abortion etiketine sahip kayıtlar gösteriliyor. Tüm kayıtları göster
abortion etiketine sahip kayıtlar gösteriliyor. Tüm kayıtları göster

11 Mayıs 2017 Perşembe

Facebook censors group that helps women obtain abortion pills

Facebook has censored the page of an organization that helps women obtain abortion pills, citing its policy against the “promotion or encouragement of drug use”.


Women on Web, which is based in Amsterdam, helps connect women with doctors who can provide abortion pills if they live in countries where abortion access is restricted. It is a sister organization to Women on Waves, which provides abortions and other reproductive health services on a ship in international waters.


Women on Waves announced that the page had been “unpublished” on its own Facebook account, writing: “Women on Web provides life-saving information to thousands of women worldwide. Its Facebook page publishes news, scientific information and the protocols of the World Health Organization and Women on Web has answered over half a million emails with women who needed scientific, accurate information essential for their health and life.


“We expect Facebook will [undo] this action soon enough, as access to information is a human right.”


This is the second censorship row between Facebook and Women on Web. In January 2012, Facebook deleted the profile photograph of the group’s founder and director, Dr Rebecca Gomperts. The image contained instructions for inducing an abortion using Misoprostol. Gomperts was locked out of her account for two days after re-posting the image, but Facebook subsequently apologized and reinstated both the image and her account.




We expect Facebook will [undo] this action soon enough, as access to information is a human right




Facebook did not immediately respond to a request for comment.


With nearly 2bn users, the social media site plays a crucial role in disseminating news and information around the world. But Facebook has struggled to meet competing demands to allow for the free flow of information while cracking down on graphic material (such as the livestreamed murder of a baby in Thailand in April).


In 2016, the company faced international condemnation over its decision to censor the iconic Vietnam War photograph of a naked girl fleeing a Napalm attack. Facebook subsequently altered its policy to allow for editorial judgments about newsworthiness.


On 3 May, amid criticism over its handling of graphic videos, Facebook announced that it would hire 3,000 more content reviewers. Such content reviewers are tasked with applying the company’s “community standards”, often with uneven results.


Facebook’s has faced particular difficulty enforcing its rules for “regulated goods” – prescription drugs, marijuana, firearms, and ammunition. The company bars “attempts by private individuals to purchase, sell, or trade” such items, but has struggled to halt gun sales.


The company has cracked down aggressively on pages related to legal medical marijuana, however. In 2015, the site temporarily banned business publication Crain’s for promoting a cover story about medical marijuana.



Facebook censors group that helps women obtain abortion pills

Move to decriminalise abortion in New South Wales voted down

A proposal to decriminalise abortion has been voted down in the New South Wales parliament.


Greens MP Mehreen Faruqi’s abortion law reform bill was defeated 25 to 14 in the state parliament’s upper house on Thursday. Public members in the gallery shouted “shame” as the result of the conscience vote was announced in the state’s legislative council.


The defeat means that abortion will remain an offence in the NSW Crimes Act, and unlawfully procuring abortion will continue to be punishable by up to 10 years’ imprisonment under the act.


Unlawfully supplying a drug or instrument for an abortion will also continue to be punishable by up to five years’ imprisonment.


Abortions in NSW are currently made legal by an interpretation of the Crimes Act by the NSW district court in 1971.


That interpretation, known as the Levine ruling, allows doctors to approve an abortion if a woman’s physical or mental health is in danger, and taking into account social, economic or other medical factors.


Proponents of reform said the current situation created considerable uncertainty for doctors and women, stigmatised abortion, and was archaic.


But the Catholic church mobilised in opposition to Faruqi’s bill, led by Sydney archbishop, Anthony Fisher.


“Archbishop Fisher has asked all Catholics in Sydney and others of goodwill to defend life by giving a voice to unborn and signing a petition to the NSW members of parliament,” a statement on the archdiocese’s website said last month.


The Greens’ bill had the support of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, Australian Lawyers for Human Rights, the NSW Council for Civil Liberties, Marie Stopes, Family Planning NSW and many other groups.


The ACT has decriminalised abortion completely and Tasmania and Victoria have also successfully pursued abortion law reform.


But similar attempts in Queensland ran into difficulty and were delayed earlier this year, following opposition from the state’s Liberal National party.



Move to decriminalise abortion in New South Wales voted down

28 Nisan 2017 Cuma

Should over-the-counter medical abortion be available? | Daniel Grossman

The coat hanger – often with a red line through it – is a powerful feminist symbol. Conjuring images of women suffering unspeakable consequences of unsafe abortion, the coat hanger sends a foreboding message about a past we must not return to. The implications are clear: abortions women give themselves when they cannot access legal services are dangerous.


While the coat hanger rhetoric has been useful for the abortion rights movement, it has become problematic in the 21st century. Coat hangers are no longer the method of choice for women who want to end a pregnancy on their own. In my research in Texas, women much more commonly report using medications or herbs when they try to self-induce an abortion. Some of these medications are very safe and effective, while the problem with herbs is that they are often ineffective.


This representation of self-abortion as always dangerous is also problematic, because women may in fact be able to safely have an abortion on their own without medical supervision. Focusing solely on the coat hanger imagery also overshadows any conversation about women’s agency and self-determination when it comes to their healthcare.


Not all women who attempt to end a pregnancy on their own do so because they have no other option. Some prefer self-care and turn to herbs and supplements to manage most of their health needs, and some women see self-induction as less invasive and more natural than a clinic-based abortion. Others are just looking for a simple solution to a problem that our society has stigmatized and made difficult to solve.


Medication abortion could change the way our society perceives self-induced abortion. This option for pregnancy termination is available in many US clinics at up to 10 weeks gestation and allows women to take medications at home, where their experience is very similar to a natural miscarriage.


The most effective regimen involves the use of mifepristone, also known as RU-486, followed by misoprostol. Taken together, these drugs are more than 95% effective at causing a complete abortion. Misoprostol can also be used alone, but the efficacy of this method is closer to 85%.


A new article I co-authored in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology turns the notion of self-abortion even further on its head by asking a simple question: do the drugs used in medication abortion meet the criteria of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for over-the-counter sale? The answer is a qualified yes, although more research is needed.


Of course, at the moment, the idea of over-the-counter access to medication abortion in the United States sounds crazy. Currently American women in most states – unlike women in many other countries – are unable to buy even birth control pills without a prescription.


But in the same way that women around the globe are getting contraceptives on their own, many are obtaining medication abortion over the counter at pharmacies. The limited data so far suggests women are doing this safely – and there is no question that use of these medications has contributed to a reduction in abortion-related mortality worldwide.


The FDA has standardized criteria to decide if a medication is appropriate for over-the-counter sale. For medication abortion, the most critical remaining step is determining whether women can assess on their own if the method is appropriate for them – in particular, whether they are less than 10 weeks pregnant. Studies have shown that women are quite accurate at dating their pregnancies if they know when their last menstrual period was. Of course, women could also get an ultrasound, which might be easier to obtain – and more likely to be covered by insurance if they have it – than a clinic-based abortion.


Beyond dating the pregnancy, women must only answer a few health-related questions to determine their eligibility. One or two blood tests may also be required, although their utility is debatable. The rest of the medication abortion process already takes place at home, and women are told to seek care if they have unusual symptoms, such as fever or heavy bleeding. Women can also assess on their own whether the abortion was complete.


While all of these preliminary data are encouraging, more research is needed to clearly document whether the FDA’s criteria are met. We also need to know how much demand there is for over-the-counter medication abortion. It may be that most US women would prefer to meet with a doctor or nurse practitioner before beginning the abortion process, and clearly clinic-based support must remain an option for women.


From a purely medical perspective, it no longer makes sense to demonize women’s safe use of abortion medications at home – just as the abortion rights movement should no longer rely on rhetoric around returning to the days of coat-hanger abortions.


