Conway THIRTY years after the 1967 Abortion Act, reform is proposed. For once, the proposal is for easier access to abortion.
Following Frank Dobson's comments, John Austin, Labour MP for. Erith and Thamesmead. has said that he plans to draft a new bill so that a woman seeking an adortion could be referred by one doctor rather than two.
Walker had already done some ground work last year when, around the anniversary of the 1967 Abortion Act, he proposed two five . minute bills - one welcoming the existing legislation, and one calling for abortion on request in the first trimester.
This move, planned in coordination with pro-choice forces such as the National Abortion Campaign, was intended not only to get publicity but more importantly to get some idea of how MPs would line up on the question of women's right to control her body.
It is welcome that Dobson, as Health Secretary, has stated that he supports changing the law, even if he didn't mean his comments, wrung out of him by The Telegraph to get the attention they have. As one of the few (only?) atheists on the front bench, he has already been subject to a good deal of flack from the moral majority religious lobby.
There is still a struggle to be taken up on this issue.
Firstly, the proposed change would mean women would still have to gain one doctor's consent. This may still put off women who do not want to go to their GP, and importantly, women whose own GPs refuse to sign the form.
In many parts of the country, access to NHS abortions is restricted because of anti-abortion doctors, and the vast majority of abortions are carried out at private clinics. Abortion is only available on demand for those who can afford to pay.
Combined with the shortage of resources that means many health authorities are means-testing ana/or orner wise restricting access to NHS abortions, this maintains -huge inequalities.
Still, the bill is a step forward. We must fight for the right to choose for all women, and the principle that this should be a woman's right to choose, not a doctor's.
Dobson has refused to commit the Labour Party to a position on the issue. It is clear that he was speaking as an individual and that he had not sought - or obtained - sanction from the hierarchy.
As before, when the limited rights granted under the 1967 Act were under attack, any bill proposed will be matter of conscience". Even before this stage is reached, there needs to be a campaign to push the government to give the bill time, otherwise the issue may not even be debated.
Women and labour movement activists should call on the Labour Party to take a position, and put pressure on MPs to support a woman's right to to decide choose. Not for doctors and MPs, but our bodies, our lives, our right to decide!