Abortion backlash in Britain

Press, 26 February 1977, Page 8

Abortion backlash in Britain

N'ZPA London Pro-abortion campaigners [are waging a last minute all|out battle to get members of 'Parliament to vote against a 'bill making it harder for wo- ■ men to get abortions when it Igets a second reading in [Parliament.

[ Thirty pro-abortion groups ’have joined forces to lobby parliament. Earlier this week, ■ their representatives told the ! Secretary of Social Services (Mr David Ennals) that a large body of public opinion favoured the law as it stood. The Abortion ( Amendment') Bill sponsored bv the Conservative, Mr W. Benyon, would do nothing but restrict the availability of safe, earlv abortions, said the group which included the Abortion Law Reform Association, the Child Poverty Action Group, and the National Association of Family Planning Doctors. The Prime Minister (Mr Callaghan) has received a [letter from more than 1200 ,I doctors protesting against the ■ bill which they said would ■ be undesirable and retrogressive. , It would be likely to in--1 crease the number of illegal [abortions, the doctors said. [lt would increase opportuni-. 1 [ties for exploitation and relopen the doors to financial malpractice that existed in? I Britain before the 1967 act. [ I The bill would violate civil! [liberties by allowing police [access to confidential medi-[ leal records, said the letter,? [which included signatures of! | professors and heads of departments, consultants in ■ gynaecology, and experts in| family planning, psychiatry,; and child health. The main issue has been, ignored as the bill seeks to increase bureaucratic devices!

I for restricting legal and safe ' abortion. 1 The national abortion campaign, which comprises more than 80 groups throughout ■ Britain, said the bill would intimidate doctors, and force [women into the hands of the back-street racketeers. If the bill becomes law it [ [would effectively close the? | private abortion charities I which perform two-thirds of I the operations in England and [Wales. i The two doctors required! [to sign the abortion consent form could not be partners I nor employed by or have a ■ [financial interest in the same? [nursing home. At least one' I of them would have to have had five years experience. The! [upper limit for performing? 'abortions w’ould be lowered 1 I from the present 26 weeks to 20 weeks, and a woman’s? family doctor would have to? 'be informed. [ Although the act which l liberalised abortion in this- ■ country is 10 years old. abor-! I tion has remained a heated' -and emotionally-charged sub[ject. The new' bill was based [ on a report from a Parliamentary Select Committee whose' -members were denounced I this week by one Labour' Member of Parliament as a, 1 [group “of extremely pre-; ' judiced anti-abortionists ofi Ithe most fanatial kind. ! Half the committee’s meni[bers resigned early last year.; 1 saying that the rest had been [bent on destroying the exist- ' 'ing act rather than amending 1 it. j “It would be ironic iffl ■ Britain, which during the ' 11960 s was the pacemaker of i social reform, should now in;' [the 1970 s stand alone in the'l Western world putting back,' Ithe clock.” Dame Josephine 1

Barnes, a leading London gynaecologist, said this week. "The British Pregnancy Advisory Service, one of the two largest abortion charities, has sent all Members of Pari liament circulars to show that easier abortion has not been used as a contraceptive method. Last year onlv 127.904 abortion operations 'were performed compared with 167.149 in 1973. Meanwhile, the strongest anti-abortion lobby tn Britain, i the Society for the Protection 'of the Unborn Child, as well as the British Section of the | World Federation of Doctors ! Who Respect Human Life ' were calling for even more stringent changes to the law. I S.P.U.C. has given Mr Ben- : von a petition which said that doctors and nurses refusing to support indiscriminate abortion were pressurised and . found it difficult to be promoted in the fields of gyna< icology and health visiting.