The ‘Parliamentary Inquiry’ on Abortion and Disability

Today, anti-choice MP Fiona Bruce launched a report entitled ‘Parliamentary Inquiry into Abortion on the Grounds of Disability’. This is an unofficial inquiry, not sanctioned by Parliament, but rather the outcome of a special interest group of anti-choice MPs getting together to discuss abortion on the grounds of fetal abnormality. Although evidence was accepted from a range of individuals and organisations (including Brook and fpa) that which is presented in the report, and the final recommendations, are heavily weighted towards those who would like to see the legal right to terminate a pregnancy due to serious fetal abnormality removed completely.

A quick glance at the list of written submissions tells you a great deal about the inherent bias in this inquiry. The majority are from ‘pro-life’ organisations which believe that abortion should be illegal in every circumstance - SPUC, Life, ProLife Alliance, No Less Human (which is actually SPUC, but hey, have two submissions guys!), Image and Pregnancy Helpline, Christian Medical Fellowship, and the list goes on. Throughout the report, submissions from individuals with no professional background, and from anti-abortion lobby groups are given greater emphasis than medical experts and respected bodies such as the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nurses and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. The report uses this biased presentation of evidence to argue that “allowing abortion up to birth on the grounds of disability is discriminatory” and recommends that Parliament considers reducing the time limit for abortion on the grounds of disability or repealing this ground completely.

There is a suggestion that the current law, which allows for abortion after 24 weeks where there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would have serious physical or mental abnormalities, is "contrary to the Equality Act 2010". This is nonsense. The law does not consider a fetus to be a legal person until birth, so the Equality Act does not apply. The further ‘evidence’ is mostly a mixture of:

•    Dodgy statistics - anti-abortion campaigner Patricia Casey is quoted as saying that "at the time of abortion 40% of women will be experiencing mental health symptoms" and links abortion for fetal abnormality to depression and post traumatic stress disorder with no reference given for this claim.

•    Emotive, inappropriate language – phrases like “not allowing doctors to deliberately kill any baby after viability” pepper the report and are a sign that the focus is not on professional medical analysis of the complex facets of abortion law and practice.

•    Anti-abortion bias – this is not surprising in a report formed by groups and individuals opposed to abortion in every circumstance. Life’s written evidence that abortion for fetal abnormality "overlooks the fact that the unborn child is as much the doctor’s patient as is the mother" is included alongside personal testimonies from parents who claim they were pressurised into having an abortion, and received little support from medical professionals with their decision to continue the pregnancy.  The fact that one of these parents, Lynn Murray, has been a member of SPUC for over 18 years, is not declared. Many of the members of the Commission have a history of anti-abortion campaigning – one example is Lord McColl, a patron of the Centre for Bioethics and Public Policy which runs Abort67 in the UK, who you might know as the group which holds up gory posters of supposed aborted fetuses outside abortion clinics. Hmm.

So we’ve established that this is essentially the position of a minority group of anti-choice MPs and campaigning bodies, which does very little to present the views of the experts who work in this field with the necessary authority that they deserve. However, it’s already being reported as if it were a neutral cross-party inquiry with the backing of the BMA. It’s important that:

•    This is not regarded as an official parliamentary inquiry, which accurately reflects the views of a range of bodies involved in reproductive care, disability campaigning and fetal medicine.

•    It is not used as evidence that the right to abortion on the grounds of fetal abnormality is ‘discriminatory’ or causes discriminatory attitudes towards people with disabilities. There are some excellent blogs on this subject which you might want to have a look at for more discussion of this (Frances Ryan in The Guardian, and Nicky Clark’s blog are good places to start).

•    The real people making decisions about often much wanted pregnancies are not forgotten in this. Abortions performed after 24 weeks are extremely rare (they made up less than 0.1% of all abortions last year) and are a result of considered choices regarding health, quality of life, existing children and many other factors. One parent in the report says: “Please understand that finding out that your unborn baby has a serious disability is one of the hardest things that a parent can hear. Please don’t make it any harder by taking away our right to choose”.

•    Those who do choose abortion, and the doctors who support them are not demonised. Underlying this report is an implication that doctors are pressurising women into choosing abortion where there is a diagnosis of abnormality. We believe it is important to trust women making these tough decisions, and to trust doctors to give the information and support they require to make an informed choice. The wonderful Antenatal Results and Choices exists to provide further support to those individuals and couples faced with making such decisions.

