Protest the death of Savita Halappanavar

SOLIDARITY REQUEST: Protest the death of Savita Halappanavar in Ireland PLEASE SIGN AND SEND THE E-MAIL BELOW TO THE FOLLOWING: To: Taoiseach Enda Kenny (Irish Prime Minister) cc: Tánaiste Eamon Gilmore (Irish Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs) E-mails: taoiseach@taoiseach.gov.ie enda.kenny@oireachtas.ie eamon.gilmore@oir.ie Copy also to the Irish Embassy in your country. Find contact details here     Re: Death of Savita Halappanavar in Galway Honourable Taoiseach, We are writing to you to express our concern about the recent death of Savita Halappanavar, who was repeatedly denied an abortion in Galway. This tragic case demonstrates once again that the prohibition of abortion in Ireland is not just undermining the autonomy of the women across the country, it is leading to unacceptable suffering and even death. Savita Halappanavar made repeated requests for an abortion after presenting at University Hospital Galway on 21 October while miscarrying during the 17th week of her pregnancy. Her requests were refused, and she died one week later after several days in agonising pain and distress. The situation of Savita Halappanavar provides the clearest possible evidence that laws that permit abortion only to save the life of a woman, such as the Irish law, are clinically unworkable and ethically unacceptable. There are numerous clinical situations in which a serious risk posed to a pregnant woman's health may become a risk to her life, and delaying emergency action only increases that risk. There is only one way to know if a woman's life is at risk: wait until she has died. Medical practitioners must be empowered by law to intervene on the grounds of risk to life and health, rather than wait for a situation to deteriorate. You will be aware that the European Court of Human Rights, as well as a number of United Nations human rights bodies, have called upon the Irish government to bring its abortion law in line with international human rights standards. Had these calls been heeded before now, the death of Savita Halappanavar would have been prevented. With the death of Savita Halappanavar, Ireland joins the ranks of countries worldwide where abortion is denied to women and leads to their deaths. We call on your government to take urgent and decisive steps to reform the legislation that led to the death of Savita Halappanavar. Until the Irish legal system is reformed the lives, health and autonomy of women across Ireland are in jeopardy. Yours faithfully, [SIGNATURE]

Happy birthday to us!

Dust off the party poppers, EFC is 20 years old this year!

We were founded back in 1992 as a result of a lack of good quality educational resources on pregnancy and abortion. Teachers were finding that despite the topic of abortion being on many syllabi, there was very little support in terms of teaching it in a sensible and balanced way. Sure, the old anti-choice stalwarts SPUC and Life had been around for a good 20 years, but their offerings tended to be (and still are) partially inaccurate, biased and often insensitive to young people's experiences of pregnancy. A group of sexual health professionals therefore got together to form 'Education For Choice' and ensure that young people could learn the facts about abortion.

Over the past 20 years we're stayed true to our mission - to provide young people with reliable information about pregnancy options. We've done this directly, by providing workshops in schools, colleges and youth centres, but also by producing resources and training up professionals who work with young people. We reckon we’ve reached around 1.8 million young people through this work. Not bad for a tiny project with limited resources eh?

Our 20 years of experience means that we are experts on young people and abortion and are often contacted by the press to provide information and comment. Recent years have seen us work to expose rogue crisis pregnancy centres offering inaccurate information, and highlight the problem of anti-choice speakers giving misinformation to young people in schools. No one else in the UK is doing this vital and unique work.

We’re proud of what we’ve achieved, but while sex education remains a patchy subject and anti-abortion groups continue to mislead young people about their health and wellbeing we think it’s important that EFC continues to shout loud for young people’s right to good education.

We’re asking you to support our work by giving us £20 for our 20 years. Or a monthly donation – even a small amount will make a real difference. To spice things up we’ll be posting some classic tunes from 1992 to now, culminating in our birthday extravaganza in London on 22nd November. We’d love to see you there.

If you believe young people deserve to be give the facts about pregnancy and abortion, then please give what you can to support EFC’s work.

