18.11.2004
Limiting the fight
The latest meeting of the abortion pro-choice campaign initiated by Terry Conway and Tessa Van Gelderen took place on November 11. The women-only meeting was smaller than previous ones with only nine participants - less than a third of those who attended the initial gathering. Outside of the Weekly Worker and an internal email list, the meetings have not actually been advertised. This and the fact that we have not actually done anything to form a campaign yet will mean that others cannot be drawn in. The Socialist Workers Party was noticeably absent. Anne Quesney, director of Abortion Rights (AR), chaired the meeting and took notes to serve by way of minutes. She and Sarah Colborne, also of AR and Socialist Action, were at pains to point out that this meeting should not revisit any of the issues that had been discussed at previous meetings. These issues apparently “had nothing to do with the defence of abortion rights”. Readers will remember that one of the main issues argued over was whether we campaign for the right to choose or settle for the more conservative slogans of AR - free abortion on demand during the first trimester only; and with one doctor’s signature (instead of two!) after that up to the 24-week upper limit that is the current law: ie, not a woman’s right to choose. The other issue that has attracted controversy has been the type of campaign that we run. Will it be a working class campaign that involves men or will it be a feminist, separatist campaign? Again, hardly an issue that is “nothing to do with the defence of abortion rights”. The CPGB for its part made clear that these issues should be discussed. While we need to begin to organise, these questions should not be hidden. They are central to whether our campaign with be a lobby or a vibrant working class campaign that actually addresses women’s rights. Sarah Colborne reacted strongly to this. She complained about the reporting of previous meetings in the Weekly Worker and condemned us as playing a role like that of the Daily Mail. We were stultifying the campaign and undermining unity. People would “not be honest at meetings if they thought they were going to be reported”. The message was clear - these meetings are secret and should be kept that way. Comrade Colborne does not want to be accountable for what she says, nor does she think our discussions are of any concern to the movement as a whole. It is becoming increasingly clear that AR wants to control and run any campaign. It wants it to be organised around its own slogans and would like to limit discussion and shut out alternative views - no wonder it does not like this being reported. The SA comrades reason that there is already a campaign in existence - AR - and everyone should fall in behind them. For example, it was agreed on November 11 that there would be a meeting on December 2, the day of the private members ballot in parliament. Since then an email has been sent out by Anne Quesney announcing that AR has organised a meeting on December 9 to campaign against any potential attack arising from the parliamentary ballot. This with no consultation with others in the group - and with no indication as to whether the December 2 meeting has been cancelled. The implications are clear. Those like the SWP who have refused to get properly involved and campaign for a woman’s right to choose must bear some responsibility for all this. Without serious opposition from them or the International Socialist Group, Socialist Action and their allies have felt free to elbow others out of the way and assert their right to dictate. There is, though, the annoying matter of the Weekly Worker. Thankfully SA did not get any real support from the rest of the meeting. We therefore went on to discuss the private members ballot and reports from various contacts, as well as what we should do to show solidarity with women in the US - under attack from a newly re-elected George W Bush. Several proposals were put forward: a public meeting, an open letter, organising protests to coincide with events in the US. No decisions were taken to implement any of these proposals, but they are still on the table. I also reported back on contacts with the Alliance for Choice in Ireland who are very keen to work with us and want to come to future meetings. They are very clear that any attack on abortion rights in Britain will have a direct impact on women in Ireland. Also the Pro-Choice Forum and the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS) have been contacted. Anne Quesney reported that the department of health is due to conduct an enquiry into BPAS but there is no decision yet on what action may be taken against it. Barbara Hewson, a barrister who specialises in this area of law, reported on a case she is involved with in Ireland where a woman, known as ‘D’, has brought a case to the European Court of Human Rights. D had no choice but to go to Britain to have an abortion when she found out that one of the twins she was carrying was dead and the other was severely disabled. She is claiming that this is a breach of her human rights. In a climate where there is so much propaganda in favour of the ‘rights’ of foetuses it is refreshing to hear that such a potentially powerful campaign has been launched. Certainly there is no shortage of issues to be fought around. If there is a private members bill it will signify an important defining moment and set down the marker for a future campaign. Those who want it to be a working class campaign that fights unequivocally for a woman’s right to choose must involve themselves now. We must make sure we have an open campaign that is not dominated by the undemocratic clique that is Socialist Action.
Well, they need to get used to our open reporting - since our extensive coverage and exposure of the shenanigans of Socialist Action in the European Social Forum process you would have thought they already had. Indeed Sarah did refer to Tina Becker’s reporting of the ESF as a wrecking operation!
It was proposed that we should hold a public meeting to agitate for pro-choice politics, even if the private members ballot does not result in a new attack. The majority believed that there was enough going on already for us to launch a public debate and involve a wider layer. There are already a number of ways that abortion rights are under attack - and we need to go on the offensive against the ideological attacks of the Sunday Telegraph and their allies in government.