Education For Choice

The effect of homophobia and transphobia on universal access to reproductive health

2013-05-17T09:59:00.000+01:00

Today is IDAHO, otherwise known as ‘The International Day Against Homophobia and Transphobia’. We decided to blog about the relevance of reproductive rights to people of all (or no) genders and sexualities, and some of the problems those who identify as LGBT* can face in accessing sexual and reproductive health services and relevant information.

Why are reproductive rights important for people of all genders and sexualities?

When I tell people I work on a project which educates young people on pregnancy options they’ve asked if we only visit girls’ schools, and have expressed skepticism at the usefulness of covering this topic at a workshop for LGBT* youth. At EFC we believe everyone has a stake in understanding how reproduction works, and how people can be supported to make decisions about sex, contraception and pregnancy that are right for them. Here are some thoughts on why this is a subject which breaks though cisgendered/heterosexual ‘norms’:

-    Most people with a womb have at least the capability to get pregnant at some point in their lives. Even those who don’t choose to have vaginal intercourse can become pregnant, for example through sperm accidentally coming into contact with the vagina through non-penetrative intercourse, or as a result of rape.
-    Research has shown that young people who identify as gay, lesbian and bisexual may in fact be at a higher risk of unplanned pregnancy than their heterosexual peers. Stigma surrounding sexuality can lead some young people to ‘prove’ heterosexuality through sexual contact with a partner of the ‘opposite’ sex.
-    As Thomas Beatie has shown with his high-profile pregnancies, trans men and transmasculine people can and do become pregnant and may require specific information on this process.
-    Those who are unable to conceive in what is often seen as the ‘natural’ or ‘traditional’ way, may decide to access services which allow them to become pregnant (e.g. IVF) or to become parents through other means (adoption, fostering and surrogacy).
-    People who cannot themselves become pregnant may have close contact with those who do, whether it be a partner, family member or friend.
-    Many of the individuals and groups which seek to restrict abortion access also argue against LGBT* rights – for example, anti-choice group SPUC is currently running a campaign against equal marriage and has claimed that ‘making homosexual couples the legal parents of children is not in the best interests of children’.

What are some of the barriers for people who are LGBT* in accessing reproductive health services?

Outright stigma, and homo/trans/biphobia is a clear barrier for equal access to services. The stories gathered by #transdocfail showed systematically poor treatment of trans* people in health services, likely to be reflected in consultations relating to sexual and reproductive health. Media outrage and sensationalised headlines relating to LGBT* parenting are unlikely to make those who identify as such eager to access support and services. And as well as stigma, there may be legal restrictions to reproductive rights – the Swedish government has only just vowed to remove a statute which requires all transgender people to be sterilised in order to have their gender recognised legally.

Beyond direct objection to equal reproductive rights, there is also often a lack of tailored resources and information for those who are lesbian, gay, bisexual and/or transgender. In our own work we are trying to address this by using language that is inclusive, and thinking of ways to address gaps in resource provision, making links between the reproductive rights and LGBT* rights movements where possible. Thankfully, some progress is being made – we’ve listed some useful resources below but please do add your own comments and suggestions.

Useful resources

A brilliant book for talking to children about ‘where babies come from’ which doesn’t make assumptions about gender and sexuality
The Terrence Higgins Trust has produced sexual health resources for trans men and trans women
Stonewall’s ‘A Pregnant Pause’ provides advice ‘for lesbians on how to get pregnant’
9 Facts about Trans Sexual and Reproductive Health (U.S resource)
The Transcending Anatomy blog has specific information on pregnancy
Blog from Abortion Gang entitled ‘Why queer justice and reproductive justice movements should work together’

What might the ‘Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill’ mean for Irish women seeking abortion?

2013-05-01T11:42:00.000+01:00

The Irish government has produced a bill which if passed, will, according to Prime Minister Enda Kenny, ‘clarify the circumstances’ in which medical practitioners can intervene to save a woman’s life by providing abortion. Kenny has stated that the new bill “would continue within the law to assert the restrictions on abortion that have applied in Ireland and which will apply in future”. In other words, it does not seek to change Irish law on abortion, which states that abortion is restricted only to cases where the pregnant woman’s life is in danger. Following the recent death of Savita Halappanavar in Galway there has been a demand for clarification on the circumstances in which doctors can legally provide life-saving treatment. Kenny claims that if the bill goes through it will “at last bring certainty to pregnant women and legal clarity to medical personnel who work within the system”.

So what does the bill actually say?

The bill is carefully worded so as not to present decision making around abortion as privileging the rights of the woman over the rights of the developing pregnancy. Suggested provisions are purely about saving a woman’s life in emergency situations and all efforts must be made to protect the ‘unborn child’ (as the pregnancy is referred to) wherever possible:

“Essentially the decision to be reached is not so much a balancing of the competing rights rather, it is a clinical assessment as to whether the mother's life, as opposed to her health, is threatened by a real and substantial risk that can only be averted by a termination of pregnancy.”

Some provision is made for those women who claim to be suicidal in the face of having to continue an unwanted pregnancy. It is proposed that in such cases, three doctors are to examine the woman and must reach a unanimous decision on the threat to her life. If the three doctors do not agree, the woman may appeal to another three consultants, meaning that her case could potentially be reviewed by six separate medical professionals.

What are people saying about the bill?

Members of the government claim that the bill would provide much needed clarity to enable doctors to work within the very restrictive Irish abortion law. However, there have been criticisms from both pro-choice and anti-abortion campaigners.

Some anti-abortion campaigners have evidenced concerns about the law being ‘relaxed’ with access to abortion expanded. Former Irish Prime Minister John Bruton said the idea that “a simple threat of suicide would make right something that would otherwise be wrong is a really dangerous principle”. And in a recent televised debate, a Fine Gael politician was asked if potentially fatal health risks are an 'acceptable risk' in pregnancy, or whether they are grounds for abortion in some cases. He responded: "But sure we’re all going to end up dead anyway." This begs the question of why he’s against abortion, and indeed whether he thinks medical care is redundant for all people whose lives may be in danger or just pregnant women.

Many pro-choice campaigners have taken issue with the ‘suicide clause’ in the bill. A spokesperson from the Centre for Reproductive Rights calls it ‘outrageous and paternalistic’ and goes on to criticise Irish abortion law more generally as being an “absolute violation of international human rights norms on women's right to health and dignity. It's totally off track with the rest of Europe."

