Social forces and the abortion law.

This research analyses the social and political forces underlying the 1aws of abortion in Britain and the United States. It sets out to explain the apparent paradox that the United States now has an abortion law which is more liberal than Britain despite the fact that in many ways it is a more conservative society. Furthemore it aims to set this recent situation in a historical context and to examine recent and likely future developments. It analyses the major social forces on either side of the debate and considers these over four separate periods. The first section analyses the early debate. It explains the reasons for the growth in 'Victorian' attitudes to sexual morality and the fact these were more pervasive in America. It then looks at the relationship between the general climate of opinion and the debate on birth control and abortion and shows a fairly close relationship in that the slight liberalisation of attitudes towards birth control in Britain reflected the fact that attitudes were less conservative and that there was a pressure group available to push for reforms. Between the wars there was a strong liberalization of attitudes towards sex. The so called 'roaring; twenties' did reflect the growth in a commercial youth culture and an environment in which birth control information could spread. In Britain the fact that the birth control battle was won more convincingly enabled some to begin to put pressure for an extension of abortion rights. In post war year both Britain and the United States greatly liberalised their abortion law. But a key difference is that the law in America was comprehensibly overthrown and women were given the right to choose in the early months of pregnancy. The reasons for this contrast are explained. In the final section the reasons for the continuance of abortion as an issue in both countries are analysed and some suggestions as to future possibilities are made. In the conclusion the implications of the research for deviancy theory are drawn out

Abortion provision in Northern Ireland: the views of health professionals working in obstetrics and gynaecology units

Introduction: Abortion became decriminalised in Northern Ireland in October 2019. Until that point there existed no evidence concerning the views of health professionals on decriminalisation or on their willingness to be involved in abortion care. The purpose of this study was to address this lack of evidence, including all categories of health professionals working in obstetrics and gynaecology units in Northern Ireland. Methods: The online survey was targeted at medical, nursing and midwifery staff working in the obstetrics and gynaecology units in each Health and Social Care (HSC) Trust in Northern Ireland. The survey was issued via clinical directors in each Trust using the REDCap platform. Results: The findings showed widespread support for decriminalisation of abortion up until 24 weeks’ gestation (n=169, 54%). The majority of clinicians stated they were willing to provide abortions in certain circumstances (which were undefined) (n=188, 60% medical abortions; n=157, 50% surgical abortions). Despite regional variation, the results show that there are sufficient numbers of clinicians to provide a service within each HSC Trust. The results indicate that many clinicians who report a religious affiliation are also supportive of decriminalisation (n=46, 51% Catholic; n=53, 45% Protestant) and are willing to provide care, countering the assumption that those of faith would all raise conscientious objections to service provision. Conclusions: The findings of this study are very encouraging for the development, implementation and delivery of local abortion care within HSC Trusts in Northern Ireland and should be of value in informing commissioners and providers about the design of a service model and its underpinning training programmes

(Re)imagining the ‘backstreet’:Anti-abortion campaigning against decriminalisation in the UK

The risk of death or serious injury from ‘backstreet abortions’ was an important narrative in the 20th century campaign to liberalise abortion in the UK. Since then, clinical developments have reduced the overall health risks of abortion, and international health organisations have been set up to provide cross-border, medically safe abortions to places where it is unlawful, offering advice and, where possible, supplying abortion pills. These changes mean that pro-choice campaigns in Europe have often moved away from the risks of ‘backstreet abortions’ as a central narrative when campaigning for abortion liberalisation. In contrast, in the UK, anti-abortion activists are increasingly using ideas about ‘backstreet abortions’ to resist further liberalisation. These claims can be seen to fit within a broader shift from morals to risk within moral regulation campaigns and build on anti-abortion messages framed as being ‘pro-women’, with anti-abortion activists claiming to be the ‘savers’ of women. Using a parliamentary debate as a case study, this article will illustrate these trends and show how the ‘backstreet’ metaphor within anti-abortion campaigns builds on three interconnected themes of ‘abortion-as-harmful’, ‘abortion industry’, and ‘abortion culture’. This article will argue that the anti-abortion movement’s adoption of risk-based narratives contains unresolved contradictions due to the underlying moral basis of their position. These are exacerbated by the need, in this case, to defend legislation that they fundamentally disagree with. Moreover, their attempts to construct identifiable ‘harms’ and vulnerable ‘victims’, which are components of moral regulation campaigns, are unlikely to be convincing in the context of widespread public support for abortion

British gynaecologists' attitudes in 2008 to the provision of legal abortion

In 2008, we investigated the attitudes and practice of British consultant gynaecologists towards induced abortion, and made comparisons with our similar survey in 1989. A random sample of one in six (217) was selected from the register of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG). The response to the postal questionnaire was 70% (152). Satisfaction with the way the 1967 Abortion Act is operating was expressed by 59% (76% in 1989) and an upper limit of 24 weeks was supported by 50% (77% in 1989). Abortion after 20 weeks was approved to protect health by 92%; after rape by 60% and for serious fetal handicap by 87%. A change in the regulations to require the signature of only one doctor (rather than two) to certify the need for abortion was supported by 65%. Only a minority (41%) provided 2nd trimester abortion in person; 61% would separate abortion provision from general gynaecology; 57% suggested there should be separate abortion units for gestations over 13 weeks and 56% felt that fertility control should become be a sub-specialty. Satisfaction with the Abortion Act 1967 has decreased during the last 20 years. Gynaecologists' attitudes to the indications for 2nd trimester abortion remain wide, with clear implications for women seeking abortion. The service to women would be improved if abortion on request was permitted in the 1st trimester and after only one medical signature in the 2nd trimester. Our view is that the decision to end a pregnancy should be made by the woman and that abortion should be decriminalised