Wonder Women and Other Women

As part of the Telegraph’s new ‘Wonder Women’ collective Cathy Newman has written a piece entitled ‘How the agony of my abortion made me see both sides’. In the article Newman shares her own experience of having ended a wanted pregnancy due to a diagnosis of severe fetal abnormality. She notes that she was lucky to find out about this abnormality relatively early, at 13 weeks, as many women would be having this scan at 20 weeks. She goes on to describe the difficulty of having to wait another week to access the procedure after having had this news:

‘Most women whose babies suffer from this condition wouldn't find out until the 20 week scan, if then. I was immediately offered an abortion, but quite apart from the emotional turmoil, it was extremely difficult to arrange. I was told I'd have to wait a fortnight, but eventually managed to fix the operation in a week - a week which seemed like a year as I dealt with the trauma of what was happening to me.’

We appreciate Newman sharing her personal experience, and acknowledging that there are complex situations and real people behind later term abortion, and that unavoidable delays can affect access and emotional wellbeing. However, there are a few points in the rest of the article we’d like to have seen more clarity on, this being such an important and emotive subject.

Firstly, the conclusions reached about later abortion are not entirely accurate. Newman claims that ‘if the law changes, women in similar situations might not have the choice I did’. The article’s ‘hook’ seems to be that Maria Miller, new Minister for Women and Equalities, voted in 2008 to reduce the abortion time limit to 20 weeks. In fact, if this part of the law changed it would presumably not affect somebody in a similar situation to Newman – that is somebody who had had a diagnosis of fetal abnormality, as this is a ground under which abortion can be accessed after the 24 week limit.

The more troubling statement which has been left unexplored, with no reference to scientific evidence, is that made by Miller herself regarding her reasons for supporting a reduced time limit. She claims to be:

‘driven by that very practical impact that late term abortion has on women...What we are trying to do here is not to put obstacles in people's way but to reflect the way medical science has moved on.’

There are two issues here. What is the ‘very practical impact’ that late term abortion has on women? Has this been measured against the ‘very practical impact’ which might arise from being forced to continue an unwanted or non-viable pregnancy to term? Secondly, Miller claims to be reflecting ‘the way medical science has moved on’. When Miller was voting on the 2008 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act she would have heard that medical and scientific consensus remained in favour of maintaining a 24 week limit due to a lack of significant changes to viability before this point:

‘Having considered the evidence set out above, we reach the conclusion, shared by the RCOG and the BMA, that while survival rates at 24 weeks and over have improved they have not done so below that gestational point. Put another way, we have seen no good evidence to suggest that foetal viability has improved significantly since the abortion time limit was last set, and seen some good evidence to suggest that it has not.’

Miller’s insistence that it is ‘common sense’ which drives her desire to change the time limit should surely be questioned and backed up by relevant evidence. Rather Newman, (ironically Channel 4’s ‘factchecker’) allows this, as well as talk of ‘trauma’ to pass by, unexamined.

We know that only a tiny minority of women are accessing abortion after 20 weeks (1.5% in 2011) and as Newman acknowledges, this may be due to fetal health or delays to access (or an array of other issues, see this report from Marie Stopes for background on the reasons some women have later abortions). However, the article seems to support Newman’s own reasons for ending a pregnancy, but is shaky on the necessity of later abortion for ‘other women’. For example, women whose local hospital may not be 'one of the world's best in the field’. The quotes from Nadine Dorries in the piece are very telling – she claims that ‘prochoicers’ who support the current time limit are ‘ignoring the number of women who are traumatised and vulnerable during the abortion process’. Clearly, there are Wonder Women who can make logical, justifiable decisions about their pregnancy and there are Other Women who are vulnerable, whose choices need to be limited and who need to be ‘protected’ by politicians like Miller and Dorries.

Sarah Catt: when we've stopped pointing the finger let's ask ourselves how much we care

Sarah Catt faces an eight year jail sentence after taking abortion medication purchased over the internet to end her pregnancy at 39 weeks. I don’t know if she had any idea that she was putting her life and her liberty at risk when she did this. There is speculation as to both her motivation and her mental state, but the only fact of the matter is that for some reason the idea of giving birth to a living baby, which she almost certainly would have done within just a couple of weeks, was intolerable to her.

Speculation about whether she is a monster or just desperately ill and unhappy will, no doubt, be rife. Arguments will rage to and fro about whether she should have received such a long sentence. Others will ask whether the current time limit for abortion is right, whether there should be time limits at all or whether our focus should be on doing everything we can to make abortion as accessible as possible, as early as possible. Some people will say that this case demonstrates an argument for taking abortion out of the sphere of criminal law altogether, others that this proves we need legal limits on abortion provision because we simply cannot trust women not to go running around choosing late term abortions.

