Making the abortion pill widely available is a sensible step
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.So much for the Conservative Party's concern for the vulnerable. Its deputy leader, Michael Ancram, says that he is against abortion pills becoming more widely available "because I think that anything that makes abortion easier and simpler in the end is harmful to people".
This is the traditional fallacy, equating "simpler abortions" with "making abortions easier to obtain". Mr Ancram ought to have been more honest and said that he is opposed to the present conditions under which abortions are allowed. He is therefore opposed to anything that makes the present law easier to operate.
We should make a clear distinction between the law on abortion, which allows the procedure up to 24 weeks into the gestation period and when two doctors agree that the health of the mother is at risk, and the practicalities.
It is clearly unsatisfactory that, once a woman has made the sometimes difficult decision to have a legal abortion, she has to wait up to five weeks for the procedure to take place. The law on abortion is not like that on conveyancing, where the passage of time is merely inconvenient. Time is of the essence.
Mr Ancram and the Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child are being disingenuous, therefore, when they suggest that the postcode lottery of waiting times gives women more time to think. The issue is what happens when women have made a decision – the "pro-lifers" merely want to put any obstacle in the way of women exercising their rights under the law.
On the other hand, Liz Davies, the spokeswoman for Marie Stopes International, misses the point by saying easier access to abortion pills "won't mean more abortions". It may not lead to a big increase, but that is not the issue. If more women exercise their right to an abortion under the law, because the procedure is available more quickly, then the law is operating as intended.
No one would describe that as a good thing, but it is certainly better than the alternative, which is to force women to give birth to children regardless of the circumstances. Especially in a country with such a high rate of teenage pregnancies, an enlightened law on abortion is a regrettable necessity.
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments