On Monday, the Government published an official document which allowed for women to administer both stages of a medical abortion at home. Within hours, this document had been pulled down, with the Government saying it had been “published in error”. By Wednesday, a Government minister was speaking out strongly against home abortion in Parliament, saying: “We believe that it is an essential safeguard that a woman attends a clinic, to ensure that she has an opportunity to be seen alone and to ensure that there are no issues.”
What on earth is going on here? I can’t be the only one who’s completely bewildered (though, to be honest, that’s a constant state of affairs at the moment).
The Chain of events
First, let’s look at the chain of events. For a few hours on Monday, there was formal policy that legalised DIY abortions. An official letter, published on the Department of Health website, and signed by Mark Davies, Director, Population Health, classed the home of a doctor as a place where abortion could be prescribed and the home of the woman as the place where the abortion could take place. By the evening, the document on the Department of Health website had gone. On Tuesday morning, the website stated: ““The information on this page has been removed because it was published in error. This was published in error. There will be no changes to abortion regulations.”
It is difficult to conjecture what happened here. Was the Government hoping to sneak this through while everyone’s attention was distracted by the current Covid 19 crisis? Did they then backpedal when pro-life groups including SPUC raised protests? Or did some over-eager civil servant just assume that the Government would instantly agree to the demands of the abortion lobby and didn’t actually get sign-off?
Or, perhaps, just maybe, there was a recognition of the dangers this rushed measure posed to women, and that a national health emergency is not the time to push through ideological changes to abortion law.
There is some indication that this last point may be the case in the remarks made by the Government spokesperson in Parliament yesterday.
The 'two doctors' rule is an essential safeguard for women
The abortion lobby reacted furiously to the news that provisions they have wanted for years were so quickly snatched away from them. So yesterday they attempted a last-minute move to regain their ground by tabling amendments to the emergency Coronavirus Bill in the House of Lords. The amendments were intended to allow DIY abortions, as well as dispensing with the requirement to have two doctors certifying a woman for abortion, and instead allowing just one healthcare professional, including nurses and midwives.
Lord Bethell, speaking for the Government, strongly opposed the amendment moved by Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle. It’s worth looking at what he said in some detail.
First, he raised the obvious point that nurses and midwives shouldn’t suddenly be expected to certify abortions.
“There are long-established arrangements in place for doctors to certify and perform abortions, and they are there for good reason,” he said. “We do not think that it is right that midwives and nurses are suddenly expected to take on expanded roles without prior consultation, proper training or guidance in place.”
More importantly, Lord Bethell raised the point that the ‘two doctors’ rule is one of the few remaining safeguards left to women.
“…We do not agree that women should be able to take both treatments for medical abortion at home. We believe that it is an essential safeguard that a woman attends a clinic, to ensure that she has an opportunity to be seen alone and to ensure that there are no issues,” he said.
Echoing concerns often raised by SPUC, Lord Bethell asked. “Do we really want to support an amendment that could remove the only opportunity many women have, often at a most vulnerable stage, to speak confidentially and one-to-one with a doctor about their concerns on abortion and about what the alternatives might be? The bottom line is that, if there is an abusive relationship and no legal requirement for a doctor’s involvement, it is far more likely that a vulnerable woman could be pressured into have an abortion by an abusive partner.”
In his conclusion, Lord Bethell stated that there was no “widespread support” to make “recommendations on the certification of abortions.” How right he is. This was a nakedly opportunistic attempt by the abortion lobby to sneak through changes they’ve wanted for years, as part of their campaign to normalise abortion and make it even more widely available. The changes certainly did not have the support of the pro-life community. Looking at some of the responses SPUC supporters received from MPs, this happened without their support, or even knowledge. And given the U-turn, the changes didn’t even have the support of a Government which is otherwise willing to impose sweeping abortion changes (see what happened to Northern Ireland yesterday).
Parliament now in recess
Parliament has now gone into recess, and it is to be hoped that there will be no more opportunities for the abortion lobby to exploit the current crisis. But if there are any further moves to change the law on abortion, the Government will have to explain away the arguments of their own spokesperson who so eloquently opposed any such change.