For further information on this inquiry and the backgrounds of those involved, have a look at this blog from the Ministry of Truth.

What the SPUC?

We regularly get requests from teachers across the country who are looking for a ‘pro-choice’ speaker to come in and balance out a talk on abortion from a ‘pro-life’ group. We’ve written before about EFC’s general concerns with this approach. Namely that a ‘debate’ around abortion can be confusing and stigmatising for young people, and rarely provides them with the factual information they need for living their lives (especially when we know that a third of women have an abortion).  This blog gives specific examples of the issues involved when inviting the most well-known anti-abortion group, SPUC, to a school. The teachers I speak to are rarely aware that SPUC runs an outspoken campaign against same-sex marriage and that the information they use regarding contraception and abortion is very often at odds with the medical establishment. So here is the lowdown:

•    Misinformation about abortion
SPUC’s educational materials make claims about abortion which are not supported by medical experts. For example, they link termination of pregnancy to ‘post-abortion trauma’, which is an invented medical condition, and claim in their student pack that 'the risk of ectopic pregnancy may increase up to 30% after a first abortion and 160% after two or more'. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (who tend to know about such things) state that there is no evidence for a link between abortion and subsequent ectopic pregnancy. A SPUC speaker also made misleading links between abortion and breast cancer at a Cambridgeshire school last year.

•    Misinformation about contraception
SPUC’s booklet ‘Birth control methods which can cause abortion’ suggests that all forms of hormonal contraception can act as abortifacients. This is based on the belief that pregnancy begins at fertilisation, rather than implantation, which is unsupported by the law and established medical practice.

•    Stigmatisation of abortion and use of distressing images
The SPUC speaker in Cambridge told students that 'rape is the ultimate unplanned pregnancy...for some people who’ve been raped and had the baby, even if they don’t keep it, something positive comes out of that whole rape experience'. SPUC's student pack claims that 'pregnancy as a result of rape is extremely rare...the extreme physical and psychological trauma of being raped makes it difficult for fertilisation or implantation to occur.' This is untrue and may be upsetting for those who have experienced rape. SPUC has a history of presenting information to young people in a way which can be distressing. As far as we know, SPUC continues to use graphic images in its school workshops, and images of aborted fetuses remain on the ‘education’ section of the website, likely to be used by young people for school projects.

•    Stigmatisation of same-sex relationships and family units
SPUC currently runs a campaign against the legalisation of same-sex marriage, which it claims would increase numbers of abortions. John Smeaton, the director of SPUC, states the following on his blog:
“The fundamental argument against gay marriage is that homosexuality is disordered, as it is radically at variance with the truth and meaning of human sexuality ... Catholics must proclaim loud and clear that it is impossible for any homosexual relationship to be a marriage because genuine personal, sexual and spiritual union between persons of the same-sex is impossible.” SPUC has also made statements against same-sex couples adopting, claiming that ‘lesbian parentage is not in the best interests of children’.

•    Opposition to sex education
SPUC fronts the ‘Safe at School’ campaign which lobbies against so called ‘explicit’ sex education in schools. A recent blog claims that sex education lessons tackling pornography are ‘about dangling porn in front of young school pupils and encouraging them to embrace it in their lives.’ The group has expressed concern about sex education materials which ‘include explicit images of male and female sex organs, lessons on menstruation in mixed classes (boys and girls)’ and has labelled masturbation‘intrinsically unethical’.

SPUC are extremely well funded and do not charge for their schools work. They regularly contact schools with the offer of a free speaker on this tricky subject and it’s understandable that many teachers decide to run this lesson using an external organisation. However, we would advise all teachers to think carefully about how such an organisation might fit with their school’s SRE and equality and diversity policies, as well as their commitment to the well-being of their students, some of whom may already have experience of abortion, and many of whom will definitely go on to.

If SPUC has visited your school, we’d be interested in hearing what you thought about the lesson.

SPUC leaflet opposing same-sex marriage

Masturbation is ‘self-abuse’ and ‘unnatural’, according to SPUC

SPUC (Society for the Protection of Unborn Children) is an anti-abortion organisation which speaks to young people in schools across the country on topics like abortion and euthanasia.