In summation, the bill is not yet passed, and if it does go through both houses of Irish parliament, it will not make any changes to the law itself. Even with these amendments the thousands of Irish women who travel to the UK (and elsewhere) to access abortion would still need to do so. Arguably it might make provision for rare cases in which the woman's life is threatened but this will still sit within a legal framework which threatens to prosecute doctors whose actions are seen as being outside of these restrictions.

To follow the debate we suggest checking out the Irish ‘Doctors For Choice’ campaign which will provide regular updates.

The Protection of Life During Pregnancy Bill can be viewed in full here.

Masturbation is ‘self-abuse’ and ‘unnatural’, according to SPUC

2013-04-16T12:43:00.002+01:00

SPUC (Society for the Protection of Unborn Children) is an anti-abortion organisation which speaks to young people in schools across the country on topics like abortion and euthanasia.

We’ve written before about our concerns with the misinformation that SPUC provides on contraception and abortion, and about the stigmatisation of abortion, as well as non-heterosexual lifestyles. However, a recent blog quoting SPUC’s communications manager Anthony Ozimic exposes another aspect of SPUC’s policies which may not be fitting for schools wishing to deliver relevant and accessible sex education to their pupils.

In addressing the Telegraph’s recent obituary of ‘IVF pioneer’ Robert Edwards, SPUC outlines its problem with masturbation (as well as other aspects of IVF technology). Ozimic states:

“The sperm used to fertilise the eggs in IVF is almost always obtained by masturbation, assisted by the provision of pornography. Masturbation instrumentalises and thus debases the sexual faculty, which is proper to marital union, not laboratory experiments. The sexual organs are structured for depositing sperm into the vagina, not into a jar. A masturbator - even one motivated by a desire to fertilise eggs, even his wife's - is 'making love' to his hand, which is unnatural and a form of self-abuse. Masturbation for any purpose - including providing sperm samples for medical purposes - is intrinsically unethical.”

Remember that SPUC claims to be a secular organisation. When SPUC speakers talk about sex and relationships in schools, they do not do so from an officially Catholic position. Ozimic notes that “Catholics in particular should note that it is forbidden” but implies that masturbation is debasing and unnatural for all.

We know that in fact, a majority of people have engaged in some kind of masturbation. It is safe and can be a good way for people to get to know their bodies without risk of sexually transmitted infections or unwanted pregnancy. It’s sad to think that a new generation of young people is being fed these same stigmatising messages about masturbation which can create guilt and shame around what is a natural and common act.

40 Days for Life and so called ‘turnarounds’

2013-03-27T18:23:00.002Z

This article published in The Guardian yesterday highlights the actions of members of US based anti-abortion campaign 40 Days for Life in the UK. Laura from EFC takes a deeper look at what’s behind the ‘peaceful’ prayer vigils they carry out.

As we approach the end of 40 Days for Life’s most recent spate of prayer vigils it was good to see an article highlighting the negative impact of the misinformation they give out to pregnant women about abortion. 40DfL are often able to hide behind their claim that they are merely praying peacefully outside clinics which provide abortion, but unfortunately they are also providing dangerous medical information to those entering or passing by the clinics. The Guardian article notes:

Flicking through a 40 Days leaflet...saturated in emotive language about "your tiny baby", its pseudo-medical statements imply that abortions often cause "serious physical complications" – a tactic that has earned them the moniker 40 Days for Lies among counter-protesters.

We have written before about 40DfL’s links with crisis pregnancy centres which give misinformation to pregnant women. But there was one part of this particular article which stayed with me. A man named Joseph who represents 40DfL claims to have persuaded a girl of 12 not to have an abortion after confronting her outside a BPAS clinic in London:

"She was 12 years old," he says excitedly, "and she didn't even know who the father was. Dead set on abortion. Now she's gone inside for an ultrasound, but she's agreed to come along with me afterwards. We have a clinic where she can get the loving help she needs to carry her baby full-term."

There are serious issues with this. First of all, at 12, this girl is legally unable to consent to sex and this case becomes a matter of child protection. Beyond that, we know that those young women who have been given the space and support to make their own pregnancy decision (free from pressure and coercion) are more likely to have positive outcomes whether they choose to continue or end the pregnancy. We might also question if it is appropriate to enforce one’s own moral views on a young woman who may have little to no support to raise a child, or a desire to do so. The 40DfL doorsteppers aren’t trained counsellors, they have no knowledge of this young woman’s life experiences, desires and needs, only an ideological desire to ‘save her baby’. As the author of the Guardian article points out, the effects on these so called ‘turnarounds’, AKA real women with real lives ‘will be lifelong’.

Except, you see, this 12 year old didn’t actually exist. Following the publication of the article BPAS confirmed that they hadn’t actually seen anyone of that age in the clinic.

This means that 40DfL thought that the fabrication of a 12 year old girl ‘dead set on abortion’ would be a compelling story to further their cause. That the public would understand and warm to a campaign which attempts to convince women to forgo professional medical advice for biased and misleading information based purely on the desire to prevent abortion. This imaginary figure may not exist, but unfortunately the tactics used to coerce and stigmatise other vulnerable women do. And I for one am shocked that 40DfL would gloat about them.

Irish Hospital Prepared to Forcibly Perform a C-Section on Non-Consenting Woman

2013-03-14T14:19:00.000Z

EFC volunteer Sarah writes about a recent court case in Ireland which could have required a pregnant woman to undergo a caesarean section against her will.

How would you feel if I told you that a hospital in Ireland went to court last week, because they felt it necessary to tie down a woman, forcibly give her an anaesthetic, and slice open her abdomen, then her uterus? Horrified; disgusted; transported back to a time of symphysiotomies and the Magdalene Laundries? Well, they did.

Last Saturday morning, Waterford Regional Hospital made an emergency application to the High Court in an attempt to compel a pregnant woman to undergo a caesarean section. Lawyers for the hospital said that the woman was refusing to give consent for the procedure, but that a “natural” birth would pose a risk to her unborn child. The woman had a scar on her uterus from a previous caesarean and there was a risk that it would rupture during a vaginal delivery. If this were to happen the baby could have died or have had severe brain damage and the woman herself would have been at risk of a haemorrhage.

The medical staff said that the latest scans were “non-reassuring” and the consultant obstetrician said that he had “advised her strongly” to have a caesarean. The Senior Counsel for the hospital stated that the Judge needed to balance the right of the woman to refuse medical treatment versus the right to life of the unborn child. The right to life of the unborn is guaranteed in the Irish Constitution under Article 40.3.3 °. Just before the Judge was about to rule on the case, the court heard that the woman had “consented” to a C-section and an emergency order was no longer necessary.

