Medical Issues

Abortion "To save the Life of the Mother"
There is a widely held belief that abortion is sometimes necessary for medical reasons, to save the lives of expectant mothers. However, more than 90% of abortions performed under British law have no medical grounds despite the fact that the majority of people do not accept the right to abortion on demand.

Alan Guttmacher, former president of the major U.S. abortion provider, Planned Parenthood Federation, stated in 1967:

"Today it is possible for almost any patient to be brought through pregnancy alive, unless she suffers from a fatal illness such as cancer or leukaemia, and if so, abortion would be unlikely to prolong, much less save life." ("Abortion-Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow", Diablo Press, 1967)

In 1992, Ireland’s foremost obstetricians stated: "As obstetricians and gynaecologists, we affirm that there are no medical circumstances justifying direct abortion, that is, no circumstances in which the life of the mother may only be saved by directly terminating the life of her unborn child." (Letter to the Irish Times, 1 April 1992)

Professor Eamon O'Dwyer, Professor Emeritus of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, National University of Ireland, Galway said in his written submission to the Irish Committee on the Constitution 29 February 2000: “After forty years as a consultant obstetrician gynaecologist I can state:
there is no conflict of interest between the mother and her unborn child;there are no medical indications for abortion;there is no risk to the mother that can be avoided by abortion; prohibition of deliberate intentional abortion will not effect, in any way, the availability of all necessary care for the pregnant woman.
There is therefore a fundamental difference between abortion procured with intent to abort, for social reasons for example, '... deliberate, intentional destruction of unborn life' ... and destruction of unborn life incidental to requisite medical treatment which is lawful and ethical, however distressing.”

The Executive Council of Ireland’s Institute of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists say that abortion is never medically necessary and should not be legalised under false pretences. (Irish Times 15 November 2000)

"Indirect" Abortion and Ectopic Pregnancy
There is substantial evidence to support the claim that "direct abortion" (as defined above) is not necessary to save women’s lives. The Republic of Ireland, where abortion is not practiced, has had the lowest rate of maternal mortality in the world (a third of that in the United Kingdom in 1988, according to UN figures). However, there are some medically necessary procedures in which a pregnancy is terminated without any intention to kill the unborn child. For example, the case of ectopic pregnancy, where the embryo grows in the mother’s fallopian tube instead of implanting in the womb. By the sixth week of pregnancy, the child is too big for the thin walls of the tube to support. Rupture of the tube will cause a haemorrhage, killing the child and endangering the life of the mother.

The operation to remove the affected part of the tube, with the baby inside, is not regarded as an abortion since its aim is not to destroy the child but to stop or prevent the haemorrhage that is the threat to the mother’s life. The life of the baby cannot be saved. This operation is morally justifiable since it has no wrongful intention and is performed to save the life that can be saved - that of the mother. It has always been regarded as lawful in Britain (and is not even included in legal abortion statistics). It is sometimes referred to as an "indirect abortion", to distinguish it from the direct, deliberate abortion of a baby.

The same principle applies when a pregnant woman needs a hysterectomy to save her life (for example, if she has cancer of the womb), or if treatment for cancer is given which may risk causing a miscarriage. However, even when measures are taken to preserve the life of the mother, the unborn child is also doctor’s patient – as was made clear by Sir William Liley, the pioneer of medical treatment for children in the womb – and should be saved where possible. Sometimes the child can be delivered early to give the best chance of saving both mother and baby.

Abortion and the Medical Profession
While Britain’s 1967 Abortion Act was going through Parliament, both the British Medical Association (BMA) and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists (RCOG) were opposed to certain sections. They sent representatives to the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children and other pro-life press conferences, demanding that changes be made to the proposed legislation.

A report adopted unanimously by the Council of the RCOG warned of the "difficulties and dangers of inducing abortion" and advised that under any new law, "whenever…there is reason to doubt the necessity for the operation, the operator should still have to justify his action before a Court of Law." ("Legalised Abortion," BMJ 2.4.66)

When the Abortion Act came into force the General Medical Council, a statutory body, changed its code to comply with the new law. The British Medical Association and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists continued to oppose the Act, particularly when it became obvious that it led to "abortion on demand". Nonetheless, three or four years later, they changed their stand.

