Time to Repeal Ss58/9 of the 1861 Law: Decriminalizing Abortion in the UK.....
Words by: Intisar AlQsar, IWI Director of Advocacy & Public Information
(Originally published 13 June 2023)
In the United Kingdom, the issue of abortion has long been a topic of contention and debate. While progress has been made over the years in granting women the right to choose, there is one outdated law that still stands: Sections 58 and 59 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. These sections criminalize the act of taking a substance to induce an #abortion. This article argues that it is high time for these archaic provisions to be repealed in order to #protect women's #reproductiverights and uphold #humanrights as a whole, free from the influence of electoral and religious interests.
Historical Context and the Impact on Women
Enacted over 160 years ago, the Offences Against the Person Act of 1861 reflects the #moral and social attitudes prevalent during that era. Abortion was considered an immoral act and a crime against the state, carrying severe penalties, including life imprisonment. However, societal norms and attitudes towards abortion have significantly evolved since then. The landmark Abortion Act of 1967, which legalized abortion under certain circumstances, recognized the need to prioritize women's health, well-being, and autonomy. Nonetheless, remnants of the outdated 1861 law persist.
Sections 58 and 59 of the 1861 Act disproportionately affect women, perpetuating the stigma surrounding abortion and limiting their access to safe healthcare options. By criminalizing the act of taking a substance to induce an abortion, these sections perpetuate an environment of fear and secrecy. Women who find themselves in difficult circumstances often face daunting choices, resorting to unsafe and unregulated methods to terminate their pregnancies, posing significant risks to their health and well-being.
Furthermore, the existence of these criminal provisions creates a chilling effect on #healthcare professionals. Doctors and medical practitioners are discouraged from providing necessary care and support to women seeking abortions, for fear of legal repercussions. This not only compromises the doctor-patient relationship but also jeopardizes the overall quality of healthcare services provided to women.
The Negative Impact on Women's Health and Healthcare Professionals
Research conducted by the World Health Organization (WHO) shows that criminalization of abortion does not reduce its incidence but rather increases the number of unsafe abortions. This results in a higher risk of complications and maternal deaths. (Source: World Health Organization, "Safe abortion: technical and policy guidance for health systems," 2012)
A study published in The Lancet revealed that countries with more restrictive abortion laws tend to have higher rates of unsafe abortions and associated complications. It is estimated that globally, 25 million unsafe abortions occur annually, leading to approximately 7 million complications. (Source: Ganatra B. et al., "Global, regional, and subregional classification of abortions by safety, 2010-14: estimates from a Bayesian hierarchical model," The Lancet, 2017)
The British Medical Association (BMA) has highlighted the negative impact of criminalization on healthcare professionals and patient care. In their report, they state that the criminal law on abortion creates a climate of fear and ambiguity, hindering doctors from providing appropriate care and support to women seeking abortions. (Source: British Medical Association, "Decriminalisation of Abortion in the UK," 2017)
Protecting Reproductive Rights and Upholding Human Rights: Breaking Free from Electoral and Religious Interests
Repealing Sections 58 and 59 of the 1861 Act would be a significant step towards safeguarding women's reproductive rights in the UK. By decriminalizing the act of taking a substance to induce an abortion, the focus can shift to providing comprehensive healthcare services, including safe and accessible abortion care. Women should be able to make informed decisions about their bodies and pregnancies, free from judgment, stigma, and the threat of prosecution.
Unfortunately, in the realm of #politics, the pursuit of #electoral success and adherence to religious doctrines often shape the #decisionmaking processes of politicians. This can lead to a significant erosion of human rights. When politicians prioritize electoral and religious interests over the #fundamental rights and liberties of individuals, the very essence of human rights begins to crumble.
The Impact on Human Rights
Human rights encompass the inherent dignity and freedoms entitled to every individual, regardless of their political affiliations or religious beliefs. However, when politicians allow electoral considerations to override human rights, the consequences can be dire.
1) Suppression of Dissent: When politicians prioritize electoral interests over human rights, it can lead to the suppression of dissent and curtailment of freedom of speech and expression. For instance, in countries where electoral success is prioritized over human rights, we often witness restrictions on independent media, crackdowns on peaceful protests, and censorship of critical voices. This stifles democratic discourse and hampers societal progress. An example is the erosion of freedom of the press in certain countries where governments silence journalists and media outlets critical of their policies, hindering the dissemination of information and impeding accountability.
2) Discrimination and Exclusion: The prioritization of religious interests can lead to the marginalization of minority groups and perpetuate discrimination. In societies where religious doctrines influence political decision-making, we often see policies that deny equal rights and opportunities to individuals based on their race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. Such discrimination undermines social cohesion and hinders the full realization of human rights for all. A case study is the discrimination faced by LGBTQ+ individuals in countries where religious beliefs shape legislation, leading to the criminalization of same-sex relationships or the denial of marriage equality, resulting in systemic discrimination and social exclusion.