In the six news articles I’ve read on this story, there isn’t any mention of why the woman wanted to opt for a vaginal birth; the only reference is that she would have “liked” to. She may have had a perfectly valid, well thought-out reason, but the mainstream press don’t seem too concerned about the actual wishes of this person. It does say that over the weekend she began to waver between consenting to the procedure on the Sunday or Monday as she wanted her husband to be present if possible; the medical staff did not consider this a reasonable request.

The risks associated with a caesarean include increased risk of bleeding, infection of the incision, the urinary tract, or the tissue lining the uterus, injury to surrounding organs such as the bladder and the bowel, and in rare cases blood clots, wound hematoma, and pulmonary embolus. Now, I understand that this case had its own particular risks associated with undergoing a vaginal birth. However it’s not as if the doctors were asking this woman to undergo an easy, risk-free option. A C-section comes with its own dangers and as this woman is a consenting adult who had undergone the procedure before, we have to assume that she was well aware of this. The right to refuse medical treatment exists because we trust people to make their own decisions about their bodies.

This case is reminiscent of the attitude taken when symphysiotomies were performed on women against or without their consent. This procedure involved sawing open a woman’s pelvic bone during childbirth. The subsequent childbirth was excruciating, the recovery time was lengthy, and many were left incontinent and/or incapable of enjoying sexual activity. The practice was used so as to avoid performing a C-section, which limited the amount of children a woman could have. It was used by doctors who objected to family planning and was performed on women in Ireland up until 1984.

Under Irish law, women are treated as incubators. The right to bodily autonomy is just one of the many rights which we no longer have while pregnant. Our right to health is automatically diminished, as we have no option to take the less-risky route of terminating the pregnancy. Rape victims have no right to choose not to go through the added trauma of invasive exams, ante- and post-natal care, and the birth process. Women with non-viable foetuses have no right not to extend this heartbreak for further months and go through the trauma of birth. We are bearers of children and little else. If we are not willing to give ourselves over to this task we can be restrained, refused measures to preserve our health, and in some cases, forced to sacrifice our lives.

This case made clear the lack of respect given for women’s decisions about their own bodies. If this woman had continued to withhold her consent and the court order granted, hospital staff were prepared to physically restrain her and cut her open against her will. This is yet another example of the disempowering and dangerous effects the 8th Amendment has on women. If Irish people want to achieve any semblance of equality between the genders, we have to fight for its repeal.

Teenage pregnancy rates have dropped – someone tell the Daily Mail!

2013-02-26T12:19:00.001Z

The Office for National Statistics has released the latest conception statistics for England and Wales today. Just in case you don't read about it on the front page of a newspaper, or see a lengthy news item, here is one of the key findings:

The under 18 conception rate for 2011 is the lowest since 1969.

Indeed;

The estimated number of conceptions to women aged under 18 also fell to 31,051 in 2011 compared with 34,633 in 2010, a decrease of 10%.

And in fact;

This is the lowest estimated under 18 conception rate since comparable conception statistics were first produced in 1969.

Hear that everyone? The rate of teenage pregnancy has gone down. It’s at its lowest since the statistics were first collected in 1969 (the year of the moon landing!) In these 2011 statistics we see the legacy of the Teenage Pregnancy Strategy, the efforts of education, sexual health and youth work professionals across the country tirelessly working to help young men and women prevent unwanted pregnancies, whilst supporting those who do become pregnant (purposefully or not).

Reflecting back on the successes of the strategy in 2010 the Department of Health stated that the international evidence-base shows two measures which have the strongest impact on reducing teenage pregnancy rates:

Comprehensive information, advice and support – from parents, schools and other professionals – combined with accessible, young people-friendly sexual and reproductive health (SRH) services.

However, despite this knowledge about what works best, we continue to see a lack of commitment to the implementation of statutory Sex and Relationships Education (SRE), and a worrying trend of cuts to contraception and sexual health services. At EFC we have noted an increasing backlash against the provision of inclusive, evidence-based sex education, some of which is recorded in our recent report into education about abortion.

We were therefore glad to see a recent cross-party inquiry back the findings and successes of the Teenage Pregnancy Strategy and make demands for compulsory SRE in the battle against unwanted teenage pregnancies. We just hope that any future policies manage to promote evidence-based information on contraception and pregnancy prevention without shaming young mothers or stigmatising the choice of abortion. There are tried and tested measures we can put in place to help reduce the number of young women becoming pregnant when they do not want to be, however, there will always be some young people who do become pregnant. Let's not treat them like a pesky statistic. They deserve respect, accurate and impartial information and time and space to make a decision about the pregnancy that is right for them.

EFC report into abortion education in UK schools launched today

2013-02-04T10:09:00.003Z

Our report ‘Abortion Education in the UK: Failing our young people?’ released today reveals the extent of poor-quality education on the topic of abortion.

Some teachers and external speakers delivering lessons on abortion have been found to be using materials which are inaccurate, biased, and often stigmatise abortion as a pregnancy option. For example, the three main anti-abortion groups regularly invited into schools to speak to thousands of young people have all claimed that abortion is linked to an increased risk of breast cancer (despite cancer organisations and respected medical bodies dismissing this link). Young people responding to our survey of abortion education reported lessons which were distressing and left them feeling upset and confused. Many felt that abortion was stigmatised, despite the fact that we know a third of women will make this choice in their lifetime. One young person told us that her R.E lesson ‘seemed designed to put students off abortion or make those who had already had an abortion feel guilty or like murderers.’ We know, from speaking to those in abortion care services, that the stigma and guilt attached to abortion in these early educational encounters can stay with women for the rest of their lives.

And it’s not just abortion which is misrepresented and stigmatised by these groups. We found materials from anti-abortion groups (and teachers’ own presentations) which gave incorrect information about contraception. One organisation Lovewise, which claims to speak in hundreds of schools every year, refuses to teach about contraception for those who are unmarried, labelling it ‘sinful’. Student materials from the Right to Life Trust claim that ‘the contraceptive pill can be said to keep the female body in a permanently morbid, unnatural state.’ Again, our concern is that young people are not getting accurate medical information and may be dissuaded from using contraception when they are sexually active.

As well as spreading misinformation and stigma around contraception and abortion many of these groups also hold views which are contrary to schools’ equality and diversity duties. SPUC, for example, is currently hosting a virulent campaign against same-sex marriage and the director of the charity states that ‘the fundamental argument against gay marriage is that homosexuality is disordered’. Similarly, Lovewise promises to promote heterosexual marriage as ‘the only context in which honouring, fulfilling, secure and healthy sexual activity may take place’ declaring that ‘all other contexts, including homosexual activity are damaging to mind, body and spirit’.

We think it’s time schools started paying closer attention to the groups they are inviting in to speak to young people about abortion and ensure that their teaching on this sensitive and relevant subject is impartial, factual and non-judgmental.

To read the full report/executive summary click here.

The EFC education toolkit is available for further information on best practice in this area.

'Youth For Choice' blog launches today!

2013-01-31T13:09:00.000Z

Our fabulous young volunteers have been busy working on a social media project and it’s finally here. Introducing the new ‘Youth For Choice’ Tumblr!

Our volunteers decided that it was about time for a youth-led blog in the UK which focuses on sexual health and reproductive rights. Young people giving other young people FACTUAL information about sex, pregnancy, abortion and related topics. All our bloggers are 16-25, and are contributing written blogs, photos and film clips from all over the country.

Here’s Kathryn, 19, on why she got involved with the project:

“I’m a firm believer in women having control over their own bodies and their reproductive rights – through contraception, abortion and other ways. I feel that people need to have choice over what they do with their body, and not be coerced or pressured into doing something because they feel it’s the right thing to do, or that they have no other option. And that’s why I’m excited to be involved in this Tumblr. Because one of the ways you help to give people choice is through sharing information with them, and I think this is especially important for young people, who might have a harder time getting access to quality information about sexual health and all the other stuff that goes with it. We might not be taken seriously, or be told both sides of the story when it comes to reproductive rights and sexual health. And when this happens, how are you supposed to make an informed choice about what’s going on with your own body? This is why I think this blog is going to be so good – it’ll give young people a good source of news and information about stuff that’s really important to us.”

So please follow the Tumblr and share the link with your friends and colleagues!

Have you heard about the condom train?

2013-01-29T10:04:00.000Z

It was not until 1993 that condoms became fully available without prescription for everyone in Ireland. Access to contraception and reproductive control has long been a site of struggle for the women’s movement there. EFC volunteer Sarah McCarthy writes about the famous “condom train” where a number of women brazenly brought condoms into the Republic of Ireland on the train from Belfast.

In May 1971, 47 women gathered at Connolly Station in Dublin, prepared to embark on a potentially dangerous endeavour to purchase contraceptives across the border. These feminists had planned an ingenious publicity-stunt; they were going to buy mass amounts of condoms and contraceptive pills, and challenge the customs officers on their return to arrest them for importing these illegal items. It was a bold move in the 1970's, and many were terrified about what their mothers would think.

Upon their arrival in Belfast, they ran into one slight problem; contraception was so taboo in Ireland, that even most of these feminist women had never seen it in their lives. When Nell McCafferty, one of the founders of the Irish Women’s Liberation Movement, reached the pharmacy counter, she had no idea what to ask for. Eventually one of the divorced women in the group stepped up to the counter and requested condoms. However, at his point it dawned on them that the customs officials would have no idea what contraception looked like either. So they ordered hundreds of packs of aspirin, put them in paper bags, and pretended that they were contraceptive pills. Jubilantly, they got the train back to Dublin. As they neared the city, a few began to get nervous. What if they got sent to jail? What would their mothers say?! They clutched the statements they had prepared to hand to whoever would come to arrest them. However, the customs men were so mortified by their transgression that they quickly admitted that they couldn’t arrest them all, and let them go without challenge. The women walked through the station victoriously waving the contraband around, with some blowing up condoms like balloons. The response across Ireland was explosive, and the day’s impact lingered for decades.

The Irish Women's Liberation Movement in 1971.

Women in Ireland have long been subjugated by a deeply patriarchal state and the pervasive influence of the Catholic Church. In the 1920's the colloquial term for birth control was “race suicide” and “a child every year to you” a popular blessing. By the 1970’s, laws from decades back still governed women’s bodies. The 1929 Censorship of Publications Act allowed a board of five men to prohibit the sale of any “indecent or obscene” literature; including that which advocated birth control. The 1935 Criminal Law (Amendment) Act made the import or sale of any contraceptive illegal. Married women were expected to have as many children as possible and women who had children outside of marriage were often incarcerated in institutions run by nuns, called the Magdalene Laundries. Any promotion of contraception was also banned, leaving people woefully and dangerously misinformed. In the late 1940’s, a baby was born in Dublin with the top of a Guinness bottle on its head; the mother had inserted it in herself hoping it would act as a contraceptive. As women’s groups began to recognise the importance of accessing contraception, the Church vigorously resisted their demands. In 1968 the Vatican passed a Papal Encyclical, entitled “Humane Vitae”, which forbade Catholics from using artificial contraception. At the time of the condom train, a doctor could only prescribe the pill to a married woman with an irregular menstrual cycle. The criminalisation of contraception meant that women had no control over the number and spacing of their children; power over their reproduction lay in the hands of a patriarchal state. Thus the fight for contraception was one of the key battles for women’s liberation.

In 1969 the Irish Women’s Liberation Movement and the Irish Family Planning Association (IFPA) were founded. They began to take direct action against contraception restrictions. In 1970 the IFPA began to give talks on contraceptives to women’s groups, despite the fact that even the promotion of contraception remained illegal. Soon after, Students’ Unions and Family Planning Clinics began to sell condoms illegally. They continued to do so against fines and public pressure. Many women’s groups pursued legal and extra-legal means to publicise and agitate for the urgent need for freely available contraception. The condom train was one amongst many bold and creative actions which openly flouted the prevailing conservative hegemony.

In 1979 the Health (Family Planning) Bill was published, which allowed married couples to access contraception with a prescription. But it was not until 1993 that all restrictions around the sale of condoms were removed, and the morning-after-pill only became available without prescription in 2011. Arguably, the contraceptive revolution of the 1960’s and 70’s, and its long-reaching consequences, had a bigger impact on women’s lives than the right to vote. By 1991 the average fertility rate had plummeted to 1.89. Women gained partial control over their bodies, and much more control over their own destiny.

Today, the fight for reproductive rights for women in Ireland is far from over. Abortion remains illegal, bar in certain exceptional circumstances. However, the horrific death of Savita Halappanavar has crystallised the pro-choice movement in Ireland, and I have no doubt that another struggle of direct action and mounting public pressure will eventually result in further gains for women in Ireland. Perhaps it is time to devise the Abortion Train!

'Pro-choice' - what’s in a name?

2013-01-15T17:35:00.000Z

Lisa shares her thoughts on the use of the term 'pro-choice' to describe organisations which campaign for reproductive rights.

Planned Parenthood this week decided to stop using the term ‘pro-choice’ to describe its position on abortion. I’ve read some excellent pieces on this and agree with many of the points made in favour of this change. Maybe it’s only a sentimental attachment to the term, but personally I don’t think I can ever stop being ‘pro-choice’.