We’ve written before about our concerns with the misinformation that SPUC provides on contraception and abortion, and about the stigmatisation of abortion, as well as non-heterosexual lifestyles. However, a recent blog quoting SPUC’s communications manager Anthony Ozimic exposes another aspect of SPUC’s policies which may not be fitting for schools wishing to deliver relevant and accessible sex education to their pupils.

In addressing the Telegraph’s recent obituary of ‘IVF pioneer’ Robert Edwards, SPUC outlines its problem with masturbation (as well as other aspects of IVF technology). Ozimic states:

“The sperm used to fertilise the eggs in IVF is almost always obtained by masturbation, assisted by the provision of pornography. Masturbation instrumentalises and thus debases the sexual faculty, which is proper to marital union, not laboratory experiments. The sexual organs are structured for depositing sperm into the vagina, not into a jar. A masturbator - even one motivated by a desire to fertilise eggs, even his wife's - is 'making love' to his hand, which is unnatural and a form of self-abuse. Masturbation for any purpose - including providing sperm samples for medical purposes - is intrinsically unethical.”

Remember that SPUC claims to be a secular organisation. When SPUC speakers talk about sex and relationships in schools, they do not do so from an officially Catholic position. Ozimic notes that “Catholics in particular should note that it is forbidden” but implies that masturbation is debasing and unnatural for all.

We know that in fact, a majority of people have engaged in some kind of masturbation. It is safe and can be a good way for people to get to know their bodies without risk of sexually transmitted infections or unwanted pregnancy. It’s sad to think that a new generation of young people is being fed these same stigmatising messages about masturbation which can create guilt and shame around what is a natural and common act.

EFC report into abortion education in UK schools launched today

Our report ‘Abortion Education in the UK: Failing our young people?’ released today reveals the extent of poor-quality education on the topic of abortion.

Some teachers and external speakers delivering lessons on abortion have been found to be using materials which are inaccurate, biased, and often stigmatise abortion as a pregnancy option. For example, the three main anti-abortion groups regularly invited into schools to speak to thousands of young people have all claimed that abortion is linked to an increased risk of breast cancer (despite cancer organisations and respected medical bodies dismissing this link). Young people responding to our survey of abortion education reported lessons which were distressing and left them feeling upset and confused. Many felt that abortion was stigmatised, despite the fact that we know a third of women will make this choice in their lifetime. One young person told us that her R.E lesson ‘seemed designed to put students off abortion or make those who had already had an abortion feel guilty or like murderers.’  We know, from speaking to those in abortion care services, that the stigma and guilt attached to abortion in these early educational encounters can stay with women for the rest of their lives.

And it’s not just abortion which is misrepresented and stigmatised by these groups. We found materials from anti-abortion groups (and teachers’ own presentations) which gave incorrect information about contraception. One organisation Lovewise, which claims to speak in hundreds of schools every year, refuses to teach about contraception for those who are unmarried, labelling it ‘sinful’. Student materials from the Right to Life Trust claim that ‘the contraceptive pill can be said to keep the female body in a permanently morbid, unnatural state.’ Again, our concern is that young people are not getting accurate medical information and may be dissuaded from using contraception when they are sexually active.

As well as spreading misinformation and stigma around contraception and abortion many of these groups also hold views which are contrary to schools’ equality and diversity duties. SPUC, for example, is currently hosting a virulent campaign against same-sex marriage and the director of the charity states that ‘the fundamental argument against gay marriage is that homosexuality is disordered’. Similarly, Lovewise promises to promote heterosexual marriage as ‘the only context in which honouring, fulfilling, secure and healthy sexual activity may take place’ declaring that ‘all other contexts, including homosexual activity are damaging to mind, body and spirit’.

We think it’s time schools started paying closer attention to the groups they are inviting in to speak to young people about abortion and ensure that their teaching on this sensitive and relevant subject is impartial, factual and non-judgmental.

To read the full report/executive summary click here.

The EFC education toolkit is available for further information on best practice in this area.

Todd Akin's not the only one claiming that pregnancy as a result of rape is rare

Earlier this week Republican politician Todd Akin came under fire for claiming that pregnancy occurring as a result of rape is ‘really rare’. In arguing for a ban on abortion without exceptions for pregnancies conceived through rape he stated the following:

“First of all, from what I understand from doctors [pregnancy from rape] is really rare... If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down”

Akin’s claims have rightly been attacked by various pro-choice groups and media outlets in the States for having no basis in scientific fact. Indeed, research from the Journal of American Obstetrics and Gynecology suggests that rape-related pregnancy occurs with significant frequency, something to which many women themselves can attest. So huge was the outcry that even the President released a statement condemning the claim that “legitimate rape” is unlikely to end in pregnancy. President Obama used Akin’s disingenuous comments as an example of why "we shouldn’t have a bunch of politicians, the majority of whom are men, making healthcare decisions on behalf of women."
 
