It’s only words

Today’s blog was inspired by an accusation levelled at EFC claiming that although we present ourselves as being a ‘pro-choice’ organisation we are in fact ‘pro-abortion’. I wanted to unpick this claim and look at the language that we, and others use to frame our position on sexual and reproductive health.

Abortion is an emotive subject. The strong feelings people have about it are often reflected in the language they use. Recent debate in the U.S has seen ambiguous terms like ‘pro-family’ or ‘pro-life’ being used to describe those presidential candidates who are opposed to unrestricted access to abortion. ‘The other side’, that is to say, those who support abortion rights, are labelled ‘pro-choice’, ‘pro-abortion’ and when the heat’s really on, ‘pro-death’ and ‘baby-killers’. (Actually, those last two are from recent UK blogs describing EFC). The complexities of getting this language right are evidenced in this long-winded blog by U.S National Public Radio.

Most abortion rights supporters choose not to use the term ‘pro-life’ to describe those who oppose abortion, largely because they resent being positioned as the ‘opposite’ to this, as being somehow ‘anti-life’. In fact, many of those who support a woman’s right to choose would consider themselves to be ‘pro-life’ and even ‘pro-family’ in terms of respecting people’s right to make decisions about their own family, having children when they are in a position to care for them and so on. Some make the point that in fact those declaring themselves to be ‘pro-life’ with respect to the abortion debate do not always adhere to the label when it comes to discussing the death penalty.

One commonly used alternative to ‘pro-life’ is ‘anti-choice’. It acknowledges that what is generally proposed by an individual who is ‘against abortion’ is a desire to restrict legal or practical access to abortion. Therefore somebody who wouldn’t choose to end a pregnancy themselves, or who has religious or moral objections to the procedure but would nevertheless support another’s right to choose would not be contained within this category. One sexual health professional suggested to me recently that he feels the term ‘anti-choice’ is too vague. That when describing groups such as SPUC or Life we should make clear that they are ‘organisations opposed to abortion in every situation’. To make evident the extreme position this entails – that whether a woman becomes pregnant through incest or rape, whether the pregnancy endangers her health, these organisations would not support her legal right to choose abortion in any circumstance.

Coming back to EFC and our self-positioning as ‘pro-choice’, we stand by this. By ‘pro-choice’ we mean simply that we support a woman’s right to choose whichever pregnancy option she feels is best for her. Our work focuses on abortion as this is the option many people have the least information about, or where political agendas can cloud real life issues. Approximately half of young women who become pregnant will make this choice and we believe that they are entitled to factual information about their health and wellbeing should they do so. Yes we believe abortion is a valid option for someone facing a pregnancy they can’t or don’t want to continue. But this is not the same as being ‘pro-abortion’. You would be very hard pushed to find an organisation which believes abortion is always the right option for everyone who becomes pregnant!  A great portion of our work is about motivating young people to use contraception consistently or delay sex in order to avoid unwanted pregnancy in the first place. But we acknowledge the reality that abortion does happen and that young people need the facts so that they can make their own informed decisions about it.

Myth Busting Monday: 8 Myths Busted!

Every Monday EFC busts myths and take names, cutting through the misinformation, disinformation, and straight up nonsense to bring you the facts.



A lazy Myth-Busting Monday today. We found this great take-down of anti-choice myths by the fabulous Abortion Gang and thought we'd share it on the EFC blog. Let us know if you've heard any myths you'd like busted for future blogs!

Myth Busting Monday – 'I’m not pro-choice but...'

We’ve all heard the classic line ‘I’m not a feminist but...’ followed by a pretty clear defence of gender equality. Often those reluctant to use the label ‘feminist’ to describe themselves are happy to engage with its central tenet of social and political equality for men and women. Arguably the term ‘pro-choice’ could be said to suffer from similar ‘PR’ problems. Although the majority of the public do support a woman’s right to choose a smaller number of those surveyed would likely identify themselves using the label ‘pro-choice’ through reluctance to be associated with a term which is often construed as being overly political or radical.



So what does being pro-choice actually entail?