For me this case is so unusual that I’m not sure if it can helpfully inform debates about abortion law. They say that hard cases make bad law and this is probably a case in point.

If we can draw any lessons from this it might be about the support that we can provide to those women who consistently struggle to control their fertility, to choose and use an appropriate contraceptive method, and to manage relationships. There are many reasons why women who feel negative or at least ambivalent towards pregnancy still get pregnant repeatedly including complex personal circumstances. Easy as it is to blame individual women for making bad decisions (we rarely blame their partners) we also have to ask ourselves whether sometimes repeat unintended pregnancies do highlight a shortfall in services. Did Sarah ever seek or was she ever offered any support to think about her fertility, to clarify her own feelings about pregnancy and parenthood and to make informed choices about future relationships and contraceptive use?

Did she have the emotional and practical support she needed after she placed a child for adoption? Or did that process contribute to her belief that it was better to go through the potential pain and danger of labouring alone to have a stillbirth, than to give birth safely and retain the option of placing the baby for adoption? When she was turned down for abortion after 24 weeks did anyone offer her the opportunity to think about ‘what next?’ Did anyone offer to help her talk to her husband and think through the possible consequences (good and bad) of having this conversation in terms of her safety, their relationship and the future of their family?

When a healthy woman with a healthy pregnancy seeks abortion after the legal time limit, it is likely that her circumstances and her feelings about the pregnancy are pretty desperate. For good or ill, a woman in this situation cannot have an abortion after 23 weeks and 6 days. What do we offer these women to address the circumstances they find themselves in, in which continuing the pregnancy is intolerable? Are they made aware of the dangers both medical and legal of trying to induce an abortion themselves? Is there anything we can offer to make the next 16 weeks of pregnancy tolerable, safe and manageable for them...let alone the next 20 years of parenthood?

I don’t know what kind of support is available to the handful of desperate women who are turned away from abortion because they’re just too late. Later abortion is a divisive issue, but whatever anyone feels about it, we must all feel some duty of care towards women who want one, but can’t have one.

"Shocked to the core": Parents' and Carers' Views on the Teaching of SRE in Catholic Schools

This guest blog has been sent to us by Georgie, one of our young volunteers, who is currently undertaking academic research into Catholic parents’ reactions to their children’s sex education.

The Catholic Church promotes sexual activity only within marriage, with the purpose of procreation. Therefore, Catholicism does not endorse lesbian, gay or bisexual sexual identities, abortion or the use of contraception. In principle it is at the discretion of a parent whether their child receives SRE at school due to their right to withdraw. So, do parent/carers want their children to be taught about SRE in school? If so, do they want it to be taught from the Catholic point of view or an unbiased perspective?

I decided to investigate this further for my Masters dissertation by conducting a small number of in depth interviews with the parents and carers of young people who attended Catholic schools. The SPUC  ‘Safe at School’ campaign which states; ‘parents are worried that contraception and abortion services are being promoted in secondary schools' was challenged by the findings from my research.

Overall, I found that these parents disagreed with the current teaching of SRE in Catholic schools and felt that all children have a right to unbiased and fact-based information in SRE. Unsurprisingly, the topic of abortion arose on a number of occasions during each interview. It seemed parents kept returning to this subject to explain or evidence their opinions/experiences.

One interviewee felt that only parents should teach certain topics within SRE because of an experience she had where her daughter was shown a ‘graphic’ anti-abortion video* at her Catholic secondary  school;

I just remember one of my daughters coming home and breaking their heart and saying…“I can’t believe what’s been shown to me”…they showed my daughters a video about abortion that shocked them to the core but I wasn’t aware they were going to do that. (Theresa )

A second parent agreed:

I think it should be everybody’s own choice, it is up to the individuals, not up to pro-life groups to say no… I think it’s unfair, obviously I know you send them to a religious school and that is part of the religion but I still think it’s your choice. Because you’re a Catholic you know it’ll be pro-life, you know abortion is wrong… but there are extenuating circumstances which they won’t even look at …one is rape and… you do have a choice, it is your body. (Linda)

 

Another parent agreed that SRE should provide impartial information and suggested a joint effort by all those involved in teaching SRE that would be beneficial for young people;

I believe that children are entitled to the full facts when it comes to sex education including contraception and abortion. If they are guided by their parents, parish and school in a caring way to lead their life according to a Christian ethos then these adults should have confidence that their wonderful children will be capable of making the right moral choices when the time comes. (Helen)

I found parents of children attending Catholic schools to be no different to other parents; they feel their children should be entitled to unbiased information and the ‘full facts' about abortion and sex and relationships in general. These parents' opinions echo those of young peoples'; reinforcing the demand for compulsory SRE in state schools, including Catholic schools. Consequently, teaching materials used in SRE would need to be the same in Catholic and non-faith schools. This would result in the graphic, biased and (often) misinformed materials currently being used in some Catholic schools being abandoned and no more young people being adversely "shocked to the core."

