Powell is very precise in his use of the language, and would have been very aware, too, of why he used the term when introducing a Bill to restrict women's control over their fertility.
While most people have severe reservations about scientific research and are filled with ideas of Auschwitz when anyone mentions research on human to link control of scientific research with fertility control offers very little control over the majority of scientists but threatens massive control over women who have fertility problems.
The scientists will continue various forms of research — some useful,
"because it's there" - as long some as they can get funding. Scientists will find ways around restrictions eventually. The main long term effects of the "Powell" Bill will be on women.
Any woman having problems conthrough the many procedures to find having already gone out why she has problems and if in vitro fertilisation (IVF) is appropriate, will have to apply to the Secretary of State for permission for IVF.
Then — if the Secretary of State gives permission — she has four months to conceive through IVF before the permission runs out (it can be extended by a further 10 periods of 2 months; but the permission has to be granted by the Secretary of State each time, which will put up costs, be very time consuming and worrying) If research on human embroys hac always been illlegal there would be no IVF. It is not an easy procedure, and the success rate is not very good; so stopping research now will prevent improvements in techniques and the women who get pregnant by IVF within the 4 months will be the very lucky ones.
MARY LEWIS looks at the real content of Enoch Powell's controversial Unborn Child (Protection) Bill, now being pushed hastily through Parliament with eager support from anti-abortion campaigners.
Not everyone is happy with the concept of IVF. In our society too much emphasis is put on a woman's sole role being motherhood and if women cannot have children they are
class themselves failures. Our biology traps us as child bearers, and if that biology does not function as it is expected to, we are
While this attitude must be combat ted, and women have to be allowed and encouraged to be fulfilled by an active role in society and not only as mothers, we also have to fight for
Wto give motherhood respect it deserves — it is also an active and important role in bringing
The whole question of "a woman's right to choose" has to include the right to choose to have children, as well as when to have children, or not to have children.
Now it is possible to aid some vomen who were previously classec as infertile to have the children thei want, no Secretary of State should be given control or a veto over that help,
The other major implication is the
decide who should be a parent. The recommendations of the Warnock Report linked with the "Powell" Bill gives the state the right to decide who can have baby if it is not conceived thaugh
Recommendations not only opposed surrogate mother agencies, but queried whether anyone (or two!) other than heterosexual married couples should be allowed babies using the new techniques. Socialist Viewpoint, No. 4, March 1985. Page 20
These prejudices in the minds of the become a Government Bill The restrictions on IVF will start with costs!); then the doctors' own controls (and we know how some doctors feel "quality of life"); then we will have to pass the scrutiny of the Secretary of State - in other words - white, rich, heterosexual, married couples only need apply!! The link with abortion legislation may not appear immediately obvious except through the involvement oi Enoch Powell and the lobbying by "Life" in support of his Bill. Once the opinion is harnessed to feelings about the unborn child, it is drastically to reduce the time allowed in which abortion can be carrried out. While everyone would agree that the earlier an abortion the better for all concern- ed, — it is not always possible for - not least the present cuts and delays in the NHS. Whichever way you look at this Bill it restricts women's control over their own fertility. At a conference organised by the Women's Reproductive Rights Cam- paign in February called "The New Reproductive Technology — Threat or Benefit to Women?" the following statement was agreed: "We oppose the Powell Unborn Children (Protection) Bill on the grounds that it attempts to further restrict women's control over their fertility and limit their choices. Together with the Gillick judge- ment it represents a restriction on women's access to contraception, abortion and infertility treatment. Some women are already forced in- to unwanted abortion and sterilisa- tion and others cannot get these Bely coses nothing to improve does nothing to improve women's choice. We urge all individuals and organisations to actively oppose this proposed legislation and to lob- by their MPs to vote against this Bill. We would like to express our concern about lack of adequate and informed debate concerning this important and controversial issue. Socialist Viewpoint readers must be part of this campaign.
Demands to liberate
ALL of us! JEAN PHILLIPS