Socialist Resistance

An archive of socialistresistance.org, 2002–2022

Another step forward for a woman's right to choose?

by Susan Moore  |  Socialist Resistance no49  |  page 12

This is scanned newsprint, not web text. The original PDFs carried no text layer at all, so every word here was read off the page by OCR. Expect dropped opening letters, run-together words and wrong characters. There was no contents page to cut the paper up by, so the articles were found from the size of their headlines: a headline may carry its kicker, and where an article ran beside a boxed panel a few lines of the neighbour can appear. The scanned issue is the authority; this text is here so the words can be found at all.

The decision of the Science and Technology Committee on October 31 to support the idea that a woman should nol reque two doctors lo agree to her having an abortion, as well as to agree that there was no scientific basis to lower the time limits under which such a procedure can be carried out from the existing 24 weeks is an

The committee also supported the idea that nurses could carry out abortions in the first trimester of pregTheir view was backed by Public Minister Dawn Primarolo who appeared in front of the committee -strongly implying their would be no supWMD OUT: port from government for any moves to restrict the existing Act Anne Quesney, Director of Abortion Rights commented: "The Science and Technology Report provides solid and rational evidence in an often distorted and

FOR TACE polarised discussion. But we must continue to ensure that women and their needs remain at the centre of the abortion debate"

The committee follows in the wake of similar views adopted by both the British Medical Association at its annual conference this year and by the Royal Society of Gynaecologists who also opposed any reduction in the time limits.

It is an important rebuff to the anti-abortionists who had undoubtedly been feeling quite pleased with themselves after the high profile intervention of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams on their side on time limits, in an article on October 21.

It also showed their attempt to have their "expects" giving evidence to the committee without revealing their bias backfired on them.

It also comes after parts of the media sought to portray the original architect of the 1967 Abortion Act, David Steel as having changed his position forty years on.

The Guardian disgracefully headed their front page lead on October 24 "Too many abortions" says Lord Steel.

The ensuing article was in fact rather different than the headline implied and the fact that Steel appeared at the 40th anniversary meeting organised by Abortion Rights indicates that he has not changed his mind.

The debate on the governments Human Tissue and Embryos Bill due in parliament soon will give the antiabortionists the opportunity to amendments which will further restrict time limits.

We say: our bodies, our lives, our right to decide

Lobby your MP now

http://www.abortionrights.org.uk