Embryology Bill Superficially the Embryo Bill may appear to cover an ill-assorted collection of subjects, from embryo research to surrogacy, from highly scientific In Vitro fertilisation (IVF) to low-technology Donor Insemination (DI). However, it is a coherent legal and political project for the Tories.
It represents an attempt to group together all forms of reproduction other than heterosexual intercourse, and place them under govemment control. It even attempts to plan for future, as it brings the forms of research most likely to develop new reproductive techniques under similar regulation.
Within this range of reproductive methods, it is DI that has excited most attention so far. Ann Winterton MP tabled an Early Day Motion at the end of October last year, asking the goverment to ban provision of DI to lesbians and single women. Lady Saltoun proposed an
amendment to the Embryology Bill to prohibit
access to Di for all unmarried women, which
Page 10
FEATURES conflating the amend- ments to the bill with the Bill itself - as if they were already through. I believe that the Bill is an improvement on the Warnock Committee report: it specifically uses the words "if the woman is married" - not assuming that she is. We should put our energies into improving the Bill rather than opposing it. But it does give the secretary of state too much power to appoint the statutory licensing authority - it is too bureaucratic and they are not accountable enough to parliament. Also the licensing authority has to be self- financing which means that the cost of treat- ment will go up because they will have to charge for licensing. But having said all that I think it has a good definition of what a parent is, it has good rights for children, and the correct type of restrictions on research. It avoids wrangles over stored embryos like they have had in Australia over inheritance etc. The Bill also provides for counselling. I think non-directive counselling is very im- portant in such a new field. In the US they have found that not having was defeated 61:60 in the House of Lords Committee stage last month. Further dis- criminating amendments are promised for the House of Commons. The debate in the House of Lords made it quite clear why DI has been the main target for these attacks - because Di is seen as being furthest outside the framework of the nuclear family, particularly given the actual or social fatherlessness of children born as a result of DI. As the Earl of Lauderdale so bluntly put it *AID (Artificial Insemination by Donor) is the farmyard, like it or not, but AIH (Artificial In- semination by Husband) is the house'. Lord Ashbourne underlined this in a very explicit speech about the "family as the fun- damental unit of society" which must be "but- tressed, supported and built up'. Lord Gis- borough found it bizarre that artificial means should be suggested to encourage lesbian couples or have children ... It takes me back to the 1960's, when licence was given which, in my view, has done immense damage to this
American women demonstrate for Choice a licensing authority does not necessanly benefit women, it lays them open to exploitation and individual clinics can and do discriminate. The problem with the Bill is that it has no positive rights for women, for the consumer.
To a certain extent this will be dealt with by the amendments. If you have an amend ment saying that treatment will be restricted to married women and it fails, then this will affect practice after the Bill if passed and women will be able to go to the courts if they suffer discrimination. But this is not adequate - we need positive rights. The only grounds for restricting access should be medical. country.
It is important to stress given these attacks and the reasons and forces behind them, that access to DI is an issue for all women, not just those who want or need it. For at the heart of Lady Saltoun's and Ann Winterton's amendments, and indeed underlying sections of the
Bill itself, is the wish to control who can and
cannot have children. Some groups of women
single women, lesbians are to be
categorised in law as unfit mothers; a measure
that can only encourage further prejudice and
discrimination in wider society.
This is a fundamental denial of women's
rights to control our bodies, just as restrictions
on abortion rights are, and must be opposed
by all women on this basis. We need to ensure
that campaigning over Access to Donor In-
semination is supported by feminists and
socialists and taken into the labour movement
as part of the fight for a Woman's Right to
Choose.
Rebecca Fleming
SOCIALIST OUTLOOK no 22, March 1990
USSR: All Power to the President?