It's a sign of the times we live in when Spare Rib, the monthly women's liberation magazine, publishes an article that argues for constraints on a woman's right to choose. Here LEONORA LLOYD takes up the argument in the article – that aborting fetuses with disabilities equals prejudice against the disabled.
SEPTEMBER'S Spare Rib printed an extract from 'Pride Against Prejudice: transforming attitudes to disability' by Jenny Morris.
Morris argues that there should be constraints upon the 'right to choose', which relies 'on the liberal humanist tradition within Europe and America'. In particular, she argues for restriction of choice on three grounds:
● the constraints on women's choice because of their assessment of the situation facing them if they have to care for a disabled baby.
● 'the individualist tradition...places responsibility solely on the individual. As a result social and collective responsibility are denied.'
● the rights of the fetus are denied and these begin with viability, which Morris puts at 24 weeks. After that point, she says, 'women have no absolute right to choose whether to have a disabled child or not.'
Underlying her arguments is the contention that allowing abortion of fetuses solely on the grounds that they have disabilities, is prejudice against the disabled.
Much of what Morris says, and the language she uses sounds exactly the same as the anti-abortionists. But, disregarding this, her arguments deserve to be considered.
First though, the problem needs to be put in perspective. Morris argues that abortions should not be allowed beyond 24 weeks. She omits to mention the second case for which it is still allowed – risk to the life or health of the woman.
Even if all abortions after 24 weeks were banned, it would have little effect on abortions done on the grounds of fetal abnormality. In 1989, the last year for which full figures are available, 4 out of the 23 post-24 week abortions were done on the grounds of fetal abnormality.
In 1990 there were 1,619 abortions on the grounds of fetal abnormality – slightly down from 1,679 in 1989. They included abortions done on a mixture of grounds. It could include taking into account the effect on existing children.
The mother might already have a child with the same disability whose care would be affected by the birth of another child.
Previous pregnancy
It could be her own health – perhaps a previous pregnancy was ended by the stillbirth of a child with the same disability. Women having abortions on grounds of disability are more likely than average to have had previous pregnancies ending in 'live or stillborn children'.
Some abortions are done on the possibility that abnormality may exist. For example, the woman may contract rubella, or come into contact with someone else at the relevant time in her pregnancy (well before 24 weeks) or even get immunised before she realises that she is already pregnant.
She might then be advised to have an abortion as a precaution against having a baby that may have multiple disabilities, such as blindness, deafness and mental disabilities.
Other women know that they are carriers for disabilities which only affect their male children. Early tests to determine sex may result in aborting all male fetuses, but in fact only half will (on average) carry the disease, such as haemophilia. In this particular case, a further test can determine which 50 percent, but for other genetic diseases this does not apply.
The number of babies born with disabilities seems to be dropping. In 1979, the rate per 10,000 births of babies born with such disabilities as ancephalus (no brain), spina bifida, Down's syndrome, cardiovascular malformations, and cleft palate was 210.4. By 1989, the rate was 180.3.
Nervous system
This reduction is not necessarily due just to abortion. Abortions on grounds of central nervous system malformations (CNS) (ancephalus, spina bifida, hydrocephalus) have been dropping since accurate records have been taken. The rate of Down's syndrome, on the other hand, has fluctuated.
In 1989, there were a total of 1,735 abortions on grounds of 'known or suspected fetal abnormality affecting management of mother'. Out of 12,462 babies born with disabilities in 1989, 200 were stillborn.
A number of conclusions could be drawn from these figures. Either screening for abnormalities is partial or inefficient, or a significant number of parents opt not to be screened, or do not take action on the results.
The fact that abortion is not responsible for all the decrease in CNS births is underlined by a similar decrease being reported in the Republic of Ireland, where there are no screening programmes, which makes it unlikely that women come to England specifically on this ground.
Hard facts
This is not designed to be either pro or anti abortion on grounds of fetal abnormality, but simply to provide some hard facts. If Ms Morris' thesis is to be taken at face value, then on current figures her proposal would prevent some 3-4 abortions a year now done on the ground of fetal abnormality.
Another area worthy of discussion is one often raised by anti-abortionists. They frequently claim that all the ills of society are due to (legalised) abortion, and one of these is the appalling way in which people with disabilities (whom they persist in calling 'handicapped') are treated.
There is no doubt that individuals do not and society does not treat people with disabilities as they deserve. But has the situation worsened since 1967, and if it has is it because of abortion?
The answer to these questions has to be NO. When I was a schoolchild in the 40s and 50s, children with disabilities did not go to mainstream schools at all and now very many do so. In fact, such children were seldom seen because they were kept behind closed curtains in their own homes.
Inadequate funding
We now have (woefully inadequate) recognition of and funding for carers. We have a growth in self organisation of people with disabilities. Disability is beginning to be discussed openly instead of being hidden.
Of course, things are a million miles away from perfect and in many respects (particularly in terms of financial support, employment and some aspects of medical care) things have recently got worse, but this is not due to abortion being legal, it is due to a government which is cutting everything worthwhile it can lay its hands on.
And international experience also gives the lie to this claim. I remember a few years ago hearing Mrs Margaret Winn, often quoted, along with her husband, by anti-abortionists as an authority on the bad physical effects of abortion.
She spoke about the advances made in Sweden on facilities for disabled people as being miles ahead of those in Britain – but not only do they have a more liberal law (abortion on demand up to 18 weeks, plus abortion after that on medical grounds, including disability) but they have had legal abortion for much longer than we have.
Jenny Morris talks, quite rightly, about the constraints on women contemplating the birth of a baby with disabilities. But to a lesser degree many women have abortions of 'normal' fetuses on similar grounds – because they feel society cannot provide them and their baby with what they need.
Banned
On her arguments, so-called 'social abortions' should also be banned, as indeed anti-abortionists argue, at any point in the pregnancy.
I have not dealt with the concept of viability in this article, partly for reasons of space, and partly because we argued about this one endlessly during the campaigns against Alton and the proposed amendments last year.
This discussion needs to be had out in the pro-choice movement, if only to arm ourselves better for arguments with the anti-abortionists.
But it also deserves attention as a method for fostering links between the women's liberation movement and the movement for the liberation of people with disabilities.