Bruce amendment on "sex selective" abortion - write to your MP!

Fiona Bruce MP has introduced an amendment to the Serious Crime Bill, which aims to outlaw so called “sex selective abortion”. Bruce’s amendment, which has been signed by a long list of MPs including many who describe themselves as pro choice, is a worrying attempt by a seasoned anti abortion campaigner (Bruce is chair of the All Party Parliamentary Pro Life Group) to undermine the right to choose.

The amendment will be debated at the Serious Crime Bill's report stage on Monday 23 February.

Anti abortion campaigners are lobbying MPs intensively, so it is vital that MPs hear the pro choice movement’s arguments about why the amendment is unnecessary – and potentially incredibly damaging. At the end of this post, you will find a draft letter which you can use to email your MP – please do contact your MP, as every letter is vital.

The wording of the amendment is:

"Termination of pregnancy on the grounds of the sex of the unborn child 

"Nothing in section 1 of the Abortion Act 1967 is to be interpreted as allowing a pregnancy to be terminated on the grounds of the sex of the unborn child.”

A review by the Department of Health in 2013 into sex ratios at birth in the UK found “no group is statistically different from the range that we would expect to see naturally occurring”.

The amendment, if passed, will not even be effective, but could be the thin end of a wedge to undermine the 1967 Abortion Act. Laws already rightly protect pregnant women from reproductive coercion, as a form of domestic violence. 

The amendment will however introduce a duty upon doctors to consider something other than the health and wellbeing of the person who is pregnant: doctors will be tasked with policing the intentions of people seeking access to abortion. As intentions are impossible to prove, this will in practice lead to racial profiling, and differing levels of availability of the full range of reproductive options, based on perceived ethnicity.

Supporters of the amendment claim it will ‘send a message’, which it will – it will send the message that in certain circumstances, a foetus’s rights trump those of the person carrying it. Abortion laws don't need to change – what needs to change are ways of thinking that value a foetus of one sex over another.

Numerous pieces have been published in response to the Bruce amendment pointing out its deeply flawed nature, in the New Statesman, on the Conversation, in the Letters page of the Daily Telegraph, and in the Scotsman among others. Abortion Rights has written a letter to MPs which you can read here. For more background on how bans on “sex selective” abortion are an ineffective response, the Guttmacher Policy Review published an excellent piece in 2012. This very blog has two posts on the issue (from September 2013 and January 2014) which call into question the claims and evidence used by anti choice campaigners who are calling for a ban.

The Bruce amendment presents a real danger to the right to safe, legal abortion in the UK. Please act now to put forward the pro choice case, which will in the end strengthen women’s rights more than an amendment that pays lip service to feminism while undermining the right to bodily autonomy. 

Proposed letter to your MP

You can find your MP’s email address and contact details via this link: 
www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/mps/

Feel free to use the below letter as a template, or to adapt it, or to write your own – we just need to make sure we contact as many MPs as possible.

Dear [MP name],

I am writing to you to express my strong opposition to the amendment to the Serious Crime Bill tabled by Fiona Bruce MP, “Termination of pregnancy on the grounds of the sex of the unborn child”.

Reproductive coercion, including forced abortion, is already illegal, as it is a severe and abhorrent form of domestic violence. Abortion clinic staff are trained to recognise the signs of someone being forced into having a termination they do not want, and follow procedures to ensure that women’s right to choose is respected. No new law criminalising women seeking abortion is required.

A review by the Department of Health in 2013 into sex ratios at birth in the UK found “no group is statistically different from the range that we would expect to see naturally occurring”. While there have been several highly upsetting first person accounts of women forced to abort due to the foetus’s sex, there is no evidence that this is a widespread practice in the UK, and no compelling argument that the Bruce amendment would have protected the women in question.

The amendment will do nothing to address the causes of boy-preference in some communities, and will lead to racial profiling of people from communities assumed to be 'at risk' of sex selection. It will give doctors the impossible task of policing the intentions of pregnant women, and remove the Abortion Act's requirement that the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman be the overriding concern of doctors authorising terminations.

I ask you to vote against this amendment and to make the case that your colleagues do the same.

Yours sincerely

[Name, address]

Responding to the vigil-antis

How to respond to aggressive and intimidating anti-abortion activity outside clinics.


