Why legal abortion is compatible with Tory values

Ann Furedi, of BPAS (the British Pregnancy Advisory Service), discusses why Ann Winterton’s Ten Minute Rule Bill should be opposed.

The last 8 months have seen three Conservative ten minute rule Bills seeking to limit the provisions of the Abortion Act 1967. The latest, from Ann Winterton would compel all women requesting abortion to receive counselling and further information about the effects of abortion, and introduce a seven day cooling off period before a doctor is permitted to give the woman treatment. This intended legislation may sound reasonable on the face of it, but – whether members agree or disagree with legal abortion - this Bill should be opposed, as unnecessary and disingenuous.

The Bill is unnecessary because all women seeking abortion are already offered counselling and all must discuss in detail why they are seeking an end to their pregnancy. All are already provided with clear information about the effects of the procedure; this is necessary for informed consent, the cornerstone of modern medical practice. The Royal College of Obstetricians & Gynaecologists specifies the information to be provided.

Most women in the Britain already have to wait for longer than seven days between the appointment when counselling is offered and treatment– and this delay needs to be shortened. Women need to be given as much time as they need to reach their decision but, once it has been made, the sooner the abortion is provided the better it is. Ann Winterton’s Bill misunderstands the mentality of women seeking abortion and the motivation of those that provide treatment.

Women do not need to be told by Parliament to think carefully about their decision – they invariably do that, often presenting some weeks into their pregnancy because they have been considering their options and discussing them with their families. Those who provide abortion want to make sure that every patient we see has reached the decision that is right for them, offering counselling for as many sessions as the woman wants.

The BilI is disingenuous because it implies that Parliament needs to curb current practice. Mrs Winterton implies wrongly that abortion providers are failing in their duty of care when there is no evidence for this, and much to show the contrary. The Healthcare Commission and the Department of Health work closely and productively with abortion providers and in many respects, abortion is already the most-heavily regulated medical treatment in the UK.

Although the matter remains subject to a free vote, the three Conservative members responsible for the recent backbench bills have reinforced a perception that this side of the House is hostile to legal abortion. Traditionally, abortion has been seen as counter to the family values at the heart of Tory politics and associated with ‘left-wing feminism’. The current environment, where political boundaries are being rethought, provides an opportunity to reconsider this polarisation.

Legal abortion is compatible with, arguably even, an essential component of respect for the family values that Conservatives has long been associated with.

Society regards parenthood as a significant responsibility to be undertaken with forethought and consideration. We expect couples to plan their families by using birth control, but we know that even with the best of intentions, contraceptive methods and their users are not infallible.

Family planning relies on abortion as a back-up option when contraception fails: as a solution to the problem of unplanned pregnancy. Many of our patients themselves believe that ‘abortion is wrong’, but ‘it is the right thing’ for them personally because the alternatives are so much worse. Many decide on abortion because they believe another child would pose untenable strain on an already fragile family. Abortion is never a ‘life-style choice’ but a means for a woman to take responsibility for the management of a serious problem, unplanned pregnancy. It is hard to see how compelling a woman to have a child she knows she cannot care for is respectful of family values.

Conservatives have traditionally resisted the ‘creep’ of Government into personal life. An attractive feature of Conservatism is its belief that individuals can, and should, take responsibility for their own actions and that the State should not ‘nanny’ its citizens. Surely this means that we should expect that people can make responsible complex decisions, and live with the consequences, and that their doctors can provide legal safe services without Government intruding into the consultation room.

Coming debates on abortion could be seen as a litmus test for the Conservative Party despite the free vote. Is it really a party of ‘small government’ respectful of individual choice and freedom? Does it believe that individuals can be sufficiently responsible to exercise autonomy in decision making? Or does it wish to extend Government’s reach further into the most personal areas of our private lives? We respect your conscience, and your free vote, but believe your comments in the forthcoming debates will offer some clues to the Party’s future direction.

Ann Furedi is the chief executive of BPAS (British Pregnancy Advisory Service) and is writing in a personal capacity.

BPAS, (the British Pregnancy Advisory Service) has been a registered charity since 1968, and is the UK’s leading not-for-profit sexual healthcare provider. BPAS carried out 55,000 terminations of pregnancy last year. 85% per cent of all treatments carried out by BPAS were on behalf of the NHS. Please see www.bpas.org for further information.