Advertising abortion services on T.V

The Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice (BCAP) has announced a change in its regulations which would allow any organisation providing ‘post conception advice services’ to advertise in the broadcast media.

This changes everything...or does it?

Some anti-abortion organisations and anti-abortion MPs have expressed dismay that this ruling will lead to our airwaves being awash with advertising for abortion services, thereby ‘de-sensitising’ the public to how serious abortion is. In reality it is unlikely to lead to much new advertising. Those providing abortions in the not-for-profit sector like the big two, bpas and Marie Stopes, were already allowed to advertise and have only done so once between them (Marie Stopes in 2010). The private sector only provides 4% of abortions in England and Wales and though private clinics are now allowed to advertise are unlikely to do so as the cost would probably be prohibitive. So, it is unlikely we will see any significant increase in broadcast advertising of abortion services as a result of these changes.

The other important aspect of the new regulations is that they require those offering post conception services to be transparent about whether they refer women for abortion. The BCAP has said that this decision was made on public health grounds. This is because of a concern that a woman seeking abortion could be delayed if she chose to go to an independent pregnancy counselling service, not realising that they would not or could not refer her directly into an abortion service if this is what she chose. This change in regulation is welcomed by all those who – like EFC – are concerned that some women may be unnecessarily delayed from accessing abortion by making and waiting for an appointment with a service that might slow down the process -  either deliberately or through simple logistics. Some people have objected to this transparency requirement on the grounds that while pregnancy advice organisations have to be honest about not referring for abortion, organisations like MSI and bpas do not have to disclose that they are abortion providers when offering post conception advice services. In reality it would be impossible to visit the bpas and MSI websites without realising that they provide abortions....If anything, the normal criticism of bpas and MSI from anti-choice campaigners like Nadine Dorries, is that they are constantly promoting their abortion services.

So, what will this part of the regulations change? Some independent (or ‘crisis’) pregnancy counselling centres are currently vague about what they offer. Some try to give the impression that they will support women to access abortion, although in fact they don’t. In July last year EFC published a report based on mystery shopping crisis pregnancy centres. We found that while some did explain clearly how to access an abortion to a client who had chosen to have one, others could not or would not provide any practical information to mystery shoppers. We think it is vital that any woman seeking support with pregnancy decision-making should also be given support to access abortion as quickly as possible if that is what she chooses. If this regulation helps women to identify the most suitable place to go to get the service they need and prevents women experiencing unnecessary delays in accessing abortion, then it will have made a positive difference.

EFC merges with Brook

If you receive our newsletter you’ll know by now that Education For Choice has merged with Brook. The two organisations have always been closely aligned in outlook and we’re really excited about turning a long-standing professional friendship into a vibrant partnership.

EFC’s specialist knowledge of issues relating to abortion and young people will complement Brook’s much wider sexual health remit. EFC will become a project within Brook, and will continue to deliver education, training and advocacy work around young people, pregnancy decision-making and abortion. 

We are extremely excited at the opportunities working in this way will provide us together to reach more young people with high quality information, education and support on pregnancy decision-making and abortion. All young people have the right to receive accurate, evidence-based information about pregnancy options; and the impartial support to make informed decisions about pregnancy.  By coming together we will continue to ensure that entitlement is met.

You can still follow EFC on Twitter,  like us on Facebook and visit our Blog and Website.

Check out Brook’s website for more details of their work including the Sex Positive campaign.

Myth-Busting Monday - Same - Sex Marriage Leads to Abortions

The anti-abortion organisation SPUC has launched a campaign against the legal recognition of same-sex unions. This document comes as no surprise as we know that SPUC Director John Smeaton has written a number of blogs attacking same-sex unions, and calling homosexuality ‘disordered’. However, we are baffled by the argument that  ‘allowing same sex marriage would damage society and would put the unborn child at a far higher risk of being aborted’.

SPUC’s position paper on same-sex marriage links to Government abortion statistics to back up its claim that ‘unborn children are much safer within marriage than outside marriage'. Abortion Statistics for England and Wales do show that overall, the majority of abortions are requested by unmarried women. But the partial use of these figures to argue that traditional, heterosexual marriage ‘protects children born and unborn’ is disingenuous. A closer look at the abortion statistics shows that age is the most significant factor. Only 1% of women under 20 having abortions are married. This is unsurprising considering the average age of marriage for women in the UK is 28. It should not lead us to the conclusion that being married in and of itself stops women requesting abortion. By the time they are 35 or over, married women make up a significantly larger proportion (40%) of women requesting abortion. The overall figures for the proportion of abortions carried out for married women are strongly skewed by the fact that  70% of abortions are provided for women under 30 many of whom aren’t married (yet).

Apart from age, there may be lots of reasons why women who are married may be under-represented in abortion statistics none of which points to a magical protective effect of marriage. What is certain is that nothing in the statistics demonstrates that allowing gay couples to marry will result in more abortions. The leap from ‘most women who have abortions are unmarried’ to ‘same-sex marriage causes abortion’ is bizarre. The attempt to dress up good old fashioned homophobia as social science is worse.

This blog from the brilliant Abortion Gang reminds us why the LGBT and pro-choice movements need to work together for reproductive justice. We have blogged before about our concern that organisations with a homophobic agenda are welcomed into our schools to talk to our children about abortion.We only have to look to the current situation in the States to see that if there is a connection between same sex marriage and abortion it is this: all too often those wishing to restrict women’s right to access safe, legal abortion are the very same people who are attempting to restrict the choices we make about who we can love and live with; how we define, create and care for our families; the way we live – in fact who we are.

Myth-Busting Monday: ‘Abortion causes mental health problems’

In light of the recent Systematic Review of Induced Abortion and Women’s Mental Health it’s time to put to rest any myths about abortion increasing risk of mental health problems.

The comprehensive review stated that:
•    The rates of mental health problems for women with an unwanted pregnancy were the same whether they had an abortion or gave birth
• An unwanted pregnancy was associated with an increased risk of mental health problems.
• The most reliable predictor of post-abortion mental health problems was having a history of mental health problems before the abortion.
• The factors associated with increased rates of mental health problems for women in the general population following birth and following abortion were similar.
• There were some additional factors associated with an increased risk of mental health problems specifically related to abortion, such as pressure from a partner to have an abortion and negative attitudes towards abortions in general and towards a woman’s personal experience of the abortion.

The recommendation is that ‘future practice and research should focus on the mental health needs associated with an unwanted pregnancy, rather than on the resolution of the pregnancy’. So let’s make sure that rather than invent or inflate risks to mental health we focus on trying to prevent unwanted pregnancies and ensuring women have the support they need during the decision-making process when they are pregnant. Jennie Bristow has a thoughtful piece on this in the Huffington Post.

Myth Busting Monday – The morning after pill is a ‘DIY abortion’

Every Monday EFC busts myths and take names, cutting through the misinformation, disinformation, and straight up nonsense to bring you the facts.

In yesterday's Daily Mail, Peter Hitchens frothed;

'There is no better symbol of the squalid New Britain than the choice of Christmas to make the ‘morning-after pill’ easier to get. Now this do-it-yourself abortion for people who are not just feckless but incompetent too is to be given out by post, in advance (surely it should be renamed the ‘night-before’ pill, in that case?). Under-age girls will easily be able to get it. Like all such measures, it will be followed by more under-age sex and more abortions. And nobody will make the connection.'

We are getting sick and tired of national newspapers (and in this case, well known journalists!) touting the myth that taking emergency hormonal contraception (aka the morning after pill) is an abortion. We’ve posted about this myth in the past but it just doesn’t seem to go away. In fact, the Telegraph are guilty of posting similar just last week.

For some, there is a belief that pregnancy begins at fertilisation, when the sperm meets the egg. So yes, those people may well consider the taking of contraception which can act to prevent implantation of the fertilised egg as ending a pregnancy, akin to an abortion. However, what is rarely made clear in such missives against accessible contraception is that this is a belief. Legally and medically, pregnancy begins following implantation of the fertilised egg meaning that abortion and contraception are different things.

From the British Medical Association’s ‘Abortion Time Limits’ paper:

‘What is abortion?
The term 'abortion' is used throughout this paper to refer to the induced termination of an established pregnancy (i.e. after implantation). It does not include the use of emergency hormonal contraception which the High Court has confirmed is not an abortifacient. All current methods of emergency contraception work prior to implantation and therefore are not abortifacients.’

Teaching about marriage

Current Sex and Relationships Guidance asks schools to teach about the nature and importance of marriage and of stable relationships for family life and bringing up children. This wording recognises a range of different family structures and acknowledges that a child brought up in a variety of contexts can be fine if some basic pre-conditions are met.


It now transpires that conditions for funding for Free Schools and Academies obliges them to teach about the superiority of marriage and its importance in bringing up children, but apparently not other kinds of relationships or families. This new SRE formulation seems to have dropped the term ‘stable relationships’.


Why does that matter?
 I think we can all think of examples of children being brought up by single or non-married parents who are happy and healthy and some who are damaged and vulnerable. We all know marriages that are destructive and that provide a bewildering and distressing context for family life as well as those that are safe and lovely. However, I will leave it for others to discuss the pros and cons of marriage itself and whether it is the societal panacea it is believed to be by some.


As an educator I am most concerned about classroom practice 
When you work in a classroom you become very sensitive to the variety of backgrounds and experiences that make up the student group. You think carefully about the words you use and how they will impact on the feelings and future choices of the young people who are sitting in front of you. If I was teaching about different kinds of relationships and different models of family life, I would be acutely aware of the fact that the young people in my class could be being brought up by married biological parents; could be adopted,  fostered or in care; could be being brought up by a single parent (single through choice, through abandonment, through bereavement); could have a gay parent or two gay parents; a trans-parent may have lost their parents; or may simply have two biological parents who co-habit, but never ‘tied the knot’. The last thing I would want to do is to stigmatise them, make them feel I am judging their family or pre-judging their future life based on their current family life. Unfortunately this is exactly what happens when people try to promote marriage above all other models of family life.


Telling these children that they are more likely to fail, because marriage is the only legitimate model for family life, that it confers some unique protection on children, and guarantees them an advantage in life, is hardly a good educational tactic is it? Whatever your moral or political beliefs about the benefits or otherwise of marriage over other kinds of relationships you have to think about whether stigmatising  a student’s life experience is going to reap educational or emotional benefits.


Most parents do their level best to create a family and home in which children feel safe and loved, are motivated and supported to do their best in life and are healthy. Parents hope their children will find a loving partner and create a loving home for their grandchildren too. Talking about how to achieve this: what makes a child feel safe and loved, how to manage the challenges of parenting, how to make decisions about when/if to become a parent, and how to get the support all parents need to make a good go of it, are all vital parts of Sex and Relationships Education. Most people would agree that children thrive with certainty, security, boundaries, and consistency. With this in mind, exploring the concept of ‘stable relationships’  seems a really sensible approach. Telling a large proportion of our children that their families are inferior, failing or illegitimate because their parents/ carers aren’t married -  or that they, as a result are disadvantaged and set up to fail -  is just plain wrong.

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.