the European Union will try to lay the foundations of a powerful supranational state. Maastricht and its convergence criteria are meant to The script has already been written, although the populations affected have never been consulted. From the middle of 1997 an executive is supposed to come into existence, alongside an embryonic army which will form the European pillar of NATO. There will be a single police force and common repressive • No to a New Imperialist Super-power!
This Europe desired by governments and tailored to meet the needs of powerful industrial and financial groups carries within it a logic of war: trade war against its U.S. and Japanese rivals.
Austerity policies. as brutal as they are unjust w eas io war against the peoples of Eu-ase ergendering misery and exclus or ma- are end of the conanent to se see' Trisis...e Twenty million unemployed! 50 million living in poverty! This is the Europe of unemployment and mad cow disease. Its multinationals exploit humanity from the four corners of the earth, showing their contempt for democratic and ecological concerns expressed by the peoples.
This is the Europe of complicity in genocide in Rwanda and of ethnic cleansing in Bosnia It will never be ours = No To Any Nationalist and Chauvinist Response.
Nationalist responses are a deac-e-s. poisoning cooperation and solica-cy be. laws, especially on the issue of immigration. At the beginning of 1998 there will be a single currency, the Euro, managed by a Central Bank subject to no By the end of the century this Europe of trusts and finance capital will extend from the Atlantic to the Russian borders, from the North Pole to Gibraltar. The following is translated from a leaflet produced by the sections of the Fourth International at the G7 counter-demonstration at Lyon in July 1996 tween peoples. They cannot confront cne globalisation of capital and the Europé of finance capital imposed on the Dacks or those at the bottom of the neap by those at the top. The present European Union is nothing more than the concentrated expression of the desires of the national governments and their capitalist partners? Any belief in 'national solutions' runs the risk of strengthening jingoism and increasing the appeal of the ideas of "hefar..ont! how can anyone belleve, in the world crat actually exists, that problems of unment can be resolved on a national basis.
We have to fight against the Europe of the powerful, of Kohl and Chirac under an internationalist banner.
We fight for a different Europe, a social and ecological, a democratic and egalitarian Eurone: a Europe of bread and solidarity. • Break With the Liberal Economic Logic!
Euro-centrism. euro-egoism are the truits of a liberal economic logic applied by all the member states, whatever party is in government. We need to counterpose a different logic, one based on social priorities which acts in favour of the two billion people living in absolute poverty.
Creating millions of jobs, meeting ele mentary needs for nutrition, health and education - these should be priorities for the Europe that we want. In opposition to the all-powerful financial markets and private sector we nave to pose public power and a democratic subsidiarity at all levels.
Radical social transformation is incomnatible with the continued hold of 400 multinationals over our societies and the public institutions at their heart. • Unity With Those in struggle We stand in solidarity with the landless peasants in Brazil who organised ment in indonesia contronting the milltary dictatorship.
We support the 'women in Black' who have defied the nationalist governments in former Yugoslavia and the indigenous people of Chiapas who have overturned the plans of the single ruling party fight alongside the people of Cuba struggling against the American em. bargo. the mothers of Russian soldiers. who are opposing the war in Chechnya and the workers of France and Germany, of Italy and Belgium, fighting austerity.
Our aim is to bring together all these struggles through a vast solidarity movement that knows no frontiers. Whilst recognising the specificities of each struggle, we want to unite around what they all have in common.
The large social movement in France in December 1995, the massive demonstration by German workers against the austerity plan of the Kohl government show the way.
Why don't we work together to or. ganise a huge European-wide demonçtration to coincide with the inter-governmental conference at which the capitalists will be trying to bring their aims to fruition?
This is the road of hope and reason.
Terry Conway SUMMER 1996 has seen a series of concerted attacks on the rights of women to control their own fertilitv. The faci that organisations sucn as Lite and SPUC were to the forefront in this attack is no surprise to anyone in the pro-choice movement.
Life and other anti-abortionists were quick to intervene into the public debate that was generated when 3300 embrvos were to be thawed and called for the solicitor general to intervene. The Embryology Bill passed in 1991 prevented embryos being stored for more than 5 years it bot the donors involvea ala not give their active consent to a five year CALCIS UN Chaos was breaking out with one woman trying to extend the life of her embryo through the courts but being powerless to do so - presumadly because the man involved either dissented or could not be contacted. Staff in the centres involved, obmainly involved in were clearlv concernea aoour toe oureaucratic nightmare that might lead to some missing the deadline by minutes.
But Scarisbrook and his cronies in Lite nad a dirterent angie. I ney saw tnis as a golden opportunity to peddle their stale old arguments about life beginning at conception.
Thev campaigned for couples come forward to 'adopt' the embryos and for the law to be changed for this to be permitted without the agreement of the donors. From interviews with one couple who came forward it seemed clear that those interested in this course of action did so not because they were previously interested in having a child but because they were morally opposed to these embryos being thawed.
