THE PRESS SATURDAY, APRIL 15, 1978. Legal arguments for repeal

Press, 15 April 1978, Page 14

THE PRESS SATURDAY, APRIL 15, 1978. Legal arguments for repeal

On this page today we print the second, and concluding, article by Sir Alexander Turner on the repeal of the abortion provisions of the Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act. Sir Alexander, a former president of the Court of Appeal, emphasised in the introduction to his first article that he was writing as a lawyer, not as a moralist. As a lawyer, he finds against the act; to put it bluntly, it is bad law.

Sir Alexander’s authoritative and outspoken criticisms deserve proper consideration — particularly by the Government. They go to the heart of the lawmaking process in a country which has for so long been governed by a party with a large majority in a Parliament with a single chamber. The objectionable features of this legislation, in Sir Alexander’s view, are that it goes beyond the recommendations of the McMullin Commission: that it stiffens the law when there is no evidence of public clamour for such a move: that it embodies hasty amendments put forward by laymen without proper legal drafting: that it has since been referred to the Solicitor-General as if his interpretation. rather than the courts’, were to be accepted: and that the Government allowed a “free vote’’ on what should have been a matter of State policy

For all the reasons he offers, Sir Alexander holds that the abortion provisions of the act. and of the Crimes Act, should be repealed. After repeal, what then? Sir Alexander ventures no opinion on that; nor could he be

expected to. for that is the function of Parliament, not a lawyer. One does not need to be a lawyer, however, to foresee the consequences of repeal rather than amendment or a new law: abortion would cease to be a crime so that “abortion on demand” would then be possible. Only the extremists among those advocating the repeal of the act would wish for that outcome. The Government, faced with mounting demands for repeal of the act, may yet have to make the uncomfortable decisions in an election year which it had hoped to avoid by rushing legislation through the House in December: to draw up enforceable rules for the termination of pregnancies. The passing of the Contraception, Sterilisation and Abortion Act prompted the survey of religious affiliations of members of Parliament by “The Press” to which many Roman Catholics have objected. The latest of these objections — by a Roman Catholic M.P. who voted for the restrictive “Birch amendment” —was printed on this page yesterday. We accept Mr Lambert’s assurance that no priest has ever instructed him how to vote on this or any other issue before Parliament, and we note with approval the sentiment of his parish priest that “we have no right to dictate to others on moral issues.” We had always been under the impression that members of that Church accepted without question the dictates of the Church in such matters, and are happy to be disabused of this notion.