The Militant(logo) 
    Vol.60/No.37           October 21, 1996 
 
 
What Did UK Abortion Act Register?  

MANCHESTER, England - Pamela Holmes sent a letter to the editor that appeared in last week's Militant. This week Ann Fiander writes raising similar points. Holmes and Fiander pointed to an inaccurate statement in the article "Britain: abortion foes make little headway in `twins case,' " which appeared in the September 23 Militant. It is incorrect to say that the 1967 Abortion Act in Britain "legalized the right to choose." Under capitalism there are no guarantees of a woman's right to choose -that is have access to free, safe, and legal abortion on demand up to term.

The 1967 Abortion Act, however, was an historic gain for women and the working class in Britain. It was adopted on the heels of the incorporation of millions of women into the workforce and the confidence women gained from being part of social production. The law was also a product of a struggle by tens of thousands. This gain affects the lives of women not only in Britain but also in Ireland and several other European countries, who travel to Britain to gain access to safe and legal abortion. Hundreds of thousands of women have been able to receive free abortions covered under the National Health Service.

As the British capitalists attempt to drive down the value of labor of the entire working class, the employers are once again making a concerted political effort to roll back, or at least slow down, some of the positive changes in consciousness about women's place in society.

But the British rulers are bumping up against the majority view that abortion should remain available free of charge as part of the health service - a reality that several generations have grown up with and which they are not prepared to give up without a fight.

Holmes argued, "The 1967 Act is subject to interpretation and enactment by the medical profession." But in practice abortions are widely carried out, regardless of the opinions or personal beliefs of individual doctors. Holmes has a point in stating that abortion provisions can be implemented bureaucratically and are subject to cuts in the health budget. But that doesn't detract from the fact that the 1967 law registered a major step forward in the fight for women's equality.

Fiander, in her letter, claims that statements by Secretary of State for Health Stephen Dorrell "are a gain for women's rights and the working class in Britain." According to the Independent, Dorrell "was resisting demands from the pro-life group for an inquiry [into the twins case]." That controversy was sparked by revelations made by Dr. Philip Bennett that he aborted one of the twin fetuses of a 28-year-old unmarried woman. Rightist anti-abortion groups tried to stop the procedure before they knew Bennett had already done the deed, and later called for a government inquiry for possible violation of the law and challenged the Abortion Act itself.

Fiander also states, "We should recognize the working class made a gain in this instance." That is misleading. The statements by government officials reflected the balance of class forces on this issue. Working people make gains only through struggle. Statements by bourgeois politicians simply register what has already been conquered. London would like to advance attacks on abortion rights, but is not too confident of doing so at this time. They fear the response they would meet, particularly through new generations coming into political action.

Fiander says that Bennett "effectively offered himself for prosecution" by carrying out the selective abortion and that the government pronouncement that the 1967 Act had not been breached means the case "extends the liberal interpretation of the present law." This outcome reflects already existing gains. As the government was forced to admit, the procedure was within the 1967 Act, which shows the latitude already there. To my knowledge, since 1967, no woman or doctor has yet been prosecuted in Britain for carrying out or having an abortion. Furthermore, the High Court injunction sought by the Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child (SPUC) had no intention of bringing about a prosecution. The rightists had to take a more indirect form of intervention. The injunction was aimed at halting the operation in order to inform the woman of a cash offer of 60,000 ($90,000) by anti-abortion forces if she carried the pregnancy to term. This action by the High Court allowed a third party to intervene in a decision of a woman to terminate a pregnancy. It therefore did set a dangerous precedent for the future. But reaction to the court ruling showed the rightists made little headway.

Probes against women's rights will continue. There is no basis for being complacent, but neither is there reason to expect working people and youth will not wage a fight to defend abortion rights. - JULIE CRAWFORD

Julie Crawford is a member of the Rail, Maritime and Transport workers union in Manchester, England.  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home