Anti-choice activists, and their sympathisers are demanding an end to the limited rights to abortion that women have. Some want the total repeal of the Embryology Bili. The Catholic Archbishop of Westminster, Cardinal Basil Hume argued that they should destroy A picket of the Irish embassy all of the 60.000 frozen embryos that were stored on August 7. This he said would be a lesser evil!
Socialist Outlook also wants and will fight for changes to the Human fertilisation and Embryology Act but from a rather different angle. We opposed the Act at the time precisely because it would restrict the ability of women to control their bodies. In the May 1990 issue of Socialist Outlook, we argued that 'it was a defeat for women in the struggle to take control of our bodies and our lives'.
No outside agency, no part of the state should have the right to decide that some people are 'fit' to have parent and that others are not. Such additional intrusion into women's right to decide has lead to increasing discrimination against lesbians and single mothers.
Farlier in the summer we saw the debate about whether a woman who was HIV positive should be entitled to fertility treatment. This weekend the press is full of the supposed "scandal' that two gay men are about to parent a child born to a surrogate mouner.
Socialist Outlook defends the right of every woman to have access to fertility treatment free from moral judgements about the households they live in. We fight againet the homophobia that says that lesbians or gay men are any less able to provide loving homes for their children than anyone else - the prejudice which tears many children away from meir eso an momers torouensost custody cases.
The second debate was to arise when Professor Philip Bennet of Queen Charlotte hospital told the Sunday Express that one or nis patents, a woman in 'socially straightened circumstances' had decided to have one of her 16-week old twin foetuses aborted because she couldn't cope.
It remains completely unclear why Bennet, who despite being a Christian anáee v crenec fo nón von make such a choice spoke to the press *E150 about it. While the woman's details were not disclosed it was clear that tne doctor s statement and the press coverage was de facto a breach of patient confidentiality.
The woman was subject to a massive public debate by people who had no idea of what her precise circumstances were It was a relief to discover that in fact the abortion had already taken place a month earlier but the pontificating about the case remained extremely distressing. Many of those who offered advice ignored the fundamental truth about abortion, pointed out by Ann Furedi of the Birth Control Trust that 'no woman undertakes an abortion lightly'.
The overwhelming majority of those who intervened did so as if they could put themselves in this woman's shoes and had - the right to find her But any woman who nas considered having an abortion, ever her final decision, will be all too well aware that the statements of those who argued 'that this decision is bigger than she knows' have no idea what they are talking about. Have these people given a thought to the millions of women who have died from back street abortions. Despite the fact that women are usually aware that such a course of action can lead to their deaths or to serious and painful infection where free legal abortion is not available there is often no other choice.
The anti-abortionists intervened in this instance as well, this time mounting an appeal for money which they claimed would allow the woman to go ahead and nave twins. Iney were to claim to ralse somewhere between £60,000 and £40,000, money that they do not make available for existing mothers struggling on the breadline! Nor was there the basis o àcce ozvc vona s æcn vàs based on finances. Bennet refused to pass on these offers of financial 'help' to the woman and the anti-abortionists ended up with egg on their laces wnen it became apparent that the abortion had already happened. This case was to lead to calls for the tightening of the already 1967 Abortion Act and not just from those who oppose all abortions. Jill Knight, an officer of the Tory 1922, committee has argued this and is against abortions being allowed for social reasons. She stated 'What is happening today, is not what was intended, right across the board of those who voted for the Act.' *They did not intent that is should be used simply when the woman did not want the child. There had to be a good reason'.
Jill Knight and others like her are of course audacious to assume tney know the full facts in the case, but it is already the case that the 1967 Act is very restrictive. There is no way that the legislation on the statute books today gives women the right to choose.
Unless one was away on holiday, it was impossible not to know something of the story of Mandy Allwood, the woman pregnant with eight foetuses. The media exposure which she apparently sought, did not however mean that Mandy got an impartial hearing by any means. Its unusual for the press to print nictures of the men involved in such cases unless they are famous but they did in this case.
Could this possibly be because he is black? The moralists were eager to seize on the information that the man was invoived in anomner relationship - painting Mandy both as an unfit mother and an unworthy recipient of fertility treatmenu It is clear is that come the Autumn and the reopening of Parliament we can expect possible moves to further attack the limited rights that women have to control their fertility. It is also possible that the anti-abortionists will continue to Socialist Outlook |07 • September 7 1996. try to use the courts to attack our rights as they have tried to do in these recent cases. We wil need to step up our defence of these rights and welcome the fact that the National Abortion Campaign has called an urgent strategy meeting to discuss the way forward.
We also need to go onto the offensive both around abortion rights and the right to fertility treatment.
Women should have the right to terminate any pregnancy, at any time, and it should be freely available on the National Health Service.
If a woman wants or needs fertility treatment sne should get this tree through the National Health Service. We must also insist that their are no restrictions on any woman having this treatment, be they married or single, be they in heterosexual relationships or same sex couples.
We also do not accent thet there should be any time limit on the research on embryos. We do not accept that life begins with conception.
We demand:
Free abortion on demand - A Woman's right to choose • No forced abortion or forced sterilisation • Free fertility treatment for all women that want it • An end to discrimination against lesbians