27.10.2004

A question that won't go away

The second meeting to discuss the launch of a pro-choice campaign took place at the offices of Abortion Rights (AR) on Wednesday October 20. Coming as it did directly after the European Social Forum, it was smaller than the previous meeting but nevertheless an important event.

The discussion focused on what slogans we should organise under and how we should organise. Fundamental to this was whether we campaign for free abortion on demand or for defending existing legislation. Another pivotal discussion was the issue of the inclusion of men in the central organisation of the campaign, on which the meeting was evenly split. As before, it was a women-only meeting.

Anne Quesney, director of AR, opened the meeting with a description of the ongoing ideological attacks against the right to choose. Since the recent Sunday Telegraph undercover operation aimed at discrediting the British Pregnancy Advice Service for providing details of clinics abroad to women who want late-term abortions, there have been other attempts to chip away at existing rights. Ann Widdecombe has tabled an early day motion calling for funding to BPAS to be cut - in effect for the closing down, or at the very least curtailing, of a service that helps provide 70% of all abortions carried out in Britain.

There have also been further calls for legal action against doctors, this time aimed at those who carry out abortions for teenagers. Sue Axon, a Manchester mother of five, has taken out a high court challenge against government guidance that allows doctors to forgo parental consent where they believe it is necessary to do so. Axon, who had an abortion herself as a teenager that she now regrets, was particularly upset at the recent case of a Notts teenager, Melissa Smith, whose teachers helped her to get an abortion at 14. Like Victoria Gillick before her, Sue Axon is particularly concerned at ‘protecting’ her own daughters - ie, forcing them to have unwanted children. She is backed by the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children and others in the pro-life lobby, and it is clear that GPs, teachers and others who assist young, desperate women are now in the firing line.

The ballot for the private members bills looks set to take place in early December. The meeting agreed that we should book a room at the House of Commons to launch a campaign to coincide with any bill aimed at curbing abortion rights. It was also agreed that we should write to various magazines and other publications in order to engage in the debate. Cosmopolitan magazine has set up a campaign to defend the existing legislation and it was agreed that we should welcome and try to engage with that.

However, it was not agreed to set up a proper campaign now, as there was no consensus over the nature of that campaign. Workers Power and CPGB comrades argued that it had to be based on a commitment to a woman’s right to choose, at any stage of pregnancy. The recent attacks on late abortions show that we must stand by those who, often through force of circumstances, seek out terminations at a very late stage. If we simply defend existing legislation or call for a tinkering improvement here or there, we are not tackling the real question. Arguing for a woman’s right to choose must mean exactly that - as early as possible and as late as necessary. Without that commitment we will not be able to tackle the propaganda that is thrown at us about the ‘rights’ of the foetus.

Others agreed that this was the central question but said that we needed to be concrete about our campaign. A comrade from the US Militant group proposed that we should set up a campaign to defend women from any further attacks. Sarah Colborne and Anne Quesney, both of AR, said that their campaign is for free abortion on demand up to 14 weeks and the signature of one doctor after that. As an organisation dependent on funding, it needs to be careful not to sound too radical. That is a good argument for a separate, more radical campaign that can be supported by, but not dependent on, AR.

The issue of the involvement of men was the most contentious question of the evening. I raised it initially as part of the report-back from the CPGB meeting on abortion rights. It was greeted by some with dismay. One participant said she felt “frustrated” that she was again in a situation where women were “arguing for men to come in and run our campaign”. The legitimacy of autonomous self-organisation was put forward again, primarily by Sarah Colborne and Finn MacKay - who describes herself elsewhere as a radical feminist, although she said she was a defender of socialist feminism at the meeting. Their argument was that it was fundamental to the issue of fighting oppression that those affected by it be allowed to organise separately. Women are those affected by abortion, not men, and therefore we should run our own campaign, while allowing men to be involved to a lesser extent.

I countered this by arguing that the fight for socialism means winning men to the fight for women’s emancipation. Our class must be at the forefront of the fight for every democratic question, not leave it to the most oppressed to struggle themselves. This means men and women working alongside each other at the highest level, not making it simply a question that concerns women. The issue is that of socialism or feminism. Joy McKnight of Workers Power agreed with my contribution and underlined that abortion is a question that affects working class women far more on an economic level. Candy Udwin of the Socialist Workers Party said that abortion is not just a question for women - it is an issue for the working class. However, she believed that we should not allow this issue to divide us.

But this question obviously will not go away. It is not a technical issue of whether we have women-only meetings or spaces. It is about the kind of campaign - a separatist one that brings together all women, no matter what their class, apart from and against men; or one that is based on our class - men and women together - taking up the fight against oppression.

The accusations of separatism were greeted with defensiveness. Those for ‘autonomy’ argued that they were socialist feminists and there was no contradiction. Sarah Colborne said their positions should not be caricatured. There was no time to explore the argument further and there was also concern that it was an issue that would split us at an early stage. But those who are for a working class perspective should not shy away from putting forward their arguments for fear of being condemned for ‘selling out’ or wanting men to run the campaign for us. There is no question that women will lead any campaign for abortion rights. Indeed it will be difficult, as experience has shown, to persuade many men that it is an issue for them. But it is a struggle that must be won if we are to win real emancipation.

The meeting ended with an agreement to set up an email group to continue our discussions. It was also agreed that we would contact the BPAS to give our solidarity and that we will also contact pro-choice campaigners in Ireland. No decision was made about the name of our future body and it was decided that we would continue under the auspices of AR. It was also agreed that the issue of the involvement of men would be left open.

Abortion Rights next meeting: Thursday November 11, 7pm, AR offices, 2-12 Pentonville Road, London N1.