It may be a long time before these drugs are on the shelf of your neighborhood pharmacy, but in the meantime, there are other ways to improve access to this technology and help women obtain abortion care earlier in pregnancy.


Research has already demonstrated the safety of nurse practitioners providing medication abortion, as well as the use of telemedicine to expand access to this option. While we wait for more data on over-the-counter medication abortion, the time has come to start loosening restrictions on this abortion method and to help give women the type of care they want.



Should over-the-counter medical abortion be available? | Daniel Grossman

22 Nisan 2017 Cumartesi

Abortion in Ireland: committee votes for constitutional change

A committee set up to deliberate on Ireland’s strict abortion regime has voted for the constitutional rules to be changed.


The Citizens’ Assembly, a randomly selected group of 99 members of the public chaired by the supreme court judge Mary Laffoy, met on Saturday to discuss the contentious issue for the final time.


At the heart of the assembly’s work is examining the eighth amendment to the republic’s constitution, which gives equal right to life to the mother and the foetus. In the first of a series of votes by members on whether to advise constitutional reform, the assembly voted 87% in favour of change.


A series of other votes are being held over the weekend to determine the specific changes the assembly will recommend.


Since 2014 in Ireland, a pregnancy can be terminated under the Protection Of Life During Pregnancy Act if there is a risk to the woman’s life, including from suicide. The procedure can involve a medical or surgical termination, or an early delivery by induction or caesarean section.


There has been a strong campaign for women to be allowed to have an abortion in cases of rape and incest, or if there has been a fatal foetal abnormality diagnosis.


Figures from the Health Service Executive showed 26 terminations were carried out under the legislation in 2014 and again in 2015. In both years, 14 were because of a risk to the life of the mother from physical illness, three in relation to suicide and nine following emergencies arising from physical illness.


In 2013, Amanda Mellet became the first of three Irish women to formally ask the UN to denounce the prohibition on abortions in cases of fatal foetal abnormalities as “cruel and inhumane”.


Mellet and her husband took their case to the UN’s human rights committee after they were forced to go to England to terminate the pregnancy.


Last year the UNHRC ruled that by forcing Mellet to leave Ireland to have an abortion, the state had inflicted trauma and distress on her.


For the first time in its history, Ireland compensated Mellet as a result of the ruling. Under the country’s laws, if Mellet and the other two women had remained in the republic they would have been forced to give birth to stillborn babies.


On Saturday, Judge Laffoy said the result of the vote provided a mandate for changing the status quo and, if implemented by the government, it would require a constitutional referendum, the Irish Times reported.


Opening the session, she praised the commitment of the assembly members.


“This exercise in deliberative democracy allowed us to withdraw from the polarising perspectives and begin first and foremost with the facts.”



Abortion in Ireland: committee votes for constitutional change

5 Nisan 2017 Çarşamba

New Brunswick becomes first Canada province to offer free abortion pill

New Brunswick has become the first province in Canada to distribute an abortion pill for free, in a major step for a region that previously had one of the country’s strictest policies on women’s reproductive rights.


The provincial health minister, Victor Boudreau, unveiled the policy on Tuesday, announcing that women will be entitled to receive Mifegymiso without payment if they have a valid healthcare card.


“By making Mifegymiso available free of charge for all New Brunswick women, our government is ensuring that financial barriers do not stand in the way of a woman’s right to choose,” said Boudreau in a press release.


Access to publicly funded abortion in New Brunswick was restricted from the 1980s until 2015. During that period, Medicare – the country’s national heath system – would only cover an abortion at one of the province’s two approved facilities if two doctors had certified that it was necessary for medical reasons.


“It was such a strict criteria that it became very difficult to get a publicly-funded abortion,” said Beth Lyons, executive director of New Brunswick Women’s Council.


“The New Brunswick government’s offer to cover the cost of Mifegymiso is a tremendous step forward in making sure there is a real choice for women and trans people seeking abortion care,” said Sandeep Prasad, executive director of Action Canada for Sexual Health and Rights. “We were both pleased and surprised, surprised because New Brunswick is ahead of the pack, so to speak.”


Pharmacists will not be allowed to directly dispense Mifegymiso to patients: they must get a prescription from a doctor. To do that, physicians must complete training and be registered to work with the drugs.


“We do think that we’re going to see this improve access for women and trans folks in rural areas, and this could also be particularly helpful for those living in violent situations,” said Lyons. “Having those choices and being able to make the decision that’s best for them, based on their contexts, might ensure that women are more safe or their anonymity is preserved.”



New Brunswick becomes first Canada province to offer free abortion pill

New Brunswick becomes first Canada province to offer free abortion pill

New Brunswick has become the first province in Canada to distribute an abortion pill for free, in a major step for a region that previously had one of the country’s strictest policies on women’s reproductive rights.


The provincial health minister, Victor Boudreau, unveiled the policy on Tuesday, announcing that women will be entitled to receive Mifegymiso without payment if they have a valid healthcare card.


“By making Mifegymiso available free of charge for all New Brunswick women, our government is ensuring that financial barriers do not stand in the way of a woman’s right to choose,” said Boudreau in a press release.


Access to publicly funded abortion in New Brunswick was restricted from the 1980s until 2015. During that period, Medicare – the country’s national heath system – would only cover an abortion at one of the province’s two approved facilities if two doctors had certified that it was necessary for medical reasons.


“It was such a strict criteria that it became very difficult to get a publicly-funded abortion,” said Beth Lyons, executive director of New Brunswick Women’s Council.


“The New Brunswick government’s offer to cover the cost of Mifegymiso is a tremendous step forward in making sure there is a real choice for women and trans people seeking abortion care,” said Sandeep Prasad, executive director of Action Canada for Sexual Health and Rights. “We were both pleased and surprised, surprised because New Brunswick is ahead of the pack, so to speak.”


Pharmacists will not be allowed to directly dispense Mifegymiso to patients: they must get a prescription from a doctor. To do that, physicians must complete training and be registered to work with the drugs.


“We do think that we’re going to see this improve access for women and trans folks in rural areas, and this could also be particularly helpful for those living in violent situations,” said Lyons. “Having those choices and being able to make the decision that’s best for them, based on their contexts, might ensure that women are more safe or their anonymity is preserved.”



New Brunswick becomes first Canada province to offer free abortion pill

13 Mart 2017 Pazartesi

Northern Ireland police raided premises searching for abortion pills

The Police Service of Northern Ireland raided two premises on International Women’s Day searching for abortion pills that are illegal in the region.


No pills were found during searches last week, including one at a workshop belonging to Belfast pro-choice campaigner Helen Crickard. Crickard said she felt “violated and humiliated” over the raids on her premises in South Belfast.


The PSNI confirmed on Monday that the raids had taken place. Det Supt Bobby Singleton stressed that abortion was a “sensitive issue that divides opinion within society”.


However, Singleton added that where an offence has been committed, the PSNI had a duty to bring offenders to justice.


Unlike the rest of the UK, doctors cannot prescribe abortion pills in Northern Ireland.


Singleton said: “Offences of procurement of an abortion are outlined in Sections 58 & 59 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861 and Child Destruction Sect 25 (1) Criminal Justice (NI) Act.


“These offences can reasonably be suspected in circumstances where persons order prescription medications which are known to be used or advertised as suitable for inducing an abortion.”


Last year three women handed themselves into a police station in Derry, stating they had procured and taken illegal abortion pills and requested that they be prosecuted, in protest at Northern Ireland’s restrictive abortion laws. Since then, pro-choice campaigners have continued to challenge the PSNI to arrest them after they admitted purchasing abortion pills for other women in Northern Ireland.


Also in 2016, a 21-year-old woman was given a suspended prison sentence for buying drugs online to induce a miscarriage. She had been reported by her flatmates after they found out she had taken the abortion pills leading to a termination.


A mother is also facing prosecution for procuring abortion pills for her then underage daughter who fell pregnant.


