27.03.2008

Four years of silence

The issue of abortion rights is once more on the agenda for the SWP, Anne Mc Shane reports

A major and imminent threat to women’s rights looms in the amendments being put forward to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. ‘Pro-life’ MPs aim to reduce the time limit for abortion from 24 weeks to as little as 13 weeks.

Although the Labour Party formally defends the current time limits, Gordon Brown like his predecessors will allow a free vote, so as to appease the significant and vocal anti-abortion section within the cabinet. From reports, it seems likely that there will be some reduction, probably to 20 weeks, given the current balance of forces, as there is strong support for such a move among Tory, Liberal Democrat and Labour MPs alike - all of whom will have a free vote. David Cameron has taken the lead by announcing that he will be using his vote to lower the limit.

That the Socialist Workers Party has recently produced the pamphlet Abortion: a woman’s right to choose is therefore to be welcomed. It is urgent that the left move into action around this question. But it is not as if the present threat has come from nowhere. We had long been warned. A number of private members bills had been moved by anti-abortion MPs in recent years, although, as is usually the case with such bills, they never actually got to the hearing stage. Well aware of that fact, the movers were instead using them as a way of keeping the pressure up and of moving the debate in their direction.

The behind-the-scenes work was being done and the ground was being prepared. But throughout much of this time the SWP was keeping quiet on a woman’s right to choose an abortion in order not to upset its then allies within Respect - George Galloway and muslim ‘community leaders’. More than that, the SWP actively and successfully opposed the creation of a principled pro-choice campaign.

In September 2004 a meeting was held in central London to discuss the setting up of such a campaign. The gathering, called by Terry Conway and Tessa Van Gelderen, both members of the International Socialist Group, took place in the midst of a major media attack on abortion rights ignited by a Channel Four documentary entitled My foetus. The film showed 3D images in the womb, which were seized upon and used to incredible effect by the ‘pro-life’ media and their supporters to construct an argument for ‘foetal rights’.

There were spurious, pseudo-scientific arguments about viability and the sensory experience of foetuses. The basic message was that a foetus at any stage was a human being with a ‘right’ to be carried full term and born. That, of course, meant the denial of the right of the woman to decide whether to remain pregnant. The debate shifted significantly away from women’s rights and even David Steele, who as a Liberal MP introduced the 1967 Abortion Act (allowing terminations in the first 24 weeks with the consent of two doctors), said he believed that in the light of “new evidence” the time limit should be lowered.

The initiative to set up a campaign therefore was a timely and crucial one. Comrades Van Gelderen and Conway both stressed the urgency of getting organised. They were worried that the claims being made by the anti-abortion lobby were being taken so seriously and that opinion was so rapidly shifting in their direction. The meeting was well attended, despite short notice and there was enthusiasm from the majority, including a lot of young women, to take on the challenge. Many of the younger comrades have mothers who had been involved in previous struggles and believed that it was essential to take the opportunity to rearticulate the debate. Unfortunately there were those who were having none of it.

Candy Udwin, speaking on behalf of the SWP, told us that there was really no threat to worry about. It “would be extremely difficult to encroach on existing rights” (Weekly Worker September 23 2004). We should not launch a campaign until there was a real and major danger - something that she believed was unlikely to occur, as so many people were pro-choice. The media furore could be ignored.

She was supported - but for different reasons - by Sarah Colborne of Abortion Rights (AR). Comrade Colborne was especially anxious to ensure that her group, as the only current pro-choice campaign, could control any potential initiative. AR was and is dominated by Socialist Action - a shadowy organisation known for its Stalinistic methods, secretive dealings and uncritical support for London mayor Ken Livingstone.

The Abortion Rights campaign was well funded with glossy leaflets, an office and permanent paid staff. But what it lacked was principle. Although its members stated that they did not agree with the imposition of any time limits on abortion, they informed us that they were unable to say this publicly, as this could jeopardise their funding. So they could only defend the existing time limits. In addition AR was completely against men having any proper involvement in the campaign and was adamant that it was a feminist organisation.

The arguments put forward by myself and others that all this pointed to the necessity of a new, independent campaign to defend and extend a woman’s right to choose an abortion were opposed by both comrades Udwin and Colborne. Sadly they succeeded in halting the Conway-Van Gelderen initiative. AR went on to cement its position as the unopposed national campaign and the SWP was free to immerse itself in ensuring the success of Respect free of pressure from a leftwing pro-choice campaign. Galloway, of course, has a long record of opposing abortion. As with so many other issues, the SWP chose not to pick a fight with him on this one.

In the run-up to the 2004 Respect conference we in the CPGB struggled against this opportunism. We proposed a motion calling for the defence and extension of abortion rights at Respect branches. In Hackney we were opposed by leading SWP member Julie Waterson, who absurdly argued that the democratic right of women to decide for themselves whether or not to terminate a pregnancy was a revolutionary demand that should not be forced on the Respect coalition. She led her comrades in voting down our motion.

However, as a result of CPGB pressure and in order to defeat our motion in Greenwich and Lewisham branch, the SWP proposed its own motion which talked in vague terms about a woman’s “right to choose”. SWP comrades opposed anything more specific and made it clear that Respect’s elected representatives - and one particular elected representative - were not bound to support any specific position when it came to voting on any proposals before parliament.

So overjoyed was the SWP that it had managed to keep Galloway and the muslim ‘community leaders’ on board that the central committee later proudly held up the example of Birmingham SWP and how its caucusing had ensured that “all hostile motions on abortion and black sections” were defeated and none of their movers got “elected to Respect conference” (see Weekly Worker November 4 2004).

But it was not long before the issue was again in the headlines. In the run-up to the general election in 2005, cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, head of the catholic church in England, put pressure on candidates to make clear their opposition to abortion - or risk losing catholic votes. The Tory leader at the time, Michael Howard, had already stated that he wanted to drastically reduce the time limit for abortion. Other church leaders piled in and demanded similar pledges.

Tony Blair, later a catholic convert, expressed concern about possible schisms in his own ranks. Charles Kennedy of the Liberal Democrats said he would consider voting for a reduction. Other politicians and commentators weighed in and the debate dominated the press for at least a week during the election campaign.

In the middle of all this, the Respect manifesto was launched. The word ‘abortion’ did not feature - just that vague phrase about a “woman’s right to choose” (choose what?). Abortion rights were deliberately kept out of Respect’s election campaign and, as far as I know, it was not raised by any candidate. There was no press release, no comment on the website and certainly no statement in defence of abortion rights in response to the wide-ranging assault. Lindsey German, Respect candidate in Newham and now Left List-SWP candidate for London mayor, kept her mouth firmly shut. More important to keep the coalition intact than to support women’s rights when under attack.

In a debate on the women’s question at Marxism later that year, comrade German was introduced as a leading fighter for women’s liberation. She was to be commended for “the practical application of her politics” (Weekly Worker July 14 2005). I therefore took the opportunity to ask her why she had not been forthcoming in this particular “practical application” during the general election campaign.

The wave of vitriol which ensued from pro-SWP hacks was breathtaking. Ghada Razuki, who had been Lindsey’s campaign manager in Newham but sided with Galloway during last year’s split, condemned me for asking such a question and said that anything which divided us from muslims should “fade into insignificance”. She accused me of expressing opinions “bordering on racism” for having referred to the SWP’s then muslim allies. Comrade Razuki was not an SWP member, but she got loud applause from the SWP-dominated audience. SWP loyalists like Elane Heffernan told the meeting that abortion rights had not been an issue in Newham!

It was not until the 2006 Respect conference that the truth was revealed - a deal had been done with Galloway to keep the word ‘abortion’ out of the 2005 general election manifesto. A “woman’s right to choose” was as far as he was prepared to go and in exchange for its inclusion the SWP had to agree that there should be no mention of gay equality in the manifesto. So much for Lindsey’s credentials as a fighter for women’s and minority rights.

But now we find ourselves in 2008 - after the Respect split with Galloway. Suddenly the question of abortion becomes an urgent concern. The SWP’s 2008 conference on January 5-6 agreed that abortion should be prioritised. Its January 22 Party Notes made clear that the campaign against any new legislation further restricting abortion rights is now urgent. An SWP London caucus was held on the question on January 23. At conference, “Delegates talked about the urgent need to build abortion rights campaigns in their areas” (Socialist Worker January 12).

All this says a lot more about the internal politics of the SWP than it does about its real commitment to women’s rights. The leadership feels the need to pose left in order to assuage its internal critics and allow a retreat from Respect in something like good order.

As for the pamphlet itself, it is reasonable, if limited. The writer, Goretti Horgan - an SWP member in Ireland - puts forward a good case against the ‘foetal rights’ arguments coming from anti-abortionists. She argues that the decision on abortion can only be a woman’s and that we must defend that right and not give way to arguments about ‘viability’. She calls on all those who support a woman’s right to choose to set up Abortion Rights branches and get active in trying to influence MPs in the current debate. She argues the necessity of building a mass movement to defeat the current proposals before parliament.

However, she does not call for any extension on current rights, and there is no mention of the need for abortion on demand at any stage of pregnancy - which is the only principled and meaningful stance, and one that the SWP used to uphold. She should be reminded of the women who are forced to travel to Spain and elsewhere for terminations after 24 weeks. Women who face the prospect of abortion do so for all sorts of reasons and, although late abortions are rare, they are still necessary. This too must be a “woman’s right to choose”.

But perhaps comrade Horgan thinks that there are no working class women currently forced to go abroad for an abortion. She assures us that there is no problem for the rich - wealthy women “simply hop on their private jet and fly to somewhere they can get a legal, or at least safe, abortion” (p13). While it is true that working class women are the hardest hit by current restrictions, it is essential that revolutionary socialists champion the rights of all. The right to choose an abortion must be universal. It is a democratic right that must be taken up by our class as part of its struggle for general emancipation.

She also states that the question of abortion rights is a political, not moral, issue. This seems to be an attempt to distance the SWP from its previous position in Respect, when it went along with mainstream claims that abortion is an issue of ‘conscience’ and voting for or against should therefore be left to the individual MP. In any event, abortion most certainly is a moral question - but not in the sense of the sanctimonious moralism of church leaders or George Galloway. It is a question of working class morality that women must have control over their own bodies and their own lives. No MP has the right to make that choice for them.

Whatever the limitations of the pamphlet, however, the question that really begs a response is the sincerity of the organisation that produced it. The arguments that Goretti Horgan addresses regarding foetal viability are not new - they have been around well before the 1967 act. And their current manifestation stems from ‘pro-life’ lobbying and media campaigns since 2004.

For nearly four years the SWP was virtually silent on abortion. More than that, it opposed the creation of a principled campaign in preparation for the renewed assault. As a result we are now fighting a rearguard action. For this John Rees and Lindsey German must be held to account.