Many people are arguing that the idea of choice is a misnomer because for some people there is no choice. For me this is like arguing that being pro-equal pay is a misnomer because currently there is no equal pay. Planned Parenthood has also argued that abortion should be de-politicised, and framed as a personal health decision that an individual should be able to make. Of course it is an entirely personal decision, but until certain conditions are met, de-politicising abortion seems to me like wishful thinking. The closest example I can see to this is the way in which Canada has taken abortion out of the criminal law altogether. However, even in Canada the political attacks on abortion as a legal procedure keep on coming. And importantly, as Tracy Weitz writes, shifting abortion from the public into the personal sphere does nothing to address or eradicate stigma or help to tackle obstacles to access: 'to say abortion is an individual woman's business absolves us of our obligation to create a more just world.'

It feels a lot like this change of terminology is an admission of failure: it acknowledges, implicitly, that the movement never managed to convey to the world what pro-choice should really mean (which of course includes the fact that abortion is a personal, medical decision). Also that the movement never adequately acknowledged, or fought to address the lived realities of all those in the community who wanted a real choice over their reproductive lives and parenting, and have been denied one, whether because of their age, class, race, gender, sexuality, disability, religion or other factor.

The reproductive justice movement was formed partly in response to the fact that poor women of colour in the US are damned if they do and damned if they don’t when it comes to parenting. Condemned for being disproportionately represented in the abortion statistics – though simultaneously represented as passive victims of a racist abortion ‘industry’ with no moral agency of their own; or condemned for having children when they are perceived as not having the means to support them.In fact, reproductive justice is about more than parenting choices. Reproductive justice activism embraces the whole conversation about how people define themselves, how they choose to live, and how they choose to have or not have sexual relationships, recognising the cultural, economic and social limits imposed on those choices.

For me the reproductive justice movement represents a lot about what being pro-choice should be about and what it means to me. Being pro-choice is not just about saying abortion is morally acceptable or should be legally available. Like any word, or phrase that is designed to be a shortcut to a philosophy, ethos or political position, 'pro-choice' may well not be up to the task, but I’m not convinced that inadequacy equates to inappropriateness and that we should ditch it just yet.

Until we have achieved the utopia in which real choice exists, we have to accept that it is an aspirational term, a goal to be fought and campaigned for. For me it’s about saying that complete sexual and reproductive choice – the fundamental right of a person to bodily autonomy, to have sex or not, to decide who to have sex with and how to have it, to have sex without having children; and of course the right of people who can get pregnant to decide the number, timing, and spacing of their children - is what we are aiming for. It necessitates recognising that some people’s choices are influenced by more than their desires in relation to parenting, but are constrained and directed by the culture in which they live, their economic circumstances, the social and political support or lack of support for certain pregnancy choices and much more.

Real choice can only exist in the context of:

A society which values and provides equality, respect and security to people of all sexes, sexualities and gender identities and all people regardless of race, class, disability or religion

Comprehensive and universal sexual health education and access to comprehensive sexual health services including safe and legal abortion and fertility services

The destigmatisation of all pregnancy options, not just abortion and adoption but all sorts of parenthood including teenage parenthood, single parenthood, older parenthood, disabled parenthood, same-sex parenthood, transgender parenthood

Rights to parental leave and flexible working conditions for parents

Real economic and social support for parents caring for children including a living wage policy, accessible affordable childcare, affordable housing, VAW services and more

Good free quality healthcare for all

In short: a society in which we can be optimistic that our children will thrive, wherever they are born and whoever they are born to...

Maybe the US context is so different that it would be laughable to aspire to any of the above conditions (free universal healthcare, adequate welfare etc), but in the UK we once achieved a few of these or were close to achieving them, and we’re fighting hard to achieve more and to stop the gains we have made slipping through our fingers. If being pro-choice is an aspirational rather than a descriptive term I’m happy to aspire.

Feminist group uncovers misleading pregnancy counselling in Cambridgeshire

2012-12-19T13:25:00.000Z

This weekend Feminist Action Cambridge held a demo in Cambridge city centre to raise awareness of local ‘crisis pregnancy centres’ which they feel are ‘using emotionally manipulative techniques’ and misinformation ‘in order to increase the guilt women might feel at having an abortion.’

They sent mystery shoppers to three counselling centres in Cambridgeshire and found that at each one women were being given some kind of false information about abortion and/or subjected to ‘counselling’ which was biased and often based on personal anecdotes.

Counsellors at all three centres spoke about the possibility of suffering from ‘post-abortion syndrome’ after ending a pregnancy, despite this being an invented medical condition. A mystery shopper in Ely was told that ‘some people will have all sorts of traumas about it and dreams about it and sort of lots of awful stuff goes on’, in Newmarket the counsellor claimed abortion could lead to ‘feeling of distance from existing children, inability to maintain a normal routine...feeling depressed, sleep problems, disturbing dreams .’ Counsellors lacked accurate medical information and misrepresented the possible physical complications of abortion. For example, in Newmarket the counsellor read from inaccurate materials; ‘there’s likely to be a higher risk of miscarriage and preterm labour but they haven’t put any, there’s no stats for that. So treat that with a pinch of salt, for the moment.’

Unfortunately these findings from Cambridgeshire support what we know about many other independent pregnancy counselling centres across the country. Volunteer mystery shoppers have reported back to us on centres giving misinformation, or presenting an extremely biased account of the pregnancy options. For example, in Bedford earlier this year a mystery shopper was told that ‘they tend not to do surgical terminations because there’s an increased risk of damage to the woman’s cervix...it can lead in future pregnancies to, the pregnancies falling through the cervix’. Another counsellor in Halifax recounted her own experience and conflated being sterilised after her abortion with a general risk of infertility following abortion:

‘What can happen, and does happen, but not in everybody is it (abortion) can prevent you from having other children. I don’t know how it happens. Also if you have a baby after having an abortion it can quite often not go to full term. I’m not saying they’re stillborn or anything...I don’t think deformity enters into it, that’s a genetic thing. It can affect your future chances of conceiving. I had to be sterilised after mine, that’s what they did in those days.’

In fact, as the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists makes clear, ‘there are no proven associations between induced abortion and subsequent ectopic pregnancy, placenta praevia or infertility.’

We were glad to see local MP Julian Huppert support the group’s call to action. He said:

'It is crucial that all organisations offering information or advice in relation to unplanned pregnancy choices follow evidence-based guidance from a professional medical organisation. Women who seek help in this matter have a very serious decision to make and they cannot make that decision without medically accurate information. And organisations providing that information have a duty to make it crystal clear if they have a particular religious or anti-abortion stance.'

EFC has been campaigning for evidence-based, impartial support with pregnancy decision making for years and we have found that the majority of ‘crisis pregnancy centres’ are run by organisations which are either transparently anti-abortion, or which, when you dig deeper, have associations with anti-abortion groups. In practice, a number of these centres are giving false, biased and stigmatising information about abortion to the people who visit them.

We call on local commissioning groups and local authorities to investigate pregnancy advice centres, and to clamp down on groups which are in breach of ethical standards in health provision and counselling and may also be guilty of false advertising. We also ask that education, youth and health workers inform themselves about these centres and do not signpost anyone to them should they have concerns.

The EFC pregnancy decision making Best Practice Toolkit offers guidance for investigating independent advice centres in your area.

Banner from the Feminist Action Cambridge demo on 15th December 2012.

A very sinister hijacking of Savita Halappanavar's death

2012-11-17T16:19:00.001Z

A guest blog from the unstoppable Farzana: dedicated to the memory of Savita Halappanavar

“Bigotry tries to keep truth safe in its hands with a grip that kills it” Rabindranath Tagore, (1861 – 1941)

When I read Praveen’s (Savita’s widower) account of the agony his wife was in and the reaction of the consultant when Savita asked for the pregnancy to be induced (as the fetus was unviable) I was angry and humiliated for the Halappanavars who were told “This is a Catholic country.” A few tweeters noted the inherent racism within that response, @sunny_hundal for one, @SamAmbreen for two - and a whole host of others. However, when this was pointed out during the night and the next day, a very typical response came from certain people who refused to acknowledge that that statement could be perceived as being racist. We were accused of being “over-sensitive”, “reading too much into it” etc...

What I would say to those people is this: imagine you were Savita and Praveen. Savita was in agony by the time her cervix had dilated and both she and her husband were undoubtedly traumatised and upset that they were to lose their first child, thousands of miles away from home, away from the comfort of the familiar. Now imagine, as foreign, non-Irish, non-Catholic people that the medical intervention you have requested in good faith is effectively rejected and done so in a sneering condescending manner. Imagine if your daily lived reality is one of “being the other”.

If you haven’t experienced racism in its obnoxious and subtle forms then one could see how you might not relate to how those of us similar to the Halappanavars would legitimately react. Being generous, I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Being miserly; I would say this: if you do not know what it is like to be of non-white skin colour, if you do not know what it is like to be judged for worshipping God in a different form, if you don’t have the same ethno-linguistic or cultural norms or values as the majority, if you are made to feel as if your non-white skin colour, your different form of worshipping God, your different ethno-linguistic-cultural norms are INFERIOR; then you do not know what it was like for Savita and Praveen at that time. You get me bredrens?

Predictably, a small but highly vocal racist group of anti-choice odds and sods have attempted to hijack the death of Savita and gone to town with some very strange views: views which fetishise the fetus but hate the brown mother.

One of the earliest tweets I spotted stated this: “The baby Savita (rip) lost was female. Many Indian people abort female babies. 2 facts”. In fact, according to her brother she had ‘always wanted to have a girl.’

My head sort of exploded about this time. I had a sinking feeling that the most uninformed anti-choicers would use the ethnicity of Savita as a tool in their disastrous counter campaign against a very angry and grief-stricken pro-choice movement.

Claims about Indians and sex-selective abortions are a cheap way to attack Savita’s Indian heritage, MY heritage, as one which is violently disproportionate in favour of men. However, if you consider that India (1966 & 1980), Sri Lanka (1960* the first female head of a modern post-colonial state), Pakistan (1988 and 1993), and Bangladesh - the “Battling Begums” (1991, 2001, 1996, 2009) all have had female heads of state far earlier than any western country did (including the UK with Thatcher in 1979 and Mary Robinson in Ireland in 1990), you have to wonder – for countries which are portrayed as being so patriarchal and male dominated – we didn’t too badly did we bredrens? The most disturbing commentary on Savita’s death however has come from a well known active hardline anti-choice racist/White Nationalist. a link to his view that ‘Indian people are a bit slow and backward' is here.

First of all his views hardly make any logical sense. To claim that Indians are “slow and backward” when India is 10th largest economy in the world, 3rd for purchasing power, exports worth $299.4 billion. He then goes on to argue if Indians don’t like the way things are done in Ireland, then they “should go back to their smelly overpopulated country.” Overpopulated? Hang on – in the same diatribe, he argues that there is “no justification to allow the murdering of unborn babies.” I would also have to say, bredren, plenty of Irish people leave Ireland too to look for jobs abroad...and to get away from racist bumbaholes like you.

Another tweeter – a silly little boy who clearly doesn’t get out much, doesn’t read a quality newspaper or listen to the news – claimed that: “That Muslim girl died, she was refused an abortion, am not racist but I f-ing hate smelly rag heads.” After I had picked myself up off the floor laughing hard at his “That Muslim girl,” (Savita was HINDU), I again felt the unease that racists, stupids and anti-choicers make for an explosive amount of stupidly uninformed bigoted views. That Savita was Indian, means that her ethnicity WILL be a factor in their frothy mouthed bigotry. I actually tweeted back “you do realise the woman who you implied as being a smelly rag head was in fact Hindu and not Muslim? PS I'm a smelly rag head.” I await his response, if any.

Savita’s death was horrible enough. Praveen, her husband, will arrive back in Ireland to fight for justice for his wife. A fitting legacy to Savita’s memory would be if Ireland would just reconsider their current legislation and make the necessary changes to ensure that no woman: whether white, brown, Catholic or non-Catholic is ever told “This is a Catholic country” as justification to deny a life- saving medical intervention.

Pro-choice is more pro-life than the anti-choicers would have you believe. Reclaim the term, we OWN it.

Updated: For London based people, there will be a protest outside the Irish embassy on Saturday 17th November 4pm onwards, for further details: http://www.abortionrights.org.uk/

Protest the death of Savita Halappanavar

2012-11-15T14:49:00.004Z

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!