Women in Northern Ireland who want to terminate a pregnancy can either travel to England or Wales for an abortion at a cost of around £1,000-£2,000. Northern Ireland residents are not eligible for the procedure on the NHS and have to pay for private treatment, as well as the cost of the flight and hotels.


Alternatively women at an early stage of pregnancy can buy mifepristone and misoprostol pills online, for around £60; the pills are considered safe and reliable in the first 10 weeks of pregnancy. As well as buying the pills on the internet, pro-choice campaigners have also flown the drugs into Northern Ireland via drones.



Northern Ireland police raided premises searching for abortion pills

MPs win right to challenge Victorian law criminalising abortion

MPs have won the right to introduce a bill to parliament which would decriminalise abortion for the first time by repealing a law that dates back to Victorian times.


A ten-minute rule bill introduced by Diana Johnson, the Labour MP for Hull North, sought permission of the House to change two sections of a law passed in 1861, before women had the vote. It succeeded by 170 votes to 142, a margin of 32.


Johnson argued that the law was unfair and inappropriate in an age when women can and will access abortion pills by post because they want to be able to terminate their pregnancy in the privacy of their own home.


As the law stands, doing so is technically punishable by life imprisonment under sections 58 and 59 of the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act – both for the woman and for anyone, including a doctor, who help her.


Abortion is legal in restricted circumstances, which were laid down in the 1967 Abortion Act introduced by the then Liberal MP David Steel to stop women dying in large numbers as a result of backstreet abortions.


The 1967 legislation allows a termination before 12 weeks with the approval of two doctors and in the interests of the woman’s health. In rare circumstances including foetal abnormality, later abortions are permitted.


Johnson said in the debate that abolishing criminality need not change the current restrictions, which can be enshrined in regulations.


The new bill, which will be brought forward by a cross-party group of MPs, will be the first opportunity to rework the law on abortion since the 1967 act was passed.



MPs win right to challenge Victorian law criminalising abortion

MPs win right to challenge Victorian law criminalising abortion

MPs have won the right to introduce a bill to parliament which would decriminalise abortion for the first time by repealing a law that dates back to Victorian times.


A ten-minute rule bill introduced by Diana Johnson, the Labour MP for Hull North, sought permission of the House to change two sections of a law passed in 1861, before women had the vote. It succeeded by 170 votes to 142, a margin of 32.


Johnson argued that the law was unfair and inappropriate in an age when women can and will access abortion pills by post because they want to be able to terminate their pregnancy in the privacy of their own home.


As the law stands, doing so is technically punishable by life imprisonment under sections 58 and 59 of the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act – both for the woman and for anyone, including a doctor, who help her.


Abortion is legal in restricted circumstances, which were laid down in the 1967 Abortion Act introduced by the then Liberal MP David Steel to stop women dying in large numbers as a result of backstreet abortions.


The 1967 legislation allows a termination before 12 weeks with the approval of two doctors and in the interests of the woman’s health. In rare circumstances including foetal abnormality, later abortions are permitted.


Johnson said in the debate that abolishing criminality need not change the current restrictions, which can be enshrined in regulations.


The new bill, which will be brought forward by a cross-party group of MPs, will be the first opportunity to rework the law on abortion since the 1967 act was passed.



MPs win right to challenge Victorian law criminalising abortion

12 Mart 2017 Pazar

Sarah Weddington, Roe v Wade attorney, on Trump’s threat to abortion rights

Sarah Weddington is the lawyer who, aged just 26, represented “Jane Roe” in the landmark case Roe v Wade, which in 1973 effectively legalised abortion in the US. The daughter of a Methodist minister, she was born in 1945 in Abilene, Texas. Having graduated with a degree in English from McMurry University, she enrolled at the University of Texas Law School in 1964, one of 40 women among a student body of 1,600. “I thought I would be teaching eighth graders to love Beowulf,” she recalls. “But that wasn’t working out so well, so I decided to go to law school instead. In this, I was encouraged by the dean of my college, who told me that it would be far too tough for a woman. ‘As sure as dammit I am going,’ I thought.”


After graduating, she joined a group of students who were seeking to challenge anti-abortion laws, agreeing to file a suit against the state of Texas on their behalf. Soon after, 21-year-old Norma McCorvey was referred to Weddington and her colleague Linda Coffee, now actively looking for pregnant women who were seeking abortions. McCorvey became the plaintiff “Jane Roe”, though by the time the supreme court issued its ruling, her baby had long since been born and given up for adoption. McCorvey later became an evangelical Christian and vocal anti-abortion campaigner, and claimed to have been the “victim” of the Roe v Wade lawyers. She died last month aged 69.




I was very nervous. It was like going down a street with no street lights. But there was no other way to go




Weddington remains the youngest person ever to have argued a successful case at the supreme court. In 1973, she was elected to the Texas House of Representatives, where she served for three terms. In 1973, she became the first female General Counsel at the US Department of Agriculture. From 1978 until 1981, she served as assistant to President Carter, directing his administration’s work on women’s issues. She now runs the Weddington Center, Austin, whose work focuses on women and leadership. She recently told NBC news that the election of Donald Trump may pose the biggest threat yet to abortion rights in the US.


Where were you on election night? Did you sense that Trump was going to win?
Austin is one of the more liberal towns in Texas, though the state itself is barely liberal. Most people I know strongly expected Hillary to win. But I’d been on a panel a few weeks before where a man had said: “You liberals think Hillary is going to win. Well, let me tell you, there are a lot of people out here who are voting with our finger – the middle finger.” So I knew there was… resistance. There were a lot of parties on the night, but I had enough concerns to be afraid that going to one might turn out to be too depressing. So I came here to my office, and watched it on the New York Times website.


What’s your impression of the president so far?
I thought he would be terrible, and he has proven me correct. In Texas, we have a lot of people from Mexico and El Salvador, and a lot of them are worried family members will be deported.


What do you make of the growing fear that under this administration Planned Parenthood [a 100-year-old nonprofit organisation that is the largest single provider of reproductive health services, including abortion, in the US] will lose its federal funding?
The federal government has never given money to Planned Parenthood for abortion. It gives money to it for the provision of contraception and well woman care: for the treatment of venereal disease, mammograms, and so on. The anti-abortionists recognise that the money is not used for abortion, but they want it cut off anyway. It is a real threat. But Planned Parenthood may ultimately benefit from what Trump is doing and saying. Last week, I was in Houston for a Planned Parenthood event. Usually, there would be about 1,000 people in the audience. This time, we had 2,500. People are very worried, and they are giving more generously.



Sarah Weddington with president Jimmy Carter. She served as his assistant from 1978 to 1981.


Sarah Weddington with president Jimmy Carter. She served as his assistant from 1978 to 1981. Photograph: Courtesy Sarah Weddington

What about abortion? Is it possible it could become illegal again in the US?
Trump has always said that he would try to appoint people who were strongly against abortion to the supreme court. But Neil Gorsuch [a conservative judge, and Trump’s nomination to the supreme court] has never said that much about abortion. States can’t make abortion illegal. But some have been passing laws that make it much less available, for instance by saying that no abortion can be done except in a facility that meets the requirements for emergency care. In other words, they make the cost of abortion much higher. A lot of women are already crossing state lines, and in that sense, a lot of what is happening is just like it was before Roe v Wade was decided. You’ve got one vacancy now on the supreme court. But Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is helping to keep abortion available, is 83, and there are a couple of older male judges too. If Gorsuch’s nomination is approved, will abortion be illegal the next day? No. One new judge won’t necessarily make much difference. But two or three might.


How did you feel on hearing that Norma McCorvey had died?
Well, I was sad. I appreciate that she was once concerned with overturning the law on abortion. But on the back of being Jane Roe, she ended up going on all these pro-choice tours. I learned to be very careful about believing what she said.