3) Restrictions on Reproductive Rights: When religious doctrines heavily influence politicians' stances on reproductive rights, restrictive legislation can undermine women's autonomy over their own bodies. This limits access to essential healthcare services, including safe and legal abortion, and impedes the realization of reproductive rights. For example, in countries where religious beliefs dominate the discourse on reproductive health, we often see stringent laws that criminalize or severely restrict access to abortion, forcing women into unsafe and clandestine procedures that endanger their lives and well-being. This not only violates individual rights but also perpetuates gender inequality and exacerbates health disparities.
4) Neglecting Social and Economic Rights: When politicians prioritize short-term electoral gains, there is a risk of neglecting crucial social and economic rights, such as access to education, healthcare, and housing. This exacerbates inequalities and perpetuates cycles of poverty and marginalization. For instance, in societies where electoral interests drive policy decisions, we often witness inadequate investment in social welfare programs, lack of access to quality education and healthcare for marginalized communities and widening income disparities. This leads to the entrenchment of socio-economic inequalities and hampers the overall development and well-being of society.
Preserving Human Rights
To protect and advance human rights, it is essential to break free from the stronghold of electoral and religious interests. Here are key steps that can be taken:
1) Raising Awareness: Conduct public education and awareness campaigns to help citizens understand the importance of human rights and their role in holding politicians accountable. By empowering individuals with knowledge, they can make informed decisions and demand that their elected representatives prioritize human rights.
2) Strengthening Legal Frameworks: Establish robust legal frameworks that protect human rights and ensure they are not compromised for political or religious gains. Independent judicial systems play a vital role in safeguarding human rights principles and preventing their erosion.
3) Promoting Dialogue and Collaboration: Encourage open and constructive dialogue among politicians, civil society organizations, religious leaders, and human rights advocates. Collaboration can help bridge gaps, promote understanding, and ensure that human rights are respected without compromising diverse religious beliefs.
4) International Cooperation: Governments should actively participate in international human rights forums and honour their commitments to international human rights treaties. Cooperation with global institutions fosters accountability and creates pressure for positive change.
Addressing Counterarguments: Concerns about the Moral Implications of Decriminalizing Abortion
It is essential to address common counterarguments in order to strengthen the case for decriminalizing abortion. One common objection revolves around the moral implications of decriminalization. Critics argue that it devalues the sanctity of life. However, it is important to emphasize that decriminalization does not promote or encourage abortion but rather recognizes the autonomy and agency of women in making decisions about their own bodies and pregnancies. It is important to acknowledge these concerns and provide a thoughtful response that emphasizes the underlying principles behind decriminalization.
1) Respecting Autonomy and Personal Choices: Decriminalizing abortion is not about promoting or encouraging abortions, but rather recognizing and respecting the autonomy and agency of women in making decisions about their own bodies and pregnancies. It acknowledges that women have the right to make informed choices based on their unique circumstances, including their health, well-being, and personal beliefs.
2) Ensuring Access to Safe Healthcare: Criminalizing abortion does not eliminate its occurrence; instead, it drives women to seek unsafe and unregulated methods, putting their lives and health at risk. By decriminalizing abortion, we can shift the focus towards ensuring access to safe and supportive healthcare services. This includes providing accurate information, counselling, and medical assistance to women who need it, reducing the harm and risks associated with unsafe procedures.
3) Recognizing Ethical Diversity: Moral perspectives on abortion vary across individuals and communities. Decriminalization acknowledges the diversity of ethical viewpoints and promotes a society where different beliefs are respected. It allows for a compassionate and empathetic approach that recognizes the complexities of individual circumstances, ensuring that women are not subjected to legal punishment for making choices that align with their own values and conscience.
4) Balancing Individual Rights with Societal Interests: It is important to strike a balance between individual rights and societal interests. While the moral aspects of abortion may be subject to personal convictions, it is crucial to consider the broader consequences of criminalization. The negative impact on women's health, the infringement on healthcare professionals' ability to provide necessary care, and the perpetuation of stigma and secrecy are all factors that need to be taken into account. Decriminalization seeks to uphold human rights and promote the overall well-being of individuals and society.
Moreover, it is crucial to break free from the constraints of electoral and religious interests that compromise human rights. When politicians prioritize their electoral success or adhere rigidly to religious doctrines, human rights suffer. This phenomenon extends beyond abortion rights to issues such as freedom of speech, equality, and social and economic rights. Suppression of dissent, discrimination, and neglect of marginalized communities become prevalent.
As we progress into the 21st century, it is imperative that the UK takes the necessary steps to protect and advance women's reproductive rights and uphold human rights beyond the sway of electoral and religious interests. Repealing Sections 58 and 59 of the 1861 Offences Against the Person Act would be a significant stride towards achieving these goals. By decriminalizing the act of taking a substance to induce an abortion and breaking free from the constraints of electoral and religious interests, we can ensure that women have access to safe, legal, and supportive healthcare services while safeguarding the broader spectrum of human rights for all individuals.
Read this article & follow us on:
