Skip to main content

Changing abortion limits in the UK

Abortion has been one of the main topics in British politics this week, as various members of the British government, in particular Health Minister Jeremy Hunt, have come out with different proposals or 'personal' statements that they'd like to see the time limit for legal abortions, since 1967 set at 24 weeks, lowered.

Technically, abortion in the UK is generally prohibited and a woman is able to obtain an abortion only if one of several exceptions is met. In practice, however, the exceptions seem to have swallowed the general prohibition and access to abortion appears to be much easier than it is, generally, than in the United States.

Politically, one of the main differences between the United States and the UK is that no major party in the UK officially supports a restrictive pro-life position (like the American Republican Party). The reaction to Mr. Hunt's (and other's) opinions bears this out.

Mr. Hunt, who stated that he'd like the time limit lowered to 12 weeks, tried to make clear he was expressing a personal view but that seemed to be brushed aside by the media and women's rights groups, given his position as Health Minister. Prime Minister David Cameron seemed to regard discussing abortion as a potentially explosive distraction from more pressing business; he firmly stated that the 24-week limit would not be reexamined officially. Other Conservative party members and luminaries seemed similarly peeved at Mr. Hunt.

At the same time, PM Cameron and the home secretary, Theresa May, have suggested that they would be comfortable with the abortion limit being lowered to 20 weeks. This is presumably because scientific advances have lowered the outer range of viability below 24 weeks. This has been a subject of legislation in many American states (although in the U.S. the limit on late abortions is a floating standard pegged to the viability of each individual fetus, so it should not be an issue-- note also that the Supreme Court rejects firm time limits under Roe).

Another curiosity of Mr. Hunt's statement, from the American standpoint, was his pointing out that his view on reducing the abortion limit to 12 weeks was not "for religious reasons." In the United States, it would be highly odd for a pro-life legislator to discount religion as the motivation for his or her views. In fact, this would be a kind of point of pride. It is certainly a different political context where an elected official thinks it important to disavow religious motivation.

Links:

Article in The Guardian (October 6, 2012): Jeremy Hunt attacked from all sides after abortion comments

Washington Post article on Jeremy Hunt's proposal (October 6, 2012): UK health secretary backs reducing abortion limit to 12 weeks, sparking debate, criticism

BBC News summary of abortion law in the UK (October 6, 2012): Q&A: Abortion Law

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Medically necessary abortions: The battle of the experts

Apparently, Representative Joe Walsh is not entirely alone! The assertion that an abortion is never medically necessary has been floating around in the pro-life universe for at least a little while. We are now witnessing a battle of the experts. One the one side is Joe Walsh and friends. Walsh himself released a pdf document with quotations from several doctors-- including some historically prominent pro-choice doctors, like Alan Guttmacher-- making the 'never medically necessary' claim seem quite reasonable. Also on Walsh's side are several doctors  who particpated in a recent "International Symposium on Maternal Health" in Dublin. Ireland, despite a European Court of Human Rights ruling in 1992 , has a total ban on abortion. Irish pro-lifers want the country's politicians to resist pressure to implement even a life exception, so the question of medical necessity is directly relevant there. The "Dublin Declaration," released after the S...

Did "tax-funded abortion pills" cause the Newtown tragedy?

Of course not. But this is the kind of nonsense we get when people shamelessly piggyback on a tragedy to score political or culture war points. We also get this kind of analysis when someone is paid to analyze events on cue but has nothing of substance to say regarding something terrible and complex. Watch Mike Huckabee's statement here: I understand Huckabee is trying to make a larger point about the culture, rather than drawing a direct line from the ACA's contraceptive mandate-- which does not mandate taxpayer funding of abortion pills, by the way-- to the Newtown massacre. Still, this is what happens when a tragedy occurs: We extrapolate from an isolated event and determine that it encapsulates, or is the ultimate representation of, something about our society that must be addressed. It is possible, however, that an event is sui generis and cannot then serve as a platform for useful long-term policy reform.  We reduce the cause of a tragedy-- which may ultimat...