You worked somewhat against the odds on the case in which she became involved.
That’s right. There was a building across the street from the University of Texas and a lot of student organisations had cubby holes there, with desks rescued from the garbage. In one little nook, women and some men were trying to work on women’s issues. One thing that was upsetting was that the university health centre did not give out information about, or prescriptions for, anything relating to contraception. A couple of these women had gone to New York and got a copy of Our Bodies Ourselves [a landmark book of 1971 that dealt plainly and openly with women’s health and sexuality] – I still have this mental image of them in a closet with a flashlight reading this book – and they began to give the relevant information out to women. As they did, women would sometimes say: “I’m already pregnant. Where can I get an abortion?” So they started going to places where abortion was available, and they’d write up that information, too. Sometimes, for instance, they’d write: “This person does not seem very skilled: never send anyone here.” A lot of women were going to Mexico. Abortion was illegal there, too, but it was close to Texas, and sometimes women ended up in the wrong hands because people there wanted to make money out of the situation.


The upshot of all this was that the women students were getting worried the police might arrest them for being accomplices to abortion. We were sitting at the snack bar in the law school one day and one of them, Judy Smith, said: “We need to get a lawsuit filed and try to overturn the Texas law. Would you be willing to do it?” I told her she would be better off with someone with more legal experience. I’d only done uncontested divorces, wills, one adoption for my uncle; I had no experience at all in federal court. “How much would you charge?” she asked. When I admitted I would do it for free, she said: “OK, you are our lawyer.”



Protest marchers form a ‘ring of life’ around the Minnesota Capitol building protesting the US supreme court’s Roe v. Wade decision, 22 January 1973.


Protest marchers form a ‘ring of life’ around the Minnesota Capitol building protesting the US supreme court’s Roe v. Wade decision, 22 January 1973. Photograph: AP

Were you nervous?
I was very nervous. It was like going down a street with no street lights. But there was no other way to go, and I didn’t have any preconceived notions that I would not win. In 1965, there was a case, Griswold v Connecticut, involving doctors and the supply by doctors of contraceptive devices to a married couple. [Connecticut was then one of two states where contraception was effectively illegal, even if the law was rarely enforced.] Yes, neanderthal. That case was won in the US supreme court, and in its ruling, the court had talked about the right of privacy under the constitution. It was, the court said, for the married couple to decide whether or not to use contraception. So there was a precedent. But I certainly was not confident.


You won in the federal court, but the case still went to the supreme court. Why?
In Dallas, the court ruled there was a right of privacy, that abortion should be legal. Henry Wade, the district attorney, then unwittingly helped us. At a press conference, he said: “I don’t care what any court says; I am going to continue to prosecute doctors who carry out abortion.” There was a procedural rule that said if local elected officials continue to prosecute after a federal court had declared a law unconstitutional, there would be a right to appeal to the supreme court.


Did you have any hint at all as you addressed the supreme court that you might win?
No, it was impossible to read the justices’ faces. The attorney on the other side started by saying something inappropriate about arguing a case against a beautiful woman. He thought the judges would snicker. But their faces didn’t change a bit.


It was a while before the verdict was released, wasn’t it?
I had to argue it twice in the supreme court – in 1971, and again in 1972. On 22 January 1973, I was at the Texas legislature when the phone rang. It was a reporter from the New York Times. “Does Miss Weddington have a comment today about Roe v Wade?” my assistant was asked. “Why?” she said. “Should she?” It was beginning to be very exciting. Then we got a telegram from the supreme court saying that I had won seven to two and that they were going to airmail a copy of the ruling. Nowadays, of course, you’d just go online. I was ecstatic, and more than 44 years later we’re still talking about it.


When you published your book A Question of Choice in 1992, you decided to reveal that in 1967 you’d had an abortion yourself, while you were still a law student. Why did you wait so long to reveal this?
Just before the anaesthesia hit, I thought: I hope no one ever knows about this. For a lot of years, that was exactly the way I felt. Now there’s a major push to encourage women to tell their stories so people will realise that it is not a shameful thing. One out of every five women will have an abortion. I was lucky because the man I was planning to marry [Ron Weddington; they divorced in 1974] was with me. He drove me to Mexico. We had gotten information from a woman he knew about where to go, and luckily I was working three jobs so I had the money to pay. It was anxiety-inducing. You’re going across the border to see someone you don’t know. But it turned out that my doctor was very good. I wish I had his name, so I could thank him.


Are you still able to get in touch with the young woman you once were, or does she feel very far away?
Well, my hair is white now, so in one way, I don’t see myself as her at all, even if, whatever else I do in my life, the headline on my obituary is always going to be: “Roe v Wade attorney dies.” But in terms of my emotions, yes: I think most women of my generation can recall our feelings about the fight. It’s like young love. You may not feel exactly the same, but you remember it.



Sarah Weddington, Roe v Wade attorney, on Trump’s threat to abortion rights

10 Mart 2017 Cuma

MPs to discuss reform of UK"s Victorian-era abortion law

In years to come, it may be regarded as one of the last battles for women’s autonomy. Under an obscure Victorian law, passed when women did not even have the vote, the decision to terminate an unplanned pregnancy using pills in the privacy of a home is punishable by life in prison – for the woman and any doctor who helps her.


Now MPs are to discuss for the first time de-criminalising women who attempt to bring about their own abortion.


In modern-day Britain, most abortions take place before 12 weeks with the aid of pills. Yet if a woman orders those pills online and takes them without the consent of two doctors, she can be jailed. So can a doctor who gives them to her to take at home instead of in the clinic.


Diana Johnson, MP for Hull North, will introduce a ten-minute-rule bill in the House of Commons on Monday calling for the scrapping of section 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, which make abortion a criminal offence.


“Women buying the pills on the internet to bring about a miscarriage are committing a criminal act which is punishable by life imprisonment,” she said. “Parliament should consider whether that is appropriate.”


Over 200 law professors and legal experts have signed a letter to the Guardian in support of Johnson’s bill. “Abortion is currently an offence in English law by virtue of an archaic and punitive statute passed at the midpoint of the reign of Queen Victoria,” they write. The penalty of life imprisonment “is the harshest penalty for abortion imposed anywhere in Europe”.


The 1861 criminal law also fails to acknowledge any difference between late abortion and an early abortion before 12 weeks when the foetus is not viable.


“Many countries in Europe recognise that a woman has the right to end an early pregnancy,” they write. “In our view, the onus is now on those who wish to retain the threat of prosecuting women to explain why this offers a justifiable part of our response to the problem of unwanted pregnancy.”


Professor Sally Sheldon from Kent University, who coordinated the letter, said the law was wrong in principle. “Why do we want to keep the framework and the criminal prohibition? I don’t hear people saying it is a good idea to be able to send women to prison for life for having an abortion outside of medical control.”


The Victorian law underlies the 1967 Act introduced by Liberal MP David Steel to end the deaths of women after backstreet abortions. It made exceptions to the 1861 criminal offence where two doctors certified it was in the interests of a woman’s health to have an abortion, which must take place on registered medical premises.


That was seen as liberal at the time, but is restrictive today, say critics, when early abortion, before 12 weeks, can be accomplished by taking two types of pill, up to two days apart. Women who suffer a partial miscarriage are given the same pills to take home to complete the process. Women having an abortion must take them in front of a doctor.


“Women will take the [second dose of] pills and try to rush home before the miscarriage begins,” said Sheldon. “If the woman has got a long journey, it is horrible for her.”


New research by Dr Ellie Lee, director of the Centre for Parenting Culture Studies at Kent University, and colleagues into the concerns of 14 doctors who provide abortion shows that some feel the law prevents them doing a safe and professional job. “It’s extraordinary that you can subject women to travelling mid-abortion [after they have taken both drugs used to induce miscarriage],” said one.


In Northern Ireland, which did not pass the 1967 act, women have been prosecuted for obtaining abortion pills online and using them. Last year a 21-year-old woman was given a suspended sentence after she pleaded guilty to procuring her own abortion by using a poison, and of supplying a poison with intent to procure a miscarriage – two offences under the Victorian legislation.