The US website RH Reality Check has an interesting take on what ‘pro-choice’ represents politically but defines the term more generally as being ‘short-hand for a group or individual who believes a woman should be able to choose an abortion if and when she desires to terminate a pregnancy that is either unintended and untenable, or simply untenable.’



So even if you can’t imagine a situation in which you yourself would choose to terminate a pregnancy, or would want your partner to, but you would not wish to take this right away from someone else, you are pro-choice. If you believe abortion is a valid option for a woman facing an unwanted pregnancy, you are pro-choice. If you believe women’s legal right to access abortion should be protected you are pro-choice.



Joyce Arthur on why 'pro-choice' isn't the opposite to 'anti-abortion' here

Myth-Busting Monday: ‘Rates of teenage pregnancy are rising’

Every Monday EFC busts myths and take names, cutting through the misinformation, disinformation, and straight up nonsense to bring you the facts.

You’d be forgiven for thinking the conception rate for young women has been consistently on the rise for the past 5, 10 or 20 years. Common wisdom (including some newspapers, media personalities and people at bus stops) presents ‘teenage pregnancy’ as a growing concern, with more and more women under 18 experiencing unintended pregnancy.

In fact, the latest statistics show that the under-18 conception rate for 2009 is estimated to be the lowest rate since the early 1980s. This reduction is a result of the last government’s Teenage Pregnancy Strategy launched in 1998 in an attempt to reduce levels of unwanted pregnancy amongst young women. Although the strategy did make steady progress this was not the case in all areas of the country and overall the target to reduce teenage pregnancy by 50% was not reached.

The ‘Teenage Pregnancy Next Steps’ document gives an overview of the strategy’s aims and achievements. It notes that what worked was 'provision of YP focused contraception/sexual health services, trusted by teenagers and well known by professionals working with them' and 'Strong delivery of SRE/PSHE by schools'. Government cuts to youth and sexual health services could threaten these positive steps forward. See this recent article in CYP Now for further comment.

Conscientious objection and the ‘looming crisis’ in abortion care

A recent survey of medical students in the UK has shown that a number of those questioned would object to providing abortion care in certain circumstances. The survey’s author Sophie Strickland believes these findings have worrying implications for the future of abortion care, with fewer future doctors willing to perform terminations. Indeed the dwindling numbers of doctors opting to train in abortion services has been labelled a ‘crisis’ in terms of women’s access as this article attests.

Dr Patricia Lohr, medical director of BPAS, takes a less pessimistic view of the survey findings:

“Importantly, this study suggests that many students surveyed would perform an abortion in a variety of scenarios. For example, just under 16% stated they would not perform a termination for fetal anomaly under 24 weeks gestation, implying that the majority would perform the procedure if necessary. Similarly, less than one quarter stated they would not perform an abortion before 24 weeks for a contraceptive failure suggesting that three-quarters of those questioned would. More research on the medical student attitudes and knowledge about abortion are clearly needed.”

She notes the importance of education and training in this area:

“It’s extremely important that abortion is included in the medical school curriculum. Medical students may not currently engage much with the reasons why a woman may find herself with an unwanted pregnancy and the decision making process women undertake when determining whether to continue or terminate a pregnancy. Abortion is the most commonly performed gynaecological procedure in the country. Regardless of whether a doctor specialises in this area or not, they will during their career come across many women facing an unintended pregnancy and considering abortion.”

The issue is not just with having fewer doctors willing to perform the procedure but also a lack of wider professional support for women’s right to choose abortion. Similar surveys of GPs have shown that almost a quarter refuse to refer women for abortions. (This form of conscientious objection is protected by the General Medical Council guidelines which state that a doctor has a right to refuse referral but is obliged to pass the patient on to a supportive colleague.)

Some doctors have religious or moral objections to abortion, others simply wish to specialise in areas of medicine with more prestige or social support but clearly there is an issue with the numbers willing to refer for or provide abortion versus the number of women requiring terminations. If we look to the States, where abortion doctors have been harassed and even killed for providing medical services we can see a resistant pro-choice medical movement which refuses to take the stigma and abuse lying down. Groups like Medical Students For Choice have been set up to encourage medical students to engage with the importance of reproductive health care and the potential erosion of vital services. Activist groups like Abortion Gang and I Am Dr Tiller write passionate blogs affirming the essential work abortion providers do. At a time of rising anti-choice sentiment in the UK perhaps it’s time we too started to see this work as not only essential but also laudable.

