Working Together for Women

On Wednesday 10^th July we held our second networking event for those working in and around the women’s sector. It was great that the real diversity of the women’s sector was represented, with campaigners against domestic violence, those working with disabled young women and organisations supporting single parents attending.

The theme of the event was ‘Working Together for Women’. The women’s sector is facing an incredibly difficult time, but collaboration can enable organisations to support each other and strengthen each other’s work. The event allowed us to meet, discuss current projects, challenges and look at ways we could work together more in the future.

 

 

The first of our two speakers was Kat Banyard. Kat discussed the ways her organisation UK Feminista brings together the expertise that already exists in the sector and those campaigning at a grassroots level to drive forward women’s equality. The UK Feminista Feminist Lobby of Parliament is one example. The lobby was supported by an alliance of organisations working on various issues and campaigns. The benefit of joining together in this way was that it signalled to politicians that we can’t separate women’s issues – they are interconnected, and can span across sex education and sexual violence, to the way women are portrayed  in lads’ mags and the representation of women in parliament. Furthermore, by bringing together so many voices, the lobby sent a powerful message to MPs - that feminism should be at the heart of politics.

 

 

Katy Taylor of the Aya Project, itself a partnership project between Women’s Aid and Imkaan, explained the need for more collaboration between bigger and smaller organisations in the current climate. Funding cuts have put huge pressure on the women’s sector and we know that to save costs  some commissioners are looking for one size fits all service provision. However, this approach will only exclude the most marginalised communities who already face huge barriers when accessing services. It is crucial that we work together to ensure that the tendering environment doesn’t create a marketplace that excludes the smaller organisations - as well as the women that need their expertise.  And in such partnerships, we shouldn’t assume that the larger organisation must automatically take the lead. Collaboration is not without its difficulties, but Katy explained that the key was to be led by the needs of the service users at all times.  

We know that some of those attending are already in discussion about working together on future projects and we hope that the event will spark some partnerships.

We are planning another similar event later in the year. If you are interested in attending and didn’t make it to this event or have any thoughts about a potential topic for the event please do get in touch: katherine.o’brien@bpas.org

The Irish abortion bill is legislation we cannot live with

This is a guest post from the Abortion Rights Campaign in Ireland on the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill that the Irish Government has passed today. The bill allows for abortion in cases only when a woman's life is at risk.

The Abortion Rights Campaign (ARC) welcomes the Irish government’s initiative in moving the Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill, while noting that the Bill is over 21 years overdue. Despite a mandate from the European Court of Human Rights, women in Ireland have been forced to wait unnecessarily while legislators drag their feet, ignoring the ABC case decision and the results of two referendum. At last, the pro-choice movement, buoyed by the support from the people of Ireland, could not be ignored.

Despite the move to legislate, ARC asserts that the bill is not fit for purpose, nor does it comply with the ruling that any legal framework for abortion services must include accessibility. Failure to comply with the European Court of Human Rights judgement violates women’s rights. Politicians, who otherwise promote the importance of mental health issues, have absurdly created a traumatising process of assessment for suicidal pregnant women. The steps involved in procuring legal termination to save a woman’s health in this Bill do not constitute accessibility. ARC therefore welcomes the principled stance taken by a number of pro-choice TDs in voting No to the legislation.

This is legislation we can’t live with. Provision must be made to allow terminations for fatal foetal abnormalities. Women and their families, suffering the grief of knowing their much-wanted pregnancies are incompatible with life, should be able to avail of medical care in their own country.

ARC are seriously concerned about the potential outcomes from the criminalising of women and those who assist them. Women who self-administer the abortion pill, dissuaded from seeking necessary medical follow-up lest she be prosecuted, will be denied their basic right to health care. Because of the criminal penalties outlined in the Bill, a doctor may once again refuse to provide a life saving abortion because of potential legal sanctions against them. This Bill lacks the clarity to earn its name.

We now need to repeal the 8th Amendment to the Constitution which equates the right to life of a woman to an embryo or foetus, regardless of the woman’s state of health, regardless of all the other factors which may make it necessary for a woman to seek an abortion. Consistent opinion polls have shown that access to abortion is supported by the majority of the Irish people. It is only a matter of time before free, safe and legal abortion will be available in Ireland.

Britain’s Abortion Law: What it says, and why

In this new pamphlet, legal scholars explain why the attacks on Britain's abortion service in 2012 were based on a misunderstanding of the law, both in spirit and in practice.

 Since the 1967 Abortion Act became law in April 1968, millions of women have had access to safe, legal abortion in Britain. The Abortion Act made abortion legal when two doctors agree in good faith (a) that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant women, or risk of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or of any existing children in her family, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated; or (b) that there was a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped. The law allowed doctors to take into account the woman’s ‘actual or reasonably foreseeable environment’.

The 1967 Abortion Act, which still regulates abortion practice, did not grant women the right to end an unwanted pregnancy. The Act gives doctors the discretion to decide whether there are medical grounds to support a woman’s request for abortion. The law does not allow a woman to end her pregnancy simply because she wants to; there must be evidence that the pregnancy would threaten her physical or mental health or that of her children.

Nevertheless the law can be interpreted liberally by doctors who understand that it is detrimental to a woman’s health to force her to endure a pregnancy and to become a mother against her will. The vast majority of abortions end unwanted pregnancies and are carried out by doctors who accept that it is damaging to the physical or mental health of a woman to force her to endure a pregnancy against her will. The papers in this publication explain that this interpretation is entirely within the spirit of the Act. Indeed, it is arguable that without such liberal interpretation the Act would have been unworkable.

Events in 2012, however, appeared to throw into question the interpretation of the Abortion Act, as it has stood for over 40 years. This questioning was prompted by a ‘sting’ operation launched by the Daily Telegraph newspaper in February 2012, which claimed to find that three doctors acted illegally by authorising abortions for reasons of ‘sex selection’. The newspaper investigation was followed by a three-day series of unannounced inspections by the healthcare regulator, the Care Quality Commission (CQC), in March 2012 – instigated by the Secretary of State for Health Andrew Lansley in response to concerns that some abortion doctors were signing the HSA1 abortion forms in advance of the patient having been assessed.

Over the course of these events, many statements were made about the legality of current abortion practice that were based on a misinterpretation of both the letter and the spirit of the 1967 Abortion Act. The ensuing confusion has had two significant consequences. 

One is that doctors involved in abortion care have become nervous about their everyday practice, as it no longer seems clear what is legal and illegal, or which aspects of standard abortion practice may be suddenly highlighted as problematic by the regulators. This extends throughout the abortion service, to nurses, midwives and managers; and to other doctors working in gynaecology or psychiatric services, who are not directly involved in abortion care but may be called upon to provide the ‘second signature’ on HSA1 forms.

Another consequence has been that some critics of abortion law feel justified in criticising the British abortion law for being ‘badly drafted’, or the abortion regulations for being weakly enforced.

The papers in this booklet have been written by academics and lawyers to clarify the British abortion law, through explaining both its origins and its application today. These papers explain that, far from being ‘badly drafted’, the 1967 Abortion Act was very carefully worded to provide doctors with the discretion to manage the abortion question, according to their own professional judgement. The abortion regulations, similarly, are designed to support the law, which has at its heart the discretion of the doctor.

There is no ambiguity to the law, nor has there been any failure in its ability to act as Parliament intended when it was passed in 1967. Where there has been a failure is in the ability of many in 2012 to understand the law correctly. This booklet aims to correct this failure of understanding, and reassure medical professionals where they stand in relation to the authorisation of abortions in Britain today. 

We begin with a ‘Q&A’ section designed to correct some of the recent confusions. This is followed by four short papers, written by academics and lawyers and which were presented at a briefing for doctors and policymakers at the Medical Society of London on 27 June 2012. Other material in this booklet includes the text of relevant law and regulations pertaining to abortion, official correspondence, and letters written to official bodies and to the press in order to correct the misinterpretations of the law.

In 2013, rumblings are beginning of further attempts to distort the facts around abortion law and practice, as it relates to terminations of pregnancy for fetal anomaly. For this reason we include a commentary by Jane Fisher, director of the charity Antenatal Results and Choices, explaining the legacy of the Joanna Jepson case of 2003, following which doctors have become more wary about carrying out lawful terminations on these grounds.

Download Britain’s Abortion Law: What it says, and why for free here. 

This article was originally written by Jennie Bristow, bpas conference and publications manager, for bpas Reproductive Review.