If the 1861 act was repealed, the 1967 act which amends it would also fall, but abortion could be better regulated in the health rather than criminal sphere, by medical bodies such as the General Medical Council or royal colleges, says Johnson.


“I do think the time has come 50 years on from the 1967 act to at least look at the criminal offence of abortion and do something about it. Decriminalisation is not the same as deregulation,” said Johnson.


Ann Furedi, Bpas chief executive, called the law “offensive and absurd”.


The 19th century law


Section 58, Offences Against the Person Act, 1861.


Every woman, being with child, who, with intent to procure her own miscarriage, shall unlawfully administer to herself any poison… or unlawfully use any instrument… shall be liable … to be kept in penal servitude for life.


The law in England, Wales and Northern Ireland governing abortion is based on the law dating back to the middle years of the Victorian era. Scotland was more liberal at that time. Common law made abortion a criminal offence unless performed for “reputable medical reasons”, which effectively meant few prosecutions.


This 1861 criminal law is the foundation stone still of the abortion regulation in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. In 1929, the Infant Life (Preservation) Act was passed creating a further criminal offence of the deliberate destruction of a child capable of being born alive.


The 1967 act was a response to the deaths of women as a result of backstreet abortions. It made abortion legal up to 28 weeks gestation if it was carried out by a doctor, with the written agreement of a second doctor, on registered premises. The upper limit was reduced to 24 weeks in 1990. The 1967 act was not passed in Northern Ireland, where abortion is now a devolved issue, as in Scotland.



MPs to discuss reform of UK"s Victorian-era abortion law

A key proposal for abortion law reform | Letters

As experts in law, we write to commend Diana Johnson MP for her 10-minute rule bill. The bill, which is due to be heard on 13 March, offers an important first step towards taking pre-viability abortion out of the criminal law.


Abortion is currently an offence in English law by virtue of an archaic and punitive statute passed at the midpoint of the reign of Queen Victoria. Under its terms, any woman who ends her own pregnancy at any stage of gestation is potentially liable for life imprisonment. This is the harshest penalty for abortion imposed anywhere in Europe.


The statute is also unusual in failing to distinguish between abortions at different stages of pregnancy; many countries in Europe recognise that a woman has the right to end an early pregnancy.


Non-consensual abortion or dangerous or negligent abortion services offered by third parties are appropriately subject to legal sanction and would remain so following the removal of specific criminal prohibitions on abortion, under general provisions of criminal law.