For 40 days last month anti-choicers ‘40 Days for Life’ stood outside MSI and bpas abortion clinics in London. Many people found the sight of these vigil-antis standing in judgment over women entering abortion clinics repellent and there was some discussion about setting up counter-protests. However, staff didn’t really want even more people out on the streets in front of their clinics. In the event ‘40 Days of Treats’ emerged, delivering daily treats by way of a non-confrontational 'peculiarly British' counter-protest.


Today, members of Abort 67* stand outside bpas in Brighton. Abort 67 could have been air-lifted out of Texas and dumped from the sky given how incongruous this kind of protest is in the UK. Vast billboards of dismembered fetuses are displayed along the road and some women and their partners have been shouted at on their way in to the clinic. It is understandable that this perceived ramping up of aggression and intimidation tactics has led some people to feel that it is no longer good enough to turn a blind eye. Twitter has been abuzz with call outs for people to join a counter-protest.


So, is it time to get out on the streets and show solidarity for women and clinic staff by protesting against these vigil-antis? Our concerns are:


• anything which increases the volume (of noise or people) around clinics may increase the discomfort of women seeking abortion (and the other sexual health services provided)


• counter-protests will give additional attention to anti-abortion campaigns


• we still live in hope that we can find more constructive ways to conduct debate about abortion in this country – ones which recognise most people in the UK think abortion should be an option for women. We don’t want to do anything that accelerates our progress towards a US style ‘abortion-war’. 


• these people are fanatics. You won’t change their mind by reasoning with them or confronting them


That’s why we are calling on all those who want an outlet for their anger to help think of creative responses that:

• are supportive of women seeking abortion and clinic staff
• don’t give excessive attention to intimidating vigil-antis
• draw the attention of the local authorities to the distress this is causing women 
• ask the question about whether this kind of protest is compassionate, caring or ethical
• ensure that the communities and congregations that are supporting this kind of protest are called out on this intimidating behaviour
• can be used to mobilise for positive support of abortion provision and rights

Answers on a postcard please...(or via twitter or comments of course)


*I am not linking to Abort 67 because a gory video opens up within seconds of clicking on the site and I wouldn’t want anyone to come across it unprepared. If you want to visit the site, Google it.

Abortion - a Marmite issue?

Recently a friend described abortion as a Marmite issue to me. She confidently asserted that people are either for or against abortion, love it or hate it. Her assertion was that it divided people as much as Marmite. I couldn’t agree with her for several reasons (only one of which is that I belong to that awkward group of people the advertisers have conveniently ignored who quite like Marmite and choose to have it occasionally).


Seriously though, I really don’t see abortion as a Marmite issue. It’s such a normal part of women’s lives that it’s really more our bread and butter than a mere condiment. 1 in 3 women in the UK will have an abortion in their lifetime and it is now considered by most people, including health professionals, as an essential element of the family planning toolkit, which confirms that it is more analogous to a staple of our diet rather than a luxury toast topping (to spread the metaphor thinly).


Even those using contraception conscientiously, consistently and correctly may experience contraceptive failure. Given our long, fertile and sexually active adult lives, it is amazing how well we all do really at preventing unwanted pregnancy. A fertile woman ovulates approximately 450 times in her life – that’s 450 potential opportunities to conceive. This means that a woman having one abortion in her lifetime has experienced a 0.22% contraceptive failure rate and even a woman having three abortions only a 0.66% contraceptive failure rate over her reproductive life time.


Another reason the Marmite analogy doesn’t really work is that while some people definitely hate abortion no one really loves it. They might love its availability, the crucial role it has played in promoting public health, the part it plays in promoting women’s reproductive – and by extension economic and cultural freedom and more, but like good quality dental care, we’re glad it’s there, but it doesn’t mean we actually enjoy having it or ‘love it’.


I’m sure that there are far more Marmite-haters than anti-abortionists in the UK. The main difference between the two is that much as they may loathe the brown, tarry, sticky, salty weirdness that is Marmite, most Marmite-haters don’t have an agenda to stop me eating it.

It’s only words

Today’s blog was inspired by an accusation levelled at EFC claiming that although we present ourselves as being a ‘pro-choice’ organisation we are in fact ‘pro-abortion’. I wanted to unpick this claim and look at the language that we, and others use to frame our position on sexual and reproductive health.

