Whose right to choose? By Rebecca Flemming
will counteract this loss remains to be seen, and fought over. Undoubtedly, the possibility for doctors to carry out later abortions has been opened up. Whether they will or not, and how many women will be able to fight through the ideological pressure and decimated resources of the NHS to ask for one is still an open question. Regional and local variation in the provision of abortion facilities will certainly increase. The defeat for the idea of a woman's right to choose may well run alongside increased access to abortion in practice. Importantly, the "hostage to fortune' for abortion law contained in the 14 day limit on embryo research must not be overlooked. The present political climate is clearly not favourable to a legal line of attack from 'prolife' groups on this point, but the avenue remains open for the future. Moreover, the way the long title of the Bill is drafted means that the Statutory Licensing Authority (SLA) established under it will have monitoring and overseeing of abortion law and developments in the scientific field included in its remit. This will increase the vulnerability of abortion rights to further medical advances in the care of premature babies. Jo Richardson's "equal opportunities' amendment, which would have enabled the SLA not to grant or to revoke the licence of a clinic that discriminated in its provision of donor insemination (DI) and new reproductive technologies (NRTs), was defeated in Com-
mittee. Despite being very vaguely worded
this would have provided a very necessary
counter weight to the Goverment's in
sidious clause concerning the 'welfare of
the child' born as a result of Di or NRTs.
Statements by the Lord Chancellor and
other ministers that the crucial factors in a
child's welfare are the permanence' and
"stability" provided by the marriage of the
parents and the presence of a man in the
household will only provide more grist to
the mill of judicial prejudice and reaction
and serve to intimidate the few clinics that
provide a non-discriminatory service.
This setback, together with the failure of
the other Labour proposals to democratise
the SLA and broaden its composition mean
that the Bill's restrictive effect on lesbians'
and single women's access to DI and NRTs
has been increased and reinforced.
The true victors are the Tory realists,
who have shaped and guided this Bill from
the beginning. They understand that fer-
tility control is necessary for women's par-
ticipation in the workforce, a participation
which is increasingly important to the
British economy. However, they insist that
control should not be vested in the woman
herself. Abortion laws are therefore
bounded by concepts of foetal rights and
viability, and empower doctors rather then
women.
This current is the dominant force in the
Goverment, and counts Health Secretary Kenneth Clarke amongst its spokespersons. It is firmly wedded to the idea of scientific progress as both the inevitable, proud product of capitalism and the motor force of economic advance; and it is also particularly susceptible to the lobbying of the medical establishment.
The Tory realists have steered a careful course between the fundamentalists and the left, sometimes sailing closer to one or the other to the keep the central project afloat and intact. The underlying aims of allowing research and the provision of DI and NRTs within a strictly regulated and controlled framework, most importantly within the context of the nuclear family, and of reconciling the immediate needs of the economy with the long term needs of the capitalist system, has been achieved and even strengthened by the amendments.
It is important to stress that this chapter in the struggle for women's reproductive freedom is not yet closed. The Third Reading is yet to come, bringing the possibilities both of further liberalisation of the abortion law and of a reactionary backlash. The Code of Practice promulgated under the Bill will be drawn up shortly. This promises further discrimination and restrictions on access to DI and NRTs unless there is a considerable shift in the political climate. Such a shift will not be produced spontaneously; it must be fought for.
Page 21