Myth Busting Monday: Sex educators don’t tell young people about saying ‘no’ to sex

When Nadine Dorries proposed the motion to teach girls aged 13-16 ‘the benefits of abstinence’ she claimed that young people are ‘taught to have safe sex, but not how to say no’. Is this really the case?

The argument put forward by those who back abstinence-based sex and relationships education is often based on the misconception that SRE in schools is focused purely on teaching young people how to have sex, with no reference whatsoever to delaying or refraining from sexual activity. One member of the new abstinence-heavy SRE Council, Challenge Team UK claims:
‘By giving information about condoms and showing teens how to use them, adults who are the authority figures in teens' lives may be giving them, unintentionally, permission to have sex’.

In fact, good SRE is NOT about encouraging young people to have sex as soon as possible. Good SRE will always acknowledge the importance of having sex only when the time is right for you (and your partner/s). Good SRE will make clear that ‘sex’ isn’t necessarily just about male/female penetration and that there are many other ways (sexual and non-sexual) of showing someone affection and feeling pleasure. Good SRE will note that the legal age of consent for young people is 16, but that the age at which people feel ready for sex, or start to have sexual relationships can be different for everyone. Good SRE will of course stress the importance of only having the kind of sex you want to have at a time which feels right for you. And yes, good SRE will encourage the use of condoms (alongside other contraceptive methods) should this situation arise, as a way to reduce the risk of unplanned pregnancy and STI transmission. Good SRE will cover communication and relationships alongside consent – how to say yes, no, and ‘not now’!

Sex Educators aren’t telling young people about safer sex because they want them all to be having sex as early as possible. But because they live in the real world, where yes, some young people may already be having sex and need to know where they can access accurate information and advice. And because, well, the vast majority of young people they speak to in a school or youth centre will, at some point in their lives have sex. Just as with other aspects of education, we teach young people life skills which may not be relevant to them at this very moment but will almost certainly be relevant for their futures.

‘Men have wombs too'

There were some great banners at the pro-choice demo on Saturday: see our photos of them here on Flickr. But one which stood out was a simple sign proclaiming that ‘men have wombs too’. Today’s blog attempts to unpick this slogan and look deeper at the intersections between pregnancy, sex and gender.

When most people talk about pregnancy they tend to focus on a female-born, female identified ‘woman’, generally assuming that this pregnancy has occurred because of penetrative sex between a ‘cis man’ and a ‘cis woman’ (see Scarleteen and Bish for a full explanation of ‘gender’ terms). These two people are also often assumed to be straight (see previous LGB blog for more on pregnancy and sexuality). Whilst this may indeed be the case the majority of the time, at EFC we think it’s really important to acknowledge the fact that some ‘men have wombs too’. But what exactly does this mean?

When delivering our Talk About Choice sessions in schools, more than once I have had young people ask me ‘if men can get pregnant’. There’s generally a titter, and somebody will reference a TV show in which they’ve seen a ‘pregnant man’ to back up their point. What these young people are generally referring to are trans men who have conceived and given birth. That is, someone who was born into a body typically read as ‘female’ but whose gender identity is male. Not all those who feel this discrepancy between their assigned sex and their lived gender will undergo full surgery (commonly known as ‘a sex change’ in the media) but some may choose to take hormones to affect secondary gender characteristics such as facial hair and a deeper voice, or may have a mastectomy and/or hysterectomy.

Some trans men retain their female reproductive organs and are able to conceive and carry a pregnancy to term, although they may have an outwardly masculine appearance. Thomas Beattie is an example of a trans man who has ‘gone public’ with his pregnancies although of course many more trans men become pregnant without such media attention. Trans men of course may choose to terminate a pregnancy, hence the banner which called out for the right to choose for all those who can become pregnant, male or female.

We believe it’s important for young people to acknowledge and understand the implications of sex, gender and sexuality with respect to pregnancy and are keen to address the diversity of those who are affected by pregnancy, abortion and childbirth.