 

*I later found out that the film shown was 'The Silent Scream'.

Todd Akin's not the only one claiming that pregnancy as a result of rape is rare

Earlier this week Republican politician Todd Akin came under fire for claiming that pregnancy occurring as a result of rape is ‘really rare’. In arguing for a ban on abortion without exceptions for pregnancies conceived through rape he stated the following:

“First of all, from what I understand from doctors [pregnancy from rape] is really rare... If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down”

Akin’s claims have rightly been attacked by various pro-choice groups and media outlets in the States for having no basis in scientific fact. Indeed, research from the Journal of American Obstetrics and Gynecology suggests that rape-related pregnancy occurs with significant frequency, something to which many women themselves can attest. So huge was the outcry that even the President released a statement condemning the claim that “legitimate rape” is unlikely to end in pregnancy. President Obama used Akin’s disingenuous comments as an example of why "we shouldn’t have a bunch of politicians, the majority of whom are men, making healthcare decisions on behalf of women."
 
Unfortunately, this kind of thinking isn’t limited to one rogue politician in the States spouting misinformation in order to push a ban on abortion. The idea that it is impossible or very unlikely for pregnancy to occur as a result of rape has been spread by a number of anti-abortion groups, including those based in the UK. The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) state the following in their ‘Exploring Abortion’ school resource:

“Pregnancy as a result of rape is extremely rare. A woman is only fertile for 3-7 days during her cycle and the extreme physical and psychological trauma of being raped makes it difficult for fertilisation or implantation to occur.”

Earlier this year, SPUC were criticised for giving young people misleading information about pregnancy and rape but we are yet to see the same public outcry Todd Akin’s comments have attracted in the States.

Young people here and abroad deserve to hear factual information about pregnancy and abortion, and we should certainly be concerned when damaging myths like this are allowed into our classrooms. EFC are currently working on a report into abortion education in the UK which will pull together the types of misinformation being given to young people in schools. If you have information you'd like to feed into the project please do contact us efc@brook.org.uk and keep an eye out for the launch of the report this autumn.

Taking abortion out of the criminal law - meeting

International Day of Action for Decriminalisation of Abortion Taking abortion out of the criminal law Voice for Choice  ̶  Public Meeting 1st October 2012 6.45pm – 9.00pm Body & Soul 99 Rosebery Avenue London EC1R 4RE (directions) Free admission: book a place at Eventbrite

              Demo outside Bpas, London, 2012.

              ©Laura Lewis Photography: http://www.lauralewisphotography.co.uk

You are invited to a public meeting to celebrate the International Day of Action for the Decriminalisation of Abortion, as part of events all over the world. The meeting will explore the situation in the UK: the vulnerability of doctors to prosecution and threats to women’s access to abortion under the 1967 Abortion Act, the situation in Northern Ireland and in other countries.

SPEAKERS

Sarah Veale, Equality and Employment Rights, Trades Union Congress, London

to be confirmed

Lisa Hallgarten, Education For Choice, London

How the criminal law problematises abortion for women and health professionals

Goretti Horgan, Alliance for Choice, Northern Ireland

The Twilight Zone: abortion in Northern Ireland

Sally Sheldon, Kent Law School, Kent University, Canterbury

Options for reforming the law: models that don’t rely on criminalisation

Susan Davies, Women on Web, Amsterdam

Supporting access to safe medical abortion through the internet for women in legally restricted settings

Marge Berer, Reproductive Health Matters, London

History of the International Day of Action, what’s happening in other countries and the new International Campaign for Women’s Right to Safe Abortion

Contributions from the floor and discussion

****************************

Public meetings and street actions also planned in London, Belfast, Derry and Dublin. Details to follow.

****************************

Voice for Choice is the UK coalition to defend and extend women’s choice on abortion