2012-11-02T10:37:00.000Z

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

2012-10-02T13:07:00.000+01:00

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

2012-09-19T15:38:00.001+01:00

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

2012-09-05T17:15:00.000+01:00

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

2012-08-24T16:39:00.001+01:00

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

2012-08-22T12:16:00.002+01:00

International Day of Action for Decriminalisation of Abortion

Taking abortion out

of the criminal law

Voice for Choice ̶ Public Meeting

1^st 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

Archers and the ante-natal testing story

2012-08-21T17:18:00.000+01:00

Fans of the Archers (a long-running radio drama/soap on BBC R4) may be following with interest the storyline of Vicky’s pregnancy. Vicky is a middle-aged woman married to Mike, grandfather of two. Her pregnancy was unplanned and came as quite a shock, though a happy shock as far as Vicky is concerned. Although we often associate unplanned pregnancy with teenagers, the reality is that women of all ages experience unintended pregnancy.*

In addition to the shock of the pregnancy, Vicky and her partner, Mike, have also had to deal with the news that initial screening tests have found her at higher than normal risk of carrying a fetus with Down's Syndrome . Vicky and Mike find themselves having to make sense of alot of medical information and facing decisions they are completely unprepared for.

They are offered an amniocentesis test to give them a definitive answer about whether or not they will have a baby with Down’s Syndrome, but they have to decide whether the risk of miscarriage associated with the test (up to 1%) is worth taking. After talking to the midwife they realise that if the test is positive for Down’s Syndrome they will have another decision to make – whether or not to continue with the pregnancy.

It’s great when TV and radio dramas take up interesting topics – an opportunity to inform the public and stimulate discussion about contemporary real life issues. It’s really good when broadcasters take responsibility for giving accurate information, and think carefully about the impact of the programme on people who’ve had experience of these issues or dilemmas. Too often storylines are simplistic, hysterical, insensitive or inaccurate and broadcasters try to compensate for this by putting up a ‘helpline’ number at the end for anyone ‘affected’ by the topic (often just a recorded message).

So far I think the BBC is doing a pretty good job with the Archers. They have integrated some accurate information into the story line and tried to represent the range of viewpoints and emotions associated with this situation. I’ll be listening with interest to see if they can keep it up as the story unfurls.

I wonder if the BBC got in touch with Antenatal Results and Choices (ARC) to advise on the script. They are the UK experts in informing and supporting women, their partners and families when they face a diagnosis of fetal anomaly. For anyone who is in this situation now ARC is there to help you understand the information you have been given, explore your feelings around the pregnancy and support you in whatever decision you think is the right one for you.

For anyone who is moved by this story line, relieved they have never had to face this painful situation or glad that there is an organisation out there to help, why not consider a donation to ARC.

And finally, yes, it’s true...I do listen to the Archers *buries head in shame and realises she's turning into her mum*

*While huge investment has been made over recent years in reducing teenage pregnancy and addressing high levels of Chlamydia and other STIs amongst teenagers, the fpa recently tried to balance this out with a campaign to provide more information about contraception to older people in recognition that they have often missed out on essential sexual health messages and services and may not know that they are still at risk of pregnancy . Not only does pregnancy often come as a shock to older women, they often haven't recognised that they are pregnant until some weeks into pregnancy, mistaking their missing periods for the onset of the menopause. This may be one reason why older women are over-represented in the statistics for abortions that take place in the second trimester of pregnancy.

“My R.E. teacher taught about the 'evils' of aborting a fetus”

2012-07-31T16:50:00.000+01:00

As part of our education advocacy project we recently launched an online survey asking young people to tell us about their experiences of abortion education at school. We received hundreds of responses – so thank you to all those who completed the survey or passed it on. Although a minority reported positive experiences, having attended lessons which they felt were ‘neutral’ and gave them good information, our concerns about misinformation and bias in this area were confirmed by a greater part of the responses received.

Firstly, just under 30% of those aged 20 and under said that they’d learnt nothing about abortion at school. Many of those who had not learnt about abortion felt that this was a wasted opportunity:

It was certainly referenced, but I'm not sure it was properly 'taught'. As it was merely a glancing reference normally, it didn't have much impact. Looking back, however, I'm disappointed by how glaring this absence was, especially as I went to an all-girls' school which didn't exactly have the lowest teen pregnancy rate. 19, London

It was a lost opportunity for myths and stigma to be challenged. 18, Leicester

Of those who did receive abortion education, the majority had learnt about the topic as part of Religious Education (R.E). Although sometimes this meant a useful exploration of religious perspectives on abortion, a number of respondents reported negative experiences. Some were concerned that they had missed out on important factual and practical information about contraception, abortion access and local sexual health services:

I think there was too much scaremongering involved and not enough science. I think it should have been taught during a biology lesson rather than religious ed. 19, North Yorkshire

(It made me feel) uncomfortable, as if I wouldn't be able to make the decision I would want (they leant towards adoption/keeping at a young age) I also felt it was inappropriate in a town with a high teenage pregnancy rate, instead of leaning towards how to protect yourself. Choosing an organisation who would have given advice on safe sex and impartial options (maybe NHS/Connexions services) would have been better. 19, Hampshire

I came away thinking that if the condom/pill failed then it was a divine sign of things which are meant to be. 19, Kent

Others were subjected to highly judgemental and biased accounts of abortion, based on the teacher/speaker’s own beliefs:

My R.E. teacher taught about the 'evils' of aborting a foetus that had mental or physical impairments. The women who came in showed us pictures and videos of late stage abortions...All the experiences seemed designed to put students off abortion or make those who had already had an abortion feel guilty or like murderers. It was never presented as a choice that women sometimes choose, or something that happens every day. 20, Surrey

(I was taught that abortion) was immoral, murder etc, every child has the right to life sort of thing and that the mother would go straight to hell for it...we had no facts or balanced arguments. 17, Newcastle

They said god said it was wrong and that it murdered babies and psychologically damaged women. 20, Northern Ireland

Perhaps most worryingly, some respondents reported having been ‘humiliated’ or ‘singled out’ for their own personal views or experiences of abortion:

They said (abortion) was wrong, and that it was much better to bring the pregnancy to term...No details were ever given of the procedure and the child was always spoken of being murdered and murder was wrong. My personal views, I was told they were wrong because I agree with abortion but everyone who agreed with the teacher was not humiliated in front of the class... (I felt) humiliated and that my life and opinions were not wanted and that I wasn't regarded with respect because I allow everyone to have a choice. 16, County Antrim

He (RE teacher) gave us a very basic explanation then called on a girl who had had an abortion and asked for her opinion on the matter. No one else was encouraged to discuss what they thought and I left the lesson feeling as though abortion was something to be ashamed of...(I felt) very under- informed and angry on behalf of my friend who was singled out. 14, Wales

Thankfully, not all respondents had had such a negative experience. Some praised the abortion education they had received and felt that it had been a worthwhile learning experience:

Lesson was from a priest, but from an honest, unbiased perspective. 18, Oxfordshire

I actually felt well-informed. My teacher was not judgmental or nasty, thinking back I'm pretty sure she was pro-choice, but she gave both sides of the argument and allowed us to form our own decisions. 20, Northampton

Unfortunately the majority of responses were from those who received no education about abortion, or had had inaccurate, misleading or distressing lessons at school. There was also a general sense that with the majority of these lessons taking place in R.E, students were at risk of missing important factual information about the realities of abortion.