Unfortunately, this kind of thinking isn’t limited to one rogue politician in the States spouting misinformation in order to push a ban on abortion. The idea that it is impossible or very unlikely for pregnancy to occur as a result of rape has been spread by a number of anti-abortion groups, including those based in the UK. The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) state the following in their ‘Exploring Abortion’ school resource:

“Pregnancy as a result of rape is extremely rare. A woman is only fertile for 3-7 days during her cycle and the extreme physical and psychological trauma of being raped makes it difficult for fertilisation or implantation to occur.”

Earlier this year, SPUC were criticised for giving young people misleading information about pregnancy and rape but we are yet to see the same public outcry Todd Akin’s comments have attracted in the States.

Young people here and abroad deserve to hear factual information about pregnancy and abortion, and we should certainly be concerned when damaging myths like this are allowed into our classrooms. EFC are currently working on a report into abortion education in the UK which will pull together the types of misinformation being given to young people in schools. If you have information you'd like to feed into the project please do contact us efc@brook.org.uk and keep an eye out for the launch of the report this autumn.

The cost of balance

After 20 years of advocating for evidence-based abortion education EFC was pleased to see the front page of this weekend’s Guardian exposing a SPUC school presentation which delivered many of the false claims about abortion we take to task on this very blog. The talk at Comberton Village College in Cambridge contained misinformation about abortion, including claims that it can increase a woman’s risk of breast cancer, infertility and so called ‘post-abortion trauma’.

The public were rightfully outraged but unfortunately this isn’t a one-off. It’s not just SPUC giving misinformation and it’s not just at this school. We know, from contact with teachers across the country, that anti-abortion groups are speaking to young people regularly in a range of schools. Whether it’s Lovewise presenting at an Academy in Northumberland, or Life talking to Sixth Formers about sexual health at a Catholic school in Solihull we have a real concern that not all the information will be based on evidence. SPUC, Life and Lovewise all put out literature which gives misinformation about pregnancy, contraception and abortion.

We’ve written before about the problem of schools inviting in groups like this. But we’re still surprised when educators like the Principal at Comberton defend their decision to allow a group to mislead young people about their reproductive health in the interests of ensuring ‘proper balance’. Our criticism remains the same; these groups are entitled to hold a particular viewpoint, but not to use misinformation about a medical procedure to promote this viewpoint to children. ‘Abortion is morally wrong’ is a viewpoint, ‘Abortion causes breast cancer’ is simply unscientific misinformation.

The photo below is an example of a pamphlet provided by Life to a comprehensive school in Wiltshire.

Anti-choice groups and homophobia

Government guidance states that ‘young people, whatever their developing sexuality, need to feel that sex and relationships education (SRE) is relevant to them and sensitive to their needs’. Indeed, any school SRE policy worth its salt would communicate the importance of inclusive education which doesn’t discriminate against same-sex relationships. So why are groups which hold homophobic views allowed to speak to young people as part of their sex and relationships education?

We weren’t particularly shocked when the director of anti-abortion organisation SPUC (The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children) posted a missive railing against ‘gay marriage’ on his blog. We are however, still bemused by the fact that schools across the country allow this group to speak to young people.

In this recent blog SPUC director John Smeaton used text book homophobic arguments in his opposition to ‘gay marriage’ stating that:

‘The fundamental argument against gay marriage is that homosexuality is disordered, as it is radically at variance with the truth and meaning of human sexuality... it is impossible for any homosexual relationship to be a marriage because genuine personal, sexual and spiritual union between persons of the same-sex is impossible.’

Helpfully, Smeaton clues us in as to why exactly he’s arguing against gay marriage on a blog dedicated to ‘pro-life issues’:

‘Why is the Catholic Church's teaching on homosexuality (and sexual ethics generally) important specifically for the pro-life movement? The late Pope John Paul II, the great pro-life champion, taught ... that it is an illusion to think that we can build a true culture of human life if we do not offer adolescents and young adults an authentic education in sexuality, and in love, and the whole of life according to their true meaning and in their close interconnection.’