Abortion is an emotive subject. The strong feelings people have about it are often reflected in the language they use. Recent debate in the U.S has seen ambiguous terms like ‘pro-family’ or ‘pro-life’ being used to describe those presidential candidates who are opposed to unrestricted access to abortion. ‘The other side’, that is to say, those who support abortion rights, are labelled ‘pro-choice’, ‘pro-abortion’ and when the heat’s really on, ‘pro-death’ and ‘baby-killers’. (Actually, those last two are from recent UK blogs describing EFC). The complexities of getting this language right are evidenced in this long-winded blog by U.S National Public Radio.

Most abortion rights supporters choose not to use the term ‘pro-life’ to describe those who oppose abortion, largely because they resent being positioned as the ‘opposite’ to this, as being somehow ‘anti-life’. In fact, many of those who support a woman’s right to choose would consider themselves to be ‘pro-life’ and even ‘pro-family’ in terms of respecting people’s right to make decisions about their own family, having children when they are in a position to care for them and so on. Some make the point that in fact those declaring themselves to be ‘pro-life’ with respect to the abortion debate do not always adhere to the label when it comes to discussing the death penalty.

One commonly used alternative to ‘pro-life’ is ‘anti-choice’. It acknowledges that what is generally proposed by an individual who is ‘against abortion’ is a desire to restrict legal or practical access to abortion. Therefore somebody who wouldn’t choose to end a pregnancy themselves, or who has religious or moral objections to the procedure but would nevertheless support another’s right to choose would not be contained within this category. One sexual health professional suggested to me recently that he feels the term ‘anti-choice’ is too vague. That when describing groups such as SPUC or Life we should make clear that they are ‘organisations opposed to abortion in every situation’. To make evident the extreme position this entails – that whether a woman becomes pregnant through incest or rape, whether the pregnancy endangers her health, these organisations would not support her legal right to choose abortion in any circumstance.

Coming back to EFC and our self-positioning as ‘pro-choice’, we stand by this. By ‘pro-choice’ we mean simply that we support a woman’s right to choose whichever pregnancy option she feels is best for her. Our work focuses on abortion as this is the option many people have the least information about, or where political agendas can cloud real life issues. Approximately half of young women who become pregnant will make this choice and we believe that they are entitled to factual information about their health and wellbeing should they do so. Yes we believe abortion is a valid option for someone facing a pregnancy they can’t or don’t want to continue. But this is not the same as being ‘pro-abortion’. You would be very hard pushed to find an organisation which believes abortion is always the right option for everyone who becomes pregnant!  A great portion of our work is about motivating young people to use contraception consistently or delay sex in order to avoid unwanted pregnancy in the first place. But we acknowledge the reality that abortion does happen and that young people need the facts so that they can make their own informed decisions about it.

Advertising Standards Authority rule against anti-abortion group

Advertising Standards Authority rules against anti-abortion advice centre


Just as the Government is considering changing regulations on abortion counselling and diverting women to alternative, ‘independent’ abortion advice centres, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) today upheld a complaint about an anti-abortion counselling centre. 


Education For Choice (EFC) made the complaint about an advert placed by the Albany Women’s Centre, an anti-abortion counselling organisation, on Yell.com. EFC objected that the ad was misleading, because it did not make clear that Albany Women's Centre was an anti-abortion group who would not offer impartial advice on abortions.


EFC made the complaint after their own enquiries found that women who attend this organisation for counselling about unwanted pregnancy may be given misinformation and subjected to biased views on abortion.


EFC Director, Lisa Hallgarten, said:


‘We are extremely pleased that the Advertising Standards Authority ruled against the Yell.com advert. It is totally unacceptable that women seeking impartial support and evidence-based information to support them to make a difficult decision about pregnancy should be subjected to misinformation and bias. We are especially concerned about the effect of these services on young people’s ability to make decisions and access services quickly. 


We hope this ruling will draw attention to the fact that there are organisations on our high streets, which advertise pregnancy support and advice but which oppose contraception and abortion and whose intention is to obstruct or dissuade women from accessing these services. 


The Government is currently considering new regulations that will divert women seeking abortion away from the highly regulated abortion providers and towards ‘independent’ counselling organisations. We hope this timely ruling will encourage the Government to think carefully about who is providing these alternative services, what their motivation is for doing so, how transparent they are about what they really offer, and what quality of service women might expect from them.’