To read more about why we think it’s important to teach about abortion and our best practice guidelines for doing so have a look at the EFC Abortion Education Toolkit. And please contact efc@brook.org.uk if you have further information on the way abortion is taught in your area.

Volunteer opportunity for 16-25 year olds

2012-07-27T15:14:00.000+01:00

Are you 16-25? Looking for a fun way to volunteer this summer? Interested in sexual and reproductive health? Well then, come on down, because we’ve got an opportunity just for you!

We’d like to start an EFC Tumblr page where young people create the content. This will mean re-blogging interesting posts you see on other sexual health sites but also writing short blogs, taking pictures or even creating videos for others to view and share.

There are two ways to get involved:
• If you’re in London and can spare some time between now and September you can apply to be a core volunteer. This means we’ll give you some training on sexual and reproductive health issues as well as social media. You will be one of the key volunteers involved in setting up the Tumblr and deciding what we post on it.

• If you’re outside of London or don’t have much time to spare you can be an online volunteer. This means we’ll ask you to email us with interesting things you’ve seen online, and you’ll be encouraged to create your own blogs on topics which interest you relating to sexual health, gender and sexuality and reproductive rights. This is a chance to be really creative, and we’ll send you suggestions and guidelines on what we’re after.

All volunteers will be given the resources and support and they need to take part. Core volunteers will have travel and food expenses covered. We can also award Amazon vouchers to those who remain involved with the project.

If you’re interested in getting involved please email efc@brook.org.uk for an application form and let us know if you'd like to be a core or online volunteer.

Lovewise in schools

2012-07-19T17:29:00.000+01:00

Today, The Huffington Post’s lead article concerns the group Lovewise, a Christian organisation which delivers presentations on puberty, sex, relationships and abortion to young people in schools, colleges and churches. We are quoted in the article expressing concern that a group which gives misinformation on contraception and abortion, and presents information which may stigmatise same-sex relationships and single parent families, is invited into schools to speak to young people.

Lovewise, alongside other groups promoting an abstinence-only, anti-abortion position formed the new, Michael Gove approved, ‘SRE Council’ last year. We noted then our concerns about the misinformation which was being given on Lovewise’s website in their sample slides. Since then we have gathered more information on the group and found that they speak at a number of schools across the country – the names of the schools visited are publicly available via their annual accounts.

To be clear. Our concern is not that Lovewise are presenting a Christian perspective on abortion. Nor that they oppose legal abortion. We have written before about the difference between facts and values. What we object to is the use of misleading, biased and at times, outright false information, which is unsupported by scientific evidence. For example, slides from Lovewise’s abortion presentation (saved from the site on 13th July but mysteriously now no longer viewable) claim that abortion leads to infertility, doubles the risk of breast cancer and increases the risk of committing suicide seven-fold. These claims simply do not reflect scientific consensus on abortion.

Besides the disregard for truly evidence-based information, there is also the effect such presentations might have on children’s wellbeing. How will a young woman who has experienced pregnancy feel when she is told ‘there are always bad consequences’ to abortion? How might a group which claims ‘homosexual activity is damaging to the mind, body and spirit’ affect the feelings of a young person who is LGBT? And how might young people’s access to safe, confidential sexual health advice be affected by listening to an organisation which teaches that contraception is ‘something that is wrong and threatens health?’

Lovewise are by no means the only group to be proffering such myths but we are glad to see that the public’s attention is being drawn to the regular practice of abortion misinformation being spread in schools. Now, let’s see if we can continue to push for evidence-based, impartial materials to be used in every school teaching about an issue as important as abortion.

Sample slides from Lovewise's 'Abortion Version 2' presentation.

Life-saving vaccine denied to girls

2012-07-18T12:26:00.001+01:00

When the UK Government first decided to provide the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine to all girls it was met with opposition from those who claimed that it would 'fuel promiscuity'. Of course this is nonsense and everyone who works in sexual health with young people said so at the time.

Either the vaccinations would be given with no explanation to the girls of the fact that HPV is a sexually transmitted infection in which case most girls would make no connection – either positive or negative – between the vaccine and sexual activity OR – obviously the option we favoured – the vaccination programme would be used as an opportunity to do some sexual health promotion. This work would:

celebrate the fact that this vaccine could prevent the majority of deaths from cervical cancer
encourage girls to have regular pap or 'smear' tests once they are old enough
talk about minimising risk factors for other cancers and the importance of regular breast checks for adult women and testicular checks for men
outline the risks for men of contracting HPV
emphasise that the vaccination does not give them protection against any of the other panoply of STIs or, of course, against pregnancy.

I haven’t found much information about what education or information is being provided alongside the vaccination, but this study suggests that offering and giving the vaccine has NOT changed young women’s sexual behaviour, turned them into wild nymphomaniacs; or caused them to throw their condoms on the bonfire and caution to the wind.

Today this article reports on schools that are not providing the vaccination because ‘their pupils follow strict Christian principles and do not have sex outside marriage’. So, first the vaccination was rejected because it would promote unsafe sexual behaviour and now it is rejected because pupils in some schools don’t need it as they will definitely not have sex outside of marriage.

Even if it was true that girls who commit to chastity in their early teens don’t ever end up having pre-marital or extra-marital sex (clue: it isn’t), it doesn’t take account of the fact that an abstinent girl can be raped, can be coerced into sex, or can marry a man who has previously had sex and is infected with HPV.

Approximately 1,000 women in the UK die each year from cervical cancer. Clearly the schools that are rejecting the vaccination think that this is a risk worth taking....

More on risk perception following vaccination

Mothers and adolescents' beliefs about risk compensation following HPV vaccination

Fertility factsheet

2012-07-17T12:44:00.000+01:00

These leaflets are designed for Education For Choice by the brilliant BISH. They include detailed explanations of female fertility and the menstrual cycle and the important information that even though you don't get pregnant every time, you still need to use contraception every time.

8 pp, 10x10cm, full colour (£15 for 50 leaflets inc p+p)

Please email your order or request for further information to efc[at]brook.org.uk.

More information about EFC resources about pregnancy decision-making and abortion for young people, parents and teachers.

More information about BISH resources about contraception, STIs, relationships, porn and loads more, for parents and teachers and BISH for young people.