However, in our view, the onus is now on those who wish to retain the threat of prosecuting women to explain why this offers a justifiable part of our response to the problem of unwanted pregnancy.
Professor Sally Sheldon
Kent Law School, University of Kent
Nick Beard
Student
Ruth Fletcher
Senior lecturer in medical law, Queen Mary University London
Professor Marie Fox
Professor of law, University of Liverpool
Jillian Merchant
Solicitor, Glasgow
Catherine O’Rourke
Senior lecturer in human rights and international law, University of Ulster
Elizabeth Prochaska
Barrister, Matrix Chambers
Laura Robinson
Student
Richard Stein
Leigh Day Solicitors
Poppy Wilkinson
Student
Sheelagh McGuinness
Senior lecturer, University of Bristol
All the above Lawyers for Choice Steering Committee Group
Professor Peter Alldridge
Professor of law, Queen Mary University of London
Professor Richard Ashcroft
Professor of bioethics, Queen Mary University of London
Professor Diamond Ashiagbor
Professor of law, University of London
Professor Peter Bartlett
Professor of law, University of Nottingham
Professor Vikki Bell
Goldsmiths, University of London
Professor Lois S Bibbings
Professor of law, gender and history, University of Bristol Law School
Professor Hazel Biggs
Professor of law, University of Southampton
Professor Jo Bridgeman
Professor of healthcare law and feminist ethics, University of Sussex
Professor Gillian Calder
Associate dean, University of Victoria
Professor John Coggon
Professor of law, University of Bristol
Professor Richard Collier
Professor of law, Newcastle University
Professor Dave Cowan
Professor of law and barrister, Bristol University
Professor Sharon Cowan
Professor of law, University of Edinburgh
Professor Richard de Friend
Retired professor of law
Professor Gillian Douglas
Professor of law, Cardiff University
Professor Jocelyn Downie
Professor of law, Dalhousie University
Professor Lindsay Farmer
Professor of law, University of Glasgow
Professor John Fitzpatrick
Director of Kent Law Clinic, University of Kent
Professor Judy Fudge
Professor of law, Kent Law School, University of Kent
Professor Penny Green
Professor of law, Queen Mary University of London
Professor Elspeth Guild
Professor of law, Queen Mary University of London
Professor John Harrington
Professor of global health law, Cardiff University
Professor Didi Herman
Professor of law, Kent Law School, University of Kent
Professor Tamara Hervey
Professor of law, University of Sheffield
Professor Kathryn Hollingsworth
Professor of law, Newcastle University
Professor Rosemary Hunter
Professor of law and socio-legal studies, Queen Mary University of London
Professor Emily Jackson
London School of Economics
Professor Marie-Andree Jacob
Professor of law, Keele University
Professor Jennifer Koshan
Professor of law, University of Calgary
Professor Kate Malleson
Professor of law, Queen Mary University of London
Professor Wade Mansell
Emeritus professor, Kent Law School, University of Kent
Professor Judith Masson
Professor of law, University of Bristol
Professor Jonathan Montgomery
Professor of healthcare law, Faculty of Laws, University College London
Professor Linda Mulcahy
London School of Economics
Professor Vanessa Munro
Professor of law, University of Warwick
Professor Richard Nobles
Professor of law, Queen Mary University of London
Professor Colm O’Cinneide
Professor of law, University College London
Professor Nicky Prialux
Professor of law, Cardiff School of Law
Professor Muirrean Quigley
Professor of law, Newcastle University
Professor Jo Samanta
Professor of medical law, De Montfort University
Professor Ralph Sandland
Professor of law, School of Law, University of Nottingham
Professor Jo Shaw
Professor of law, University of Edinburgh
Professor Ann Stewart
Professor of law, University of Warwick
Professor Carl Stychin
Dean and professor of law, City Law School,
University of London
Professor Michael Thomson
Professor of health law, University of Leeds
Professor Steve Uglow
Professor of law, Kent Law School, University of Kent
Professor Katrin Voltmer
Professor of law, University of Leeds
Professor Celia Wells
University of Bristol
Professor Toni Williams
Professor of law, head of Kent Law School, University of Kent
Professor Chris Willmore
Professor of law, Bristol University
Dr Donatella Alessandrini
Reader in law, Kent Law School, University of Kent
Dr Nicola Barker
Senior lecturer in Law, Kent Law School, University of Kent
Dr Kate Bedford
Reader in law, Kent Law School, University of Kent
Dr Joanne Beswick
Lecturer in law, Staffordshire University
Dr Christine Beuermann
Lecturer in law, Newcastle Law School
Dr Karen Brennan
Lecturer in law, University of Essex
Rachel Cahill-O’Callaghan
Lecturer in law, Cardiff University
Dr Paul James Cardwell
Reader in law, University of Sheffield
Dr Shazia Choudhry
Reader in law, Queen Mary University of London
Dr David Churchill
Lecturer in criminal justice, University of Leeds
Dr Emilie Cloatre
Reader in law, Kent Law School, University of Kent
Dr Emma Cunliffe
Associate professor, Allard School of Law, University of British Columbia
Margaret Duckett
Lecturer in midwifery, University of Southampton
Dr Marian Duggan
Lecturer in law, Kent Law School, University of Kent
Dr Rachel Fenton
Senior lecturer in law, University of the West of England
Dr Jennifer Fleetwood
Lecturer in criminology, University of Leicester
Dr Ruth Fletcher
Senior lecturer in law, Queen Mary University of London
Dr Sara Fovargue
Reader in law, Lancaster University
Dr Nikki Godden-Rasul
Lecturer in law, Newcastle University
Dr Imogen Goold
Associate professor, University of Oxford
Dr Emily Grabham
Reader in law, Kent Law School, University of Kent
Dr Paul Gragl
Senior lecturer in law, Queen Mary University of London
Dr Kate Greasley
Lecturer in Law, University College London
Dr Samantha Halliday
Associate professor, University of Leeds
Dr N Hammond-Browning
Lecturer in law, Southampton University
Dr Shawn Harmon
Reader in law and barrister, University of Edinburgh
Dr Jen Hendry
Lecturer in law, University of Leeds
Dr Emma Hitchings
Lecturer in law, Bristol University
Dr Kirsty Horsey
Senior lecturer in law, Kent Law School, University of Kent
Dr Jonathan Ives
Senior lecturer in biomedical ethics and law, University of Bristol
Dr Imogen Jones
Associate professor, University of Leeds
Dr Sarah Keenan
Lecturer in law, Birkbeck Law School
Dr Chloe Kennedy
Lecturer in criminal law, University of Edinburgh
Ms Kirsty Keywood
Senior lecturer in law, University of Manchester
Dr Edward Kirton-Darling
Lecturer in law and solicitor, Kent Law School, University of Kent
Dr Atina Krajewska
Senior lecturer in law, University of Sheffield
Per Laleng
Senior lecturer in law, University of Kent
Dr Sam Lewis
Lecturer in law, University of Leeds
Dr Carly Lightowlers
Academic fellow, University of Leeds
Dr Claire Lougarre
Lecturer in law, University of Southampton
Dr Sorcha MacLeod
Lecturer in law, Free University Berlin
Ms Sorcha Mc Cormack
Research assistant, University of Leeds
Dr Julie McCandless
Assistant professor, London School of Economics
Professor Jean V McHale
Professor in law, University of Bimingham
Dr Lynsey Mitchell
Lecturer in law, University of Strathclyde
Daniel Monk
Reader in law, Birkbeck, University of London
Dr Violeta Moreno
Lecturer in law, Queen Mary University of London
Annette Morris
Reader in law, Cardiff University
Dr Daniel Newman
Lecturer in law, Cardiff Law School
Joanne Pearman
Associate lecturer in law, Kent Law School, University of Kent
Dr Craig Purshouse
Lecturer in law, University of Liverpool
Christina Perry
Senior lecturer in law, Queen Mary University of London
Maria Sheppard
Lecturer in law, Queen Mary University of London
Dr Sara Ramshaw
Senior lecturer in law, University of Exeter Law School
Jane Rees
Senior lecturer in law, University of the West of England
Katie Richards
Lecturer in law, Cardiff University
Dr Apolline Roger
Lecturer in law, Sheffield University Law School
Dr Harriet Samuels
Reader in law, Westminster Law School
Dr Anna Sergi
Lecturer in law, University of Essex
Dr Ruth Stirton
Lecturer in healthcare law, University of Sussex
Dania Thomas
Lecturer in law, University of Glasgow
Dr Sharon Thompson
Lecturer in law, Cardiff University
Dr Dimitrios Tsarapatsanis
Lecturer in law, University of Sheffield
Dr Ilke Turkmendag
Lecturer in law, Newcastle Law School
Dr Sorcha Ui Chonnachtaigh
Lecturer in ethics and law, Keele University
Dr Kenneth Veitch
Senior lecturer in law, University of Sussex
Dr A M M Viens
Associate professor, University of Southampton
Dr Sophie Vigneron
Senior lecturer in law, Kent Law School, University of Kent
Dr Julie Wallbank
Lecturer in law, University of Leeds
Dr Daniel Wei Liang Wang
Lecturer in law, Queen Mary University of London
Dr J Wier
Senior lecturer, Canterbury Christchurch University
Dr Ania Zbyszewska
Associate professor, University of Warwick School of Law
Sir Geoffrey Bindman QC
Bindmans LLP
Jonathan Austin-Jones
Barrister, University of Kent
Elizabeth Prochaska
Barrister, Matrix Chambers
Mikal Anderson
Solicitor, Kent County Council
Carol Aylott
Solicitor, Kent Employment Solicitors
Shruttee Dutt
Solicitor, Creighton and Partners
Sarah Collins
Solicitor, Unionline Scotland
Katherine Craig
Solicitor
Nick Fairweather
Solicitor, Fairweathers Solicitors LLP
Ana Kalisnik
Solicitor, Zupancic and Mauhler
Russell Levy
Solicitor, Leigh Day
Michael Newman
Legal partner, Leigh Day
Christine Tallon
Legal partner, Leigh Day
Hannah Uglow
Solicitor, University of Kent
Merry Varney
Legal partner, Leigh Day
Sue Willman
Solicitor, Deighton Pierce Glynn
Sheona York
Solicitor, Kent Law Clinic
Benjamin Bishop
Professional accreditation officer, University of Kent
Freya Danby
Para legal, Leigh Day
Jayne Instone
Career development officer, Kent Law School, University of Kent
Samantha Lester
Student success project officer, Kent Law School, University of Kent
Alice Pinches
Para legal, Irwin Mitchell
Niamh Quille
Para legal, Leigh Day
Gus Silva
Company director, University of Middlesex
Laura Wares
Legal assistant, Kent County Council
Lucy Batstone
Student, University of the West of England
Nick Beard
Student, University of Sussex
Elliot Black
Student, University of Southampton
Jessica Brewin
Student, University of Law
Alan Brown
Doctoral researcher, University of Strathclyde
Caroline Browne
Student, University of the West of England
Emily Burke
Student, University of Groningen
Maisie Butler
Graduate
Meghan Campbell
Student, Oxford University
Georgia Cherry
Student, University of Sheffield
Ashima Chopra
Student, Queen Mary University of London
Lilian Clemence
Student, University of Southampton
Emma Crowhurst
Student, University of Law
Miles Cullimore
Student, University of the West of England
Sara Davies
Student, Cardiff University
Chris Dietz
Student, University of Leeds
Kit Fotheringham
Student, Bristol University
Bee Hiang Goh
Law graduate, University of Sheffield
Shannon Green
Student, University of the West of England
Angharad Griffiths
Student, University of the West of England
Xujun Guan
Law graduate, University College London
Barbara Hardy
Student, University of Bristol
Dannielle Hardy
Student, Nottingham Trent University
Madeleine Henson
Student, University of Southampton
Glenys Hunt
Student, University of Liverpool
Sarah Johnson
Student, University of Groningen
Kelsie Dunkley
Student, University of the West of England
Madeleine Laot
Student, University of Sheffield
Elliott Lauder
Student, University of Bristol
Megan Lee
Law graduate,University of Bristol
Yao Lu
Student, University of Sheffield
Hanna Lunnard
Student, University of Groningen
Thomas McManus
Research fellow, Queen Mary University of London
Emma Mews
Student, University of Lincoln
Emma Milne
Student, University of Essex
Elizabeth Morgan
Student, University of Southampton
Tyria Morgan
Student, University of the West of England
Amber Owen
Student, University of the West of England
Alex Louise Pearl
Student, University of Leeds
Fahmida Akhter Privy
Student, University of the West of England
Sannah Nisa Rehman
Student, University of the West of England
Laura Robinson
Law graduate, University of Sheffield
Rebecca Sanders
Student, University of Sheffield
Goksu Sevim
Student, University of Groningen
Kirsten Shellis
Student, University of the West of England
Laura Shurrock
Law graduate, University of Sheffield
D S Nelaka De Silva
Student, University of Law
Jessica Edith Gibbons Smith
Student, Kent Law School, University of Kent
Robyn Smith
Student, University of Sheffield
Victoria Smith
Student, University of Sheffield
Robert Strooper
Student, University of Groningen
Ayobami Thomas
Student, University of Sheffield
Kieran Tye
Student, University of Southampton
Helene Tyrrell
Teaching fellow, Newcastle University
Clowie Wheeler-Ozanne
Student, University of Strathclyde
Katelyn Willmott
Law graduate, Queen Mary University London
Lara Wills
Student, University of Southampton
Travis Wisdom
Student, University of Adelaide


Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com


Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters



A key proposal for abortion law reform | Letters

A moment that changed me: having an abortion, aged 17 | Tiff Stevenson

It was 12.30pm on a Wednesday when it happened. I won’t forget it … ever. It wasn’t quite spring. Rainy and gloomy outside. I’m in my surgical gown waiting in the ward. I see a girl I recognise from a local shop, I go to say hello and then realise the abortion clinic probably isn’t the best place for a catch-up: “How you doing? Is it a boy or a girl you are not having?”