Smeaton’s blogs are not simply personal musings but directly linked to SPUC’s work and identity – the title is ‘John Smeaton, SPUC Director’ and the header states: ‘I write this blog in my role as SPUC's chief executive, commenting on pro-life news, reflecting on pro-life issues and promoting SPUC's work’.

SPUC is currently leading a national campaign called ‘Safe at School’ bemoaning the current state of sex education in schools. It offers schools resources and send out speakers to give presentations on topics such as abortion and euthanasia.

Another organisation, Care (Christian Action Research and Education), one of the founding members of the SRE Council, which runs the sex education programme Evaluate in schools, also raises a red flag concerning its position on sexuality. Care was a vocal supporter of Section 28 and has also responded negatively to David Cameron’s speech in support of ‘gay marriage’. In 2007 CARE co-sponsored a conference entitled: ‘The Possibility of Change: Understanding the Causes and Healing of Homosexuality’.

A Stonewall survey of young LGBT people found that over a third didn’t feel safe or accepted at school. We are concerned that some organisations, which hold views contravening good practice in SRE, are being invited into schools and could share opinions which stigmatise, or may trigger negative feelings and bullying. Is a young person who is questioning or coming to terms with their sexuality, or who has friends or family members  who are in gay relationships, ‘safe at school’ when an organisation with homophobic views is given a platform?

If you want to help EFC campaign against misinformation in schools please text EDFC22 followed by the amount you wish to donate (e.g. EDFC22 £10) to 70070 or visit our Just Giving page to make a regular donation.

Myth Busting Monday (aka Tardy Tuesday) – ‘Pro-Life = Pro-Women’

Anti-abortion groups are increasingly employing discourse about women’s health to support their arguments against safe, legal abortion. This blog looks at how anti-choice orgs have moved from focusing on fetal rights to a supposed concern for women’s mental and physical health to bolster their campaigns.

Radio 4’s PM show (listen from 43.15) featured a discussion on leaflets being distributed by anti-abortion organisation The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) to GPs across the country. SPUC claim that over 1,000 GPs have requested their ‘Abortion: Your Right to Know’ leaflets and GP Dr Greg Gardner asserts his reasons for stocking the pamphlets. He claims they provide women with useful information on the ‘possible physical complications’ of abortion including an ‘increased risk of breast cancer’.

Before we move on let’s just have a little mini myth-bust on this claim that women need to know about the increased risks of breast cancer following abortion. The myth that abortion causes breast cancer has been debunked by Cancer Research UK, Breakthrough Breast Cancer and The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG). Which brings us on to the RCOG. During the radio discussion Dr Gardner claims he requested SPUC leaflets because there is a ‘dearth of accurate information for women considering abortion’ and that they need ‘proper information about potential long-term harms’. He doesn’t seem satisfied by the medical guidance put forward by the RCOG – a body dedicated to women’s health, which, in order to produce guidance for medical professionals and patients assesses and evaluates existing research in each relevant field.

Gardner’s claim that he proffers SPUC leaflets to provide women in his surgery with clinical information is, as Ann Furedi of bpas (also on the show) claims, ‘staggering’. Furedi goes on to make a point we really wish didn’t have to keep being made – that there are two separate discussions to be had here. One about the rights and wrongs of abortion; moral issues such as when life begins which are open to debate, and clinical evidence and information on the physical and psychological risks of abortion. As she points out, this medical information would surely be better obtained from reputable health organisations such as the RCOG rather than a campaigning organisation such as SPUC with a politically motivated agenda.

Clearly SPUC wish to dissuade women from having abortions. They have a right to present the viewpoint that abortion is immoral, or discuss their belief that human life begins at conception. However, we object to any obstacle which stands in the way of women’s access to evidence-based information on their health. When anti-abortion organisations make misleading claims related to medical information, those who support evidence based education and healthcare should be alarmed. When SPUC tell young people in schools that abortion causes breast cancer or infertility, ‘facts’ which hold no weight in the scientific/medical community; or when they use family doctors to relay this message, our ability to make an informed choice is compromised. Why can’t SPUC accept that abortion isn’t going to give a woman breast cancer, or make her infertile without relinquishing the belief that it is wrong?

Transcript of EFC presentation on facts and ethics