In 1972 the RCOG’s First Report on ‘Unplanned Pregnancy’ stated that whereas the majority of abortions were certified under the statutory ground of risk of injury to the woman’s physical or mental health: "It is becoming increasingly recognised that there is no such danger of injury in the majority of these cases as the ‘indication’ is purely a social one."

Although only 23% of gynaecologists responding to a Gallup Poll of 1987-8 thought that abortion should be available on demand, 72% said abortion on demand was available in some NHS hospitals of which they had experience, and 13% said it was available in all such hospitals. More recently, some support has been shown for a reduction in the abortion time limit from 24 weeks to 20 or 22 weeks. This however is accompanied by support for abortion on demand in the early stages of pregnancy. On 30 June 2005 the BMA rejected proposals for a change in the upper time limit.

Failure of the Conscience Clause
Under the British Abortion Act, doctors and nurses do not have to help to perform abortions if they have a conscientious objection (except in emergencies), if they can prove their objection in a court of law (this is a reversal of the legal principle that a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty). The conscience clause has failed to prevent discrimination (as noted in the Tenth Report of the Social Services Committee, 17.10.90), making it difficult for pro-life doctors and nurses to gain appointments, or even training, in obstetrics and gynaecology. Expectant mothers who request treatment by obstetricians who do not perform abortions, rarely have their request granted. Furthermore, although the conscience clause does not oblige objectors to refer patients to colleagues who will perform or approve abortions, it has not worked well. Pro-abortion MP Emma Nicholson said in Parliament in 1990: "General practitioners in my constituency and elsewhere tell me it is virtually impossible for a doctor to refuse an abortion under the workings of the 1967 Act" (Hansard, 24 April 1990, cols 249/250). A GP writing in a women’s magazine gave this answer to one request for an abortion: "For me, abortion means taking a human life, so I can’t sign the green form to authorise the operation. But if you’re sure I’ll refer you to hospital and you’ll have no problems finding two doctors who will sign it" (Take A Break, 3 August 1995).

Provisions for conscientious objection may, in the short term, afford some protection for healthcare workers who are suddenly confronted with a legal situation they find unacceptable, but they cannot be relied on to ensure continuing protection for health professionals. In any case, it obscures the fact that abortion is itself contrary to the doctor’s duty to preserve life and to do no harm. For legislators, the only way to ensure the integrity of the medical profession is to uphold legal protection of all human life from medical killing.

Social Issues

Counselling
Pro-life legislation, on its own, does not address the social problems that give rise to abortion. But it is the first step in addressing those problems, as a law that permits abortion can only lead to abortion being seen as the "first option" rather than the "last resort". In Britain it is not uncommon for a GP telling his patient that she is pregnant to ask whether she wishes to keep the baby, immediately offering abortion if she does not.

Since abortion does not solve the social problems that usually lead women to have abortions (such as unstable relationships and financial insecurity), it is not surprising that legalisation has led to a huge escalation of abortion, with many women having "repeat" abortions. More than a quarter of the women having abortions in England and Wales have had one or more previous abortions (31.5% in 2003).

It is clear that bad laws have a negative effect on society.

Good law should provide protection for the right to life of everyone. Life is a fundamental right, the foundation of all other rights and freedoms, everyone’s life is of equal value. The protection of such rights is one of the reasons we have laws. Pro-life education and counselling are vital, and can serve alongside the law to protect innocent life. However, once abortion becomes an accepted part of the social fabric and medical practice, counselling alone cannot provide the protection that women and their unborn children deserve.

SPUC Scotland Paper 6
The Case Against Abortion
Revised June 2005

Copyright © 2002-2008 The Society for the Protection of Unborn Children. All Rights Reserved. Tel: 0141 221 2094. E-mail: Web Design & Development by CSS Web Design