Most of the women there don’t look pregnant apart from one; I keep trying to catch her eye so I can smile at her. The nurse comes to collect me; they put me on a gurney and wheel me to the anaesthetist. Lying on my back shivering, I’m not sure if it’s cold or pure dread. The anaesthetist comes over and asks: “Ready?” Just one word. And I cry and cry and cry. Streams of tears, more shivering. The anaesthetist looks at the nurse confused. “What’s wrong with her?”


What’s wrong? This is not how it’s supposed to go down. I’m 17. I already have a blip on the radar … a bump in the road, if you excuse the pun. My life isn’t perfect, but idiotically at 17 I think it will be. The nurse says: “She’s just not sure if it’s the right thing to do.” I’m about to do the scariest thing I’ve ever done. The last thing I see is the nurse’s sympathetic eyes. Next thing I know I’m in recovery, from the first operation I’ve ever had. They call it a vacuum aspiration although there is nothing aspirational about it.


I wake up again, back on the ward. I feel no pain. I don’t know if that’s better or worse. He is sitting on the end of the bed. Crying. Ah, so there will be pain, just not the physical kind. “Why did you kill our baby?” He says those words to a young girl who is not much more than a baby herself. The same girl that he screamed at when she told him she was pregnant and said it wasn’t his problem. He was such a catch at the time, what with his job as a pizza-delivery boy.


When I get home, Mum makes me tea and gives me a hot-water bottle. I crawl into my bed. I had gone into that clinic a girl, but became a woman when I left. Not in the way I would have wanted, not by some beautiful moment of transcendental awareness, but in the most cold and brutal way. I had walked in there with the potential for life inside me, but one that would have almost certainly destroyed mine.


Up until that day I thought that if you wanted something enough it would just happen. I had been in love with this boy since I was 13 years old. He was charming, exotic … well, Spanish, popular, and I knew one day he would be mine. He was the best-looking guy in my satellite town. We started going out when I was 15, it was instant love. The emotional Armageddon of first love.


I found out I was pregnant in the toilet cubicle at work. My friend thought she was pregnant and bought some tests. I took one almost as a joke, never expecting it to be positive. I felt no joy in that moment. Two years in, our relationship was in dire straits. I had to tell my mum, knowing she would be angry and think I was an idiot, even though I was on the pill and I was just very unlucky or very fertile. I couldn’t tell Dad, if I wanted my boyfriend to get out of it alive.


I carried the burden of it all, from paying for my abortion, to driving myself there, to the sweat-drenched nightmares after. He carried on as usual, and with other women. I would dream about her … my child. I dreamed I had a girl: I would take her to the park and push her on a swing. Another dream had us sitting in the kitchen where I would plait her curly brown hair, just like his.


She would be 21 years old now, and I try to imagine what our life would be like. Her father went to prison six months after my termination. I certainly wouldn’t be an actor and stand-up comic. I imagine I’d be surviving on meagre benefits in a tower block, most likely stoned and angry at a world that robbed me of opportunity at the age of 17. Taking my little girl to visit her father in prison. What hope for that child? What a way to bring someone into the world.


I was lucky I had a choice, that’s why I feel so strongly about reproductive rights, because I wouldn’t be here now without them. It has become a strong theme in my stand-up. In 2011 I did an Edinburgh show in which I talked a little bit about this. My dad came along and I had to flag up that there might be a section of the show that would upset him. Afterwards he told me that I was excellent and very brave; I still don’t know if he meant doing stand-up or the operation itself.


I get furious at the suggestion that abortion is somehow this flippant decision, like deciding whether or not to buy a new pair of shoes. I hate it when people suggest that mothers are better people, more responsible, invested and loving than women without children. The decision to not have a child is just as hard and responsible, if you know you aren’t in a position to give that child what it needs.


Women in Ireland are still being denied that choice. It breaks my heart to think there are women like the 17-year-old me: women who are frightened and getting on a plane with no one to hold their hand because they have to go to another country; judged because if a woman books a last-minute trip to Britain, chances are people will guess why she is going; some of them pregnant as a result of rape or incest; some of them risking their own lives if they continue with a pregnancy; some just like me, making a choice, wanting autonomy over their own bodies. If they manage to get an illegal abortion in Ireland they could face up to 14 years in prison: 14 years for the temerity of choice.


I’m proud of the 17-year-old me. I know I made the right decision, even if it was hard. All women should have that choice: let there be no more unwanted children. If I do ever have a daughter, I will stand by her right to choose too, and I’ll hope to have all the necessary tools to support her, no matter what she does.


Tiff Stevenson is on tour with the show Seven. She will be hosting a Stand Up for Choice gig on 28 March at London Irish Centre



A moment that changed me: having an abortion, aged 17 | Tiff Stevenson

9 Mart 2017 Perşembe

Roe v Wade: Suffragette producers to make film about abortion ruling

The producers of Suffragette are to make a film telling the story of Roe v Wade, the landmark 1973 ruling that gave every woman in the US the right to have an abortion.


According to Deadline, Alison Owen and Debra Hayward’s Monumental Pictures is set to produce the film, which will be written by the Bafta-winning screenwriter Jennifer Majka.


The story will centre on Sarah Weddington, the lawyer who represented “Jane Roe” (real name Norma McCorvey), the pregnant woman who challenged a Texan law that restricted her access to abortion. The case ultimately reached the US supreme court, whose ruling paved the way for universal women’s rights across the country. McCorvey, who died last month, claimed she had been misled by her lawyers and became a fierce opponent of abortion rights in the years following the ruling.


Owen, whose credits include Elizabeth, Shaun of the Dead and The Other Boleyn Girl, produced Suffragette in 2015. Majka co-wrote The Bigger Picture, which won the Bafta for best short animation in 2015 and was nominated for best animated film at the 2015 Academy Awards in the same year.


“Women’s reproductive freedom is just as contested now as it was before this case, and this is a story that everyone should know,” Owen said.


The announcement comes at a time when abortion rights are under concerted assault by legislators in the US following the election of Donald Trump. Last month the House of Representatives voted to permit states to withhold funds from affiliates of Planned Parenthood and other healthcare providers that offer abortions.


Weddington herself has warned that abortion rights may be under threat. “I think everyone who cares about the Roe v Wade issue and other reproductive rights is very concerned about what will happen,” she told NBC News earlier this year.



Roe v Wade: Suffragette producers to make film about abortion ruling

25 Şubat 2017 Cumartesi

Could Roe v Wade be overturned and abortion outlawed in the US?

Who was Norma McCorvey?
Norma McCorvey is the real name of the woman known as “Jane Roe” in the landmark US supreme court case on abortion rights, Roe v Wade. The 1973 case established a right for US women to have abortions. McCorvey became the plaintiff after she met with two lawyers looking for a test case to challenge Texas’s abortion ban. That was in 1970. At the time, McCorvey was pregnant, unwed, unemployed and unable to obtain an abortion legally or otherwise.


