge Hill and Leicester South by-elections saying on the subject?

In the run-up to ‘super Thursday’ Respect’s main figurehead, George Galloway, openly stated his opposition to abortion. True, it was his personal view, but immediately afterwards the Muslim Association of Britain triumphantly pointed to comrade Galloway’s statement as a reason why muslims should vote for Respect. In this context, it was futile to say, as other leading members of Respect did, that George’s opinions were his and his alone. None of them branded his views as reactionary and Respect itself maintained a studied, diplomatic silence.

There were several excuses for this woeful opportunism. The most common was that Respect had no official position on all manner of subjects and it would be undemocratic for the executive to issue statements of policy that had not been agreed by the membership at a conference. Of course, that did not stop the EC drawing up a manifesto for Europe - a question which was not even obliquely discussed at the January 25 founding convention.

Another excuse was that abortion was not a pressing matter that was coming up on the doorstep. Therefore there was no need to talk about it specifically. Clearly that was to skirt around the issue, even it had been completely true - abortion had been highlighted by George Galloway and the MAB for their own political purposes. Under those circumstances the lack of any kind of clarification, let alone a principled defence of a woman’s right to choose, from the executive was as revealing as it was unforgivable.

However, there is no way that avoiding the issue will wash in the current campaign. The question is all over the media, including in Birmingham and Leicester. So what are our candidates saying? And will Respect stay officially mute? Given the perceived views of the main section of its target electorate - radicalised muslims - I fear the worst.

Yet there is no reason why muslims cannot be won to support a woman’s right to choose - the position of Oliur Rahman, our candidate in the City and East constituency for the Greater London Assembly, is an excellent case in point. Comrade Rahman is himself contesting a council by-election at the end of the month and is quite clear where he stands: “If somebody chooses to have an abortion, I would say they should be given the chance. They should be given proper consultation and then, if they still choose to go ahead, it should be entirely up to them” (Weekly Worker June 24).