Abortion was legalized in Britain in 1967 as part of a sweeping array of social reforms that aimed, in the infamous words of home secretary Roy Jenkins, to create a “permissive society” in the pursuit of a “civilized society.” In the debates over the change — both within Parliament and without — the usual arguments were marshalled, including, most prominently, that the option was necessary in order to safeguard the physical or mental health of pregnant women who would otherwise have nowhere to run but the proverbial back alley. While the alleged number of illegal abortions that were taking place in Britain prior to 1967 was wildly overstated, this argument won the day and the medical justification made its way into the law itself, which provides for legal abortion only if the following conditions are met:
(a) that the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman or any existing children of her family; or
(b) that the termination is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman; or
(c) that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated; or
(d) that there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped.
Regardless of one’s view of the merit of these conditions (and for my part, (d) is particularly grotesque), no serious observer can contend that the law passed in 1967 bears any meaningful resemblance to the abortion-on-demand culture in Britain that it has created — a culture made infinitely worse by the availability of the procedure via the taxpayer-funded National Health Service. To make the case that the reality and the law are consistent, one has to argue that there have been 6 million cases since 1968 in which termination was “necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman.” Not only does this require that we stretch the definition of “mental health” beyond any credible bounds, but even a cursory glance at the reasons that women who have abortions give for their decision dispels the notion that “mental health” is anything more than a box checked on a hospital form. Few Britons would deny that, ultimately, most women have abortions because they can, and not because there is a medical emergency. As the BBC argued in 2008, “technically the law did not legalise abortions, but rather provided a legal defence for those carrying them out.”
As the Christian Institute explains in a new report (emphasis added):
According to the figures 6.4 million abortions were performed on residents of England and Wales between 1968 and 2011.
Of these just 143 (0.006 per cent) were performed to save the life of the mother or to prevent serious permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the mother.
A further 23,778 (0.37%) abortions were performed because the continuance of pregnancy would involve the risk to the life of the woman, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated.
The figures were revealed in response to a Parliamentary Question by Lord Alton of Liverpool.
An entry on the pro-life Peer’s blog said: “When the case for allowing legal abortion was first placed before Parliament it was argued that the law needed to be changed to deal with extremely serious situations.
“More than 6 million abortions later the figures reveal that in 99.5% of cases where an unborn child’s life is ended there is no risk to the health of the mother.
“Other figures reveal that 3 teenage girls have had 24 abortions between them and that some women have had more than 8 legal abortions.”
Undoubtedly, there are many who would prefer that abortion were codified as a broad-based personal choice — or, worse, as a “right.” But the sincere among them would presumably concede that the legislation as it stands by no means provides for that. Politicians in Britain are understandably nervous of touching the issue, and sometimes justify their reticence by explaining that they do not wish to “be like America.” This means that debate on the matter is limited to smaller policy details, such as at what point in a pregnancy should be the legal cut-off point, rather than discussing the principle from the ground up — precisely the point of the “America” comparison, which is code for “I don’t want to have a loud public debate about this.” The unfortunate effect of this is that, as George Will observed about the impact of Roe v. Wade in the United States, there has been a “truncation of democratic debate about abortion policy.” In short, the law has been expanded well beyond its original intent, without anyone being asked and without any national conversation.
The rule of law is important. If Britons want abortion on demand, they can undoubtedly get it. Poll after poll reveals that the British are in favour of legal abortion, and that a vast majority want it to be an option without the need to demonstrate medical necessity. Any debate about the topic would most likely be extremely disheartening for pro-life advocates. But in a democracy, the people should be honest with themselves and demand laws that openly reflect their preferences rather than allow them through the back door. That, not shallow overtures to the “permissive society,” is how we achieve civilization.