McCorvey never had an abortion. Her case, which proceeded largely without her involvement, took too long to resolve, and she gave birth to a child that she placed for adoption. Several years after the ruling, she publicly revealed her identity and became involved in the pro-abortion rights movement. But after a conversion to Christianity, she became an anti-abortion rights activist. Before she died last week, McCorvey had said that it was her wish to see Roe v Wade overturned in her lifetime.


Is Roe v Wade actually in danger?
It depends on what you mean. Many legal experts are sceptical that the US supreme court would overturn it any time soon. For starters, it’s difficult to bring a case before the supreme court that would threaten the ruling, because those cases almost always founder in a lower court. And even if Donald Trump’s supreme court nominee opposes abortion rights, the current makeup of the court is such that there aren’t enough votes to overturn Roe.


An alternative strategy is to poke so many holes in Roe that its protections for abortion rights become weakened. At this, anti-abortion activists have been very successful. Since Roe, some states have enacted laws requiring women seeking an abortion to attend anti-abortion counselling or to wait 24 hours or more for the procedure, laws extensively regulating abortion after 20 weeks, and laws blocking public funding for abortion. And they have picked up speed in recent years. Since 2010, lawmakers have placed 338 new restrictions on abortion.


Will states continue to pass new anti-abortion laws?
Many states are controlled by Republicans who oppose abortion rights, so they will certainly try. You might have heard about a proposal in the state of Oklahoma calling for women to require permission for an abortion from the man who impregnated her. One legislator justified the bill by saying pregnant women’s bodies are not their own because they’re “hosts”. It’s outrageous, but not a huge threat to abortion rights – the jurisprudence is pretty clear that you can’t require an adult woman to get permission before having an abortion.


What does threaten abortion rights are laws that chip away at Roe v Wade. Several states are attempting to ban a common method of second-trimester abortion on the basis that it’s cruel to the foetus. There are efforts to regulate how abortion clinics dispose of medical waste, which the clinics say are just attempts to shut them down with unnecessary rules and expenses. There is also a push to give women scientifically untrue information that it is possible to “reverse” an abortion performed with medication.


Have all these laws really made it harder to get an abortion?
It’s hard to say. There is evidence that shutting down clinics can cause a drop in the abortion rate. In Texas, after a 2013 clinic regulation forced about 20 clinics to close, there was a 50% drop in abortions in areas where the distance to the nearest clinics suddenly increased by more than 100 miles. Last June, the US supreme court ruled that the regulation had no medical justification and was unconstitutional. But in many places, the damage had already been done.


Making it harder for women to pay for abortions also seems to have an impact. Since 1976, when Congress blocked Medicaid – insurance for those on low-income – from paying for abortions, more than a million women have been blocked from access. A new tactic is to try to ban abortion coverage in state insurance marketplaces. Congress is exploring ways to replicate those restrictions nationally.


Then there are laws that place extra restrictions on abortion – a waiting period, or a counselling requirement, or a ban on abortion after a certain number of weeks. The research isn’t definitive, but people who study abortion restrictions are pretty sure that these kinds of laws don’t prevent women from having abortions – they just make it more time-consuming and expensive. The exception may be bans on abortion after a certain week of pregnancy, which studies show can force women to carry a pregnancy to term.


What could change under Trump?
Republicans in Congress have plans to pass a national ban on abortion after 20 weeks, to make it harder for a future Congress to restore public funding for abortion, and to curtail insurance coverage for abortion. It’s not clear if they will overcome opposition in the Senate, where Democrats retain enough votes to filibuster legislation.


But many public health advocates fear that the Trump administration will scale back the availability of contraception – which seems to have helped bring the US abortion rate to historic lows. Obamacare requires insurance companies to cover contraception with no copay, and the share of privately insured women who were able to obtain contraception at no extra cost quadrupled. Trump and Congress intend to repeal Obamacare – and so far, none of the replacement models have the same coverage requirements. At the same time, Republicans are attempting to strip public funding from Planned Parenthood, a move that health experts warn could blow a hole in the family-planning public safety net.



Could Roe v Wade be overturned and abortion outlawed in the US?

24 Şubat 2017 Cuma

Dutch minister calls on UK to join safe abortion fund after Trump ban

The Dutch government has voiced hope that the UK will join 20 countries to set up a safe abortion fund to fill the gap left by Donald Trump’s “global gag rule”.


Lilianne Ploumen, the Dutch international development minister, is leading an international campaign to raise $ 600m (£480m) to compensate for the Trump administration’s ban on funding for NGOs that provide abortion or information on the procedure to women in developing countries.


Belgium, Denmark and Norway have joined the Netherlands in pledging $ 10m each, while at least 15 other countries are preparing to join the scheme, including Canada, Cape Verde, Estonia, Finland and Luxembourg.


The British government has yet to declare whether it will sign up to the initiative, prompting concerns from British Labour MPs that Trump’s ban could undermine the Department for International Development’s work in promoting the health and education of poor women around the world.


Ploumen said she had contacted the international development secretary, Priti Patel, and her DfID predecessor, Justine Greening, who serves as minister for women and equalities.


The British government and the Netherlands were working closely on international family planning topics, Ploumen said, voicing hope that the UK would join the latest initiative. “It is up to them to voice their support. They are a strong partner in all of this so I do hope they will be able to join.”


“The UK has been a great champion of international cooperation and not only when there were Labour leaders in charge,” she said, praising David Cameron and Theresa May.


The Dutch government wants donors to step in to support family planning programmes.


Campaigners fear the ban will choke off funding for maternal health services and work to combat Aids, malaria and the Zika virus.


Already, 3m unsafe abortions for 15- to 19-year-old girls are carried out each year, the World Health Organisation estimates, leading to lasting health problems and, in some cases, the mother’s death.


The Dutch minister voiced optimism that a coalition of international donors – governments, foundations, companies and individuals – could raise the money, despite tepid responses to international fundraising drives for humanitarian emergencies in Syria and Yemen.


The $ 600m goal was a “very ambitious target” that “signalled the US has been a great partner in the last years”. But she acknowledged that countries were struggling to “make ends meet and it is really unfortunate that the US has now given us another challenge”.


The Dutch government has also approached US foundations. A few individuals have handed over money in envelopes to the Dutch embassies in Washington and London, prompting the creation of the fundraising page at SheDecides.com


NGOs have praised the Dutch government and other countries, but fear the plan may not go far enough..




We are counting on the UK government to continue supporting the family planning cause


Irene Donadio, IPPF


“We are witnessing a new version of the global gag rule,” said Irene Donadio, an expert at the International Planned Parenthood Federation (IPPF). “It has been enormously expanded and that will affect expenditure on all global health programmes. We know that at a minimum it could be $ 600m a year, but it could be much more.


“We admire and support those governments who want to stand up for women and their dignity, but we are not sure this will fill the gap or how quickly it will fill the gap.”


The IPPF had “always admired the UK’s commitment to family planning”, but “could not help noticing that the UK has not been very vocal [on the global gag],” Donadio added. “We are counting on the UK government to continue supporting the family planning cause.”


A DfID spokeswoman did not address a question about whether the UK would contribute to the international fund, saying: “The UK is a global leader on family planning, sexual and reproductive health and rights. We are continuing to work closely with partners, including governments and civil society, to deliver this, and are stepping up our leadership even further by hosting a major international summit this summer to secure commitments that increase access to family planning services for women and girls in the world’s poorest and most fragile countries.”


Aid experts have voiced concern that Brexit will damage Britain’s international development role, by eroding budgets and prompting an isolationist turn.


But Ploumen voiced optimism that the UK would not shrink from its promises. “Listening to your prime minister, she has voiced the importance of Britain in the world on several occasions, and international solidarity is part and parcel, I would assume, of that relationship with the rest of the world.


“If you are a trading nation, if you are an open economy like the UK and the Netherlands, there is a deep interest in a stable world.”



Dutch minister calls on UK to join safe abortion fund after Trump ban